Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?Page 4 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
@DameWhite:

If you only knew the crap/propaganda I have to/want to?/bother to... read.

I suspect that I probably have a much better idea about that than you realize.

Do me a favour and comment on... whatever is YOUR real issue (I am quite aware that I often sound like a broken "leftist" record ...ahem).

I absolutely will - but after I've addressed your other points, because it's gonna be a big'un. And yeah, you do (an observation, not a criticism)

Do you actually think I'm getting off on it? Stupid? Gullible? Naive?

To be honest, I'd really rather not address that directly, because I don't want to risk things getting too personal, and have the thread trashed because of it. I will, however, say that I do not - nor have I EVER - assumed that the only reason somebody might disagree with me is because they are stupid, gullible, or naive. Or brainwashed. Or a sheeple. Or hates America. Or what-freaking-ever.

I DON'T self select. (that would be soooo much easier ..but lame).

Actually, you do. Everbody does - it's human nature. And I'm no more immune to it than you are. The problem is the DEGREE to which people do so.

I'm working towards self selecting though. (have to trust someone? maybe me?).

Why? The minute you loose your skepticism is the minute you loose your objectivity.

btw Did you miss this?...
(also be careful of some "independent media" that is dependent on bribes. They are also imbedded with the war mongers at the pentagon.

No, I didn't. Just being "independent media" doesn't mean that it necessarily fits your worldview, or that you won't ascribe evil motives to them.

OK, and now the "big'un" - MY real issue.

Back in the "good old days" of the Cold War, I was in an intelligence trade in the Canadian Navy. I worked at various times as an intercept operator (COMINT & SIGINT), a linguist (I spoke fluent Russian), and an analyst. I remember when we would get bored sometimes, we'd fire up the teletypes and print off a few things from the various news services - Reuters, AP/UP, the BBC, Tass, Izvestia, etc. Find reports of the same event, put them side by side, and compare. The results were often hilarious. If you didn't KNOW that all these guys were talking about the same event, you'd never be able to figure it out from what we'd read. What they included - what they did NOT include - the order in which they presented things - the choice of adjectives - all served to color and change the story. It was actually pretty scary sometimes. The Russian/East block services were invariably the most blatant and obvious. The Western services were (generally) much more subtle, but still could be pretty obvious without looking too hard. What it drove home for me was how dangerous it was to rely on one or only a few sources.
What was worse, was how easy it was to create the APPEARANCE of multiple sources, when there was, in fact, only one or two. Some freelance stringer would write a story and submit it, and it would then get picked up - slightly re-written - by other services. So you'd wind up reading 10/20 different stories that basically agreed with each other, even though they were all based on the same initial report. The takeaway there? Volume is NOT veracity.

When I got out, I went to university and got an honors degree in Soviet & East European Studies - basically, a combined history/poli sci degree. Again, what hit home there was volume != veracity. Some dude 2,000 or 2,500 years ago writes something. Some middle ages monk writes a treatise on dude's writing. Greek & Roman scholars pick up their quills and add their voices to the chorus. And you wind up with modern historians writing volumes and volumes on an event, filled with pages and pages of scholarly looking footnotes - which hides the fact that they are all derived from the one original account.

Now - the problem with perspective. Ask a cop, or a prosecutor, what they think of eyewitness accounts. They don't like them - they'd much rather have good, solid, forensics. Why? Because eyewitnesses often get it wrong. They disagree with each other - and not in just small details. This witness says the robber was 6'2", black and slim, while the witness standing next to him says he was 5'8", overweight, and white. PEOPLE ARE NOT GOOD OBSERVERS.

Remember the old adage about the 3 blindfolded monks and the elephant? The first monk feels the elephant's leg, and announces that it is a tree. The 2nd one touches the trunk, and says it's a snake. The 3rd one feels the ear and says it's a big leaf.

