What is the role of the press in America today?

[bendog]

Supposed to help Trump. )-;

 

[ColonelAngus]

Role of the "US media"

To manipulate the US people to fight wars to help Israel, to empower and enrich the Zionist demographic (especially lawyers) and to censor any and all truth about 911, the 1982 Israeli murder of the US Marines in Lebanon (an attempt to manipulate a US war against Hezbo), the Israeli sponsored hit on JFK (to put Zionist Traitor LBJ in power), and the USS Liberty.


Never forget their lies, deceit, and total disregard for the US and its UNCHOSEN people...

That's why the first amendment and freedom of the press was put into the Constitution? Interesting. I didn't think Israel was around in 1776. You seem to know better.

 

[BlindBoo]

To make money.

 

[BlindBoo]

The idea was the Fourth Estate could help keep the other three in check. That is long dead now. Now it's like everything else here, just business as usual.

A noble idea, like liberty, now hanging by a thread because most people can no longer be bothered to defend such things, it pays better not to.

But it never worked that way. The press always took sides since the first elections.

 

[ptbw forever]

The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.

PERIOD.

The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".

For example:

"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.

Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.

Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.

Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.

Breitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post is nothing but a hub for all the lunatic sites to filter into the mainstream.

WikiLeaks — Team Hillary Celebrates: ‘She Didn't Seem Like a Bitch in the Interview’ - Breitbart
You are right, this article is clearly a model for journalistic integrity.
John Podesta Hacked on Twitter: 'Vote Trump 2016' - Breitbart
This one not partisan at all.

The Huffington Post has too many racist and historically inaccurate articles for me to post and even do justice to the ratio.

Any braindead Democrat turd can post on the Huffington Post and the site will provide a full defense of them.

 

[forkup]

The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.

PERIOD.

The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".

For example:

"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.

Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.

Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.

Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.

Breitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post is nothing but a hub for all the lunatic sites to filter into the mainstream.

WikiLeaks — Team Hillary Celebrates: ‘She Didn't Seem Like a Bitch in the Interview’ - Breitbart
You are right, this article is clearly a model for journalistic integrity.
John Podesta Hacked on Twitter: 'Vote Trump 2016' - Breitbart
This one not partisan at all.

The Huffington Post has too many racist and historically inaccurate articles for me to post and even do justice to the ratio.

Any braindead Democrat turd can post on the Huffington Post and the site will provide a full defense of them.

And breitbart is different how?

 

[ColonelAngus]

If the intent of the Freedom of the Press in the 1st amendment is to be a government watchdog and shine the light on any government corruption, should it be changed if that's not what the press is doing?

 

[ptbw forever]

The press should report what is happening on their hard news sections...and interpret those events on the OPINION and EDITORIAL page.

PERIOD.

The hard news articles should include, "WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and WHY".

For example:

"A Florida man raped a dolphin in SeaWorld Orlando last Saturday because he finds them attractive." That is NEWS.

Then on the editorial page, "TOO MANY MEN ARE RAPING DOLPHINS" that is an OP-ED piece.

Now, if the press is changing its goals and purpose, then maybe the Constitution should change.

Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.

Breitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post is nothing but a hub for all the lunatic sites to filter into the mainstream.

WikiLeaks — Team Hillary Celebrates: ‘She Didn't Seem Like a Bitch in the Interview’ - Breitbart
You are right, this article is clearly a model for journalistic integrity.
John Podesta Hacked on Twitter: 'Vote Trump 2016' - Breitbart
This one not partisan at all.

The Huffington Post has too many racist and historically inaccurate articles for me to post and even do justice to the ratio.

Any braindead Democrat turd can post on the Huffington Post and the site will provide a full defense of them.

And breitbart is different how?

It actually has professional reporting sometimes.

The Huffington Post is either a microphone for BLM nutcases, or it is carrying out the latest DNC orders.

There is never any actual news.

 

[LaDexter]

You seem to know better.

WHY doesn't the "US" media show us the video of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon on 911?


What percent of the talking heads and execs in the "US" media are Zionist Jews???

