This is...CNN

bga1

Active member
Rather, there are people desperate to believe what they want to believe, so they’ll accept anything that anyone puts out, no matter how big a lie.
I think I am going with what is said on the tapes- the ones that we actually have! That as opposed to the pee tapes that you never got but fully believed in. :):) LOL!!!!
 

Section2

Active member
Rather, there are people desperate to believe what they want to believe, so they’ll accept anything that anyone puts out, no matter how big a lie.
I don't think O'Keefe is an honorable person. But I'm glad he's getting undercover footage of the left. It's not a lie. The PP videos were a great litmus test. He put out a 3 hour video, and the MSM talking points were "well, it was edited, so ignore". Everything the MSM puts out is edited. The PP video was not edited.
 
the big picture here is this:

once upon a time, there were media sites in this country that were respected. If if was in the New York Times, it meant something. Walter Cronkite on CBS was called the Most Respected Person in the country. Sure, there were tabloids and more fringe news sources, but they were out of the mainstream. Watergate was exposed and Nixon was brought down in large part because of articles in the Washington Post.

And - there was a clear dividing line between news and opinion. News was news - editorials were opinion - and the two sides did not inter-mingle.

Now, we are at a point where all media is seen through a partisan lens. The Right attacks the NY Times and the Washington Post as biased and politically-motivated. The Left does the same things with conservative media. to be fair, the media brought some of this on itself by allowing news, analysis and opinion to get blended into a smoothie of information.

And the end result is that all media sources become suspect. we're told you can't believe anything you read in a newspaper or watch on TV. and where does that leave us as a Nation?

for the closing argument, I turn to Thomas Jefferson.

The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.
 

MnplsGopher

Active member
The simple reason is that all media lives and dies on clicks/views.

The easiest way to get clicks/views is to tell people things that confirm what they want to believe. End of story.
 

bga1

Active member
the big picture here is this:

once upon a time, there were media sites in this country that were respected. If if was in the New York Times, it meant something. Walter Cronkite on CBS was called the Most Respected Person in the country. Sure, there were tabloids and more fringe news sources, but they were out of the mainstream. Watergate was exposed and Nixon was brought down in large part because of articles in the Washington Post.

And - there was a clear dividing line between news and opinion. News was news - editorials were opinion - and the two sides did not inter-mingle.

Now, we are at a point where all media is seen through a partisan lens. The Right attacks the NY Times and the Washington Post as biased and politically-motivated. The Left does the same things with conservative media. to be fair, the media brought some of this on itself by allowing news, analysis and opinion to get blended into a smoothie of information.

And the end result is that all media sources become suspect. we're told you can't believe anything you read in a newspaper or watch on TV. and where does that leave us as a Nation?

for the closing argument, I turn to Thomas Jefferson.

The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro’ the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them.
Of course Jefferson is right! Newspapers without a federal government would be the better choice. Why? Because it is then marketplace driven. Government without newspapers is elite driven. Unfortunately Jefferson perhaps did not imagine an era where the media could or would be bought off. What we have hit upon is the worst of combinations: People wanting power, buying the newspapers and the government. Perhaps he would also not have anticipated an era when so many people would not be encouraged to adopt English or even utilize a free education to be literate.

This is why we want less things controlled by the Federal government- our health care, our retirement, regulations, etc. A large federal government is too corruptible.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
Project Veritas is a known producer of RW BS. Not a government employee going through proper channels to report improper behavior. But you know that. Spin spin.
The whistleblower was a CNN employee for a couple years and recorded these videos while on the job at CNN and at leisure with CNN employees.

Project Veritas was just the venue that he chose to air his grievance.

He didn’t write up a complaint that didn’t represent the actual call transcript, he recorded it in CNN’s staff’s own words.
 

KillerGopherFan

Active member
CNN to start the debate:

We’re going to take the first half hour to bash President Trump and have you all tell us why we should impeach him. “And all of you are going to get in on this”.
 

bga1

Active member
Project Veritas is a known producer of RW BS. Not a government employee going through proper channels to report improper behavior. But you know that. Spin spin.
I agree with you Howie. You cannot believe whistle blowers. CNN shoots it down the middle. These tapes were doctored, no doubt about it. Skewwed!!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
I think pointing out the political interests of their donors is a fair criticism. You do not. Telling.
I think you can't come up with a legitimate criticism of PV and if you could, you would have. Instead, you want to talk about who funds his videos, rather than what the people in his videos' are saying.
 

Minnesota

Member
I think you can't come up with a legitimate criticism of PV and if you could, you would have. Instead, you want to talk about who funds his videos, rather than what the people in his videos' are saying.
Pointing out that moneyed right wing interests bankroll his operation is a legitimate criticism. Why are you so in the tank for the right wing ruling class? Why would raw, objective journalism take money from such groups? It’s almost as though he has an agenda!
 

Costa Rican Gopher

Mind of a Scientist
Pointing out that moneyed right wing interests bankroll his operation is a legitimate criticism. Why are you so in the tank for the right wing ruling class? Why would raw, objective journalism take money from such groups? It’s almost as though he has an agenda!
I never said they were objective. I said it's real investigative journalism & it is. Do you deny CNN's main man Zucker said they things he's recorded saying? No. No you don't. The end.
 

Minnesota

Member
I never said they were objective. I said it's real investigative journalism & it is. Do you deny CNN's main man Zucker said they things he's recorded saying? No. No you don't. The end.

You’re moving the goal posts (I would be too, if I were you). You said there isn’t a legitimate thing to criticize them for. You were wrong.
 

bga1

Active member
You’re moving the goal posts (I would be too, if I were you). You said there isn’t a legitimate thing to criticize them for. You were wrong.
I bet if you got hold of the pee tapes you would be complaining about the poor quality of video and worry that they were edited instead of criticizing Trump and asking for him to be impeached....
 
Top