• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is getting SERIOUSLY out of hand...

The problem today with the media is worse than ever before ... or at least more obvious than ever before.

The problem is that the media has so involved itself in driving the narrative that you don't know whether it's an actual news story (I'm inclined to think this one has some basis in fact) ... or a news item that has its' origins in the opposition's camp (examples: the Republican Convention was "dark", Trump is "unqualified", the GOP is exploring options if Trump drops out). The tell is when the story gets repeated using the same words. The political camp contacts a friendly media outlet who report the story as if it originated with them and then others pick it up.

The other day there was a thread that noted a Politico reporter submitted an entire story to the DNC - the entire piece.

I'm quite sure that every story I listed in the OP has some basis in fact. What is bothersome, though, is that every one of them amounts to speculation about things to come. Speculative opinion is not "news".
 
Are you actually trying to make sure I decide that you are not worth listening to?

Anyone who does not agree without needing to be argued to that Trump would give his life to save one of his kids in not worth listen to.

Sorry, I only understand English.
 
The kerfuffle over Melania's "plagiarism" foreshadowed what we're seeing now.

What's happening is that the reality has finally hit that the king and queen turds have floated to the top in their individual punch bowls. People are beginning to realize that they're next in line for a drink and that there are no other options. It's now merely a race to see who you can get to suck up that turd before you have to. If Trump goes away then the only other place to focus will be on Hillary and she damned sure doesn't want that to happen!

lost my appetite upon reading that post



thanks????
 

The media gets a lot of viewership by covering and even exaggerating the negatives of the candidates.
 

Trump did it to himself.....what was the cliché his supporters liked to toss around earlier in the election season, "no such thing as bad publicity....."? I guess we're now seeing the failure in that approach to winning elections.
 

Two theories.

1. The media knows Trump sells, and the buffoon is feeding the trolls.

2. The media was waiting for Trump to win the nomination so they could go after him because they are in the bag for Hillary.

I vote 1.
 
The media will never turn on Clinton.

the media and entertainment industry gets their money FROM LIBERALISM that is why they are so BIASED and this destroys nations
 
Trump did it to himself.....what was the cliché his supporters liked to toss around earlier in the election season, "no such thing as bad publicity....."? I guess we're now seeing the failure in that approach to winning elections.
No argument from me that Trump doesn't bring this stuff upon himself. My point, though, isn't that he is getting it. My point is that he is getting it in the form of MSM hard news stories that aren't "news" stories. They are more or less opinion pieces that the news outlets are putting on the front page.

I'm trying to recall when I have ever seen something similar and I am drawing a blank.
 
the media and entertainment industry gets their money FROM LIBERALISM that is why they are so BIASED and this destroys nations
Liberal bias destroys nations?

Got an example?
 
I've been pretty clear since the beginning that I will not vote for Trump. This doesn't have anything to do with supporting or not supporting him, though.

Front page news is supposed to be actual news... at least it was in a different time. This stuff isn't news. It's opinion, speculation, gossip, rumor, etc... How many LEAD stories were there that were pure speculation about the Clinton campaign coming unglued when she was losing states to Bernie or being investigated by the FBI? Are we to believe that there were no voices behind the scenes in the DNC quietly wondering what the hell they were doing backing such a flawed candidate? I'm sure there were probably a few stories written that may have made it briefly to page one but nothing like the feeding frenzy we're seeing right now.

But you are correct in that only Trump can make it go away by not acting like such a douche bag.

The problem is that the Clinton campaign didn't come unglued at any point. Trump's campaign seems to be falling apart every single day.
 
Two theories.

1. The media knows Trump sells, and the buffoon is feeding the trolls.

2. The media was waiting for Trump to win the nomination so they could go after him because they are in the bag for Hillary.

I vote 1.

Why choose #1 when it is likely that BOTH are true?;)
 
No argument from me that Trump doesn't bring this stuff upon himself. My point, though, isn't that he is getting it. My point is that he is getting it in the form of MSM hard news stories that aren't "news" stories. They are more or less opinion pieces that the news outlets are putting on the front page.

I'm trying to recall when I have ever seen something similar and I am drawing a blank.
This is no surprise. The MSM is no longer news. Hasn't been founded on fact-based reporting since it sold its soul at the altar of corporate interests and the ratings gods. Its now 24-hour entertainment. This goes as far back as the 80's. You don't remember the non-stop coverage of the Iran-Contra hearings and all of the wild speculation that circulated around it? it carried over to the Clinton administration in controversial coverage of the Ken Starr hearings, as well as of military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia.

With the tech boom of the 90's and the predominance of social media in the "reporting game" its just gotten progressively worse. But still nothing new by any means.
 
