Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with obama administration - Part II
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Oct 11, 2017 4:58 PM
QuakerOats;1876811 wrote: The media continues to look like the fools they are.
This COULD be a real public service Trump is doing....unfortunately many will never notice how blindly partisan the left-wing media is simply because they report things they want to believe. Same with Fox, although outside of Hannity it's actually pretty decent, well and the clown who replaced O'Reilly.
Oct 11, 2017 4:58pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Oct 12, 2017 8:02 AM
QuakerOats;1876811 wrote:Fake news ............again.


The media continues to look like the fools they are.
Right. If you don’t like the story, it must be fake. Plus, Trump said it was fake too. What more evidence do you need? I mean, let’s be practicle. If a story like this we’re actuallt true, it would mean our president is completely unfit for office. So yeah, it’s got to be fake.
Oct 12, 2017 8:02am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:00 AM
QuakerOats;1875335 wrote:She said the republican party is all men, all white.

That is a lie, by exponential magnitude.

But it plays well with the media, intellectual elites, and many other liberals.
Well, again, the R leadership is all white men.
The women in the R party were not even invited to write the Senate healthcare law.
QuakerOats;1876811 wrote:Fake news ............again.


The media continues to look like the fools they are.
How so? The NBC story was pretty well sourced. Just because you don't like it, or the President says it is fake, how do you know it is fake? They have sources on the story.
Do you also support the President saying that NBC should have its license removed, whatever that means? Wouldn't that impede the 1st Amendment? Or, is that all good with you? What if Obama said the same about Fox back in the day?
gut;1876818 wrote:This COULD be a real public service Trump is doing....unfortunately many will never notice how blindly partisan the left-wing media is simply because they report things they want to believe. Same with Fox, although outside of Hannity it's actually pretty decent, well and the clown who replaced O'Reilly.
I fucking doubt it. Tucker is still a tool. Trump is all about image and projecting he is smart and knows what he is doing.
Oct 12, 2017 10:00am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:03 AM
The defense secretary also completely blasted the fake story. This is the same NBC that spiked the Harvey Weinstein story when the reporter actually had the truth in hand. Wake the hell up.
Oct 12, 2017 10:03am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:06 AM
Dr Winston O'Boogie;1877036 wrote:Right. If you don’t like the story, it must be fake. Plus, Trump said it was fake too. What more evidence do you need? I mean, let’s be practicle. If a story like this we’re actuallt true, it would mean our president is completely unfit for office. So yeah, it’s got to be fake.

Making up lies regarding our national defense to throw mud at the prez in order to get him to have to 'defend or deny' is utter bullshit. The network should indeed be put on notice, called out, retract their lies, and get a beatdown.
Oct 12, 2017 10:06am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:14 AM
QuakerOats;1877057 wrote:The defense secretary also completely blasted the fake story. This is the same NBC that spiked the Harvey Weinstein story when the reporter actually had the truth in hand. Wake the hell up.
Not really. He did a non-denial denial about what he said. The NBC story was also sourced by people in the room. If I had to guess, the Joint Chiefs spoke.
The Harvey story is not this one and are different reporters.
Look, I don't blame the President from asking why we don't have more nukes. I'll give him some lead way on if the slide in question where he may have asked why can't we have more. But, it still looks bad.
I don't doubt it occurred, I just find the whole premise of a story that may shed the President in a bad light is immediately labeled fake news an easy cop out.
Don't like a story, label it fake news and move on, don't even address it.
Oct 12, 2017 10:14am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:35 AM
I think a large problem with the big dog "news" is that there are too many "anonymous sources", which ultimately amounts to gossip. There is also the fact that in the age of getting free news, there is no rules of accountability anymore. It's not just ABC, NBC and CBS anymore. People are starting to get their news from alternatives now. People are sick of it, both lefties and righties. What's the recourse, when, again, you can get any news for free regardless of your political persuasions?

So here is what we get: nothing burgers.
Oct 12, 2017 10:35am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:35 AM
Their is ZERO objectivity in reporting by the major media - zero. It has become simply laughable.


