What have you learned about the media since 2005?

[OCinBuffalo]

Why 2005? Last time the media's confidence/approval/whatever was >=50%: 2005.

 

For many here, 2005 was like a lifetime ago. It was for me anyhow. It's only 13 years, but literally everything has changed, for me anyway. I believe we were talking Iraq war, and the Surge and stuff like that back then. But, maybe there was other stuff too. Certainly Asian Carp/Great Lakes was on the agenda.

 

The media's rating is someplace around 32% as I write this...clearly something/many things have changed. 

 

What has changed for you, if anything, in terms of your views on the media? Think a little, please, what were you thinking about then, and how much did the media inform those thoughts vs how much your own work did? Now, how much does the media inform you vs how much research do you do yourself/live TV(or unfiltered clips on the internet) do you watch? Same/less/more?

 

And, why do you think they've lost 18 points? What can be realistically done about this?

Edited April 28, 2019 by OCinBuffalo

[/dev/null]

Once upon a time the media consisted of entertainment, advertising, news, and opinion.  Today they have all been melded into a single entity. 

 

Modern media is one giant commercial for the DNC

[Buffalo_Gal]

The media's confidence/approval rating is 32%? Well, that is probably about the percentage of people that consider themselves Democrats these days, so seems legit. Still, I'd love to see this rating again now, and then again at the end of the summer.

[SoCal Deek]

It goes way further back than 2005. I’m old now and as I look back I realize this has been going on as long as I’ve been alive. Here’s what I was taught:

 

Kennedy was Camelot 

Nixon was a crook

Carter had a big heart

Reagon was senile

Ford was accident prone

Clinton was cool and the first black president 

Bush was a moron 

Obama was the savior and without sin

Trump is an idiot

 

See a pattern here?

 

[B-Man]

I think that I have a little more faith in the average American than many here.  Most folks know (now) of the overwhelming bias of the media and their predictable slant,  dutifully inserted into every story regardless of the topic. 

 

They know that, depending upon the source, right or left,  there will need to be an interpretation of the story.  The best way being reading multiple accounts of whatever "news" is being covered.

 

So, to answer OC's question, why has the media "approval" dropped over the last 15 years so steadily ?

 

The one thing that I know it isn't, is the "fake news" chants of the past 3 years.  They are a result of the media's failure to do their job, not the cause.

 

As SoCal just said, the liberal bias has been with us for some time. However it certainly has been more and more prominent, as in a post Watergate world all of our journalism schools churn out "reporters" who don't want to report, but to promote "social change"

 

To me personally, there are two reasons for the steady decrease. With the rise of "social media it is easier to (quickly) see and correct the stories that are being fed to a hungry public.

 

The first is the taking someone's quote out of context, to meet the liberal narrative that must be maintained. The most obvious nowadays is "Charlotteville Hoax" where President Trump is supposed to have called the small group of neo-nazis there "fine people".  Any honest reading of his ENTIRE quote shows that this is not the case, but that falsehood has already been cemented into many in the public.

 

The other is, that also with the rise of alternative media reporting, it is so much easier to see how the "mainstream media" attempts to influence the country with their obvious choice of what stories to cover and magnify. Some stories are either ignored completely or buried on page 18, or beneath a misleading headline.

 

Those are the two things that insult my intelligence and I presume others as well.

 

 

 

 

.

[US Egg]

The medias role since Clinton 1st ran has clearly become one of being more activist than journalist. 

[Kevbeau]

59 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

It goes way further back than 2005. I’m old now and as I look back I realize this has been going on as long as I’ve been alive. Here’s what I was taught:

 

Kennedy was Camelot 

Nixon was a crook

Carter had a big heart

Reagon was senile

Ford was accident prone

Clinton was cool and the first black president 

Bush was a moron 

Obama was the savior and without sin

Trump is an idiot

 

See a pattern here?

 

“Who are 9 people who have never been in my kitchen?”

Edited April 28, 2019 by Kevbeau

[KD in CA]

The turning point was the creation of CNN and the realization that news could be a major profit center.  That was the end of journalistic integrity.

 

As I say to people all the time, when I was a kid there was 22 minutes worth of news per day, and it was covered in 22 minutes on TV at 6:30pm.  There is still 22 minutes worth of news per day....and it is covered 24x7x365.