Last edited:
Liberal bias destroys nations?

Got an example?

rhodesia changed to zimbabbwee and south africa.... and ancient greece destroyed by the ones greece ran off to rome ... THE WISE

the liberals of the west put pressure on the limited democracy in rhodesia and south africa.... then the low IQ's started doing the voting and electing crooks and both nations fell back strong...... this is how liberal media works to bring more unwise into the system .... at first it may work with the higher taxes on the producers to bring to the unwise and then the liberal media grabs that money themselves.. BUT IN TIME it totally falls .. the wise fled both nations....

russia and china may take the wise that liberal europe and america runs off and make the next great empire like ROME who then over powered the liberal GREECE

the wise founders said.... there never was a democracy that didn't commit suicide.... this is what you are seeing with liberal america and liberal europe
 
The problem is that the Clinton campaign didn't come unglued at any point. Trump's campaign seems to be falling apart every single day.
Yet here we are, a year since he began his campaign, and it hasn't fallen apart.

Maybe the fact that there are so many on the right who oppose him encourages the press even more? Who knows. It is still striking to me, though, to see what is in my opinion op-ed pieces as lead stories on literally every single MSM outlet.
 
This is no surprise. The MSM is no longer news. Hasn't been founded on fact-based reporting since it sold its soul at the altar corporate interests and the ratings gods. Its now 24-hour entertainment. This goes as far back as the 80's. You don't remember the non-stop coverage of the Iran-Contra hearings and all of the wild speculation that circulated around it? it carried over to the Clinton administration in controversial coverage of the Ken Starr hearings, as well as of military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia.

With the tech boom of the 90's and the predominance of social media in the "reporting game" its just gotten progressively worse. But still nothing new by any means.

Nothing new, but it does feel like a steady crescendo.
 
the media and entertainment industry gets their money FROM LIBERALISM that is why they are so BIASED and this destroys nations

I am not going to argue with that.
 
Yet here we are, a year since he began his campaign, and it hasn't fallen apart.

Maybe the fact that there are so many on the right who oppose him encourages the press even more? Who knows. It is still striking to me, though, to see what is in my opinion op-ed pieces as lead stories on literally every single MSM outlet.

If it's truly not "falling apart".....why are so many prominent Repubs and conservatives dumping him?

http://http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20160802/gop-fundraiser-meg-whitman-endorses-hillary-clinton
 
Yet here we are, a year since he began his campaign, and it hasn't fallen apart.

Maybe the fact that there are so many on the right who oppose him encourages the press even more? Who knows. It is still striking to me, though, to see what is in my opinion op-ed pieces as lead stories on literally every single MSM outlet.

I think trump just understands that there's only a minority of people that still treat the news as trustworthy, and so, this type of analysis is intended to make it into the media, where the intended audience will read it and then look into what trump was talking about in his own words...

But ya, of course it's all opinion pieces because the facts are not in favor of the opinions.
 
Then maybe Trump needs to learn how to behave like an adult and a Presidential candidate, and these stories - most of which are probably very true - will stop.

Yeup, gonna happen aaaaaany minute now:coffeepap
 
This is no surprise. The MSM is no longer news. Hasn't been founded on fact-based reporting since it sold its soul at the altar corporate interests and the ratings gods. Its now 24-hour entertainment. This goes as far back as the 80's. You don't remember the non-stop coverage of the Iran-Contra hearings and all of the wild speculation that circulated around it? it carried over to the Clinton administration in controversial coverage of the Ken Starr hearings, as well as of military actions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia.

With the tech boom of the 90's and the predominance of social media in the "reporting game" its just gotten progressively worse. But still nothing new by any means.
I remember Iran-Contra leading the evening news for weeks on end, sure. That isn't apples to apples, though. Iran-Contra was an actual story and a real investigation. Having it lead the "hard news" was a given.

"GOP insiders pondering having an intervention according to those close to the campaign" or "GOP planning next step should Trump step down, insiders say" are speculative and given the fact that none of these so-called "insiders" are on record, also a little suspect.
 
I remember Iran-Contra leading the evening news for weeks on end, sure. That isn't apples to apples, though. Iran-Contra was an actual story and a real investigation. Having it lead the "hard news" was a given.

"GOP insiders pondering having an intervention according to those close to the campaign" or "GOP planning next step should Trump step down, insiders say" are speculative and given the fact that none of these so-called "insiders" are on record, also a little suspect.
If you really remember, and think hard....There was quite a bit of speculation on the part of the media surrounding the Iran-Contra Hearings long before any real facts came out.....and long after as well. They had to fill the time with something.....Reagan and "just how much he really knew" was an easy target.
 
Back
Top Bottom