- Apr 30, 2009
- Reaction score
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.
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 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.
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.
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”.
I know...it’s tough when you’re getting your ass kicked. You practically have to beg for me to stop posting here. But you lefties are the best entertainment.Here's a good board for you:
No, I don't think I will. As I said, you can't conger up a single legitimate thing to criticize them for. You hate them, solely because they expose corruption and bias.
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.
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.
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.