[4merper4mer]

In 2005 I knew they were commies.  In 2019 I can see that they are commies.

 

I've learned nothing.  Neither have they.

[Doc Brown]

5 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Once upon a time the media consisted of entertainment, advertising, news, and opinion.  Today they have all been melded into a single entity. 

 

Modern media is one giant commercial for the DNC

I don't buy the whole DNC controls the mass media because that's too hard to cordinate.  Journalists and broadcasters are center left given their background and most can't leave their objectivity at the door.  That's why there's been a liberal bias about the news pry since the Kennedy/Nixon debate.  A two minute segment on what's happening on your local news may be the most objective reporting you can find.

 

Cable news - ratings race to the bottom by who best feeds your cognitive bias and they to   The more conspiracy prone (Hannity, Maddow) the better.  CNN at the town Hall last week it was described how they picked the questions the audience members gave that would elicit the most shock from the audience (Boston City bomber) for RATINGS.  Fear and culture wars (War on Christmas) are injected to fuel ratings for profit while all it does is divides Americans even further.  Russiagate was a big winner for them and many took avantage of it through higher ratings and nobody's jumped on the train to get rich off book deals.

 

Social media - people will only read news that feed their cognitive bias.  Same goes with news websites from Vox to Breitbart.  Not having to actually debate issues face to face makes it easier to give your true opinion mostly anonymously behind a computer.  

 

Print journalism - journalistic practices have declined because it's a race towards who's first to break a story rather than making sure they get the story right.  Having to compete with all the new online news outlets only make it worse.

[row_33]

My first years of interest was the Reagan Admin for which media discussions were civil and the Reagan people were accomplished and educated in their area of concern

 

disagreement abounded but there was some dignity

 

then Clinton unleashed that lying sack of trailer trash named Carville as his mouthpiece and in three seconds it was the eternal death of any civil discussion or attempt to find truth or middle ground

 

 

 

 

The hilarious part is the Clintons to this day whine more about the networks and NYT being grossly biased against them than Trump does

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

21 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't buy the whole DNC controls the mass media because that's too hard to cordinate. 

 

The bulk of your comments is exactly where I was until 2016. I am pretty sure I've written almost verbatim what you wrote above multiple times during the W years down here.  

 

I highlight the above snippet because I agree "the media" is impossible to control for one party... but the uniparty? Now you are getting somewhere. It's a mistake to think the media is solely a left leaning monolith. The reality is that it serves the interest of the uniparty and IC above the DNC or left. In today's environment that's easy enough to conflate or miss, but the W years make this clear if you compare it to the Trump years. In the W years there was a clear "bias" against Bush in the MSM, the same sort of complaints you'd find in the Reagan years or HW years -- but it was always balanced out (somewhat) by a large and popular segment of papers and TV channels which provided an alternative view. In the Trump years, those same papers and channels and journalists which strove for balance have been aligned in lockstep with their former "opponents" in the ratings chase. That's not because those sources which once supported W suddenly changed their politics, it's because those sources were always supporting the uniparty -- which crosses the aisle and was represented by Clinton and Bush both. Trump, however, is a threat to them directly which is why both sides have been loudly anti-Trump since it became clear he'd be the nominee. 

 

The effort to control the media has been at the heart of the Intelligence community's goals since their inception in the late 40s. We've seen this through various programs such as Mockingbird and Ultra -- real programs which have been the subject of congressional committee hearings and have hundreds/thousands of pages of supporting evidence which outlines not only their reality, but their successes. That's not to say everything is controlled, it's not. But you don't need to control the entire apparatus to be able to steer the national conversation, you only need to control certain chokepoints.  

 

The goal isn't to control every single media outlet or journalist. The goal is to sow enough disinformation everywhere so that real truth which inevitably gets reported (sometimes by accident) gets washed away by all the other noise. A select number of journalists (over 300 per the Church Committee) are in reality intelligence agents/assets (sometimes officers) whose loyalty lies to the IC rather than their audience or editors. That number today is probably much larger, but the methods and goals remain the same: control the narrative>>>control the masses.   

 

 

That was the reality of the media landscape even before social media and cable news really existed.

 

Social media and "citizen journalists" have caused some problems for this control system, but they've worked to combat their effectiveness through censorship and stoking the fears of the mob to silence their critics. 

