Donald Trump
Comments
-
tbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.the latest and just one of many regarding the uniongift article..
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
mickeyrat said:tbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.the latest and just one of many regarding the uniongift article..not a good look....Rotterdam to dismantle part of historic bridge so Jeff Bezos’s massive yacht can pass through https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/02/02/rotterdam-dismantle-part-historic-bridge-so-jeff-bezos-massive-yacht-can-pass-through/Rotterdam to dismantle part of historic bridge so Jeff Bezos’s massive yacht can pass through
By Miriam Berger
February 02, 2022 at 13:21 ET
Rotterdam has agreed to temporarily dismantle part of its historic Koningshaven Bridge so that Jeff Bezos’s 417-foot-long, three-mast yacht can pass through the waterway sometime this summer, according to a spokeswoman for the city.
The Dutch company Oceano has been building the massive vessel for an estimated $500 million in the nearby city of Alblasserdam. Once completed this year, the ship, known as Y721, will be the world’s largest sailing yacht, according to Boat International.
But to reach the open seas it must first pass through Rotterdam — considered the maritime capital of Europe — and the city’s historic steel bridge, locally known as De Hef, which has a clearance of just over 131 feet.continues.. .
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.
Quick Take: The Media Wasn't Ready. Episode: https://www.podcastrepublic.net/episode/65842304287 . Media: https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/50890962/qt_lemire.mp3 . -- Sent from Podcast Republic.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Are you saying this article was biased towards Amazon? Read like straight news to me.mickeyrat said:tbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.the latest and just one of many regarding the uniongift article..0 -
mrussel1 said:
Are you saying this article was biased towards Amazon? Read like straight news to me.mickeyrat said:tbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.the latest and just one of many regarding the uniongift article..
exactly.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Not sarcastic at alltbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-fake-news-in-the-newspaper-he-really-owns/
https://fair.org/home/gushing-coverage-of-the-billionaires-space-race/
https://fair.org/home/billionaire-owned-media-look-out-for-neediest-by-demanding-they-get-no-more-money/
https://fair.org/home/papers-owned-by-oligarchs-unsurprisingly-oppose-a-wealth-tax/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-no-longer-discloses-its-owners-uber-investment/
https://fair.org/home/still-manufacturing-consent-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-hypes-space-capitalists-one-of-whom-owns-the-paper/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/in-nprs-press-release-for-its-sponsor-amazon-workers-simply-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-picks-a-side-in-maryland-race-the-side-thats-offering-billions-to-amazon/
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-paper-tells-you-not-to-worry-about-those-billionaires/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-calls-them-far-left-policies-us-voters-call-them-good-ideas/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos/
I would also recommend the book The New Media Monopoly (previously The Media Monopoly before it's latest edition) by Ben Bagdikian, as a study on why It is bad for people like Bezos and other high networth individuals and organizations to control the conglomeration of media and how it limits the narratives presented to citizens.
Post edited by static111 onScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/14/politics/capitol-car-incident/index.htmlYou can’t make this up idiots killing themselves like this!Post edited by josevolution onjesus greets me looks just like me ....0
-
Ten articles from the same source? One might think they have an axe to grind.static111 said:
Not sarcastic at alltbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-fake-news-in-the-newspaper-he-really-owns/
https://fair.org/home/gushing-coverage-of-the-billionaires-space-race/
https://fair.org/home/billionaire-owned-media-look-out-for-neediest-by-demanding-they-get-no-more-money/
https://fair.org/home/papers-owned-by-oligarchs-unsurprisingly-oppose-a-wealth-tax/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-no-longer-discloses-its-owners-uber-investment/
https://fair.org/home/still-manufacturing-consent-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-hypes-space-capitalists-one-of-whom-owns-the-paper/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/in-nprs-press-release-for-its-sponsor-amazon-workers-simply-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-picks-a-side-in-maryland-race-the-side-thats-offering-billions-to-amazon/
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-paper-tells-you-not-to-worry-about-those-billionaires/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-calls-them-far-left-policies-us-voters-call-them-good-ideas/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos/
I would also recommend the book The New Media Monopoly (previously The Media Monopoly before it's latest edition) by Ben Bagdikian, as a study on why It is bad for people like Bezos and other high networth individuals and organizations to control the conglomeration of media and how it limits the narratives presented to citizens.
But who cares? Read something else. News orgs have zero obligation to be "fair" or unbiased. It's never been the case in this country or in Europe.
And you've never, in the history of the world, been able to get more competing opinions and easier, than today.Post edited by mrussel1 on0 -
static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.WOW! I did not know that. Well, that's it for me. No more WaPo. Seriously. I would do damn near anything to not give Bezos a single nickle of my money. Not a penny. Nada!Thanks for the heads up!"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting is a pretty well known source that has been working to cut through the bullshit of media for almost as long as I've been alive. I notice that you cited that I used 10 articles from this source, but did not make a case against the validity of the organization. Instead you inferred that they must have an axe to grind, seemingly baselessly. I also noticed that you did not refute a single article or the claims made in any of them.mrussel1 said:
Ten articles from the same source? One might think they have an axe to grind.static111 said:
Not sarcastic at alltbergs said:
Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I know who owns WaPo. I guess I missed all the self promotion by Bezos or I've just browsed past it. I have read articles about Amazon where they include him being the owner, but it's not like it was some puff piece.static111 said:
Dude WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos. And is tilted to pollute readers minds in favor of Bezos and his vanity projects like dick rockets.tbergs said:
What are they supposed to do? They usually promote good journalism, but how do you retain that level of quality if you aren't making revenue to pay good journalists? Their only option would be to spam their content with ads. Fuck that. I pay for WaPo and it's not that expensive in my opinion. Most the "local" media these days is bought and paid for BS from right wing propogandists. It's polluting the minds of millions of rural citizens gobbling up Fox News and the like.gimmesometruth27 said:
and the outlets that write stories worth reading that would serve the public are put behind a paywall.Merkin Baller said:
Uhm, yeah, some of those individuals are in the media.Halifax2TheMax said:
Uhm, no. We’re where we’re at because of individuals. I could name them but I think that you know who they are, I hope.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.The collective media is a f’ing disaster and failing us terribly; most are more concerned w/ ratings & clicks than responsible reporting and we’re worse off as a nation because of it.
lookin at you, nyt and washington post...