Are the monks lying? No. Are they wrong? Yes, every one of them. WHY? It's not because they are members of an international Jewish cabal that is trying to create the New World Order. It's not because corporate interests are trying to brainwash people into believing that elephants don't exist so they can corner the ivory trade. And it's not because the monks are trying to keep the masses confused so they can maintain their moral authority of them. The problem is that they are ONLY CAPABLE OF SEEING THINGS FROM ONE PERSPECTIVE. Period. Full Stop.

If the monks got together and actually DISCUSSED what they saw/experienced, they would actually have a chance to figure it out. But all too often - especially here in the forums. If you feel the tree, then the guy with the snake is obviously lying, and doing so for some nefarious reason that should make sensible people recoil in horror. The only thing the 1st and 2nd agree on is that the 3rd monk has obviously been smoking way too much of the leaf, and should therefore be ignored.

I've been to events that were reported in the press. Sometimes, what I read was totally opposite from what I experienced - sometimes, it was kinda/sorta the same thing, and other times it was exactly what I saw. But in neither case do I think the reporter was full of shite, or that he was deliberately lying, or that the man had gotten to him. He'd simply seen things from a different perspective, talked to different people than I did, or had a slightly different worldview that caused him to interpret things in a different manner. Or to refer back to what you said, DameWhite - it's not because he was stupid, gullible, or naive.

Now, about the press.

There is a big difference between a reporter and a journalist. A reporter gives the facts - he tells you what happened. A "journalist", on the other hand, believe it is his duty from on high to give you context, and put things into perspective. THAT is where you get spin. The talking heads on Fox? Assuming they are not pure partisan shills (a propagandist), they are - at best - journalists. The guy who gives you the "real truth" on some nutbar website? At best, a "journalist". At worst - a pure propagandist.

Reporters - or journalists - are NOT subject matter experts. Their journalism degree teaches them how to research (hopefully), and how to write. It does NOT teach them how to understand. I don't care HOW many post-docs a reporter has - if he has no scientific background and tries to interview Stephen Hawking about black holes, anything he writes about the characteristics of the event horizon is going to be seriously fvcked up. Period.

I'm a computer programmer. When somebody hires me to write something for them, I WANT to write good code. I WANT to do a good job. Same for a competent plumber - he doesn't want me calling back next week because he screwed ujp and everything leaks. Or a mechanic. And reporters are the same. No better, no worse, no different.

So - what's my issue?

My issue is with people who come in here, and no matter what the topic is, it's all because of one singular reason. it's "follow the money". It's evil Zionists. It's right-wing nutbars. Or reactionaries. or Warmonters. Or the military-industrial complex. Or because somebody hates America. Or the Bilderburgers, or the Masons, or who-freaking-ever. And EVERYTHING I've said here applies to both the left AND the right. And if you disagree with me, then you're evil, or stupid, or blind, or a commie, or have been hanging out with the 3rd monk for way too long.

It's close-minded, it's silly, it's overly simplistic, and it's lazy, but it's EASY. Oh, yeah - and also, quite probably, wrong.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 7/24/2014 10:50:37 AM

And reporters are the same. No better, no worse, no different.
I find that naïve at best. I'm sure all of us have heard that reporters are often told exactly what they can and cannot report. If not, then just open your eyes a bit wider.


My issue is with people who come in here, and no matter what the topic is, it's all because of one singular reason.
Well I think we all know that's not exactly true.

I think your issue is with anyone who simply does not agree wholeheartedly with you. I would say every one of us has that gene to some extent.

Everyone has their own reasons for believing as they do. Some of us are a little more open about our beliefs than others ... more open to actually hearing the truth. For example, I am a patriotic individual but I certainly do not live with the illusion that the U.S. can do no wrong. No nation is perfect. In fact, I'm quite embarrassed at some of the acts of our country in the world. I'd appreciate it too if the mainstream media would report it in an objective way.

There are posters in here that refuse to admit (for example) that the Zionists could ever do any wrong ... no matter what the UN says or no matter how other nations object or no matter how many pictures are shown ... no matter how many IDF refuse to serve because (per their testimony) they are expected to murder Palestinians.

Those posters will back the Zionists no matter what. I find that odd as we all know there are, in fact incidents that are quite objectionable ... no nation is perfect. However, that's their right as it's others' right to believe what they do.