 

We know, for example, that the following journalists are in fact heavily compromised by their uniparty/IC ties: 

 

* Jake Tapper

* Anderson Cooper

* Ken Dilanian

* Devlin Barret

* David Corn

* Michael Isikoff

* Mika Brzezinski 

 

Then there's the executive level connections to the IC and former administrations:

* Ben Sherwood, former head of ABC news (married to Obama NSC member)

* David Rhodes, head of CBS news (brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama advisor)

* Laura Jarrett, CNN reporter (daughter of Obama's BFF/Top advisor)

and more... https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/378628-trump-tv-pipeline-is-a-joke-next-to-obamas-media-hires

 

 

Also, each one of these journalists we know were on Fusion GPS's payroll: 

 

 

The real bias in the media isn't left or right -- it's uniparty all the way. IC all the way. And some of the above names have committed crimes in the name of their propaganda push the past two years. 

 

Justice is coming their way too... and they know it.

 

(case in point) 

 

He's not a liar as much as he's a bought and paid for disinformation agent. 

[row_33]

The bias isn’t intended, it’s just that the media people all went to the same private schools and earned the same Ivy League degrees and socialize only with people who all hold the same liberal opinions they do

 

They really think they hold the undisputed truth

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

The bias isn’t intended, it’s just that the media people all went to the same private schools and earned the same Ivy League degrees and socialize only with people who all hold the same liberal opinions they do

 

They really think they hold the undisputed truth

 

 

For some, even the majority, that's absolutely true. 

 

But there are subversive eggs in there, ones planted and on the payroll of the IC and uniparty cabal. That those bad eggs tend to be elevated to the highest profile is just a coincidence, I'm sure   

[row_33]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

For some, even the majority, that's absolutely true. 

 

But there are subversive eggs in there, ones planted and on the payroll of the IC and uniparty cabal. That those bad eggs tend to be elevated to the highest profile is just a coincidence, I'm sure   

 

I saw at least 8 media grand Pooh-bahs proclaim on TV that they didn’t know a single person who supported Trump during the campaign 

 

shocking...

 

 

[Doc Brown]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The bulk of your comments is exactly where I was until 2016. I am pretty sure I've written almost verbatim what you wrote above multiple times during the W years down here.  

 

I highlight the above snippet because I agree "the media" is impossible to control for one party... but the uniparty? Now you are getting somewhere. It's a mistake to think the media is solely a left leaning monolith. The reality is that it serves the interest of the uniparty and IC above the DNC or left. In today's environment that's easy enough to conflate or miss, but the W years make this clear if you compare it to the Trump years. In the W years there was a clear "bias" against Bush in the MSM, the same sort of complaints you'd find in the Reagan years or HW years -- but it was always balanced out (somewhat) by a large and popular segment of papers and TV channels which provided an alternative view. In the Trump years, those same papers and channels and journalists which strove for balance have been aligned in lockstep with their former "opponents" in the ratings chase. That's not because those sources which once supported W suddenly changed their politics, it's because those sources were always supporting the uniparty -- which crosses the aisle and was represented by Clinton and Bush both. Trump, however, is a threat to them directly which is why both sides have been loudly anti-Trump since it became clear he'd be the nominee. 

 

The effort to control the media has been at the heart of the Intelligence community's goals since their inception in the late 40s. We've seen this through various programs such as Mockingbird and Ultra -- real programs which have been the subject of congressional committee hearings and have hundreds/thousands of pages of supporting evidence which outlines not only their reality, but their successes. That's not to say everything is controlled, it's not. But you don't need to control the entire apparatus to be able to steer the national conversation, you only need to control certain chokepoints.  

 

The goal isn't to control every single media outlet or journalist. The goal is to sow enough disinformation everywhere so that real truth which inevitably gets reported (sometimes by accident) gets washed away by all the other noise. A select number of journalists (over 300 per the Church Committee) are in reality intelligence agents/assets (sometimes officers) whose loyalty lies to the IC rather than their audience or editors. That number today is probably much larger, but the methods and goals remain the same: control the narrative>>>control the masses.   

 

 

That was the reality of the media landscape even before social media and cable news really existed.

