mainstream media

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

and this doesn't include CNN, MSNBC, independent news channels.

Newsbusters puts out some good dope, very smooth.

I'd note that a lot of Trump's media coverage is driven by his need to be on TV 24/7.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

This is really irrelevant. They bring the indictment against the charges they have the most confidence in.

When was the last time you lied about something you didn't do?

Actually - it wasn't relevant, the charges, to collusion or obstruction. It was lying to the FBI. Which is OK when it is Hillary's email server.

And Manafort was actually for stupid sheit AND lying.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Donald Trump: Time to Investigate the Left for ‘Treasonous Things’

One Potential Russian Collusion Scandal Has Not Yet Been Investigated: Hillary and Uranium One

Lindsey Graham: Senate Will Investigate FISA Abuse, Surveillance of Trump
Campaign


Here we go....

but again the right fail to see why Trump and his people were investigated to start with.. (not because they won )


Meeting with the russians lying about meetings with the russians lying about dealing with the russians Trump himself suggesting the russian didn't try to interfere in the elections Trump's refusal to cooperate with the muller investigation (if he did it would have done in a year )

again how many convictions and counting

Heres a witch hunt for ya all from Trumps lips

"He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way."


"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics."

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud.

20.7K
4:23 PM - Aug 6, 2012
Twitter Ads info and privacy

I guess he knows all about witch hunts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=B57H8AxkszY

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

It was lying to the FBI. Which is OK when it is Hillary's email server.

What did she lie about to the FBI?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

What did she lie about to the FBI?

30,000 Yoga emails.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What did she lie about to the FBI?

FFS, she said she turned over everything (except the tens of thousands of emails she didn't), she said there were no emails on her server that were classified, except the ones that were.

What are you afraid would happen to you, if you were honest about these things, just for a minute? Of all the thoughtless parrots I've ever come across, you're one of the smartest. You're way, way too smart for this nonsense.

You work in Finance, right? Do you tell the companies you support, that they should pay a living wage with free healthcare to all employees, and that they should now adopt Green New Deal standards of clean energy? Or do you not do so, because you know its idiotic and would get you canned?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

30,000 Yoga emails.

I've never heard she lied to the FBI about that. Even the FBI director said there was no reason to conclude she lied to the FBI about anything.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You work in Finance, right? Do you tell the companies you support, that they should pay a living wage with free healthcare to all employees, and that they should now adopt Green New Deal standards of clean energy? Or do you not do so, because you know its idiotic and would get you canned?

No, I don't work in finance.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never heard she lied to the FBI about that. Even the FBI director said there was no reason to conclude she lied to the FBI about anything.

You mean the director of the FBI, who with the DOJ, appears to have had areal rooting interest in the 2016 election?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You mean the director of the FBI, who with the DOJ, appears to have had areal rooting interest in the 2016 election?

The only thing I've seen where the DOJ might have influenced the election was Comey breaking protocol and making a statement on the status of the investigation. This idea of a grand conspiracy to undercut Trump is nonsense.

[wdmso]

Heard this on the radio
Since when is the media expected to have the exact same outcome as a 2 year investigation with almost zero leaks

The 2 are not again remotely the same but once a gain some want us to think the same standard exists in both
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Heard this on the radio
Since when is the media expected to have the exact same outcome as a 2 year investigation with almost zero leaks

The 2 are not again remotely the same but once a gain some want us to think the same standard exists in both
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're right, it may not be ethical but the media is allowed to slant. Investigations either prove or disprove or remain uncertain. They are not supposed to imply.

Firmly basing your opinion and belief on media reportage on that which has not been proven is risky and foolish.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The only thing I've seen where the DOJ might have influenced the election was Comey breaking protocol and making a statement on the status of the investigation. This idea of a grand conspiracy to undercut Trump is nonsense.

none of the texts from lisa page or mccabe or strzok, give you the hint of impropriety. Your concern is applied very very selectively, which of course means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Heard this on the radio
Since when is the media expected to have the exact same outcome as a 2 year investigation with almost zero leaks

The 2 are not again remotely the same but once a gain some want us to think the same standard exists in both
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the media is supposed to be fair and honest, not totally in the tank for one side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the media is supposed to be fair and honest, not totally in the tank for one side.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

thats your tinfoil conservative Hat speaking because you're a one source news person If you watched any kind of news it was always questionable whether or not he was gonna be convicted of collusion. or if there was collusion there was no reporting of certainty.. But of course you don't have a problem with bar selling the the notion that there was no obstruction even though he penned a letter so many months prior to getting the AG job indicating just that... and what did he base that decision on? where is the evidence? that he used .there was no obstruction of Justice ..based on . What legal standard was applied to that decision ? not enough evidence ,? that needs to be explained to the American public . And of muller said there was not enough to indite or absolve trump of the question of obstruction of Justice how did Barr Come to such a decision in such a rapid timeframe. And not to worrie it wont take trump long to create another st imposed crisis =1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

none of the texts from lisa page or mccabe or strzok, give you the hint of impropriety. Your concern is applied very very selectively, which of course means it’s fake.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think professionals can compartmentalize their personal and work. It was investigated and found there was no influence. Have some respect for law enforcement.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

that your tinfoil conservative Hat speaking because you're a one source news person If you watched any kind of news it was always questionable whether or not he was gonna be convicted of collusion or if there was collusion there was no reporting of certainty.. But of course you don't have a problem with bar selling the the notion that there was no obstruction even though he penned a letter so many months prior to getting the AG job indicating say just that... And all without he based that on where is the evidence that he based that there was no obstruction of Justice based on what
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you think i’m the only one who no longer trusts the media? look at the approval ratings if the media. sorry, it’s not just me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think professionals can compartmentalize their personal and work. It was investigated and found there was no influence. Have some respect for law enforcement.

