😂🤪🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
😂🤪🤣Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If one wants to at least watch an attempt at “Fair and Balanced” and true “reporting of news”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You watch CNN, don’t you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No more than FoxNews. And I can tell you that FoxNews presents a heavily distorted view of reality to its viewers. There is a reason that people that watch FoxNews know less about current events than people that watch no news at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldawg81
About that trip(ping) up Air Force One.
One slip down a ramp at one of the academies and the media couldn't wait to minimalize President Trump.
After that disaster walking UP the AF1 stairs by President Biden I truly know the WH corp is thinking real hard about Plan B and it's not Plan Biden. Plan Harris scares the effin heck out of me. Talk about a looser cannon.
STFU! I am sick of that tired bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I watch them all. What's your uninformed excuse?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Well it’s about time!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Federal Judge Accuses New York Times, Washington Post of ‘Shocking’ Bias Against Republicans
Judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post of being “Democratic Party broadsheets” in a dissenting opinion on Friday.
Washington, DC, federal appellate judge Laurence Silberman accused the New York Times and Washington Post, and to some extent the Wall Street Journal, of being mouthpieces for “rather shocking” bias against the Republican Party in a written opinion on Friday.
“The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe),” he said in the opinion. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”
Further, Judge Silberman wrote that Silicon Valley “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news,” which “similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.” He called Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page “notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control,” though he admitted “a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left.”
“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”
“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news,” Silberman added, saying “it is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism.”
The judge said the Supreme Court should overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 case holding that when the media discusses public figures, the outlet should be liable under state defamation laws only if the plaintiffs can prove “actual malice,” which the Court defined as the speaker either knowing the statement was false or making it in “reckless disregard for the truth.”
“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace,” Silberman concluded. “And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”
The case is Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., No. 19-7132 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...t-republicans/
Then all meaning foxnews, newsmax and oneamerica?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
cbs, nbc, abc,cnn Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
they are entertainers, talking heads and wannabes. Don’t know of any broadcast journalists.
next question?
No CNBC? Channels where the “news” is mostly politics is not really news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix
There's a five-alarm crisis on the border — and Team Biden imposes a media blackout
"Our entire administration will always be honest and transparent with the good news and the bad. We’ll level with you when we make a mistake. We’ll straight up say what happened."
That was President Biden on Jan. 21, a day after being sworn into office.
Today, two months and zero solo press conferences later, the Biden administration is on track to be the least transparent administration in the TV era. Another example of shutting out the press is underway at the U.S.-Mexico border, where said administration has imposed a media blackout on its migrant holding facilities, formerly known as "kids in cages" under the previous administration before the term apparently was retired by most of the media and by Democratic politicians out of courtesy to Team Biden.
The administration also is restricting the information that the Border Patrol can provide to the press, according to a recent NBC News report.
To be fair, I’m not sure anyone of us cares what color Biden’s jello was at lunch. That’s the only info we will get from a solo press conference. #1 because that’s the question the press will be handed to ask him. #2 because he doesn’t know anything else.
no...whatever the hell that means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It means that politics aren’t the center of the world, so why should it be the center of your news?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgpix