CNN FINALLY Showing Some Accountability - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Rochard · 06-27-2017, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So when the head of the FBI testified before Congress and said that these news reports were "nonsense".
And when CNN reported in the first day of Drumpf's Presidency that he had removed the bust of MLK...which was quickly shown to be a lie.
And when CNN has to finally start retracting stories like the one I originally posted because they simply made it up with no facts.
And when you see video footage of a senior producer at CNN explaining that they are reporting "bullshit" for ratings...

You still think I'm wrong? Wow. What would it take to get you to open your eyes to this?
The media has an agenda. They are reporting rumors, falsehoods, unsubstantiated "unnamed sources", etc.

The very TOP executives of CNN have now issued a policy that NO story on Russia will be allowed until it is run past the two top executives of CNN so they can fact check their own people.

I get that you want to believe because you don't like Trump. But when the top brass of CNN don't even trust CNN...then maybe you need to rethink that.

Robbie you are being silly. The bust story was just a silly little thing; Someone posted that the bust was missing and it got over blown. The retraction isn't fake news but instead good journalism; They saw something wrong and quickly took action to remove it. The video you are talking about is a low level employee quickly sharing his thoughts with someone that was annoying him; The video was made by Okeefe who has a long history of bullshit.

With that said, I do honestly believe the press is completely fucking with Trump. During the administration Trump attacked the press, calling it all "fake news". Trump thought once he was president he would be able to do whatever he wants. The press thinks Trump is ridiculous, and are taking advantage of his inexperience. Trump is so incompetent that it's easy.

The so called "travel ban" is a great example. If this was properly done no one would have noticed. All the Trump administration had to do was quietly create a committee to review the vetting process, and then quietly push through some changes. Instead Trump made a big deal about it as if he was protecting Americans. The press saw this and made a much bigger deal out of it than it should have been.

The entire Russian connection has also been so poorly handled that it's turned into an obstruction of justice investigation. The press is picking up these things and running with it. Trump and his team is so damn incompetent that they cannot control the press cycle. It's so bad that they are refusing to allow cameras in the press room.

Steve Rupe · 06-27-2017, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

So when the head of the FBI testified before Congress and said that these news reports were "nonsense".
And when CNN reported in the first day of Trump's Presidency that he had removed the bust of MLK...which was quickly shown to be a lie.
And when CNN has to finally start retracting stories like the one I originally posted because they simply made it up with no facts.
And when you see video footage of a senior producer at CNN explaining that they are reporting "bullshit" for ratings...

You still think I'm wrong? Wow. What would it take to get you to open your eyes to this?
The media has an agenda. They are reporting rumors, falsehoods, unsubstantiated "unnamed sources", etc.

The very TOP executives of CNN have now issued a policy that NO story on Russia will be allowed until it is run past the two top executives of CNN so they can fact check their own people.

I get that you want to believe because you don't like Trump. But when the top brass of CNN don't even trust CNN...then maybe you need to rethink that.

What you are saying about CNN is applicable to all "news" media outlets, in my humble opinion. They all have an agenda and that is to make the most money possible and the accuracy of their reporting be damned.

CarlosTheGaucho · 06-28-2017, 01:37 AM

Fortunately, the twist from reporting to projecting also already reflects in the Public's trust in the mainstream media, that's constantly declining.

I've personally worked with perhaps 100 mainstream media outlets during my time with Big Sister, was lucky enough to get some good positive press, even if it was quite an edgy topic.
I would trust that a part of it was maybe that they found a sensible counterpart for an interview in me plus I was also careful about what to say so it can't be twisted easily.

But also experienced a couple examples of twisting and selectively picking the facts to fit one's agenda. If I dismiss a completely fake article by a certain British magazine, the other one that really did not act all that kosher was NY Times. They selectively picked quotations and information in order to put a negative bias in, and employed some projecting in their article.

On the other hand, it made us money - maybe 20 k worth in new mainstream extra sign ups. It generated a lot of interest, it's not like it would affect how the world works so who cares. Glad it was not a political issue though.

But yes, if you simply compare about how two news outlets select completely different facts and angle for reporting about the very same issue, there can be very little doubt about the institutionalized bias.

Also one of the reasons I practically quit reading any "news" - if there is any issue I need to educate myself on, then I look up and listen to or read the authentic (aka original) speeches, documents, or educate myself about the facts, mainly from actual books or non-political sources (which are rare).

06-28-2017, 01:37 AM	#53
CarlosTheGaucho Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 9,510	Fortunately, the twist from reporting to projecting also already reflects in the Public's trust in the mainstream media, that's constantly declining. I've personally worked with perhaps 100 mainstream media outlets during my time with Big Sister, was lucky enough to get some good positive press, even if it was quite an edgy topic. I would trust that a part of it was maybe that they found a sensible counterpart for an interview in me plus I was also careful about what to say so it can't be twisted easily. But also experienced a couple examples of twisting and selectively picking the facts to fit one's agenda. If I dismiss a completely fake article by a certain British magazine, the other one that really did not act all that kosher was NY Times. They selectively picked quotations and information in order to put a negative bias in, and employed some projecting in their article. On the other hand, it made us money - maybe 20 k worth in new mainstream extra sign ups. It generated a lot of interest, it's not like it would affect how the world works so who cares. Glad it was not a political issue though. But yes, if you simply compare about how two news outlets select completely different facts and angle for reporting about the very same issue, there can be very little doubt about the institutionalized bias. Also one of the reasons I practically quit reading any "news" - if there is any issue I need to educate myself on, then I look up and listen to or read the authentic (aka original) speeches, documents, or educate myself about the facts, mainly from actual books or non-political sources (which are rare). __________________ CTG Media \| skype: carlosprague \| cb \|at\| ctgmedia \|dot\| net \| Want to make more with your Dating Traffic? \| Read My Educational Series \| Read my Adult Biz Chronicles \| Did your ad revenue drop by 40 pct. or more last year?