They own it.
Oct 12, 2017 10:35am
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:38 AM
QuakerOats;1877058 wrote:Making up lies regarding our national defense to throw mud at the prez in order to get him to have to 'defend or deny' is utter bullshit. The network should indeed be put on notice, called out, retract their lies, and get a beatdown.
It's clearly a pattern that when any news that is unflattering to Trump comes out, it is labeled "fake". Isn't that just a little bit convenient. Do you realize the massive - and unprecedented - conspiracy of lies and silence that would have to take place in order to for the "fake news" to operate the way Trump (and his followers) propose it does? You literally would need thousands of people to be complicit and to then maintain their silence for all time. Even the Nazis couldn't pull anything off on this scale.

I'll give Trump credit. By blasting the integrity of the media every step of the way, he has conditioned to the public to hear "fake news" each time anything comes out he doesn't like. Instead of asking any questions about how events were reported as they were, the herd immediately adopts the "it's fake" mantra and off we go.
Oct 12, 2017 10:38am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:41 AM
I don't know. Hollywood and democrat prosecutors seemed to have covered Harvey Weinstein's ass for a good long time :RpS_w00t:
Oct 12, 2017 10:41am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:41 AM
CenterBHSFan;1877069 wrote:I think a large problem with the big dog "news" is that there are too many "anonymous sources", which ultimately amounts to gossip. There is also the fact that in the age of getting free news, there is no rules of accountability anymore. It's not just ABC, NBC and CBS anymore. People are starting to get their news from alternatives now. People are sick of it, both lefties and righties. What's the recourse, when, again, you can get any news for free regardless of your political persuasions?

So here is what we get: nothing burgers.
It has always been that way though. There has always been the background interview for a story.
There has pretty much been the line, "an anonymous source close to the story who chose not to reveal their name" going back to Nixon and before. The thing is there are more outlets now that do not have the, I guess, the checks and staff to vet the stories as the major news organizations.
The Post gets some stories wrong, but when they say they interviewed 18 plus people on it, I think that checks out.
The bad thing is to totally dismiss all stories that are negative or even positive as fake news. Otherwise, how do we really report the news?
What if the President is really an idiot and is really shady, or what if the President is doing a great job? How do we know if it is all fake news?
QuakerOats;1877071 wrote:Their is ZERO objectivity in reporting by the major media - zero. It has become simply laughable.


They own it.
Zero huh? Ok.
I doubt that. I'm sure there are still some legit reporters out there doing their jobs.
I guess my question is to you, is do you support the President's suggestion some in the media should lose their license whatever that means?
If so, where do you draw the line?
Oct 12, 2017 10:41am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:49 AM
ptown_trojans_1;1877075 wrote:It has always been that way though. There has always been the background interview for a story.
There has pretty much been the line, "an anonymous source close to the story who chose not to reveal their name" going back to Nixon and before. The thing is there are more outlets now that do not have the, I guess, the checks and staff to vet the stories as the major news organizations.
The Post gets some stories wrong, but when they say they interviewed 18 plus people on it, I think that checks out.
The bad thing is to totally dismiss all stories that are negative or even positive as fake news. Otherwise, how do we really report the news?
What if the President is really an idiot and is really shady, or what if the President is doing a great job? How do we know if it is all fake news?
And therein lies the problem. If the news was shaky, unreliable and biased during Bush Jr.'s terms, Obama's terms and now Trump's term(s?), it can't always be a President's fault. Media has to take a good amount of blame, too. Particularly when there is more commentary than actual dry reporting going on.
Oct 12, 2017 10:49am
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Oct 12, 2017 10:56 AM
CenterBHSFan;1877081 wrote:And therein lies the problem. If the news was shaky, unreliable and biased during Bush Jr.'s terms, Obama's terms and now Trump's term(s?), it can't always be a President's fault. Media has to take a good amount of blame, too. Particularly when there is more commentary than actual dry reporting going on.
Well, you cannot report without anonymous sources. How else are you going to get the information from the inside on what is actually happening?

