HorrorMovieFans.com

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:That is your point?

That is really a bad take on the video you posted and right-wing monopolization of local news.

It also is of no relevance to the quality of news available in the TV market. No wonder you failed from the outset.

What about left wing monopolization of all mainstream news? You almost sound like a hypocrite!

What do you consider to be quality news, sir?

That’s justbit, there is no monopoly of left wing news. You won’t find any way to edit together Mother Jones and LOLGOP videos in sync. They don’t exist. Even in the center the stories vary and the takes differ. Hence the point about right wing news. There’s no left wing machine here.

Even though she's dead, Ricci's tits are still good.

It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

showa58taro wrote:There’s no left wing machine here.

Please tell me you're kidding and not so out of touch with reality...

Foo wrote:It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

Being gay doesn’t mean you present the same view. They may be gay makes, but the number of straight white makes far outweighs them and we don’t go assuming all news is therefore white news. Their ability to advance without being discriminated against is not some kind of gay agenda. It just (correctly) shows that gay people can exist in all spheres of life.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:There’s no left wing machine here.

Please tell me you're kidding and not so out of touch with reality...

No. The news reporting the news is not propaganda. The fact that you think so is a problem with you not the news.

CNN does not sound like AP, does not sound like Reuter’s, does not sound like BBC, does not sound like NHK, does not sound like MSNBC, does not sound like USA Today, does not sound like New York Times, does not sound like Washington Post.

These things are not a monolith and are in direct competition with one another for viewers. Unlike your video where the right operates more of a monopoly on local news (a problem) and where Fox News has fewer competitors for its right-leaning coverage.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:There’s no left wing machine here.

Please tell me you're kidding and not so out of touch with reality...

No. The news reporting the news is not propaganda. The fact that you think so is a problem with you not the news.

lol. The fact you choose to be ignorant is what's so puzzling to me.

What is that video meant to prove? Not your point, that’s for sure.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

Being gay doesn’t mean you present the same view. They may be gay makes, but the number of straight white makes far outweighs them and we don’t go assuming all news is therefore white news. Their ability to advance without being discriminated against is not some kind of gay agenda. It just (correctly) shows that gay people can exist in all spheres of life.

They have all chosen a lifestyle that reflects a tiny minority, not mainstream America. It would be like every news anchor being vegan and members of PETA. Then you wonder why stories about food and farming are slanted in a weird way all the time. When someone has editorial control over content, it matters.

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

Being gay doesn’t mean you present the same view. They may be gay makes, but the number of straight white makes far outweighs them and we don’t go assuming all news is therefore white news. Their ability to advance without being discriminated against is not some kind of gay agenda. It just (correctly) shows that gay people can exist in all spheres of life.

They have all chosen a lifestyle that reflects a tiny minority, not mainstream America. It would be like every news anchor being vegan and members of PETA. Then you wonder why stories about food and farming are slanted in a weird way all the time. When someone has editorial control over content, it matters.

But anchors don’t have editorial control. That’s rather the point.

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

Being gay doesn’t mean you present the same view. They may be gay makes, but the number of straight white makes far outweighs them and we don’t go assuming all news is therefore white news. Their ability to advance without being discriminated against is not some kind of gay agenda. It just (correctly) shows that gay people can exist in all spheres of life.

They have all chosen a lifestyle that reflects a tiny minority, not mainstream America. It would be like every news anchor being vegan and members of PETA. Then you wonder why stories about food and farming are slanted in a weird way all the time. When someone has editorial control over content, it matters.

But anchors don’t have editorial control. That’s rather the point.

Shepherd Smith is the managing editor of their news division. News anchors often get that kind of control. So basically, the guy who sets the tone at FoxNews is a flaming homosexual liberal, and that is the most conservative news source to mainstream America.

showa58taro wrote:What is that video meant to prove? Not your point, that’s for sure.

What is your take from that video?

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Foo wrote:It should be noted,

FoxNews, CNN, and MSNBC are our three major cable TV news sources. Together they account for like 90% of our mainstream news.

FoxNes top news anchor is a gay liberal, CNN's top two stars, are both gay and liberal, and MSNBC's top personality is a gay liberal.