ok, trump collusion was investigated
much more thoroughly, and determined there was no evidence. so why do you dismiss one, and desperately cling to the other?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

that your tinfoil conservative Hat speaking because you're a one source news person If you watched any kind of news it was always questionable whether or not he was gonna be convicted of collusion or if there was collusion there was no reporting of certainty.. But of course you don't have a problem with bar selling the the notion that there was no obstruction even though he penned a letter so many months prior to getting the AG job indicating say just that... and what did he base that decision on? where is the evidence that he used that there was no obstruction of Justice ..based . What legal standard wad applied to that decision not enough evidence Did meet the threshold that needs to be explained to the American public . And of moller said there was not enough evidence to convict or absolve trump of the question I'm obstruction of Justice how did Barr Come to such a decision in such a rapid timeframe=1]Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/size]

if you think that the notion of a biased media is a republican hoax, have someone read this to you. this is a Gallup poll.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/...s-new-low.aspx
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you think i’m the only one who no longer trusts the media? look at the approval ratings if the media. sorry, it’s not just me.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/11...st-media-13399

According to a new bombshell report released by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, 94% of Republicans have lost some trust in the media. They aren't alone; 75% of independents and even 42% of Democrats say the same thing. Overall, nearly 7 in 10 adults report a loss of faith in the news. What is going on?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/09/11...st-media-13399

According to a new bombshell report released by Gallup and the Knight Foundation, 94% of Republicans have lost some trust in the media. They aren't alone; 75% of independents and even 42% of Democrats say the same thing. Overall, nearly 7 in 10 adults report a loss of faith in the news. What is going on?

wdmso says that what’s going on, is that Trumicans are crazy, and that explains all the data in your post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[DZ]

In today's world of instant social media news, media outlets are in such a hurry to be the first to scoop a story that they can't/don't/won't vet information.

For this they could/should be held liable for incorrect "news".

Most of CNN/MSNBC has lost all journalistic integrity IMO.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso says that what’s going on, is that Trumicans are crazy, and that explains all the data in your post.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

May be time to buy stock in Reynolds Consumer Products, because thats an awful lot of Tinfoil being purchased out there.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok, trump collusion was investigated
much more thoroughly, and determined there was no evidence. so why do you dismiss one, and desperately cling to the other?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Collusion isn't a legal standard. We know there was collusion, hell there were face to face meetings they tried to cover up!

The letter only says they didn't find evidence that met the threshold for a charge of criminal conspiracy. That doesn't mean there was no evidence, it means there may not have been enough. There also could be a ton of evidence that's very damning to Trump but not indictable under DOJ guidelines.

Barr's report really just made this entire mess worse, especially the conflict over obstruction. Many say he's a straight shooter, but this letter really looks like it was intended to give Trump cover while they fight to keep the report hidden.

They need to release everything legally permissible soon and let Congress sort things out.

[Pete F.]

Might have something to do with these things

http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/a...tff/1-19-2017_

https://www.politifact.com/personali...yruling/false/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...trump-lie-list

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by DZ

Most of CNN/MSNBC has lost all journalistic integrity IMO.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tfacts-networ/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#8851ea712abc


https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...orst-informed/

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tfacts-networ/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#8851ea712abc


https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...orst-informed/

Why do you folks always assume that because people have a problem with CNN that they are automatically less intelligent and Rabid FOX viewers. Quite the assumption if you ask me

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Why do you folks always assume that because people have a problem with CNN that they are automatically less intelligent and Rabid FOX viewers. Quite the assumption if you ask me

Denis made a statement about 2 of the larger networks yet didn't mention the one w/the highest ratings. I pointed out that Fox seems to have "less journalistic integrity" than the 2 mentioned.

Maybe he gets his news from NPR?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...tfacts-networ/


https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2.../#8851ea712abc


https://www.poynter.org/reporting-ed...orst-informed/

I wonder if these thorough studies, were done by the same people who said Hilary was going to win in a landslide.

Fox exposes bias in most of the media, and I'm supposed to be shocked when those same people slander Fox.

Yawn.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I pointed out that Fox seems to have "less journalistic integrity" than the 2 mentioned.

?

Watch Tucker Carlson for a week, then watch Chris Hayes or Rachael Maddow for a week on MSNBC, and then Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon at CNN, and let me know who has more integrity, and why.

I watch Tucker Carlson maybe 1-2 times a week. I've never seen a show of his where he didn't criticize Trumps behavior, and I've never seen a show of his where he didn't say to a liberal, "that's a good point".

Liberals can't ever, and I mean EVER, admit they lost a fair fight. Trump beats Hilary, it must be Russian collusion. Fox clobbers CNN and MSNBC in the ratings, they must be appealing to people who can't keep up with watching reruns of "Hee Haw".