Plus, the sources go both ways, administrations use their to their advantage to plant a policy the President supports and wants to throw out there. People also use it to vent their own policy that not did win out. Say you want more troops in Afghanistan, but President says no, we will do less, so the loser of that argument goes to the press and says the President is doing x and y. That has been doing on for ages and will continue.
Oct 12, 2017 10:56am
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Oct 12, 2017 11:05 AM
ptown_trojans_1;1877075 wrote:It has always been that way though. There has always been the background interview for a story.
There has pretty much been the line, "an anonymous source close to the story who chose not to reveal their name" going back to Nixon and before. The thing is there are more outlets now that do not have the, I guess, the checks and staff to vet the stories as the major news organizations.
The Post gets some stories wrong, but when they say they interviewed 18 plus people on it, I think that checks out.
The bad thing is to totally dismiss all stories that are negative or even positive as fake news. Otherwise, how do we really report the news?
What if the President is really an idiot and is really shady, or what if the President is doing a great job? How do we know if it is all fake news?

Zero huh? Ok.
I doubt that. I'm sure there are still some legit reporters out there doing their jobs.
I guess my question is to you, is do you support the President's suggestion some in the media should lose their license whatever that means?
If so, where do you draw the line?
not on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NPR and any other major station.
Oct 12, 2017 11:05am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 12, 2017 11:09 AM
ptown_trojans_1;1877075 wrote:Zero huh? Ok.
I doubt that. I'm sure there are still some legit reporters out there doing their jobs.
I guess my question is to you, is do you support the President's suggestion some in the media should lose their license whatever that means?
If so, where do you draw the line?

Zero. Just one example; I read USA Today online, and in the last 11 months I cannot recall seeing one article, not one, that is remotely favorable, or even neutral, to Trump. Every day, there are at least 4, if not more, 'news' articles that are incredibly negative, and spun to intentionally put him in a bad light. Every day. If there is good news to report; it is tossed aside, every day, in favor of the stories that paint him negatively. Day in, day out. I only continue to read it to literally laugh at the stunning amount of bias.

The media has brought all of this on themselves. The example above is merely one publication of the hundreds that are guilty of the same thing. And then there is the broadcast media on top of all that. So call it what you want, "fake", or "totally biased", or "completely one-sided". Anything positive related to Trump is totally discarded; anything negative is front and center. That is the reality. The media owns it.
Oct 12, 2017 11:09am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 12, 2017 12:25 PM
Defense Secretary James Mattis rebuked an NBC News report that President Donald Trump wanted to increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal "tenfold" after a meeting with defense officials in July.
"Recent reports that the president called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement, Military.com reported. "This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”
Oct 12, 2017 12:25pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Oct 12, 2017 3:32 PM
QuakerOats;1877113 wrote:Defense Secretary James Mattis rebuked an NBC News report that President Donald Trump wanted to increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal "tenfold" after a meeting with defense officials in July.
"Recent reports that the president called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement, Military.com reported. "This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”
So then it absolutely does come down to which side of the story you want to believe and not so much with straight reporting.
Oct 12, 2017 3:32pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Oct 12, 2017 3:39 PM
CenterBHSFan;1877157 wrote:So then it absolutely does come down to which side of the story you want to believe and not so much with straight reporting.
The establishment, and particularly the liberals, and their media propagandists completely lost their shit when Trump got elected. Just lost it.

Trump may be a clown, but anyone remotely objective and honest can see there's been a ton of petty and outright false "news" that just doesn't get reported under other Presidents. But this doesn't matter, because it's not about journalism or the news.
Oct 12, 2017 3:39pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Oct 26, 2017 4:28 PM
"In an unprecedented victorious conclusion to our four year-long legal battle against the IRS, the bureaucratic agency has just admitted in federal court that it wrongfully targeted Tea Party and conservative groups during the Obama administration because of their political viewpoints and issued an apology to our clients for doing so. "


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/26/jay-sekulow-victory-irs-admits-tea-party-other-conservative-groups-were-targets-during-obama-era.html


Who will serve jail time? Who will lose their pension?
Oct 26, 2017 4:28pm