Trump's 'dirty war' on media

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Did I say you? Go back to lurking because you're reading comprehension sucks. Clearly an indictment of our education system.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does this mean you will shut up or will you keep on whining?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Does this mean you will shut up or will you keep on whining?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go back to lurking you snowflake. You don't add anything to the forum. You only complain about how people post - like an old lady.

[Nebe]

Can’t wait for Trump 2020 !!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

20 years for corruption

20 years for treason.





Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Go back to lurking you snowflake. You don't add anything to the forum. You only complain about how people post - like an old lady.

Isn't that what you are doing here fruitcake ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump has moved far beyond the war on the media and has now updated his enemy list with our former security personnel who don't agree with him.

Former security personnel is a bit of an understatement. These are some of our security leaders with invaluable knowledge about the threats we face. That he's targeting them to obstruct the investigation and try to silence critics is really, really bad.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Isn't that what you are doing here fruitcake ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, I'm just responding to you snowflake.

I didn't lurk like you did - and now you can't control your temper anymore so you post. But you have nothing intelligent to say so you just comment on other people's posts.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by PaulS

No, I'm just responding to you snowflake.

I didn't lurk like you did - and now you can't control your temper anymore so you post. But you have nothing intelligent to say so you just comment on other people's posts.

I enjoy it, try not to take it personally tinsle toes. If you are disillusioned enough to think your banter is making a difference then it may be time for self evaluation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I enjoy it, try not to take it personally tinsle toes. If you are disillusioned enough to think your banter is making a difference then it may be time for self evaluation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you didn't take it personally you wouldn't have lost your temper. My banter certaintly adds more than your constant commenting on people's posts w/o discussing the subject of the threads.

[RIROCKHOUND]

To be fair, you both (PS/SD) look pretty bitchy right now....

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Sometimes Fox is more honest than CNN or MSBNC, sometimes they are not. Their generic reporting is often better than CNNs. Their opinion stuff tends to be CNN level bias but going the other way. If you are unable to see the Spin from both sides than you are unable to be objective. And because you are new here, the News Bias has been a topic here for well over a decade.

I think people mix selective reporting and quality of reporting. Sure CNN and MSNBC select to emphasize stories that appeal to a left leaning viewer profile, but with a few exceptions their opinions typically don't get caught up in conspiracies or push information that's obviously or most likely not accurate.

Fox's news division is decent on quality though certainly still selective to a right leaning audience. But their opinion side is so entrenched in pushing conspiracies there's really nothing else in the mainstream media like it. Sean Hannity is not the inverse mirror of Rachel Maddow...

[Pete F.]

https://youtu.be/yYBrFBWCzbU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I have a challenge for you Wayne. I want you to tell me in your own words, your personal opinion (without links to external sources) how Bias does not change the truth. How can bias be applied but not change the underlying truth?

How can you challenge me on how Bias does not change the truth. ? your the one who thinks it changes Truth its your case to prove ..



BIAS CANT CHANGE WHAT COLOR THE SKY IS OR HOW GRAVITY WORKS ...or the words spoken or written by Trump. ITS THAT SIMPLE

Bias presents alternative facts or attacks facts presented based solely on appearance, social back ground or party affiliation.... but to say only Main stream media does it , is a bias statement its self .. so what is non main stream media whats the new standard for the opposite of main stream ?

and most op eds are Bias reguardless of the source .. they are not News ?

[Pete F.]

https://youtu.be/yYBrFBWCzbU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

John, is what you are saying about truth and bias like this from Psychology Today?
People want to believe others despite evidence to the contrary. This is a normal reaction because, in general, people tend to believe others. This phenomenon, referred to as Truth Bias, allows society and commerce to run efficiently. Absent Truth Bias, people would spend an inordinate amount of time checking information provided by others. Truth Bias also serves as the social default. Relationships with friends and business colleagues would become strained if their veracity were constantly questioned. Faced with minor discrepancies in a story, people tend to excuse away inconsistencies because they want to believe the person who is telling the story. Truth Bias provides liars with an advantage because people want to believe what they hear, see, or read. The effect of Truth Bias is stronger if the person telling the story is a close friend, a spouse, or our children. Truth Bias diminishes when people become aware of the possibility of deception. The best defense against Truth Bias is judicious skepticism.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Sure CNN and MSNBC select to emphasize stories that appeal to a left leaning viewer profile, but with a few exceptions their opinions typically don't get caught up in conspiracies or push information that's obviously or most likely not accurate.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I Sean Hannity is not the inverse mirror of Rachel Maddow...

