Jump to content
Posted
  • Platinum Donating Member

Trump talking about not letting them in the White House press room.   While a dramatic step I think its more than warranted.   First they lied about him for 9 years.   Yes lied about him....I don't want to hear the shit about they were just doing their job.   They went above and beyond doing everything they could to get him defeated twice, not let him get his policies thru and worst of all get him impeached and imprisoned.

People can claim whatever they want but Trump did some very good things in his first term and the media had an extraordinarily small positive story percentage on him compared to other Presidents...even others they hated like GWB.   

If Trump does this they have nobody to blame but themselves.   Trump would just be shutting the casket....they put themselves in it.

What's hilarious is the likes of The Morning Joe trying (poorly) to act like they want to turn the page and be less biased.    

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/unprecedented-positive-media-for-harris-89-negative-for-trump/ar-AA1p44yn

That assessment comes from the latest review of network news from the conservative watchdog, the Media Research Center, which found that 84% of the coverage of Harris has been positive, while 89% of Trump’s has been negative on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

“Not only has Harris received 66% more airtime than former President Donald Trump, but the spin of Harris’s coverage has been more positive (84%) than any other major party nominee, even as Trump’s coverage has been nearly entirely hostile (89% negative),” according to the new report shared with Secrets.

“Add it all up, and the networks have granted the combined Democratic ticket of Harris-Walz 82% positive press, while Trump-Vance have faced 90% negative coverage,” author Rich Noyes wrote.

The media’s cheerleading has continued into this week’s Democratic National Convention in Chicago, where the pro-Harris coverage will reach a peak.

  • Replies 218
  • Views 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Trump talking about not letting them in the White House press room.   While a dramatic step I think its more than warranted.   First they lied about him for 9 years.   Yes lied about him....I don't wa

  • Thats what they have done Biden's whole term you fucking retard . 

  • If they are shown to knowing and purposefully lie, which they have, they are no longer news sources, just propaganda arms of the establishment.  They don't need to be in the white house, I support thi

Posted Images

Featured Replies

should just let in Joe rogan, Theo, and Andrew Schultz.

 

"...and that's how we will negotiate a ceasefire...yes you in the front '

 

" how many times have you tried dmt?'

 

lol. beats " So as a convicted criminal anti gay pro Russian shill with a history of sexually abusing women , what's your opinion on Israel?"

 

good enough for the gas lighting fucking weirdos. 

Edited by ZR800efi

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
On 11/27/2024 at 5:13 PM, akvanden said:


So objective reporting on the nightly news is ok, commentary and analysis on 60 minutes, meet the press, face the nation, hannity, ingraham, watters, etc needs to stop or your network might lose your press credentials at the white house. 

Oh come on....what was done to Trump by the media was so beyond anything we've ever seen before.   Many news organizations did EVERYTHING they could to destroy him and his Presidency from the day he announced to run in 2015.

The MSM and the DOJ/IC actually worked and in hand together to get FISA warrants for fucks sake.  Even though everyone knew the dossier was complete bullshit.   Leak a story to the media, they report it use their articles for confirmation to the FISA judicial board.   This really happened you know.   Imagine them doing that to a democrat. 

The idea that something similar to this has always been in the media if the most fanciful idea I've heard on here. 

Edited by Highmark

  • USA Donating Member
1 minute ago, Highmark said:

Oh come on....what was done to Trump by the media was so beyond anything we've ever seen before.   Many news organizations did EVERYTHING they could to destroy him and his Presidency from the day he announced to run in 2015.

The News and the DOJ worked and in hand together to get FISA warrants for fucks sake.   Leak a story to the media, they report it use their articles for confirmation to the FISA judicial board.   This really happened you know. 

The idea that something similar to this has always been in the media if the most fanciful idea I've heard on here. 


I’m just asking how the new rules would work.  :dunno:

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Oh come on....what was done to Trump by the media was so beyond anything we've ever seen before.   Many news organizations did EVERYTHING they could to destroy him and his Presidency from the day he announced to run in 2015.

The MSM and the DOJ/IC actually worked and in hand together to get FISA warrants for fucks sake.  Even though everyone knew the dossier was complete bullshit.   Leak a story to the media, they report it use their articles for confirmation to the FISA judicial board.   This really happened you know.   Imagine them doing that to a democrat. 

The idea that something similar to this has always been in the media if the most fanciful idea I've heard on here. 

Go back and watch the fawning that Obama got from the media....

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
Just now, akvanden said:


I’m just asking how the new rules would work.  :dunno:

New rules?  Maybe the news organizations and reporters need to look in the mirror and figure out why they might be banned.  