Gift article below.
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-fake-news-in-the-newspaper-he-really-owns/
https://fair.org/home/gushing-coverage-of-the-billionaires-space-race/
https://fair.org/home/billionaire-owned-media-look-out-for-neediest-by-demanding-they-get-no-more-money/
https://fair.org/home/papers-owned-by-oligarchs-unsurprisingly-oppose-a-wealth-tax/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-no-longer-discloses-its-owners-uber-investment/
https://fair.org/home/still-manufacturing-consent-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-hypes-space-capitalists-one-of-whom-owns-the-paper/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/when-india-tries-to-regulate-amazon-us-media-qualms-about-monopoly-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/in-nprs-press-release-for-its-sponsor-amazon-workers-simply-disappear/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-picks-a-side-in-maryland-race-the-side-thats-offering-billions-to-amazon/
https://fair.org/home/jeff-bezos-paper-tells-you-not-to-worry-about-those-billionaires/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-calls-them-far-left-policies-us-voters-call-them-good-ideas/
https://fair.org/home/wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos/
I would also recommend the book The New Media Monopoly (previously The Media Monopoly before it's latest edition) by Ben Bagdikian, as a study on why It is bad for people like Bezos and other high networth individuals and organizations to control the conglomeration of media and how it limits the narratives presented to citizens.
But who cares? Read something else. News orgs have zero obligation to be "fair" or unbiased. It's never been the case in this country or in Europe.
And you've never, in the history of the world, been able to get more competing opinions and easier, than today.
I agree I can read something else, and I do. I also agree that news orgs have always been biased, mostly to the detriment of citizens, well citizens that aren't wealthy at least. It would be nice if we cared abut our professed values like freedom of the press instead of defending freedom of the press within the confines of increasingly centralized ownership of news outlets.
Never been able to get more competing opinions in the history of the world? That is debatable. With the shrinking of the ownership pool of media being into fewer hands I would say you have less actual sources with which to form your opinions. So we end up with an infinite number of opinions based on a narrow spectrum of debate set by corporate media after it has been vetted in many cases by our intelligence agencies, if not outright created by them. This creates an illusion that there are competing opinions because of the nature of the nuance of each opinion. All the while news seems to go unreported with opinion masquerading as fact. No wonder people are hopelessScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
in case anyone is thinking I have my tinfoil hat on, here is an article by a guy named Carl Bernstein. https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977 I'm sure nothing like that happens anymore. Or maybe it is just harder to get the "news" to report on things like this. The government seems to think so especially when it comes to people like Assange, Manning and Snowden exposing their deplorable abhorrent behavior.
Anyway to keep thread integrity back on Donald Trump and away from the short comings of media. Donald Trump is still one of the worst presidents and very likely one of the worst personalities ever created by American values.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
0 -
What I want to know is, Kennith, what is the frequency?
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Media in general is being centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Has been going on for quite some time. The great book The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian that I referenced in an earlier post is a great place to begin getting informed about the dangers involved when fewer and fewer voices control more and more media. Bezos is obviously an oligarch as is Bloomberg who makes no bones about it and even named his media empire after himself.mrussel1 said:1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
From the Fcc on radio ownership"IThe Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of broadcast stations – radio and TV – an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews most of its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.
Dual Television Network Ownership
FCC rules effectively prohibit a merger between any two of the big four broadcast television networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
An entity is permitted to own up to two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) if either:
- The service areas – known as the digital noise limited service contour – of the stations do not overlap; or
- At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four rated stations in the DMA based on audience share. However, an applicant may seek to make a showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances, that a top-four combination would nonetheless serve the public interest despite the prohibition.
Local Radio Ownership
Limitations on the number of radio stations a single entity may own in an area are based on a sliding scale that varies by the size of the market:
- In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to eight radio stations, no more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM).
- In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market hosting between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which may be in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 50 percent of all radio stations in that market.
National Television Ownership
There is no limit on the number of television stations a single entity may own nationwide as long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households. For the purpose of determining compliance with this National Television Ownership rule, television stations operating on UHF channels (14 and above) are attributed with only half (50 percent) of the number of TV households in the DMA, as opposed to 100 percent of the number of households attributed to stations operating on VHF channels (13 and below). This is known as the UHF Discount. Unlike the rules discussed above, the National Television Ownership rule is no longer subject to the FCC's quadrennial review.
Elimination of Broadcast Station Cross-Ownership Rules
In 2017, the Commission eliminated its rule that had previously prohibited common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's contour (defined separately by type of station) completely encompassed the newspaper's city of publication and the station and newspaper were in the same relevant Nielsen market. At the same time, the Commission also eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which had restricted the common ownership of broadcast radio and television stations located in the same market. These two rules -- the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and radio-television cross ownership rules -- were eliminated due in part to the growth in the number and variety of sources of entertainment, news and information in the modern media marketplace."
Of course there are ways around these rules as companies like Sinclair have exploited.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map
" So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?
There are two main reasons:
1) Sinclair is selling its biggest acquisitions from Tribune — but maintaining a partnership with those stations
When Sinclair purchases Tribune, it will own stations in some of the largest US markets.
But to get under the 39 percent cap, Sinclair said in an FCC filing that it intends to sell stations in eight markets, including New York, Chicago, and Seattle. However, that doesn’t mean those stations won’t be influenced by Sinclair.
