So it looks like with a Trump ascendency Twitter has replaced CSpan,

archives said:
I'm sure few did in comparison to the Donald's daily ranting, and noticed you left off the other two you claimed tweet like the Trump

And I understand why you wouldn't want to try again, your just not very good at it
Click to expand...

LOL, i'm laughing at you thinking a new medium to reach people is bad and your partisanship over it
 
anatta said:
the consequences of "advocacy journalism" (sic -NYTimes).
Trump gets a press sec soon -but screw the MS media..they spin to the point of lies.
Click to expand...
I wonder how long it'll take for 'MSM" to realize they're not going to influence future
elections with their lies and lack of objectivity.
As a libertarian it was glaring obvious to me how slanted MSM was.
I recognize that Fox News is right wing, but even they had conservative commentators that were anti Trump, e.g., Krauthammer. More 'fair and balanced' than the rest.
Maureen Dowd was the only liberal columnist that had the chutzpah dare writing anything negative about the Clintons.
I expect MSM won't do anything other than "advocacy journalism" anytime soon based on what Obama, Hollywierd, hrc's 'excuses' for losing', etc. are doing. Just hunker down and be worse.
It will only help republicans, imo.
 
aloysious said:
I wonder how long it'll take for 'MSM" to realize they're not going to influence future
elections with their lies and lack of objectivity.
As a libertarian it was glaring obvious to me how slanted MSM was.
I recognize that Fox News is right wing, but even they had conservative commentators that were anti Trump, e.g., Krauthammer. More 'fair and balanced' than the rest.
Maureen Dowd was the only liberal columnist that had the chutzpah dare writing anything negative about the Clintons.
I expect MSM won't do anything other than "advocacy journalism" anytime soon based on what Obama, Hollywierd, hrc's 'excuses' for losing', etc. are doing. Just hunker down and be worse.
It will only help republicans, imo.
Click to expand...

Agree, that's really all they can do. If they want to survive they have to appeal to confirmation bias, there are just too many other outlets out there now.
 
Guille said:
Agree, that's really all they can do. If they want to survive they have to appeal to confirmation bias, there are just too many other outlets out there now.
Click to expand...
Sure but what outlets do you consider to be actually objective? Just report the news?
I honestly can't think of any on American TV.
OAN isn't bad but they tend to report factual positives of the right without commentary. It's subtle but it still slants to the right.
 
aloysious said:
I wonder how long it'll take for 'MSM" to realize they're not going to influence future
elections with their lies and lack of objectivity.
As a libertarian it was glaring obvious to me how slanted MSM was.
I recognize that Fox News is right wing, but even they had conservative commentators that were anti Trump, e.g., Krauthammer. More 'fair and balanced' than the rest.
Maureen Dowd was the only liberal columnist that had the chutzpah dare writing anything negative about the Clintons.
I expect MSM won't do anything other than "advocacy journalism" anytime soon based on what Obama, Hollywierd, hrc's 'excuses' for losing', etc. are doing. Just hunker down and be worse.
It will only help republicans, imo.
Click to expand...
absolutely true..Fox was actually more "fair and balanced" ( despite Obama's protestations).
The NYTimes is fish wrappings -WaPo is just trash.

Maureen Dowd is a sojourner for truth
 
How awesome would it be if only reporters from the internet, satellite radio, and a few other obscure media were allowed into Douchebag Donald's press conferences, while broadcast/cable and mainstream print media were excluded? :cof1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top