If I were Trump's team I would list the reason each news organization or reporter has been banned.   If they want a chance they need to report a retraction.   Then maybe then they would be allowed back in.

You act as if keeping them out of the WH press room is stopping them from reporting at all.   :lol:  

Its one thing to be a hostile press and its another to actively use propaganda to harm the administration and the country.

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
7 minutes ago, Snake said:

Go back and watch the fawning that Obama got from the media....

And watch the reporters like Jim Acosta almost assault a WH staff member trying to take the mic away from him.

Remember when that Asian chick tried to make it a big deal because Trump said the virus was from China?  Image them doing that to any Dem President. 

How Trump's PS and how Trump was treated was disrespectful to the office of President and this happed right away.

  • USA Donating Member
10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

New rules?  Maybe the news organizations and reporters need to look in the mirror and figure out why they might be banned.  

Hmmm, yeah, subjective. “You may or may not be banned, look in the mirror.”

 

ok.
 

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

You act as if keeping them out of the WH press room is stopping them from reporting at all.

It stops them from asking questions, so yeah, it affects reporting. I like reporters asking tough and uneasy questions to Biden’s admin. I don’t want only CNN in there asking questions of Biden and only Fox asking questions of Trump, and neither do you.

  • USA Donating Member

I mean, let's acknowledge this: if you still believe "safe and effective", "flatten the curve", "Super immunity shots", you MUST defend the liberal media at all costs.  They go together.  

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

Hmmm, yeah, subjective. “You may or may not be banned, look in the mirror.”

 

ok.
 

It stops them from asking questions, so yeah, it affects reporting. I like reporters asking tough and uneasy questions to Biden’s admin. I don’t want only CNN in there asking questions of Biden and only Fox asking questions of Trump, and neither do you.

when did that ever happen?

99% of called reporters were hand picked with hand picked questions. 

And if the "questions" got a bit too hot the PS closed her book and walked out of the room.

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
32 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Hmmm, yeah, subjective. “You may or may not be banned, look in the mirror.”

 

ok.
 

It stops them from asking questions, so yeah, it affects reporting. I like reporters asking tough and uneasy questions to Biden’s admin. I don’t want only CNN in there asking questions of Biden and only Fox asking questions of Trump, and neither do you.

So you do agree their behavior went beyond normal reporting with the Trump admin?

Edited by Highmark

  • USA Donating Member
16 minutes ago, Highmark said:

So you do agree their behavior went beyond normal reporting with the Trump admin?

:news:

Maybe just a "smidge".  :lol:

 

 

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
31 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

:news:

Maybe just a "smidge".  :lol:

 

 

He will probably say oh it really wasn't that bad.

Remind me that last time an elected or sitting President was called a Russian asset, fascist and actually Hitler. 

I'm also curious as to what he thinks Trump should do?   Just forget about it? 

Edited by Highmark

5 minutes ago, Highmark said:

He will probably say oh it really wasn't that bad.

Remind me that last time an elected or sitting President was called a Russian asset, fascist and actually Hitler. 

I'm also curious as to what he thinks Trump should do?   Just forget about it? 

Barry Goldwater in 1964 was compared to fascists and Nazis for his conservative stance, which some saw as extreme.

Richard Nixon had his fair share of Nazi epithets, especially with posters and comments in the early '70s.

Gerald Ford wasn't spared either, with people calling him a "fascist pig" during his tenure.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had indirect associations through their acceptance of far-right elements in their coalition.

George W. Bush was often labeled with fascist or Nazi comparisons, particularly during his presidency.

Mitt Romney during his 2012 campaign was also in the mix, though more for being called a liar than directly a Nazi.

Donald Trump has been the most recent and perhaps the most frequently compared to Hitler or fascist leaders, with numerous instances cited in political discourse.

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
3 minutes ago, Snake said:

Barry Goldwater in 1964 was compared to fascists and Nazis for his conservative stance, which some saw as extreme.

Richard Nixon had his fair share of Nazi epithets, especially with posters and comments in the early '70s.

Gerald Ford wasn't spared either, with people calling him a "fascist pig" during his tenure.

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush had indirect associations through their acceptance of far-right elements in their coalition.

George W. Bush was often labeled with fascist or Nazi comparisons, particularly during his presidency.

Mitt Romney during his 2012 campaign was also in the mix, though more for being called a liar than directly a Nazi.

Donald Trump has been the most recent and perhaps the most frequently compared to Hitler or fascist leaders, with numerous instances cited in political discourse.

Still no comparison.   I recall a number of those elections and Presidencies and it was rare.   It was daily with Trump. 