 

Social media and "citizen journalists" have caused some problems for this control system, but they've worked to combat their effectiveness through censorship and stoking the fears of the mob to silence their critics. 

 

We know, for example, that the following journalists are in fact heavily compromised by their uniparty/IC ties: 

 

* Jake Tapper

* Anderson Cooper

* Ken Dilanian

* Devlin Barret

* David Corn

* Michael Isikoff

* Mika Brzezinski 

 

Then there's the executive level connections to the IC and former administrations:

* Ben Sherwood, former head of ABC news (married to Obama NSC member)

* David Rhodes, head of CBS news (brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama advisor)

* Laura Jarrett, CNN reporter (daughter of Obama's BFF/Top advisor)

and more... https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/378628-trump-tv-pipeline-is-a-joke-next-to-obamas-media-hires

 

 

Also, each one of these journalists we know were on Fusion GPS's payroll: 

 

 

The real bias in the media isn't left or right -- it's uniparty all the way. IC all the way. And some of the above names have committed crimes in the name of their propaganda push the past two years. 

 

Justice is coming their way too... and they know it.

I just wish I could like the guy the media and IC community despises.  LOL.  

[3rdnlng]

12 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I just wish I could like the guy the media and IC community despises.  LOL.  

Being a truly effective president has nothing to do with "like". Regardless of the horseshit he spreads, he's not only on the right track philosophically but he's competent and moving his agenda forward.

[Buffalo_Gal]

23 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I just wish I could like the guy the media and IC community despises.  LOL.  

What does "like" have to do with it? 

[plenzmd1]

5 hours ago, KD in CA said:

The turning point was the creation of CNN and the realization that news could be a major profit center.  That was the end of journalistic integrity.

 

As I say to people all the time, when I was a kid there was 22 minutes worth of news per day, and it was covered in 22 minutes on TV at 6:30pm.  There is still 22 minutes worth of news per day....and it is covered 24x7x365.

was farting around this morning, and had CBS Sunday morning in the background. Ted Koppel was moderating a panel with the guy who ran ABC News when he started Nightline, Greta, and some dude from VOX...with the background of the story being Brian Cranston on Broadway now in Network and this was 3 eras of news.

I think they said, and again i was not 100% focused...that the news division first started to be looked at as a profit center with Nightline...not quite sure when CNN started but had to be shortly after no? Prolly as a result of the ratings success of Nightline. So think you are spot on here.

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

was farting around this morning, and had CBS Sunday morning in the background. Ted Koppel was moderating a panel with the guy who ran ABC News when he started Nightline, Greta, and some dude from VOX...with the background of the story being Brian Cranston on Broadway now in Network and this was 3 eras of news.

I think they said, and again i was not 100% focused...that the news division first started to be looked at as a profit center with Nightline...not quite sure when CNN started but had to be shortly after no? Prolly as a result of the ratings success of Nightline. So think you are spot on here.

 

Nightline started with the hostage crisis in 1979??? A one hour show at the most on M-F

 

CNN has always been 24/7

 

[plenzmd1]

3 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Nightline started with the hostage crisis in 1979??? A one hour show at the most on M-F

 

CNN has always been 24/7

 

the point I think KD was making was the advent of CNN was when he real change in news media occurred..Nightline was drawing audiences not previously seen for a "news" show...and was profitable, hence CNN came into existence. Obviously the explosion of cable TV subscribers etc played a role as well, but Nightline was the first new program looked at as a profit center.

 

And truly the media has had liberal slant since like the 1900s

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

the point I think KD was making was the advent of CNN was when he real change in news media occurred..Nightline was drawing audiences not previously seen for a "news" show...and was profitable, hence CNN came into existence. Obviously the explosion of cable TV subscribers etc played a role as well, but Nightline was the first new program looked at as a profit center.

 

And truly the media has had liberal slant since like the 1900s

 

"60 Minutes" has been around since 1968 and seems to me that it may have been the first news show to be seen as a profit center.

[KD in CA]

2 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Nightline started with the hostage crisis in 1979??? A one hour show at the most on M-F

 

CNN has always been 24/7

 

 

But it's a good point that Nightline and those kinds of shows got into the long format 'coverage' which was the precursor to today's nonstop crapfest.   Fast forward 30 years and they've figured how to literally get people permanently addicted to mindless, phony crap like 'Russian meddling' to keep them tuned in hour after hour.