As Variety reported:
Sinclair doesn’t plan to be too far removed from WPIX and WGN. The filing discloses that Sinclair already has buyers lined up for both stations and that Sinclair intends to continue running the stations through an “options and services agreement” inked with the buyers.
So Sinclair won’t own these stations but still plans to run them to reach those massive audiences.
2) Sinclair is taking advantage of an FCC loophole
The other way Sinclair is getting around this is through an FCC loophole.
If you don’t want the details, the short version is that the FCC calculates audience reachusing an outdated measure.
American television stations use one of two types of waves: VHF waves, which travel farther, and UHF waves, which don’t travel as far. So the FCC used to only count half of the UHF audience when it measured audiences.
In the late 2000s, America switched to digital broadcasting, and UHF waves were good for transmitting crisp pictures on our digital TVs. So in 2016, FCC started to measure UHF and VHF the same way.
But FCC Chair Ajit Pai reversed that. This meant that big companies could own more local stations without hitting that 39 percent limit. And as Jeff Guo wrote for Vox last year, Pai hinted that this was a stopgap measure until they could increase the 39 percent ownership cap to allow big companies to have even more influence."
Then of course there is this
.6-corporations-control-american-media.jpgand this
.the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media1.jpgOf course there are so many acquisitions and mergers that it is almost impossible to know who owns what at any given moment.
Corporate media control is akin to thought control. Where in the past we may not have been able to instantly access the San Francisco bee, as if we ever needed to unless we presumably lived in San Francisco, there was a much more varied (although not perfect) ownership of media markets. So in the past there were more regional and local voices that were largely independent of giant parent companies, unlike today. This led to a more diverse set of opinions and a broader national debate. If things like the Fairness doctrine still existed or the Telecommunications act of 1996 never existed we would be better off. Had historic protections of the press not been repealed and then nuked altogether in 96, coupled with the national trend for more equity and inclusivity we would likely have more minority owned independent media with more varied voices. Which would form a broader and more diverse national conversation.
As the media landscape stands today if you remove the marketing and product packaging, that diversity does not exist. Instead we have 1000 flavors of Disney, 1000 flavors of news corp, 1000 flavors of Sinclair etc, but no real diversity of opinion. If you went into the grocery store and everything was manufactured by 6 companies would that look like choice and diversity? Sadly this is happening with food as well, which is as good a reason as any to support farmers markets and local coops as much as possible.
This homogenization of thought maybe great for revenues, but I believe it is harmful to citizens.
But hey I am a journalism dropout that ended up making more in the construction trades than I ever would have as another face spouting the opinions of the big 6.
This isn't new it has been a problem for a while. Marshall McLuhan wrote about it, the previously referenced Ben Bagdikian wrote about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a great book about it, renowned fiction author Ursula LeGuin has spoken about it, there are countless other people that have been warning us for a long time. Like global warming we ignore corporate consolidation at our own peril.
Post edited by static111 onScio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
-
Dude, sorry, I'm simply not going to read all of this. I'll skim it for content.static111 said:
Media in general is being centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Has been going on for quite some time. The great book The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian that I referenced in an earlier post is a great place to begin getting informed about the dangers involved when fewer and fewer voices control more and more media. Bezos is obviously an oligarch as is Bloomberg who makes no bones about it and even named his media empire after himself.mrussel1 said:1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
From the Fcc on radio ownership"IThe Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of broadcast stations – radio and TV – an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews most of its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.
Dual Television Network Ownership
FCC rules effectively prohibit a merger between any two of the big four broadcast television networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
An entity is permitted to own up to two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) if either:
- The service areas – known as the digital noise limited service contour – of the stations do not overlap; or
- At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four rated stations in the DMA based on audience share. However, an applicant may seek to make a showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances, that a top-four combination would nonetheless serve the public interest despite the prohibition.
Local Radio Ownership
Limitations on the number of radio stations a single entity may own in an area are based on a sliding scale that varies by the size of the market:
- In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to eight radio stations, no more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM).
- In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market hosting between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which may be in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 50 percent of all radio stations in that market.
National Television Ownership
There is no limit on the number of television stations a single entity may own nationwide as long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households. For the purpose of determining compliance with this National Television Ownership rule, television stations operating on UHF channels (14 and above) are attributed with only half (50 percent) of the number of TV households in the DMA, as opposed to 100 percent of the number of households attributed to stations operating on VHF channels (13 and below). This is known as the UHF Discount. Unlike the rules discussed above, the National Television Ownership rule is no longer subject to the FCC's quadrennial review.
Elimination of Broadcast Station Cross-Ownership Rules
In 2017, the Commission eliminated its rule that had previously prohibited common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's contour (defined separately by type of station) completely encompassed the newspaper's city of publication and the station and newspaper were in the same relevant Nielsen market. At the same time, the Commission also eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which had restricted the common ownership of broadcast radio and television stations located in the same market. These two rules -- the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and radio-television cross ownership rules -- were eliminated due in part to the growth in the number and variety of sources of entertainment, news and information in the modern media marketplace."
Of course there are ways around these rules as companies like Sinclair have exploited.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map
" So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?
There are two main reasons:
1) Sinclair is selling its biggest acquisitions from Tribune — but maintaining a partnership with those stations
When Sinclair purchases Tribune, it will own stations in some of the largest US markets.
But to get under the 39 percent cap, Sinclair said in an FCC filing that it intends to sell stations in eight markets, including New York, Chicago, and Seattle. However, that doesn’t mean those stations won’t be influenced by Sinclair.
As Variety reported:
Sinclair doesn’t plan to be too far removed from WPIX and WGN. The filing discloses that Sinclair already has buyers lined up for both stations and that Sinclair intends to continue running the stations through an “options and services agreement” inked with the buyers.