It is odd though that in order to get impartial news, we in the U.S. (for example) are finding it more and more necessary to get our news from other countries that do not cater to or are not owned by exactly those who benefit by not getting all the news out to the world. IMO ... anyone who finds that belief odd or irregular is probably one I have just described.

http://mashable.com/2014/07/23/israel-gaza-rocket-astronaut-space/
One only has to note German astronaut Gerst's "Mein traurigstes Foto" ... not to mention the bombing of a UN school in Gaza. I'm anxious to see how the U.S. media will objectively cover that.
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 68
Do You believe the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 7/24/2014 11:04:13 AM

Posted by cotter:
"There are posters in here that refuse to admit (for example) that the Zionists could ever do any wrong...
no matter what the UN says or no matter how other nations object or no matter how many pictures are shown..."

Contemporary mainstream media is utterly stacked against Israel...so when even they are compelled to illustrate how Hamas is indiscriminately raining thousands of missiles into Israel population centers...yes, I do believe them.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 7/24/2014 12:32:08 PM
@cotter:

I find that naïve at best. I'm sure all of us have heard that reporters are often told exactly what they can and cannot report. If not, then just open your eyes a bit wider.

I don't think so. People don't automatically get personality or ethics transplants just because they get paid to pick up a pen. As far as being naive is concerned, I'm sure most people have some experience with being told by their bosses to do something when they think it's wrong - and some will quit as a result, and some will keep their mouths shut and do as they've been told. So like I said - no better, no worse, no different from anybody else.

I think your issue is with anyone who simply does not agree wholeheartedly with you. I would say every one of us has that gene to some extent.

Newsflash - I'm usually shocked when somebody *does* agree with me - it just doesn't happen very often. I move in circles where demographically, I'm in the minority, and almost always have been. As a case in point - I have voted in every election - federal, provincial, and municipal - since I turned 18, and have yet to cast my vote for a candidate who actually won :) And contrary to many, I don't care if somebody agrees with me politically or not - it is not a measure of their worth as a person, and is not how I choose my friends.

There are posters in here that refuse to admit (for example) that the Zionists could ever do any wrong ... no matter what the UN says or no matter how other nations object or no matter how many pictures are shown ... no matter how many IDF refuse to serve because (per their testimony) they are expected to murder Palestinians.

Just as there are those that seem to be incapable of admitting (for example) that the Palestinians are anything other than unblemished angels. What's your point?

For the record - thinking that the Palestinians are overwhelmingly the authors of their own misfortune, is NOT the same as thinking that the Israeli's are as pure as the driven snow. And not everybody who supports Israel is a Zionist.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 70
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/20/2014 8:12:55 AM
From the Original Post ...
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth about what's going on in the world with politics ?
Nope.

We have TV and radio stations here in Columbus that are limited by the owners on what they report and how they lean politically. We hear it and watch and read it everyday.

http://mediamatters.org/mobile/blog/2013/07/08/major-gop-donor-gaining-monopoly-control-over-c/194753
Major GOP Donor Gaining Monopoly Control Over Crucial Media Market

The conservative Columbus Dispatch has long been a force in local and state politics in Ohio. But in recent years, the newspaper's parent company has become a virtual media monopoly in Ohio's largest city and state capital, controlling not only the daily newspaper, but two radio stations, a television outlet and a long list of other weekly, monthly, and regional news sources.

"It's a one-newspaper town," said Dominick Cappa, editor of Columbus Business First, one of the few local publications not owned by the Dispatch. "They have the TV station, a radio station. Are they powerful? Hell yeah they're powerful because they have those outlets."

And the Dispatch's owners have used that media muscle to promote conservative causes and candidates, in particular the state's Republican governor, John Kasich. Publisher John F. Wolfe, CEO of parent company Dispatch Printing, and his wife, Ann, have spent more than $100,000 seeking to elect Republicans in state and out, with three dollars out of every ten going to Kasich's coffers.