 

News networks is now the mental equivalent of porn. 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I just wish I could like the guy the media and IC community despises.  LOL.  

 

I hear you, I do. It'd make everything easier -- which is why I don't begrudge that opinion.  

 

The problem is, no one but a guy as ferocious (for both bad and good) as Trump could have survived the coup attempt and public lynching they've launched for the past two years. Even if they had run a boy scout with an impeccable personality, he would have been turned into the boogeyman/nazi/putin supporting traitor. They needed someone who not only could withstand the pummeling, but also someone clean enough to survive the deep dive into his past/life/career searching for anything criminal they could hang on him to oust him. It's a tough combination to find, I imagine. 

[3rdnlng]

43 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I hear you, I do. It'd make everything easier -- which is why I don't begrudge that opinion.  

 

The problem is, no one but a guy as ferocious (for both bad and good) as Trump could have survived the coup attempt and public lynching they've launched for the past two years. Even if they had run a boy scout with an impeccable personality, he would have been turned into the boogeyman/nazi/putin supporting traitor. They needed someone who not only could withstand the pummeling, but also someone clean enough to survive the deep dive into his past/life/career searching for anything criminal they could hang on him to oust him. It's a tough combination to find, I imagine. 

You've hit the nail right on the head. He's a man with a relatively clean record with a truly mystifying combination of thick and thin skin, coupled with the chutzpah of a Circus Ring Master who loves his country and is a patriot. It took someone like him that had the personality quirks and booming ego to pull off what we hope will happen and put our country back on the right track.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, plenzmd1 said:

the point I think KD was making was the advent of CNN was when he real change in news media occurred..Nightline was drawing audiences not previously seen for a "news" show...and was profitable, hence CNN came into existence. Obviously the explosion of cable TV subscribers etc played a role as well, but Nightline was the first new program looked at as a profit center.

 

And truly the media has had liberal slant since like the 1900s

 

 

The hostage crisis was huge, they even preempted the NFL coverage for the rest of the day that Sunday afternoon, maybe three times in TV history that has occurred?

 

They cancelled the first week of the 1978 NFL TV coverage completely for the Pope JP I inauguration, he died like a month later.

 

and the hostage topic was important for awhile, and the 11:30pm slot was empty for news up against Johnny

 

but the hotness came to an end and it lasts just an hour at most

 

not sure when CNN started pretending it had breaking news, that isn't, every 10 minutes 24/7

 

As well CNN for awhile had balanced discussion, Bob Novak was a Conservative mainstay on CNN along with other right wing views

 

it all ended when Carville showed up like a braying moron with so-is-your-mama retorts all the time....      

 

[Doc Brown]

3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Being a truly effective president has nothing to do with "like". Regardless of the horseshit he spreads, he's not only on the right track philosophically but he's competent and moving his agenda forward.

I'm not talking about the direction of the country.  I'm talking about Trump exposing the media and the IC for what they've become.

3 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

What does "like" have to do with it? 

A football example to simplify things would be if Jerry Jones came out with all this evidence of Bill Belichick conspiring with the NFL to pay off the refs to give the Pats favorable calls since 2001.  I still would hate Jerry Jones as his massive ego and narcissism are still very undesirable characteristics.  It would be much better if Terry Pegula exposed him.

[Buffalo_Gal]

12 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I'm not talking about the direction of the country.  I'm talking about Trump exposing the media and the IC for what they've become.

A football example to simplify things would be if Jerry Jones came out with all this evidence of Bill Belichick conspiring with the NFL to pay off the refs to give the Pats favorable calls since 2001.  I still would hate Jerry Jones as his massive ego and narcissism are still very undesirable characteristics.  It would be much better if Terry Pegula exposed him.

And I'd be like... YES!! They exposed that corrupt ####### - not caring at all who the voice was that exposed him.  ?‍♀️

Edited April 29, 2019 by Buffalo_Gal

[row_33]

The internet and social media has crushed the need for relying on a massively produced nightly news program, watching all the ads, especially the last 14 or so years

 

 

[unbillievable]

For the people trying to insinuate that both sides live in a bubble...