So Sinclair won’t own these stations but still plans to run them to reach those massive audiences.
2) Sinclair is taking advantage of an FCC loophole
The other way Sinclair is getting around this is through an FCC loophole.
If you don’t want the details, the short version is that the FCC calculates audience reachusing an outdated measure.
American television stations use one of two types of waves: VHF waves, which travel farther, and UHF waves, which don’t travel as far. So the FCC used to only count half of the UHF audience when it measured audiences.
In the late 2000s, America switched to digital broadcasting, and UHF waves were good for transmitting crisp pictures on our digital TVs. So in 2016, FCC started to measure UHF and VHF the same way.
But FCC Chair Ajit Pai reversed that. This meant that big companies could own more local stations without hitting that 39 percent limit. And as Jeff Guo wrote for Vox last year, Pai hinted that this was a stopgap measure until they could increase the 39 percent ownership cap to allow big companies to have even more influence."
Then of course there is this
.6-corporations-control-american-media.jpgand this
.the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media1.jpgOf course there are so many acquisitions and mergers that it is almost impossible to know who owns what at any given moment.
Corporate media control is akin to thought control. Where in the past we may not have been able to instantly access the San Francisco bee, as if we ever needed to unless we presumably lived in San Francisco, there was a much more varied (although not perfect) ownership of media markets. So in the past there were more regional and local voices that were largely independent of giant parent companies, unlike today. This led to a more diverse set of opinions and a broader national debate. If things like the Fairness doctrine still existed or the Telecommunications act of 1996 never existed we would be better off. Had historic protections of the press not been repealed and then nuked altogether in 96, coupled with the national trend for more equity and inclusivity we would likely have more minority owned independent media with more varied voices. Which would form a broader and more diverse national conversation.
As the media landscape stands today if you remove the marketing and product packaging, that diversity does not exist. Instead we have 1000 flavors of Disney, 1000 flavors of news corp, 1000 flavors of Sinclair etc, but no real diversity of opinion. If you went into the grocery store and everything was manufactured by 6 companies would that look like choice and diversity? Sadly this is happening with food as well, which is as good a reason as any to support farmers markets and local coops as much as possible.
This homogenization of thought maybe great for revenues, but I believe it is harmful to citizens.
But hey I am a journalism dropout that ended up making more in the construction trades than I ever would have as another face spouting the opinions of the big 6.
This isn't new it has been a problem for a while. Marshall McLuhan wrote about it, the previously referenced Ben Bagdikian wrote about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a great book about it, renowned fiction author Ursula LeGuin has spoken about it, there are countless other people that have been warning us for a long time. Like global warming we ignore corporate consolidation at our own peril.
1. Bezos may be an 'oligarch', in your definition, but he's not a media oligarch which is what we were discussing. He also owns less than 10% of Amazon, so don't forget that. If owning a bunch of shit and being rich makes you an oligarch, then so is Warren Buffet and hundreds of other Americans.
2. Great graphic on the media empires. So tell me again why you can't get news from anyone other than these guys? I can.0 -
1. Ok well. What started this off was tbergs asking me if I was being sarcastic about if the WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos with a pro Bezos slant. I was not being sarcastic it is and it does. I just wanted to make a point that while he was criticizing such and such a media being bought and paid for and polluting people's minds, so was his example of a source that he enjoys, Wapo. Sure Bezos doesn't have his hand in as much of the media pie as some of the bigger players, but he controls what was once a very respected paper of dubious historical background.mrussel1 said:
Dude, sorry, I'm simply not going to read all of this. I'll skim it for content.static111 said:
Media in general is being centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Has been going on for quite some time. The great book The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian that I referenced in an earlier post is a great place to begin getting informed about the dangers involved when fewer and fewer voices control more and more media. Bezos is obviously an oligarch as is Bloomberg who makes no bones about it and even named his media empire after himself.mrussel1 said:1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
From the Fcc on radio ownership"IThe Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of broadcast stations – radio and TV – an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews most of its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.
Dual Television Network Ownership
FCC rules effectively prohibit a merger between any two of the big four broadcast television networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
An entity is permitted to own up to two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) if either:
- The service areas – known as the digital noise limited service contour – of the stations do not overlap; or
- At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four rated stations in the DMA based on audience share. However, an applicant may seek to make a showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances, that a top-four combination would nonetheless serve the public interest despite the prohibition.
Local Radio Ownership
Limitations on the number of radio stations a single entity may own in an area are based on a sliding scale that varies by the size of the market:
- In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to eight radio stations, no more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM).
- In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market hosting between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which may be in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 50 percent of all radio stations in that market.
National Television Ownership
There is no limit on the number of television stations a single entity may own nationwide as long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households. For the purpose of determining compliance with this National Television Ownership rule, television stations operating on UHF channels (14 and above) are attributed with only half (50 percent) of the number of TV households in the DMA, as opposed to 100 percent of the number of households attributed to stations operating on VHF channels (13 and below). This is known as the UHF Discount. Unlike the rules discussed above, the National Television Ownership rule is no longer subject to the FCC's quadrennial review.
Elimination of Broadcast Station Cross-Ownership Rules
In 2017, the Commission eliminated its rule that had previously prohibited common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's contour (defined separately by type of station) completely encompassed the newspaper's city of publication and the station and newspaper were in the same relevant Nielsen market. At the same time, the Commission also eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which had restricted the common ownership of broadcast radio and television stations located in the same market. These two rules -- the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and radio-television cross ownership rules -- were eliminated due in part to the growth in the number and variety of sources of entertainment, news and information in the modern media marketplace."
Of course there are ways around these rules as companies like Sinclair have exploited.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map
" So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?