sure he is, he’s just a lot less masculine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

sure he is, he’s just a lot less masculine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've watched a fair share of both of them. Maddow is about three times smarter and very well researched. That doesn't mean she's always right but (aside from bridgegate) I've never really seen her push conspiracy theories and flagrant falsehoods which is pretty must the bulk of Hannity's program today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've watched a fair share of both of them. Maddow is about three times smarter and very well researched. That doesn't mean she's always right but (aside from bridgegate) I've never really seen her push conspiracy theories and flagrant falsehoods which is pretty must the bulk of Hannity's program today.

you’re talking about the same Maddow who made a complete ass of herself in front of her entire audience (11 bitter Maoists) with trumps tax return, and who predicted a Hilary rout on election night? and who says that people
who are pro life, are opposed to women’s health? yes, a genius.

hannity is a buffoon, so is she. they are the exact mirror image of each other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

'dirty media'...this is troubling


CNN is being accused of attempting to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury after the far-left cable channel (and six other anti-Trump outlets) requested the jurors’ names and home addresses.


And so, on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

As Bre Payton at the Federalist points out, “Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

'dirty media'...this is troubling


CNN is being accused of attempting to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury after the far-left cable channel (and six other anti-Trump outlets) requested the jurors’ names and home addresses.


And so, on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

As Bre Payton at the Federalist points out, “Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

A complete fabrication posted from the Bastion of Bias the right loves

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...manafort-jury/

sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi..._jurors_public —

A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Another example of these pesky Facts blowing up another lie from the right

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A complete fabrication posted from the Bastion of Bias the right loves


Another example of these pesky Facts blowing up another lie from the right

huh?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

huh?

Really weird, what is the complete fabrication that he speaks of. The two articles he links don't tell us what the fabrication is.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Really weird, what is the complete fabrication that he speaks of. The two articles he links don't tell us what the fabrication is.

Presenting the suggestion that asking for or going to court for Jury information..




on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.


What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.

Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True


Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.


List of jurors in Boston Marathon bombing trial released

Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Presenting the suggestion that asking for or going to court for Jury information..




on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.


What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.

Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True


Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.


List of jurors in Boston Marathon bombing trial released

Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial

huh??

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’re talking about the same Maddow who made a complete ass of herself in front of her entire audience (11 bitter Maoists) with trumps tax return, and who predicted a Hilary rout on election night? and who says that people
who are pro life, are opposed to women’s health? yes, a genius.

I'm not sue how her tax return story was in any way misleading, yes it was over hyped but the returns did confirm some Trump hypocrisy. It wasn't a nothing story.

A lot of people thought Hillary was going to rout trump.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

CNN is being accused of attempting to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury after the far-left cable channel (and six other anti-Trump outlets) requested the jurors’ names and home addresses.

Yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do, initiation into the Deep State don't you know?

And so, on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

BuzzFeed is liberal but I've never heard anyone -- aside from Trump and Hannity -- claim the others are far left.

As Bre Payton at the Federalist points out, “Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

Even the judge said a thirsty press is a good thing. You don't know if they're going to out anyone, it's a matter of public record once the proceedings are finished. The Judge will likely shield them until it's done which would be the right move.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

but I've never heard anyone



.

we know that you have remarkably selective hearing...sight...memory

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do, initiation into the Deep State don't you know?


BuzzFeed is liberal but I've never heard anyone -- aside from Trump and Hannity -- claim the others are far left.


Even the judge said a thirsty press is a good thing. You don't know if they're going to out anyone, it's a matter of public record once the proceedings are finished. The Judge will likely shield them until it's done which would be the right move.

Stop trying... didn't you know only the enemy of the people AKA code for anyone not on trumps junk.. Have ever asked for the names of jurors ...

Its disturbing and almost unprecedented. and almost True!!! can you believe the nerve of the press to ask such a question

43 percent of Republicans saying he “should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

Funny this ^^^^ isn't seen as disturbing and unprecedented. why is that ???

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.
Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True

Is it false to say "what many see here" followed by the rest of your sentence? I admit it is a rhetorical trick, but so is saying something is a "complete fabrication" when that is not demonstrably true. Many may well see a bullying tactic, and the precedents that Breitbart lists may well be seen by many as bullying as well.

Bullying is one of those current trigger words--you know, like racist, sexist, and various phobes, and lots of other stuff. They are quite effective in riling folks up against other folks.

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.

Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.

And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.

There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".