The Dispatch's news reporting is the pride of Ohio; in recent years the paper has repeatedly been named the best newspaper of its size by the Associated Press Society, and its reporters typically clean up at that organization's annual awards presentation. In 2012, John Wolfe himself was given a special recognition award for "exemplary service to print journalism."

But critics say that the recent expansion of Dispatch Printing has created a near-monopoly in central Ohio, and point to the way the paper's editorial board has shielded Kasich to sound a note of alarm.

The increasing influence of the Wolfes comes during a period in which several right-wing moguls have been seeking to use mainstream media outlets to influence the political debate.

In December Media Matters profiled financier Douglas Manchester, a major Republican Party contributor who purchased the San Diego Union-Tribune and used it to cheerlead for right-wing politics and his own business interests. More recently, David and Charles Koch, major funders of the conservative movement, have reportedly considered buying the Tribune Company's eight regional newspapers -- which include the Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune -- as part of their plan to shift the country to the right by investing in the media. Manchester has also considered buying the Tribune Company.

The Kochs also financially support the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a non-profit organization whose websites and affiliates provide free statehouse reporting from a conservative perspective to local newspapers and other media across the country.

The Wolfes' stranglehold on central Ohio's media grew substantially last September when the Dispatch Printing Company took over Columbus Media Enterprises from American Community Newspapers. That purchase added 12 specialty magazines to its arsenal, including Columbus Monthly and Columbus CEO, and Columbus Bride; Suburban News Publications, a string of 22 community weeklies that were subsequently merged with the company's 22-paper ThisWeek Community News group of weeklies; and The Other Paper, a feisty alternative weekly that had been known as a Dispatch watchdog.

Dispatch Printing already owned a variety of specialty publications including Columbus Alive, Columbus Crave, Columbus Parent, and Capital Style, along with two radio stations, the local CBS television affiliate (WBNS-TV), Ohio News Network Radio, which provides regular newscasts and sportscasts to 73 radio stations statewide, and Consumer News Services, a marketing company that distributes insert fliers via direct delivery bags.

Columbus has three other network television affiliates: WCMH, the NBC affiliate owned by Media General; WSYX, the ABC affiliate, and WTTE, the Fox affiliate, both owned by Sinclair Broadcasting. (****Poster Note ... Sinclair Broadcasting is known for conservative political tilt.****)

But critics say that those outlets amount to little more than window dressing. "There is no competition," said Gerald Kosicki, a 26-year professor of communications at nearby Ohio State University. "You do only now have one voice. That is a concern to people."

The concern in Columbus increased earlier this year when Dispatch Printing closed The Other Paper, silencing perhaps its biggest critic.

"That is important in that The Other Paper was a real alternative voice in the community, many of us are sorry to see it go," said Kosicki. "The Other Paper had a reputation for dealing with stories about the Dispatch ... kind of watching the watchdog kind of role ... we certainly won't have that in Columbus anymore, it is really a loss to the community."

"The sad thing is that we cannot in a city this size sustain alternate outlets," said Ann Fisher, a talk show host at WOSU Public Radio in Columbus and a former 10-year Dispatch staffer, who also wrote a column for the paper. "The monopoly is unfortunate. They basically control everything."

But Dispatch Printing Chief Marketing Officer Phil Pikelny, a company executive since 2004, claims the monopoly is not as bad as people assume.

"Because of all of the other TV stations, the Internet, people can easily vote with their money," he said, noting there are other outlets. "And we are still one of the largest subscription newspapers."

Dispatch editor Ben Marrison also defended the paper's work, stating in an email, "I am confident that our reporting and editing is as professional as you will find." He later added, "[I]t's worth noting that the Dispatch has won more journalism awards in this state than any other metro in the past five years, including multiple awards for being the state's best newspaper. Clearly, our peers wouldn't recognize our work with these awards if we were a biased news organization."

But those who monitor national media issues say such local monopolies can be problematic.

"Quietly, we're seeing a new wave of consolidation in news," said Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute and a co-founder of the Committee of Concerned Journalists. "A lot of it less visible or less obvious than a generation ago."