There are two main reasons:
1) Sinclair is selling its biggest acquisitions from Tribune — but maintaining a partnership with those stations
When Sinclair purchases Tribune, it will own stations in some of the largest US markets.
But to get under the 39 percent cap, Sinclair said in an FCC filing that it intends to sell stations in eight markets, including New York, Chicago, and Seattle. However, that doesn’t mean those stations won’t be influenced by Sinclair.
As Variety reported:
Sinclair doesn’t plan to be too far removed from WPIX and WGN. The filing discloses that Sinclair already has buyers lined up for both stations and that Sinclair intends to continue running the stations through an “options and services agreement” inked with the buyers.
So Sinclair won’t own these stations but still plans to run them to reach those massive audiences.
2) Sinclair is taking advantage of an FCC loophole
The other way Sinclair is getting around this is through an FCC loophole.
If you don’t want the details, the short version is that the FCC calculates audience reachusing an outdated measure.
American television stations use one of two types of waves: VHF waves, which travel farther, and UHF waves, which don’t travel as far. So the FCC used to only count half of the UHF audience when it measured audiences.
In the late 2000s, America switched to digital broadcasting, and UHF waves were good for transmitting crisp pictures on our digital TVs. So in 2016, FCC started to measure UHF and VHF the same way.
But FCC Chair Ajit Pai reversed that. This meant that big companies could own more local stations without hitting that 39 percent limit. And as Jeff Guo wrote for Vox last year, Pai hinted that this was a stopgap measure until they could increase the 39 percent ownership cap to allow big companies to have even more influence."
Then of course there is this
.6-corporations-control-american-media.jpgand this
.the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media1.jpgOf course there are so many acquisitions and mergers that it is almost impossible to know who owns what at any given moment.
Corporate media control is akin to thought control. Where in the past we may not have been able to instantly access the San Francisco bee, as if we ever needed to unless we presumably lived in San Francisco, there was a much more varied (although not perfect) ownership of media markets. So in the past there were more regional and local voices that were largely independent of giant parent companies, unlike today. This led to a more diverse set of opinions and a broader national debate. If things like the Fairness doctrine still existed or the Telecommunications act of 1996 never existed we would be better off. Had historic protections of the press not been repealed and then nuked altogether in 96, coupled with the national trend for more equity and inclusivity we would likely have more minority owned independent media with more varied voices. Which would form a broader and more diverse national conversation.
As the media landscape stands today if you remove the marketing and product packaging, that diversity does not exist. Instead we have 1000 flavors of Disney, 1000 flavors of news corp, 1000 flavors of Sinclair etc, but no real diversity of opinion. If you went into the grocery store and everything was manufactured by 6 companies would that look like choice and diversity? Sadly this is happening with food as well, which is as good a reason as any to support farmers markets and local coops as much as possible.
This homogenization of thought maybe great for revenues, but I believe it is harmful to citizens.
But hey I am a journalism dropout that ended up making more in the construction trades than I ever would have as another face spouting the opinions of the big 6.
This isn't new it has been a problem for a while. Marshall McLuhan wrote about it, the previously referenced Ben Bagdikian wrote about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a great book about it, renowned fiction author Ursula LeGuin has spoken about it, there are countless other people that have been warning us for a long time. Like global warming we ignore corporate consolidation at our own peril.
1. Bezos may be an 'oligarch', in your definition, but he's not a media oligarch which is what we were discussing. He also owns less than 10% of Amazon, so don't forget that. If owning a bunch of shit and being rich makes you an oligarch, then so is Warren Buffet and hundreds of other Americans.
2. Great graphic on the media empires. So tell me again why you can't get news from anyone other than these guys? I can.
There are a lot of levels of deception especially when it comes to Sinclair or Murdoch controlling so much. The same is true of liberal media but to a lesser degree, dissent and opposing viewpoints get silenced. There were protections against this once and there still should be, but we decided to go with the conglomeration of media as a revenue stream starting with Reagan and then getting super charged under Clinton. Bezos only currently owning 10% of Amazon. I'm sure the institutional culture he created and all of his connections completely dismiss him and his pet projects. The dude is basically Lex Luthor, a billionaire that is convinced that whatever he is doing is good, because he has untold sums of hoarded capital.
2. I get my news all over the place, I also try my best to actively seek if their is a bias in the story, as well as the background of the paper and the editors and whether some unconscious biases slip through. I'm sure they do, especially the ones I agree with. The problem isn't with people like you and I though that have been consuming media and following the changing media landscape. It is the millions of people that think because the programs and papers say they are news, that it must be.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
1. I will continue to argue that Amazon provides better jobs and better benefits than 95% of small businesses out there. By and large, people are better off working for large corporations than small businesses. It's not better for the owner of the small business, but 99.5% of people aren't in this category. So I don't know how Bezos is Lex Luther. I also don't think he exercises anything close to day to day editorial control on content.static111 said:
1. Ok well. What started this off was tbergs asking me if I was being sarcastic about if the WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos with a pro Bezos slant. I was not being sarcastic it is and it does. I just wanted to make a point that while he was criticizing such and such a media being bought and paid for and polluting people's minds, so was his example of a source that he enjoys, Wapo. Sure Bezos doesn't have his hand in as much of the media pie as some of the bigger players, but he controls what was once a very respected paper of dubious historical background.mrussel1 said:
Dude, sorry, I'm simply not going to read all of this. I'll skim it for content.static111 said:
Media in general is being centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Has been going on for quite some time. The great book The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian that I referenced in an earlier post is a great place to begin getting informed about the dangers involved when fewer and fewer voices control more and more media. Bezos is obviously an oligarch as is Bloomberg who makes no bones about it and even named his media empire after himself.mrussel1 said:1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
From the Fcc on radio ownership"IThe Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of broadcast stations – radio and TV – an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews most of its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.