 

...numerous social media developers have stated that there is a massive problem of leftists blocking/reporting everyone not aligned to their viewpoint, that doesn't exist on the right. It was part of several Q&A's discussing how they planned to combat MisInformation on their platforms. 

 

These platforms are denying  bias, when it comes to banning, based on the fact that liberals will report a lot more content than conservatives, so it's natural that more on the right get banned.

[Boca BIlls]

Every form of media is garbage, you can never take one side 100% b.c they all lie. This is the same with politicians and Presidents.

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Boca BIlls said:

Every form of media is garbage, you can never take one side 100% b.c they all lie. This is the same with politicians and Presidents.

 

No

 

Only conservatives and Fox News lies

 

accept this or you will pay the price....

 

 

[row_33]

When google was my searcher it made me scroll down to get access to Drudge or Breitbart, with snide stories on top. 

 

Drudge’s banner was overridden with filler about women accusing Trump of assaulting them

 

THese are total little bull#### games of liberals...  

They already dominate 99 percent of media that I cannot avoid in this world, and still have to play these little bull#### games

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by row_33

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I used to think they were biased political operators. Now I think they're enemies of the people.

 

[row_33]

17 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

I used to think they were biased political operators. Now I think they're enemies of the people.

 

 

They just don’t know there is a different view of life from theirs

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/46501/nyt-ripped-anti-semitic-cartoon-non-apology-ryan-saavedra?%3Futm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

Enemies of the people.

 

 

[Tiberius]

On 4/28/2019 at 5:31 AM, OCinBuffalo said:

Why 2005? Last time the media's confidence/approval/whatever was >=50%: 2005.

 

For many here, 2005 was like a lifetime ago. It was for me anyhow. It's only 13 years, but literally everything has changed, for me anyway. I believe we were talking Iraq war, and the Surge and stuff like that back then. But, maybe there was other stuff too. Certainly Asian Carp/Great Lakes was on the agenda.

 

The media's rating is someplace around 32% as I write this...clearly something/many things have changed. 

 

What has changed for you, if anything, in terms of your views on the media? Think a little, please, what were you thinking about then, and how much did the media inform those thoughts vs how much your own work did? Now, how much does the media inform you vs how much research do you do yourself/live TV(or unfiltered clips on the internet) do you watch? Same/less/more?

 

And, why do you think they've lost 18 points? What can be realistically done about this?

The rise of the right wing media and the increasing oligarchic nature of the political right has led to much more shrill and outrageous assault on the truth. The super wealthy can't rely on the truth to win elections and need to spread more lies, propaganda and anger. 

[B-Man]

JOEL KOTKIN: The Media Have Already Lost The Election.

It’s far too early to predict which party will win next year’s election, but not too early to announce the national media as a clear loser in terms of national influence and prestige.

 

Pew reports that millennials have become as negative about major media as older generations, with their rate of approval dropping from 40% in 2010 to 27% today. Gallup tracks a similar pattern, finding 70% losing trust in the media, including nearly half of Democrats.

 

As Trump backers never cease to point out, the Mueller report undermined the supposedly rock solid case for “collusion.” Whatever the truth, a solid majority of Americans believe the Russiagate brouhaha was politically motivated. Some progressives, like Rolling Stone’s contributing editor Matt Taibbi, believe Mueller represents “a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.”

 

Ironically, Trump, the man the media wanted to bring down, was largely their creation. At a party in 2016, my wife and I were regaled by a CNN account executive crowing about the company’s strategy of using Trump rallies, at the exclusion of others, to boost ratings. Once having created President Frankenstein, CNN then tried to keep up the ratings by chronicling his disposal — this worked for MSNBC which, unlike CNN, never much pretended to be an objective network. Today, CNN’s audience share has fallen below not only leader Fox, but MSNBC, Home and Garden, Discovery and Food networks.

 

 

 

Get woke, go broke.

 

 

.

[keepthefaith]

4 hours ago, Tiberius said:

The rise of the right wing media and the increasing oligarchic nature of the political right has led to much more shrill and outrageous assault on the truth. The super wealthy can't rely on the truth to win elections and need to spread more lies, propaganda and anger. 

 

Your opinions are as reliable as what we get from most of the media.

 

 

[row_33]

i've learned the New York Times is stealing cartoon themes from Nazi-Era Der Sturmer material.