K D Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago Mark your calendars. This is the end of the legacy media. They were already on thin ice with COVID. Now this.. The day the MEDIA died... 1 1
K D Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” 2
The Frankish Reich Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago Reporting. Actual reporting. No, the alt media can't do it; they're a hot take machine. Here's an example: inside the conclave, with a group of NY Times reporters getting information I thought it was impossible to get. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/europe/conclave-vote-pope-leo-robert-prevost.html “I didn’t even know his name,” Cardinal David of the Philippines said. But Cardinal Prevost was not a complete unknown. As the former leader of the Order of St. Augustine, which operates around the globe, and as the head of the Vatican office overseeing the world’s bishops, he had developed powerful connections and backers. First among them had been Francis, who put his career on the fast track. And his decades in Peru, fluent Spanish and leadership of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America gave him deep, and decisive, relationships on the continent. “We almost all know him. He’s one of us,” said Cardinal Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo of Venezuela, who has known him for decades. In the weeks before the conclave, the cardinals participated in a series of private meetings to discuss their concerns about the future of the church. Unlike Francis, who made his mark with a short speech sharing his vision for the church, several cardinals said that Cardinal Prevost’s remarks did not stand out. “Like everyone else,” said Cardinal Juan José Omella Omella of Spain. Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco of France, the archbishop of Algiers, also could not recall what the American had said, but he got to talk to him on the sidelines of the meetings — which was important, he said, because he was increasingly being talked about as a candidate based on his “incredible” résumé, fluent Italian, reputation as a moderate and connection to Francis. The cardinal started asking around to people who had worked with the American to vet him, and learned that he listened and worked well in groups. “I did my job,” Cardinal Vesco said. “I have to vote. I have to know the person.”
JDHillFan Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Reporting. Actual reporting. No, the alt media can't do it; they're a hot take machine. Here's an example: inside the conclave, with a group of NY Times reporters getting information I thought it was impossible to get. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/europe/conclave-vote-pope-leo-robert-prevost.html “I didn’t even know his name,” Cardinal David of the Philippines said. But Cardinal Prevost was not a complete unknown. As the former leader of the Order of St. Augustine, which operates around the globe, and as the head of the Vatican office overseeing the world’s bishops, he had developed powerful connections and backers. First among them had been Francis, who put his career on the fast track. And his decades in Peru, fluent Spanish and leadership of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America gave him deep, and decisive, relationships on the continent. “We almost all know him. He’s one of us,” said Cardinal Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo of Venezuela, who has known him for decades. In the weeks before the conclave, the cardinals participated in a series of private meetings to discuss their concerns about the future of the church. Unlike Francis, who made his mark with a short speech sharing his vision for the church, several cardinals said that Cardinal Prevost’s remarks did not stand out. “Like everyone else,” said Cardinal Juan José Omella Omella of Spain. Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco of France, the archbishop of Algiers, also could not recall what the American had said, but he got to talk to him on the sidelines of the meetings — which was important, he said, because he was increasingly being talked about as a candidate based on his “incredible” résumé, fluent Italian, reputation as a moderate and connection to Francis. The cardinal started asking around to people who had worked with the American to vet him, and learned that he listened and worked well in groups. “I did my job,” Cardinal Vesco said. “I have to vote. I have to know the person.” The reliable media put an article together? That’s really something! I think this is the same paper, the one known as “The Paper of Record”, that waved the cheap-fake flag. https://nypost.com/2024/07/03/us-news/ex-new-york-times-executive-editor-blasts-reporters-for-participating-in-biden-cover-up/ Yes, they did.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Reporting. Actual reporting. No, the alt media can't do it; they're a hot take machine. Here's an example: inside the conclave, with a group of NY Times reporters getting information I thought it was impossible to get. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/11/world/europe/conclave-vote-pope-leo-robert-prevost.html “I didn’t even know his name,” Cardinal David of the Philippines said. But Cardinal Prevost was not a complete unknown. As the former leader of the Order of St. Augustine, which operates around the globe, and as the head of the Vatican office overseeing the world’s bishops, he had developed powerful connections and backers. First among them had been Francis, who put his career on the fast track. And his decades in Peru, fluent Spanish and leadership of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America gave him deep, and decisive, relationships on the continent. “We almost all know him. He’s one of us,” said Cardinal Baltazar Enrique Porras Cardozo of Venezuela, who has known him for decades. In the weeks before the conclave, the cardinals participated in a series of private meetings to discuss their concerns about the future of the church. Unlike Francis, who made his mark with a short speech sharing his vision for the church, several cardinals said that Cardinal Prevost’s remarks did not stand out. “Like everyone else,” said Cardinal Juan José Omella Omella of Spain. Cardinal Jean-Paul Vesco of France, the archbishop of Algiers, also could not recall what the American had said, but he got to talk to him on the sidelines of the meetings — which was important, he said, because he was increasingly being talked about as a candidate based on his “incredible” résumé, fluent Italian, reputation as a moderate and connection to Francis. The cardinal started asking around to people who had worked with the American to vet him, and learned that he listened and worked well in groups. “I did my job,” Cardinal Vesco said. “I have to vote. I have to know the person.” Frankish you know how absurd it looks that you are pointing to two quality paragraphs as proof that they don't always lie. Being high quality 50% of time should not be an acceptable standard
The Frankish Reich Posted 5 hours ago Author Posted 5 hours ago Just now, JDHillFan said: The reliable media put an article together? That’s really something! I think this is the same paper, the one known as “The Paper of Record”, that waved the cheap-fake flag. https://nypost.com/2024/07/03/us-news/ex-new-york-times-executive-editor-blasts-reporters-for-participating-in-biden-cover-up/ Yes, they did. So who's doing the "reporting" (not commenting)? Catturd? Come on. It's fair to criticize the spin the NYT (or WSJ, or FT, or the few remaining outlets that actually have real reporting capacity) puts on a story. But the story still has to exist before Catturd (and you) spring into action. You guys still obsess over that Politico story about the 50-whatever national security experts and Hunter Biden's laptop. If you actually read the story, it reports what happened. And reports people skeptical of that account. Reports. Not "comments" or editorializes. The MAGAs never actually read an article. Reading is hard. Reposting tweets is easy. Let's let Catturd tell us what to think. 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Frankish you know how absurd it looks that you are pointing to two quality paragraphs as proof that they don't always lie. Being high quality 50% of time should not be an acceptable standard Neither should being low quality 100% of the time, Catturds of the world.
JDHillFan Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: So who's doing the "reporting" (not commenting)? Catturd? Come on. It's fair to criticize the spin the NYT (or WSJ, or FT, or the few remaining outlets that actually have real reporting capacity) puts on a story. But the story still has to exist before Catturd (and you) spring into action. You guys still obsess over that Politico story about the 50-whatever national security experts and Hunter Biden's laptop. If you actually read the story, it reports what happened. And reports people skeptical of that account. Reports. Not "comments" or editorializes. The MAGAs never actually read an article. Reading is hard. Reposting tweets is easy. Let's let Catturd tell us what to think. No, reading is not hard. What has weirdly escaped you (it actually hasn’t escaped you but you are one to dig in on this sort of absurdity) is that the mainstream media pissed their reliability and credibility down their collective leg and did so willingly. If you are unaware of the reason, it was in service to democrat politicians. Your notion that they are truth seeking reporters is quaint, I guess. Reporting on things is ostensibly their job. Good that they succeed when they want to.
Orlando Buffalo Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 hours ago 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: So who's doing the "reporting" (not commenting)? Catturd? Come on. It's fair to criticize the spin the NYT (or WSJ, or FT, or the few remaining outlets that actually have real reporting capacity) puts on a story. But the story still has to exist before Catturd (and you) spring into action. You guys still obsess over that Politico story about the 50-whatever national security experts and Hunter Biden's laptop. If you actually read the story, it reports what happened. And reports people skeptical of that account. Reports. Not "comments" or editorializes. The MAGAs never actually read an article. Reading is hard. Reposting tweets is easy. Let's let Catturd tell us what to think. I am going to make two points here First is that the headline business definitely runs the other direction also. Look at anything Homelander posts and you will agree. Second is that the profession of journalism is not what it was 25 years ago, truly it is hardly a shadow of that time. I know for a fact that when Tony Dungy was fired from the Buccaneers his agent immediately called ESPN but ESPN did not run that story until the team confirmed, which was hours later. That was a sport network on a smaller story but they wanted confirmation. Today they print garbage intentionally so long as it grabs the readers attention.
Recommended Posts