Dual Television Network Ownership
FCC rules effectively prohibit a merger between any two of the big four broadcast television networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
An entity is permitted to own up to two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) if either:
- The service areas – known as the digital noise limited service contour – of the stations do not overlap; or
- At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four rated stations in the DMA based on audience share. However, an applicant may seek to make a showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances, that a top-four combination would nonetheless serve the public interest despite the prohibition.
Local Radio Ownership
Limitations on the number of radio stations a single entity may own in an area are based on a sliding scale that varies by the size of the market:
- In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to eight radio stations, no more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM).
- In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market hosting between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which may be in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 50 percent of all radio stations in that market.
National Television Ownership
There is no limit on the number of television stations a single entity may own nationwide as long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households. For the purpose of determining compliance with this National Television Ownership rule, television stations operating on UHF channels (14 and above) are attributed with only half (50 percent) of the number of TV households in the DMA, as opposed to 100 percent of the number of households attributed to stations operating on VHF channels (13 and below). This is known as the UHF Discount. Unlike the rules discussed above, the National Television Ownership rule is no longer subject to the FCC's quadrennial review.
Elimination of Broadcast Station Cross-Ownership Rules
In 2017, the Commission eliminated its rule that had previously prohibited common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's contour (defined separately by type of station) completely encompassed the newspaper's city of publication and the station and newspaper were in the same relevant Nielsen market. At the same time, the Commission also eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which had restricted the common ownership of broadcast radio and television stations located in the same market. These two rules -- the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and radio-television cross ownership rules -- were eliminated due in part to the growth in the number and variety of sources of entertainment, news and information in the modern media marketplace."
Of course there are ways around these rules as companies like Sinclair have exploited.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map
" So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?
There are two main reasons:
1) Sinclair is selling its biggest acquisitions from Tribune — but maintaining a partnership with those stations
When Sinclair purchases Tribune, it will own stations in some of the largest US markets.
But to get under the 39 percent cap, Sinclair said in an FCC filing that it intends to sell stations in eight markets, including New York, Chicago, and Seattle. However, that doesn’t mean those stations won’t be influenced by Sinclair.
As Variety reported:
Sinclair doesn’t plan to be too far removed from WPIX and WGN. The filing discloses that Sinclair already has buyers lined up for both stations and that Sinclair intends to continue running the stations through an “options and services agreement” inked with the buyers.
So Sinclair won’t own these stations but still plans to run them to reach those massive audiences.
2) Sinclair is taking advantage of an FCC loophole
The other way Sinclair is getting around this is through an FCC loophole.
If you don’t want the details, the short version is that the FCC calculates audience reachusing an outdated measure.
American television stations use one of two types of waves: VHF waves, which travel farther, and UHF waves, which don’t travel as far. So the FCC used to only count half of the UHF audience when it measured audiences.
In the late 2000s, America switched to digital broadcasting, and UHF waves were good for transmitting crisp pictures on our digital TVs. So in 2016, FCC started to measure UHF and VHF the same way.
But FCC Chair Ajit Pai reversed that. This meant that big companies could own more local stations without hitting that 39 percent limit. And as Jeff Guo wrote for Vox last year, Pai hinted that this was a stopgap measure until they could increase the 39 percent ownership cap to allow big companies to have even more influence."
Then of course there is this
.6-corporations-control-american-media.jpgand this
.the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media1.jpgOf course there are so many acquisitions and mergers that it is almost impossible to know who owns what at any given moment.
Corporate media control is akin to thought control. Where in the past we may not have been able to instantly access the San Francisco bee, as if we ever needed to unless we presumably lived in San Francisco, there was a much more varied (although not perfect) ownership of media markets. So in the past there were more regional and local voices that were largely independent of giant parent companies, unlike today. This led to a more diverse set of opinions and a broader national debate. If things like the Fairness doctrine still existed or the Telecommunications act of 1996 never existed we would be better off. Had historic protections of the press not been repealed and then nuked altogether in 96, coupled with the national trend for more equity and inclusivity we would likely have more minority owned independent media with more varied voices. Which would form a broader and more diverse national conversation.
As the media landscape stands today if you remove the marketing and product packaging, that diversity does not exist. Instead we have 1000 flavors of Disney, 1000 flavors of news corp, 1000 flavors of Sinclair etc, but no real diversity of opinion. If you went into the grocery store and everything was manufactured by 6 companies would that look like choice and diversity? Sadly this is happening with food as well, which is as good a reason as any to support farmers markets and local coops as much as possible.
This homogenization of thought maybe great for revenues, but I believe it is harmful to citizens.
But hey I am a journalism dropout that ended up making more in the construction trades than I ever would have as another face spouting the opinions of the big 6.
This isn't new it has been a problem for a while. Marshall McLuhan wrote about it, the previously referenced Ben Bagdikian wrote about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a great book about it, renowned fiction author Ursula LeGuin has spoken about it, there are countless other people that have been warning us for a long time. Like global warming we ignore corporate consolidation at our own peril.
1. Bezos may be an 'oligarch', in your definition, but he's not a media oligarch which is what we were discussing. He also owns less than 10% of Amazon, so don't forget that. If owning a bunch of shit and being rich makes you an oligarch, then so is Warren Buffet and hundreds of other Americans.
2. Great graphic on the media empires. So tell me again why you can't get news from anyone other than these guys? I can.
There are a lot of levels of deception especially when it comes to Sinclair or Murdoch controlling so much. The same is true of liberal media but to a lesser degree, dissent and opposing viewpoints get silenced. There were protections against this once and there still should be, but we decided to go with the conglomeration of media as a revenue stream starting with Reagan and then getting super charged under Clinton. Bezos only currently owning 10% of Amazon. I'm sure the institutional culture he created and all of his connections completely dismiss him and his pet projects. The dude is basically Lex Luthor, a billionaire that is convinced that whatever he is doing is good, because he has untold sums of hoarded capital.