Jean-Philippe Tremblay, a filmmaker and producer of the 2012 documentary, Shadows of Liberty, about the dangers of media consolidation and control, said such local news control is among the most dangerous.

"It is very sad," he said in an interview. "That is where information begins and where people can begin to become informed through local news, localism. That is where we really make decisions about our lives and run our lives, schools, our community is where it begins."

The Wolfe family, currently headed by Publisher John F. Wolfe, has owned the Dispatch -- which opened in 1871 - since 1905. Wolfe and his wife Ann have contributed at least $112,750 since 1997 to numerous Republican political campaigns and candidates as the newspaper editorializes and reports on the same public officials, according to a Media Matters search of the Center for Responsive Politics and National Institute on Money in State Politics databases.


I've lived around the US and in Europe and have never encountered as much shoving conservatism down our throats. Even the news broadcasts lean conservative.

I have a good source (a friend who works for a local political campaign) who told me that they make political ads by the local Democrats almost twice as expensive as for the Republicans.
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 71
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/20/2014 9:37:22 AM
Posted by tickle_me_pank:
"When most people don't like the slant of a particular publication, they simply find something else to read that already supports their point of view. Why this urge to claim you're being tortured by conservative media outlets?"

You are precisely correct...

If one wishes to hear something with a liberal viewpoint they can tune to MSNBC or read The New York Times.
If one wishes to hear a fusion of entertainment and enlightenment they can tune to Glenn Beck for a blend.
If one wishes to hear something with a conservative viewpoint they can tune to Fox News affiliates or Rush Limbaugh.
 DragonBits
Joined: 1/6/2012
Msg: 72
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/20/2014 10:20:28 AM
Does anyone seriously believe the media actually KNOWS the truth?
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/20/2014 11:17:38 AM

Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?

Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truthabout what's going on in the world with politics ?



Why should we have to rely on outside media to get our information.

Because you can't get unbiased news in your town? How hard could it be to log into some website that you think is unbiased?
That's a question people without Internet access need to answer ... I can't answer for them.


Shouldn't we be able to rely on unbiased news from mainstream media?

Nobody is responsible for spoonfeeding you reality.
Maybe not, but we should be able to get both sides (or more sides) to the stories.

When you feed a gullible public biased news, what is the result? (That's a general question ... don't need anyone to think I'm asking just for myself ... I already know what I think.)


But if "unbiased news" is what you really want, then probably the best way to get that is by reading the publications that claim to be more centrist in their points of view.
Again, without "outside" access or for that matter, without curiosity about the world outside their little nucleus ... how does that work? Whether they are smart or dumb they still deserve to have some access to free unbiased news.

In my line of work, I meet people all the time who never get out of their immediate neighborhood ... not even to go to the doctor. They have no Internet access, can't afford cable TV which might give them access to multiple media outlets and often their only link to the outside world is their home health aide or equally deprived neighbors.

My patients are not the exception ... they are the norm these days as incomes continue to plunge and people have less and less money to find out the truth ... because public TV and radio are owned by big firms with political agendas.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 74
view profile
History
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/20/2014 1:38:03 PM
Yes, I believe they tell the truth. The truth with emphasis on that which supports the agenda of whichever news outlet is processing and distributing the news. Media is big business and of course they're going to please those who fund them. They process the truth much as a slaughterhouse processes meat. To them, it's a product made for consumption.

I follow as many news sources as I can. Both left leaning and right. Then, I take note of what is emphasized by both and figure the truth is hidden somewhere between both viewpoints. Like everything else in the world today, straight answers and the actual truth is relative to who is reporting the news. If the truth would hurt their agenda, it'll be de emphasized. If the truth would help them, you'll hear them touting how fair and unbiased they are in their reporting. Of course, this is simply my opinion and is a result of what I've noticed from following the news... Truth by agenda...
 GreenThumbz18
Joined: 4/25/2012
Msg: 75
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/21/2014 9:45:52 AM
Sure, the media tells the truth, other wise they would get sued over and over and go broke.
But, there is no requirement for them to tell ALL the truth, so they broadcast and print which slices of truth are in their own interests.
Perfect example is the current interest in the police shooting of a man in Ferguson, Missouri. I have seen and heard that this individual was an unarmed man shot many times and killed, but never have I seen or heard the other side of the story.
"http://www.ijreview.com/2014/08/169517-report-officer-involved-ferguson-shooting-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-eye-socket/