  • USA Donating Member
3 hours ago, Roosting said:

99% of called reporters were hand picked with hand picked questions. 

99% - wow, that's a big number. Link?

I guess this thread is kind of a moot issue then - sounds like they already have it handled. 

 

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

So you do agree their behavior went beyond normal reporting with the Trump admin?

Yes, no - all irrelevant. Freedom of the press = the right to publish and disseminate information, thoughts, and opinions without restraint or censorship as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If you want to put a little asterisk at the end saying "But..... if those thoughts and opinions don't conform to what we like, we'll limit your access....."
 

 

2 hours ago, Highmark said:

I'm also curious as to what he thinks Trump should do?   Just forget about it? 

Do your job and stop worrying about censoring media. 

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
6 minutes ago, akvanden said:

99% - wow, that's a big number. Link?

I guess this thread is kind of a moot issue then - sounds like they already have it handled. 

 

Yes, no - all irrelevant. Freedom of the press = the right to publish and disseminate information, thoughts, and opinions without restraint or censorship as guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If you want to put a little asterisk at the end saying "But..... if those thoughts and opinions don't conform to what we like, we'll limit your access....."
 

 

Do your job and stop worrying about censoring media. 

Ah yes....easy to say from the upper deck.

When the media is doing things to intentionally impede or hurt an admin by lying or manipulating information they have no option but to take some action by limiting access to themselves. 

This isn't censoring them nor is this unconstitutional.  Dems RARELY go on FoxNews or OAN or Newsmax.   I didn't hear you crying about that the last 4 years.

 

  • USA Donating Member
25 minutes ago, Highmark said:

When the media is doing things to intentionally impede or hurt an admin by lying or manipulating information they have no option but to take some action by limiting access to themselves. 

 

4 hours ago, Roosting said:

99% of called reporters were hand picked with hand picked questions. 

And if the "questions" got a bit too hot the PS closed her book and walked out of the room.



Sounds like Roosting solved it.

 

But in all seriousness, democracy isn't easy, and what your suggesting is a slippery, subjective slope. If you want to be the leader of the free world you have to have thick skin.

  • Author
  • Platinum Donating Member
2 minutes ago, akvanden said:

 



Sounds like Roosting solved it.

 

But in all seriousness, democracy isn't easy, and what your suggesting is a slippery, subjective slope. If you want to be the leader of the free world you have to have thick skin.

Again what has went on the past 9 years goes well beyond anything we've ever seen.   Thick skin has nothing to do with it when they literally are trying to destroy your life and put you behind bars for the rest of your life.   

What the MSM has done hasn't been good or healthy for the well being of itself or the country.   Sitting back and doing nothing or simply turning the other cheek is not an option.

This isn't doing things to censor them.   Its simply limiting access.   They can still report however they want. 

  • USA Donating Member
1 hour ago, Highmark said:

This isn't doing things to censor them.   Its simply limiting access.   They can still report however they want. 

Freedom of press implies the absence of interference. Limiting access is subjective and as a democracy who values freedom of speech, press, etc, that is not path we should be going down. 

1 hour ago, akvanden said:

 



Sounds like Roosting solved it.

 

But in all seriousness, democracy isn't easy, and what your suggesting is a slippery, subjective slope. If you want to be the leader of the free world you have to have thick skin.

They can say and do what they want, but that doesn't mean the taxpayers have to give them an FCC license to broadcast it over the airwaves....

2 hours ago, akvanden said:

 



Sounds like Roosting solved it.

 

But in all seriousness, democracy isn't easy, and what your suggesting is a slippery, subjective slope. If you want to be the leader of the free world you have to have thick skin.

mad naomi campbell GIFBot Boy strikes again 

 

Edited by EvilBird

36 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Freedom of press implies the absence of interference. Limiting access is subjective and as a democracy who values freedom of speech, press, etc, that is not path we should be going down. 

Mainstream media does nothing but interfere . 

If it wasnt for Elon buying twitter and podcasts like Joe Rogan they would of successfully brainwashed millions of people about Trump again.

Give your head a shake man and wake the fuck up.  

  • USA Donating Member
4 minutes ago, EvilBird said:

Mainstream media does nothing but interfere

Sweet, it’s called freedom of the press no matter how much you want to censor them.

  • USA Donating Member
9 minutes ago, akvanden said:

Sweet, it’s called freedom of the press no matter how much you want to censor them.

Well, it's called freedom of speech too....but sometimes, it comes with consequences.  Same with freedom of the press.  You don't mind much because you believe the lies.  For the rest of us, we're sick of their absolute bullshit.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.