2. I get my news all over the place, I also try my best to actively seek if their is a bias in the story, as well as the background of the paper and the editors and whether some unconscious biases slip through. I'm sure they do, especially the ones I agree with. The problem isn't with people like you and I though that have been consuming media and following the changing media landscape. It is the millions of people that think because the programs and papers say they are news, that it must be.0 -
mrussel1 said:
1. I will continue to argue that Amazon provides better jobs and better benefits than 95% of small businesses out there. By and large, people are better off working for large corporations than small businesses. It's not better for the owner of the small business, but 99.5% of people aren't in this category. So I don't know how Bezos is Lex Luther. I also don't think he exercises anything close to day to day editorial control on content.static111 said:
1. Ok well. What started this off was tbergs asking me if I was being sarcastic about if the WaPo is bought and paid for by Bezos with a pro Bezos slant. I was not being sarcastic it is and it does. I just wanted to make a point that while he was criticizing such and such a media being bought and paid for and polluting people's minds, so was his example of a source that he enjoys, Wapo. Sure Bezos doesn't have his hand in as much of the media pie as some of the bigger players, but he controls what was once a very respected paper of dubious historical background.mrussel1 said:
Dude, sorry, I'm simply not going to read all of this. I'll skim it for content.static111 said:
Media in general is being centralized into fewer and fewer hands. Has been going on for quite some time. The great book The New Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian that I referenced in an earlier post is a great place to begin getting informed about the dangers involved when fewer and fewer voices control more and more media. Bezos is obviously an oligarch as is Bloomberg who makes no bones about it and even named his media empire after himself.mrussel1 said:1. You're right, I didn't read them. And they may be accurate and completely free from personal bias and their self-interest. In fact, they probably achieved the nirvana of fairness. But I truly doubt it because it's researched and written by humanoids.
2. Why don't I read them? For the purpose I stated above. I don't care. I have no expectation that a news source is free from bias. It never has been, so why would I expect that now? Newspapers in the 18th and 19th century existed specifically as a party organ. That's why they were there, to report the respective political party's views.
3. Explain to me how we don't have freedom of the press. Seems like the existence of "Fairness and Accuracy" is further proof that it exists.
4. Give me a time and place where you could access more information, easier than today. If you lived in Richmond in the last three centuries, your source of news was one of the two papers that you could get. You didn't get to read the Orange County Register. So even if numerically there were more newspapers, you couldn't access them. The whole 'centralized media' narrative is bullshit in my opinion, and just ongoing complaining. Just like the right complains that the news is left biased, the left does the same. Yet either side can access plenty of information that supports their POV.
And it's kind of ironic that you are talking about centralized media and the WashPo in the same thread, considering Bezos ONLY owns the WashPo. It's hardly a conglomerate.
From the Fcc on radio ownership"IThe Federal Communications Commission sets limits on the number of broadcast stations – radio and TV – an entity can own. As required by Congress, the FCC reviews most of its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether the rules are in the public interest and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines does not meet this criteria. Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.Details of the current ownership rules are summarized below.
Dual Television Network Ownership
FCC rules effectively prohibit a merger between any two of the big four broadcast television networks: ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC.
Local Television Multiple Ownership
An entity is permitted to own up to two television stations in the same Designated Market Area (DMA) if either:
- The service areas – known as the digital noise limited service contour – of the stations do not overlap; or
- At least one of the stations is not ranked among the top-four rated stations in the DMA based on audience share. However, an applicant may seek to make a showing, based on the particular facts and circumstances, that a top-four combination would nonetheless serve the public interest despite the prohibition.
Local Radio Ownership
Limitations on the number of radio stations a single entity may own in an area are based on a sliding scale that varies by the size of the market:
- In a radio market with 45 or more stations, an entity may own up to eight radio stations, no more than five of which may be in the same service (AM or FM).
- In a radio market with between 30 and 44 radio stations, an entity may own up to seven radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market hosting between 15 and 29 radio stations, an entity may own up to six radio stations, no more than four of which may be in the same service.
- In a radio market with 14 or fewer radio stations, an entity may own up to five radio stations, no more than three of which may be in the same service, as long as the entity does not own more than 50 percent of all radio stations in that market.
National Television Ownership
There is no limit on the number of television stations a single entity may own nationwide as long as the station group collectively reaches no more than 39 percent of all U.S. TV households. For the purpose of determining compliance with this National Television Ownership rule, television stations operating on UHF channels (14 and above) are attributed with only half (50 percent) of the number of TV households in the DMA, as opposed to 100 percent of the number of households attributed to stations operating on VHF channels (13 and below). This is known as the UHF Discount. Unlike the rules discussed above, the National Television Ownership rule is no longer subject to the FCC's quadrennial review.
Elimination of Broadcast Station Cross-Ownership Rules
In 2017, the Commission eliminated its rule that had previously prohibited common ownership of a full-power broadcast station and a daily newspaper if the station's contour (defined separately by type of station) completely encompassed the newspaper's city of publication and the station and newspaper were in the same relevant Nielsen market. At the same time, the Commission also eliminated the radio-television cross-ownership rule, which had restricted the common ownership of broadcast radio and television stations located in the same market. These two rules -- the newspaper-broadcast cross ownership and radio-television cross ownership rules -- were eliminated due in part to the growth in the number and variety of sources of entertainment, news and information in the modern media marketplace."
Of course there are ways around these rules as companies like Sinclair have exploited.
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/6/17202824/sinclair-tribune-map
" So the question is: How is Sinclair going to be allowed to reach more than 70 percent of households?
There are two main reasons:
1) Sinclair is selling its biggest acquisitions from Tribune — but maintaining a partnership with those stations
When Sinclair purchases Tribune, it will own stations in some of the largest US markets.
