Mainstream Media Accountability Survey

I did google the points that you raised - that's why I was able to link you the CNN article about PewDiePie in an effort to prove that CNN did not accuse him of being an anti-semite. You then moved the goal post by claiming while it wasn't CNN, it did occur in the MSM.

Allow me to shift gears a bit. How do you define the MSM? Are you talking about every news source that gets widely distributed? All of the TV, radio, and internet? Are you including opinion pieces?

I ask because I view the very notion of the label to be rather pointless and a really cheap effort to dismiss any opinion with which you disagree. Think of it this way - If you merely label all the MSM as being "objectively dishonest," then that absolves you from the need to critically analyze any specific article that discusses something with which you disagree.

Try this: Go to the cnn.com/politics page and find me one article there that you find to be "objectively dishonest" and then we can have an actual conversation.

 

I never moved the goal post. If you pay attention I said MSM, never said solely CNN. You are just so desperate to defend themselves you can't help but think MSM equals cnn. But factually I said the MSM is dishonest and called pewdiepie an anti semite which you cannot refute but refuse to acknowledge.


And I will go to your cnn link just as soon as you show some intellectual honesty and acknowledge the instances I've pointed out to you as dishonest. Even if Micheal brown was to long ago, I still gave you pewdiepie which you have not researched outside of cnn...lol. and where cnn said bush signed nafta trying to play word games to make Trump look dumb. A quick Google search will show you the video.

Also, do you believe that CNN favors the left in its reporting?

 

Nonsense!

MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION EVER: CBS’ Garrett: More access to Trump than Obama, Bush, ‘we see him all the time.’

CBS White House correspondent Major Garrett doesn’t buy the portrayal of President Trump as an enemy of the media and a chief executive who has eliminated access for journalists.

“He loves us, and he hates us, and he loves us,” he said with a laugh.

“There is more access to this president than there was to Obama. We see him all the time. He takes questions a lot,” Garrett said. “We see him and interact with him and punch in questions with far more frequency than with Obama. Probably more so than for W. Bush,” he added.​

 

Another OUT OF CONTEXT headline from an alt right disinformation source.

Did you even bother to actually read the ENTIRE ARTICLE?

Because many of the other things that Garrett said about your beloved BOLTUS were NOT flattering at all.

Finally a single ANECDOTE does NOT REFUTE your BLOTUS's attempts to CENSOR the media with libel laws.

https://www.google.co.za/search?q=t...rome..69i57.6743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

What do anti-defamation (libel) laws have to do with censoring the media?

The answer is....NOTHING!!!!!!

 

Your BLOTUS erroneously believes that he can censor the media with libel laws.

That he is wrong about libel laws does not alter what his intentions are regarding unconstitutional censorship.

 

Use your neighbors name and address and an old email account, this is an old trick too

 

When did Trump say that he believes he can "censor the media with libel laws."

*crickets*

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...st-media-putting-federal-libel-la/1020913001/

Plenty of other links saying the same thing...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/tru...law-experts-say-theres-nothing-he-can-do.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/business/media/trump-libel-laws.html

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-still-has-no-clue-about-libel-laws-128282/

 

None of those articles talk about censoring the media.

Again, what do anti-defamation (libel) laws have to do with censoring the media.

*crickets*

 

I'm saying we should allow some punishment, but our media should be heal accountable for misinformation and unsubstantiated propaganda!

All news sources!

The problem today is they are no longer held to "loss of readers" as they were in the 50-70's. Today there are so many batshit crazy people that only subscribe to garbage they need to hear or read and damn the truth! So todays news feeds simply sweep up chicken feed from all the morons they can steal/chum away from the other bottom feeders outlets. They are perfectly happy being the National Star of the airwaves and itratrash news

 

Trump hasn't said anything worse than what Obama said about Fox and those who watch it. Obama called FOX "destructive on America" and living on another planet. Destructive or enemy...not much difference. STILL outraged or as usual, its perfectly OK when YOUR side does it=)

And Democrats were in general agreement about artificially forcing radio stations to be Liberal. The ANTI-Fairness Doctrine. Want to talk about censorship? =)

 

its a poll designed for Trump supporters so why would it be a concern it being a so called push poll?

 

Not a punishment per say but not allowing news organization be allowed to carry the news label if they don't follow certain journalistic standards
same as we don't allow a juice company call a juice they provide orange juice if it doesn't contain juice from real oranges
a news organizations shouldn't be allowed call what they provide the public news if it more biased opinion then real factual news

 

CBS' Garrett: More access to Trump than Obama, Bush, 'we see him all the time'

“There is more access to this president than there was to Obama. We see him all the time. He takes questions a lot,” Garrett said. “We see him and interact with him and punch in questions with far more frequency than with Obama. Probably more so than for W. Bush,” he added.

​

 

So according to you any criticism of the media (minus Fox News of course cause it’s not like you’re a hypocrite or anything) is immediately fascism even if it’s legitimate criticism?

 

Do you not know what libel is?

 

Kneejerk denialism of factual reality duly noted and ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Which would force FauxNoise to stop lying about "we report, you decide" and "fair and balanced" since it is none of those things.

 

Regurgitating your recently debunked fallacy does not alter that FACT that it is STILL a DEBUNKED FALLACY!

 

most show host on Fox don't call themselves journalist there for aren't required to follow journalistic standards as being unbias and impartial
Shawn Hannity isn't a journalist Tucker Carson isn't a journalist Laura Ingram isn't a journalist and all three will tell you they aren't
they are commentators paid to give their opinion no different than an Op Ed writer for a newspaper
do you understand the difference?

 

So, you finally admit that libel laws have nothing to do with censoring the media. Good to know.

 

So you finally admit that your BLOTUS does want to censor the media!

 

That has nothing to do with FauxNoise PRETENDING to be "reporting" "fair and balanced" news. In essence you have just agreed that they are lying to their audience about that.