Jump to content

The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency


Nanker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

Dmybze7V4AAXDqv.jpg

 

 

Roll Call thought this would be a good cartoon to run on 9/11.

 

Get it? Russia buying a bunch of Pepe-memes on Facebook is the exact same as nearly 3000 dead Americans!

 

 

Liberalism is a disease.

 

 

.

 

Disrespectful and completely offensive. I'm sure gator is laughing his ass off at this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, B-Man said:

IT’S SO GODDAM OFFENSIVE I ALMOST DIDN’T WANT TO PUBLISH THIS: 

 

I suppose it’s inevitable, but the sanctity and pain of this day really shouldn’t be turned into political fodder. This is just plain disgusting.

 

Scarb-600x547.png

 

 

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/307273/

 

 

.

 

9/11 demonstrated bin Laden was a threat to America.

We killed bin Laden.

Trump is a bigger threat to America.

Ergo, Trump should be assassinated.  

 

Also means Joe should be banned from Twitter for inciting violence.  But I'm the one who got banned for pointing out the logic of his position.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

 

Love her or hate her, trust her or not, Omarosa Manigault Newmaninadvertently exposed a little secret about how political journalism gets done in 2018: Some of the people you see talking on TV or who are quoted in articles about President Trump are legally obligated to say nice things about him.

Trump acknowledged last month that Manigault Newman — author of “Unhinged,” a tell-all book about her time in the White House — had signed a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) when she went to work for his 2016 campaign. He suggested she had violated the agreement, which obligates signers not to disparage Trump or members of his family.

Which raises a question: Are others who have signed an NDA with Trump really being honest in those media interviews, or are they just lauding the president because they legally can’t do otherwise?

The issue extends to the news media as well. Shouldn’t news organizations disclose that the Trump officials they quote or put on the air are legally bound not to criticize the president, given that doing so would enable readers and viewers to better judge where an interviewee is really coming from?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/are-pro-trump-commenters-legally-bound-to-say-nice-things-about-trump/2018/09/10/fe22726a-b1ed-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.c362110dabf8

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

On theme with the above... 

 

 

Tump is worse for America than 9/11. 

 

Tell me again that this is rational opposition. It's irrational because people are scared. Scared of what will come out. 

 

If there was ever a moment that epitomizes the phrase "This is how you get more Trump," this is it.

 

Well done, Joe. You are one demented, selfish, moronic phuckstick that represents all that is wrong with the left in this country.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

 

If there was ever a moment that epitomizes the phrase "This is how you get more Trump," this is it.

 

Well done, Joe. You are one demented, selfish, moronic phuckstick that represents all that is wrong with the left in this country.

 

Except a lot of people actually agree with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, B-Man said:

WHY PEOPLE THINK THE PRESS IS FULL OF LIES, PART 4,327,215. 

 

Headline: Nikki Haley’s View of New York Is Priceless. Her Curtains? $52,701.

 

Scroll down — keep scrolling — and you eventually get to this:  

 

plans to buy the curtains were made in 2016, during the Obama administration. Ms. Haley had no say in the purchase.

 

 

It's subtle, but if you read the article closely, it's an Obama Administration State Dept. Official (Kennedy) who made the purchase and is defending it in that article.

 

While an Obama White House official condemns Haley for it in the previous paragraph.  :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 here’s the NYT correction:

 

Screen-Shot-2018-09-14-at-14.45.56-600x2

 

 

The new, accurate headline: State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy. 

 

But the old, inaccurate — by which I mean flagrantly and deliberately dishonest — headline has circled the social-media globe three times,

 

which was, I believe, the intent all along.

 

 

.

 
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 here’s the NYT correction:

 

Screen-Shot-2018-09-14-at-14.45.56-600x2

 

 

The new, accurate headline: State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy. 

 

But the old, inaccurate — by which I mean flagrantly and deliberately dishonest — headline has circled the social-media globe three times,

 

which was, I believe, the intent all along.

 

 

.

 

That headline should read: Obama State Department Spent $52,701 on Curtains for Residence of U.N. Envoy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...