 

[forkup]

Selecting what news to report is a process that in itself can push an agenda. For example Huffington spends most of it's time on Trump's recent problems and doesn't do more then spend a few lines on wikileaks, while on Breitbard it would be the opposite. Both things are newsworthy but the political affiliation drives it message.

Breitbart is far more professional than the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post is nothing but a hub for all the lunatic sites to filter into the mainstream.

WikiLeaks — Team Hillary Celebrates: ‘She Didn't Seem Like a Bitch in the Interview’ - Breitbart
You are right, this article is clearly a model for journalistic integrity.
John Podesta Hacked on Twitter: 'Vote Trump 2016' - Breitbart
This one not partisan at all.

The Huffington Post has too many racist and historically inaccurate articles for me to post and even do justice to the ratio.

Any braindead Democrat turd can post on the Huffington Post and the site will provide a full defense of them.

And breitbart is different how?

It actually has professional reporting sometimes.

The Huffington Post is either a microphone for BLM nutcases, or it is carrying out the latest DNC orders.

There is never any actual news.

Ptbw, if you read what I posted in this threat you will notice, I'm highly critical of the media. I will readily admit to be someone who leans to the left but that doesn't mean I will confuse what huffington writes as writ, the reason for it being that I am aware that I'm being manipulated.
If you are trying to tell me that Breitbart doesn't have the same intention but for the right, I can only wish you a goodnight and leave it at that. there is little point in trying to have a conversation with someone who has blinders on. Not trying to be rude I'm truly not, and for the record I don't think you stupid or anything but you have proved my point about people falling for the role of the media. Namely that it divides people from left to the right so it stops them from noticing that at the top there is no left or right, only corporations who control both parties.

 

[Snouter]

The "press" as defined by the MSM is there to keep the establishment in place. Wikileaks makes that obvious. Thus the "press" is nothing but propaganda, an assorted mix of material design to make the low information folks think a certain way. Freedom of speech, the Western value most of us cherish, is basically the internet and forums such as this in which the truth is discussed in various forms from art to science. Freedom of speech allows us to know Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt politician in world history. Notice not many Crooked Hillary supporters are adding to this thread. They hate the truth by definition.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The "press" as defined by the MSM is there to keep the establishment in place. Wikileaks makes that obvious. Thus the "press" is nothing but propaganda, an assorted mix of material design to make the low information folks think a certain way. Freedom of speech, the Western value most of us cherish, is basically the internet and forums such as this in which the truth is discussed in various forms from art to science. Freedom of speech allows us to know Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt politician in world history. Notice not many Crooked Hillary supporters are adding to this thread. They hate the truth by definition.

it is kind of interesting that there are not many Hillary supporters in this thread explaining what the role of the press should be.

Perhaps they think the press is not currently being used and not functioning as it was intended in the 1st amendment.

Many liberals talk about the constitution being antiquated and needing to be updated....perhaps freedom of the press is something that should be updated if they are abusing their power.

If the role of the press is to shine a light on government corruption, why are so many media outlets conspiring with the Hillary Clinton campaign to make her narrative as positive as possible?

There is a reason that government run and controlled media is a BAD THING.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Do liberals not mind the obvious media bias and collusion with the Clinton campaign because they are aligned in ideology?

Would they have a problem with the media conspiring with a Republican campaign to embarrass their political opponents?

 

[Trump.Stamped]

Do we not need the freedom of press like we did in 1776?

Has the country changed so that we do not need to press to keep the 3 branches of government in check, or has the press changed their goals?

We need the press to do its original job, its noble calling, instead of just making money. That, and human decency, are the only ways to keep the branches in check, the people in check, capitalism in check, the MIC in check, and the religions in check. When they aren't being properly policed you get what we have now, a goddamned fucking mess.

So what you are saying is that it's the press that has changed it's goals, not America that no longer needs the press to make sure government is not corrupt?

The problem is that apparently Americans don't care that the government is totally corrupt, so the media gives the sheeple what they want.

 

[LaDexter]

and this was "nothing" according to the shills...

 

[ColonelAngus]

Will the media collusion with the Democratic Party continue through Hillary's term as POTUS?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The press is propoganda for liberals.