Red, trust me there are several important lessons I have learnt about how to have a healthy, positive and sustainable lifestyle
Wait....so the media can attack you all day long and thats fine, but if u attack back, your in the wrong?
Lets not kid ourselves here, they both asking for this and both deserve this. Established media is turning itself off to people and people are terrified of it and don't even trust the media anymore. After it blatantly tried to manipulate the public, Trump is the cause of our media. Unfortunately we selected a ****ed up answer to a ****ed up problem and so we have Trump for president.
Cause and effect, they made for each other, 2 dumpster fires that can't stop trying to burn the other one.
So a middle finger to Trump AND our media, Trump's a piece of **** and our media isn't a shining beacon anymore when it lets biasedness stop it from airing info because it could hurt "political party" or providing undistorted facts.
If you a politician you cannot make the media your enemy for no reasonable reason. He was criticizing the media back in the days when he needed to win the Republican presidential candidacy, it was unprecedented and as I said he has absolutely made enemies of numerous media institutions
He was under the mistaken impression that a man can be greater than the global media, its not likely. Anyone in the public limelight can have a good and respectful relationship with the media, the onus is on them as the media is generally not hard to understand or rationalize
Trump attacking the media was one of the few things I could get behind with him.
Let me ask you some questions, is the USA media honest and unbiased? Are you okay with media NOT being nuetral? Are you okay with the media being nothing more than political propaganda machines, where truth is sacrificed or twisted by both sides?
this is the thing the new alt-right and the hard lefts and professional political victims has managed to sell: the media is 'posed to be "unbiased" and "neutral." how does such a goal even make sense to people when we is 'posed to have Free press? americans is free to voice opinions and rage 'gainst folks in washington and sacramento. you want press to be free, but only to speak objective truth? until recent, most americans woulda' wholehearted agreed that press should be free o' government entanglement. free press is no less a fundamental freedom than free exercise o' religion and speech. what changed? press is free, but only so long as they is unbiased? who decides neutral? who decides unbiased? the government? when did we lose our way?
our press has always been biased. our press has always advocated. is nothing new. lincoln were so enraged with the interference o' a free press, he actual did what trump asked comey to do: he arrested journalists. lincoln sent his thugs on nighttime raids and imprisoned large numbers o' antagonist journalists. recall those scenes from v for vendetta? doesn't get too much coverage in our history books. regardless, lincoln were incensed with journalists not 'cause they were unbiased and neutral and spreading difficult truth but rather 'cause they were frequent part o' an active campaign to smear his efforts. one can sympathize with lincoln, but his actions insofar as the press and habeas corpus (and a long list o' other stuff) were unconstitutional.
you were never promised neutral or unbiased press. we don't want neutral or unbiased 'cause only way to ensure is with government intervention, no? got opposite o' free press if neutrality is enforced.
recent. am not certain when things changed, but were recent. sure, we has always had folks angry 'bout journalistic biases, but the rage were directed at individual journalists. don't like the chicago tribune? read sun times instead. with all the different news outlets available, all reporting the same events, the facts tend to be reported accurate... or at least that were the reasonable understanding until the now times. washington post or cnn would look ridiculous if they reported how kravspekistan had invaded montenaranga when in fact it were the other way around and every other news outlet reported correct.
reasonable has gone out the window. the belief in a ubiquitous conspiracy o' journalists has folks actual placing greater trust in the fringe and outlier news sources. reasoning goes thus: if all the mainstream media is in on the fix, then the only folks worthy o' belief is the journalists who is telling a different story. is all backwards and upside-down. instead o' looking for the consensus facts from reputable sources, many folks is actual seeing greater legitimacy from the fringe.
regardless, a free press necessarily precludes an unbiased or neutral press. axiomatic. you is gonna get largely accurate press 'cause o' the natural forces at work with a functioning "marketplace of ideas," but just as bob and trudy can look at living conditions in gaza and cheap labor in southeast asia with wholly different pov, so will news outlets. is costs o' freedom. is a cost we is more than willing to pay, even if is, at times, frustrating. free religion means we get wacky cults. free speech means we get folks burning koran/bible/torah. free press means we get breitbart. gotta accept the costs o' freedoms.
HA! Good Fun!
Edited by Gromnir, 18 May 2017 - 07:43 AM.