Jump to content

CNN losing credibility as each day passes... Its pure propaganda at this point


Recommended Posts

We don't need to do any fact-checking on our stories it's all those other fake news sites that need to improve their journalism oh wait:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/black-families-once-lived-off-their-southern-farmland-their-descendants-are-struggling-to-hold-onto-it/2019/07/22/37b3132a-a975-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Nanker said:

Touche!

Christy actually reveals that he owns a gun!

 

What the actual *****?

 

Anyhow, Cuomo's dipshittery aside, that was a cleverly-worded question by the lady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

We don't need to do any fact-checking on our stories it's all those other fake news sites that need to improve their journalism oh wait:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/black-families-once-lived-off-their-southern-farmland-their-descendants-are-struggling-to-hold-onto-it/2019/07/22/37b3132a-a975-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html

 

 

 

I love the correction they added, which is basically "We were wrong."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Wonder if any of them ever step back and ask why when they do objectively present information that the interpretation of events that they come away with isn't the same as a significant portion of their audience/ the public?  If not, why not?

 

Shouldn't they be interested in WHY they feel (yes, that word was chosen intentionally) the need to spin what could/ should be presented objectively?

 

If their interpretation of events is correct, shouldn't the events speak for themselves and others will come to that same conclusion?

 

And regardless of which side of an issue someone believes they're on, if they can access the source material they can take the spin out entirely.

 

 

Edited by Taro T
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Wonder if any of them ever step back and ask why when they do objectively present information that the interpretation of events that they come away with isn't the same as a significant portion of their audience/ the public?  If not, why not?

 

Shouldn't they be interested in WHY they feel (yes, that word was chosen intentionally) the need to spin what could/ should be presented objectively?

 

If their interpretation of events is correct, shouldn't the events speak for themselves and others will come to that same conclusion?

 

And regardless of which side of an issue someone believes they're on, if they can access the source material they can take the spin out entirely.

 

 

I don’t believe everything I read or hear but this may be part of the answer you’re looking for: Mark Levin cites a long, long, long list of the ex-Obama and ex-Clinton administration staff who are now high up in the traditional media sources you’re depending on to provide unbiased news. Once you understand the fact they are NOT trying to give you unbiased news this all makes a lot more sense. Those that are commonly referred to as the Main Street Media are actually just a clown car of Democratic Party operatives laying heavy spin on an unsuspecting electorate. It’s actually brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I don’t believe everything I read or hear but this may be part of the answer you’re looking for: Mark Levin cites a long, long, long list of the ex-Obama and ex-Clinton administration staff who are now high up in the traditional media sources you’re depending on to provide unbiased news. Once you understand the fact they are NOT trying to give you unbiased news this all makes a lot more sense. Those that are commonly referred to as the Main Street Media are actually just a clown car of Democratic Party operatives laying heavy spin on an unsuspecting electorate. It’s actually brilliant!

 

Totally get that the partisan operatives are going to partisan operate, so to speak.  But not all of the "journalists" that believe objectivity is passe come out of the political ranks.

 

And further, one of the (if not the) best talking head of the last 20-30 years was Tim Russert who was Chief of Staff for Moynahan and also had held a high ranking position as an advisor in Mario Cuomo's regime.  He'd hold everybody's feet to the fire regardless of affiliation.  We need more like him, regardless of their background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Totally get that the partisan operatives are going to partisan operate, so to speak.  But not all of the "journalists" that believe objectivity is passe come out of the political ranks.

 

And further, one of the (if not the) best talking head of the last 20-30 years was Tim Russert who was Chief of Staff for Moynahan and also had held a high ranking position as an advisor in Mario Cuomo's regime.  He'd hold everybody's feet to the fire regardless of affiliation.  We need more like him, regardless of their background.

 

Tim Russert died in June of 2008.  And no one held Obama's feet to the fire.  Coincidence?  #ClintonBodyCount

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...it won't....they believe they are a "credible news source"....go figure......same with PMSNBC......

 

It’s all mind-numbing.

 

I should go back to being the most non-political person ever, it’s a lot easier on the mind.

 

I guess with the Bills and Devils sucking for so long, I needed another interest.

 

I hope both my teams are good so I have absolutely no focus on politics whatsoever. ?

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...