I’m sure you’ll have an HIV positive time
Nope, trying to figure out why you have a different standard for “the media” in application of fairness when you can’t be bothered to have one on your own (it’s wrong to hate on Trump, but ok to hate on Obama, etc.) - wouldn’t you be more supportive of a biased media free-for-all instead of a “fair and balanced” approach.
But you don’t have anything intelligent to say on the matter of media ethics. Not surprising. Run along and let the adults talk policy.
If we need someone to type the following sentence:
“Republicans! Are! Always! The! Awesomest!”
…we’ll just type it ourselves and save you the trouble of posting and taking you away from watching reality television.
None of that matters to me, as the blame rest SOLELY upon the American public (again, assuming info presented is accurate and due diligence is done). American public stops being so sheepy and feeding into blame game politics, the mass drama goes away overnight.
Also at the hands of the American public. If the average American genuinely thought Obama was a Nigerian born ISIS member, even MSNBC would have said they wanted to see the birth certificate. Since he was generally liked more than he was disliked, media swung that way. Keep in mind the media is ultimately a compilation of businesses looking to maximize revenue.
Its the only thing the DNC machine has at this point. Its all propaganda now. No more journalism no more facts. Just rhetoric.
…And this is where I was headed: the media are free instititions, not government entities, and the right-wing philosophy is that they should be and whatever they do in pursuit of revenue (as long as it isn’t illegal) and such a philosophy is not only good, it categorically serves the public good.
Well, if that is the foundation you start from, why complain when a media source is biased? Ethics don’t matter - only maximization of revenue does. And the solution is to enter the market and provide a competing consumer good (media biased the other way) also pursuing revenue maximization.
Right?
(If you believe in ethics, and your foundation includes ethics as part of it, different story.)
2 Likes
One other piece about media fairness - I keep hearing how awful it is to use unnamed sources. Most journalists follow up with a request from the White House to comment on the controversial story they just received from an anonymous source (for ethical reasons, but substantive too - if the WH is willing to say something, it makes for a better piece for the journalist).
So, if a journalist gets a controversial story X from an unnamed source, asks the WH to address story X prior to publication, what’s unfair about publication of story X?
Because secret sources have become an avenue to Spread fake news
…and should have been doing with Obama as well. POTUS needs to be kept in check regardless of party.
3 Likes
BTW CNN and NBC are 93% negative on Trump
That doesn’t answer the question - what’s unfair about publishing a story that has been sourced that the WH has been given an opportunity to comment on?
Completely agreed. The media fell down (laid down, really) on its job mightily in Obama. A disgrace.
1 Like
True dat ^ I think the media sux… You really cant trust it but its the best we got…MSNBC way too butt hurt…Fox news giving DJT golden showers… CNN still butt hurt they could be so wrong… They still seem the most toward the center though by at least having panelists on right… But lets be real if Trump could somehow go a week without twittering nonsense or doing something bizare they’d lay off. I think hes still in reality show fever he loves the attention and feeds on it… Hes the heel and the hero… The folks that hate him talk him up even more… It will be interesting to see what he does in first international trip… I would assume they are unbiased media as hes not their prez
Just to call out one line of that article I posted since the topic now seems to be the media (and since certain individuals would like to call this “fake news”):
Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, did not dispute the account.
3 Likes
Great point from a blogger covering this story:
Remember when the White House used to claim that it fired Comey because of how he handled the Clinton investigation? That was nine days ago.
1 Like
I totally agree with you loppar. FOX was anti-Obama no question. But, as for President Trump the rest of the main-stream liberal media is on him like a pack of dogs on a steak bone.
And I had almost forgot that this was the meeting where Trump shared classified intel.
1 Like
Wow you hate to be wrong…does it mean that much to you? Keep in mind you are here on a Bodybuilding site (and a great one) on the political threads. There are probably only 20 or 30 people who actually care…tops.
Um…chill man you said something stupid it happens.
(Yikes…the guy thinks he’s on CNN or something)
Sorry, dude, we’ve moved on to things that involve topics like “ethics”, “economics” and “current events.” If we need a GOP pom-pom waver to repeat the same things over and over, though, you’ll be at the top of the list to call.
See it matters to me because I love political history and have lived through a reasonable share of it.
Well, that is not necessarily true. As Ronald Reagan was a quite popular President. In fact, he won reelection by a record electoral landslide. And…the press was tough on him as well. On the other hand Bill Clinton didn’t even win a majority for either term and the press was good to him. I will admit that the BJ in the oval office cost him some with the press. But at that point they had to report it. In fact, during his investigation and later perjury charges and impeachment much of the press tried to make the independent prosecutor Ken Starr out to be the bad guy.
So…I see things from a different perspective my friend.