New Report: During Physical Confrontation with Brown, Police Officer Sustained Serious Injury
The controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, has been inflamed endlessly in a week of mainstream media speculation that the “gentle giant” Michael Brown, an 18-year-old also nicknamed “Big Mike,” had been needlessly accosted by a Ferguson police officer named Darren Wilson who had stopped him on the street.

The first version of the story is that the Ferguson police officer shot Brown while his hands were up in the air. Later, it turns out that Brown and an accomplice named Dorian Johnson had robbed a local convenience store, and video surveillance footage showed Brown stealing cigarillos and shoving a man as he left the door. It came out later that there was marijuana in Brown’s system.

According to Brown’s accomplice Dorian Johnson, Brown was shot once at close range and once in the back while he was running away. It came out in the first of three autopsies, this one performed privately by Dr. Michael Baden, that Brown was not shot in the back.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Christine Byers stated earlier that more than a dozen sources had backed up the police’s version of events, which is that a violent altercation led the officer Darren Wilson to fear for his life. (Byers has recently backtracked the verbage of that claim.)

As a friend of Wilson told KFTK’s Dana Loesch, Brown had assaulted Wilson and struggled for the police officer’s gun, and after having fled, Brown “froze” and turned around to “bumrush” Wilson. That is when the fatal shots supposedly occurred, including one to the apex of Brown’s head.

KMOV reported that the officer Darren Wilson had sustained injuries to his head, according to the police:

The officer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Missouri was injured in the alleged altercation, according to Ferguson Chief of Police Tom Jackson.


Jackson, who spoke on the phone with News 4's Laura Hettiger Wednesday morning, said the officer “was hit” and the “side of his face was swollen.” The chief did not say if the officer suffered any broken bones.

According to a new report by Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit, the officer did sustain an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket”:

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and was confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

Gateway included an illustration of such an orbital blowout fracture: (see illustration)

There appears to be no double-sourcing on the report at this time; but if true, it provides further information as to the severity of Wilson’s head injuries, as reported earlier by KMOV and CNN. Wilson was treated for a head injury by medical professionals.

Another witness, Piaget Crenshaw, told CNN regarding a video she captured shortly after the Brown shooting that there had been a “tussle” at Wilson’s police vehicle.

The video she captured does not show Wilson to be necessarily in physical pain at the time, but he was also certainly in a state of shock. (see video)"

So if media wanted to portray the "whole story" , when will I see this on mainstream sources?
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 76
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:06:00 PM

So if media wanted to portray the "whole story" , when will I see this on mainstream sources?

Bad news, the "whole story" doesn't include 2nd hand hearsay and personal speculation.

The "testament" of "a friend of a friend" doesn't amount to a hill of beans so, no, you won't be seeing any of this on the "mainstream media". I guess you will have to keep relying on underground speculation for the "whole truth as you wish it to be".

I find it very interesting how, when events don't match what some wish them to be, the media is "biased" and "withholding the truth" but a sanctified sources when the story is one they wish to see.
 Eric_Summit
Joined: 11/3/2009
Msg: 77
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/21/2014 2:42:00 PM
Posted by blartfast:
"...I find it very interesting how, when events don't match what some wish them to be, the media is 'biased' and 'withholding the truth' but a sanctified sources when the story is one they wish to see..."

LOL! Indeed!
That would be a two-way street, blartfast.
 blartfast
Joined: 2/21/2014
Msg: 78
Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?
Posted: 8/21/2014 3:17:29 PM
LOL! Indeed!
That would be a two-way street, blartfast.

Since you mentioned me by name, I have to ask: Where have I said the mainstream media is biased or withholding info about either side on any topic.

What was your point again?
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Do You beilieve that the mainstream media tells you the truth?