But to get under the 39 percent cap, Sinclair said in an FCC filing that it intends to sell stations in eight markets, including New York, Chicago, and Seattle. However, that doesn’t mean those stations won’t be influenced by Sinclair.
As Variety reported:
Sinclair doesn’t plan to be too far removed from WPIX and WGN. The filing discloses that Sinclair already has buyers lined up for both stations and that Sinclair intends to continue running the stations through an “options and services agreement” inked with the buyers.
So Sinclair won’t own these stations but still plans to run them to reach those massive audiences.
2) Sinclair is taking advantage of an FCC loophole
The other way Sinclair is getting around this is through an FCC loophole.
If you don’t want the details, the short version is that the FCC calculates audience reachusing an outdated measure.
American television stations use one of two types of waves: VHF waves, which travel farther, and UHF waves, which don’t travel as far. So the FCC used to only count half of the UHF audience when it measured audiences.
In the late 2000s, America switched to digital broadcasting, and UHF waves were good for transmitting crisp pictures on our digital TVs. So in 2016, FCC started to measure UHF and VHF the same way.
But FCC Chair Ajit Pai reversed that. This meant that big companies could own more local stations without hitting that 39 percent limit. And as Jeff Guo wrote for Vox last year, Pai hinted that this was a stopgap measure until they could increase the 39 percent ownership cap to allow big companies to have even more influence."
Then of course there is this
.6-corporations-control-american-media.jpgand this
.the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media1.jpgOf course there are so many acquisitions and mergers that it is almost impossible to know who owns what at any given moment.
Corporate media control is akin to thought control. Where in the past we may not have been able to instantly access the San Francisco bee, as if we ever needed to unless we presumably lived in San Francisco, there was a much more varied (although not perfect) ownership of media markets. So in the past there were more regional and local voices that were largely independent of giant parent companies, unlike today. This led to a more diverse set of opinions and a broader national debate. If things like the Fairness doctrine still existed or the Telecommunications act of 1996 never existed we would be better off. Had historic protections of the press not been repealed and then nuked altogether in 96, coupled with the national trend for more equity and inclusivity we would likely have more minority owned independent media with more varied voices. Which would form a broader and more diverse national conversation.
As the media landscape stands today if you remove the marketing and product packaging, that diversity does not exist. Instead we have 1000 flavors of Disney, 1000 flavors of news corp, 1000 flavors of Sinclair etc, but no real diversity of opinion. If you went into the grocery store and everything was manufactured by 6 companies would that look like choice and diversity? Sadly this is happening with food as well, which is as good a reason as any to support farmers markets and local coops as much as possible.
This homogenization of thought maybe great for revenues, but I believe it is harmful to citizens.
But hey I am a journalism dropout that ended up making more in the construction trades than I ever would have as another face spouting the opinions of the big 6.
This isn't new it has been a problem for a while. Marshall McLuhan wrote about it, the previously referenced Ben Bagdikian wrote about it, Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman wrote a great book about it, renowned fiction author Ursula LeGuin has spoken about it, there are countless other people that have been warning us for a long time. Like global warming we ignore corporate consolidation at our own peril.
1. Bezos may be an 'oligarch', in your definition, but he's not a media oligarch which is what we were discussing. He also owns less than 10% of Amazon, so don't forget that. If owning a bunch of shit and being rich makes you an oligarch, then so is Warren Buffet and hundreds of other Americans.
2. Great graphic on the media empires. So tell me again why you can't get news from anyone other than these guys? I can.
There are a lot of levels of deception especially when it comes to Sinclair or Murdoch controlling so much. The same is true of liberal media but to a lesser degree, dissent and opposing viewpoints get silenced. There were protections against this once and there still should be, but we decided to go with the conglomeration of media as a revenue stream starting with Reagan and then getting super charged under Clinton. Bezos only currently owning 10% of Amazon. I'm sure the institutional culture he created and all of his connections completely dismiss him and his pet projects. The dude is basically Lex Luthor, a billionaire that is convinced that whatever he is doing is good, because he has untold sums of hoarded capital.
2. I get my news all over the place, I also try my best to actively seek if their is a bias in the story, as well as the background of the paper and the editors and whether some unconscious biases slip through. I'm sure they do, especially the ones I agree with. The problem isn't with people like you and I though that have been consuming media and following the changing media landscape. It is the millions of people that think because the programs and papers say they are news, that it must be.A-HEM!Oh, excuse me, I was just heading for the lounge.Cheers,
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
That drove me bonkers. They were enamored with the Trump circus and gave him endless coverage. “Hey look at Grandpa Sanders over there talking about boring policy”. **yawn**. “Hey, whatabout those emails?!” “Are we really ready to have a woman as president?”gimmesometruth27 said:
i agree. all of the free coverage in the 2016 campaign is the main reason why we are where we are. they started hammering him long after it was too late. i remember the hours of cnn showing an empty damn podium waiting for him to come speak at his rallies.Merkin Baller said:
The media deserves all the criticism in the world. They’re a major reason we’re where we are right now.Halifax2TheMax said:
I’m waiting for the criticism of the media to be honest.Merkin Baller said:
I admire your confidence about the situation.OnWis97 said:I don’t think we have to worry about accusations of planting. Because what they found is ultimately going to be nothing.I have no clue where this will end. I don’t know enough to confidently predict the outcome, but I do know there was enough behind the warrant for the judge to sign off on it, and I’m hard pressed to think they would open this can of worms for nothing. Do I think trump will go to jail? No, I don’t see that happening…. But again, this is one big can of worms they opened here… I can’t see them taking these steps if there wasn’t something there.& regarding the accusations of evidence being planted, right wing media outlets were already running w/ that in the 1st 24 hours… which is an odd thing to do if the search turned up nothing. Maybe they were just being proactive.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help