Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[MT15]

A blog. Is that a new spin on your it's an opinion piece and it should be ignored? You need new tactics because yours are old and transparent.

Do you think it's good for the media to be lapdog for Biden?

No it wouldn’t be good, so it’s a good thing that wasn’t shown to have happened.

 

[MT15]

A blog. Is that a new spin on your it's an opinion piece and it should be ignored?

I remember you being very dismissive of anonymous sources. What changed?

 

[SaintForLife]

No it wouldn’t be good, so it’s a good thing that wasn’t shown to have happened.

Why do you lie when I know you saw this?

 

[SaintForLife]

I remember you being very dismissive of anonymous sources. What changed?

You have asked me that same question multiple times and I've answered you the same way every time.

I've criticized anonymous INTELLIGENCE sources. How long until you ask me that same question again?

 

[MT15]

Why do you lie when I know you saw this?

So is it your contention that telling reporters where they made errors in their reporting is forbidden?

And this anonymous source even admitted that the reporters didn’t like it. So how are they lapdogs?

If you don’t think all types of people try to influence coverage I have some bad news for you. Trump did it, everyone does it. What do you think PR means?

BTW, there’s no reason to say I am lying. You are making leaps of opinion that are simply not supported by what your posters are citing.

 

[MT15]

You have asked me that same question multiple times and I've answered you the same way every time.

I've criticized anonymous INTELLIGENCE sources. How long until you ask me that same question again?

Why would you make that distinction? How do you know an anonymous source is intelligence or military? Or civilian administration or corporate?

 

[SaintForLife]

Why would you make that distinction? How do you know an anonymous source is intelligence or military? Or civilian administration or corporate?

Because many Intelligence officials jobs are to lie, deceive, etc.

Because the article says anonymous Intelligence officials.

 

[Lapaz]

It's shows how you are so easily propagandized by the corporate media. You either don't realize it or you don't care.

You are propagandized by Glen Greenwald. I think PBS and BBC have much more credibility.

 

[MT15]

Because many Intelligence officials jobs are to lie, deceive, etc.

Because the article says anonymous Intelligence officials.

So you believe some things that the news media writes? When they say they are quoting an anonymous intelligence source you believe them?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Because many Intelligence officials jobs are to lie, deceive, etc.

Because the article says anonymous Intelligence officials.

You understand that an anonymous source can be from the intelligence community without that fact being disclosed, right?

 

[CoolBrees]

Anonymous Source - Can be trusted

Anonymous Intelligence Source - cannot be trusted

That pretty much sums up the logic of this particular poster

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[SaintForLife]

 

[bird]

Imagine being gullible enough to believe what falls out of Glen Greenwald’s keyboard.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Imagine being gullible enough to believe what falls out of Glen Greenwald’s keyboard.

Imagine being so gullible that you believe Glen Greenwald wouldn't sign a contract in less than a heartbeat to do a show or be an anchor for CNN.

Of course he's going to knock the mainstream news media, because they are his competition. What else is he going to say, "hey guys, I don't offer you anything mainstream media doesn't and they have better access than I do, so you know, maybe you should just tune in to them instead?"

Before anyone starts with the "he's not in it for the money" nonsense, ask yourself this, how can he spend so much time creating all that content if his content isn't paying his bills?

 

[SaintForLife]

Imagine being so gullible that you believe Glen Greenwald wouldn't sign a contract in less than a heartbeat to do a show or be an anchor for CNN.

Why would he do that after he quit the Intercept because they tried to keep him from reporting on the Hunter Biden? There are certain things that the corporate media won't let you report on. He might make more money at CNN or not depending on how much he makes at Rumble.

Of course he's going to knock the mainstream news media, because they are his competition. What else is he going to say, "hey guys, I don't offer you anything mainstream media doesn't and they have better access than I do, so you know, maybe you should just tune in to them instead?"

Or because the corporate media has little credibility left and not many people trust them anymore.

32% have a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in media’s news reporting
New high of 39% have no confidence at all, compared with 27% in 2016
Democrats’ trust is down 12 points since last year; lowest since 2016

Media Confidence in U.S. Matches 2016 Record Low

Americans' trust in the mass media's reporting matches its lowest point in Gallup's trend, largely because of Democrats' decreased trust.

news.gallup.com

Before anyone starts with the "he's not in it for the money" nonsense, ask yourself this, how can he spend so much time creating all that content if his content isn't paying his bills?

Do you think he isn't getting paid enough from Rumble & the money he gets from his followers who pay the subscription to pay his bills and make a good living?

 

[SaintForLife]

Rest of post:

It's one thing to have a strong idealogical bias, but MSNBC actively deludes its audience about the import of political events. It's beyond spin to cast what happened tonight as somehow ominous for Trump (almost half voted against him!etc) and it's harmful to its own cause. They aren't creating a bubble for their viewers but a padlocked cell.

 

[bird]

Rest of post:

It's one thing to have a strong idealogical bias, but MSNBC actively deludes its audience about the import of political events. It's beyond spin to cast what happened tonight as somehow ominous for Trump (almost half voted against him!etc) and it's harmful to its own cause. They aren't creating a bubble for their viewers but a padlocked cell.

Right. Because nobody else ”deludes” their targets. Nobody like Glen Greenwald or Faux Noise or OAN or Newsmax. Everybody but MSNBC is pure as the driven snow. Just as long as they spew what you want to believe, true or not.