Talk about a massive over-representation of a viewpoint. You have a tiny fragment of the population slanting news and opinion to the masses.

Being gay doesn’t mean you present the same view. They may be gay makes, but the number of straight white makes far outweighs them and we don’t go assuming all news is therefore white news. Their ability to advance without being discriminated against is not some kind of gay agenda. It just (correctly) shows that gay people can exist in all spheres of life.

They have all chosen a lifestyle that reflects a tiny minority, not mainstream America. It would be like every news anchor being vegan and members of PETA. Then you wonder why stories about food and farming are slanted in a weird way all the time. When someone has editorial control over content, it matters.

But anchors don’t have editorial control. That’s rather the point.

Shepherd Smith is the managing editor of their news division. News anchors often get that kind of control. So basically, the guy who sets the tone at FoxNews is a flaming homosexual liberal, and that is the most conservative news source to mainstream America.

Kind of my point, not yours, isn’t it?

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is that video meant to prove? Not your point, that’s for sure.

What is your take from that video?

CNN with a bad take on a valid law. Was proven wrong by WaPo, NYT, and a few other news organizations, and by some left-leaning legal society from what I can tell.

Your point was there is a left-wing propaganda machine all singing from the same hymn sheet yet in a case like this one guy makes one bad take on a law (because he is right, technically) and no other organization runs with that take or story.

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is that video meant to prove? Not your point, that’s for sure.

What is your take from that video?

CNN with a bad take on a valid law. Was proven wrong by WaPo, NYT, and a few other news organizations, and by some left-leaning legal society from what I can tell.

Your point was there is a left-wing propaganda machine all singing from the same hymn sheet yet in a case like this one guy makes one bad take on a law (because he is right, technically) and no other organization runs with that take or story.

Because they are trying to cover their own asses as they are part of the same propaganda machine.

And no, he is not right "technically". He literally said that only the media can look at wikileaks and you have to learn about it through them. The fact you're defending that shows your bias, not mine.

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Jason wrote:

showa58taro wrote:What is that video meant to prove? Not your point, that’s for sure.

What is your take from that video?

CNN with a bad take on a valid law. Was proven wrong by WaPo, NYT, and a few other news organizations, and by some left-leaning legal society from what I can tell.

Your point was there is a left-wing propaganda machine all singing from the same hymn sheet yet in a case like this one guy makes one bad take on a law (because he is right, technically) and no other organization runs with that take or story.

Because they are trying to cover their own asses as they are part of the same propaganda machine.

And no, he is not right "technically". He literally said that only the media can look at wikileaks and you have to learn about it through them. The fact you're defending that shows your bias, not mine.

Technically he is right on two counts. Media organizations are exempt from possession and dissemination of stolen materials if it’s for the public good, and he’s right that possession of stolen emails is a crime. What’s wrong is reading and seeing these things once widely dispersed would not be prosecutable.

And again, CNN messed up, others (on the left) wrote aboutbthat not being true. That’s not how unified propaganda works. Propaganda is the domain of the far right in your country.

“First, the criticism of Cuomo as trying to keep people from reading this material (which is damaging to Clinton) seems a bit far-fetched. It is more likely that he felt obligated to disclose the uncertain legal status of such documents. However, he overstated the case in my view.

It is true that possession of stolen items is a crime and documents can be treated as stolen items. However, this material has already been released and it is doubtful that downloading widely available material (particularly in a matter of great public interest) would be seen as prosecutable possession. Whoever had original possession has released them widely to the public like throwing copies out a window by the thousands. Whatever crime is alleged, it will be directed at the original hacker and not the public. Just downloading and reading public available material is unlikely to be viewed as a crime unless you use material to steal someone’s identity or commit a collateral crime. Otherwise, possession of the Pentagon Papers would lead to the arrest of tens of thousands of citizens.

More importantly, most people do not download these documents but read them on line and there is no actionable crime in reading the material from any of the myriad of sites featuring the Wikileaks documents.

Cuomo is right about status of reporters being clear and protected. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the media is allowed to publish material that may have been obtained illegally and declared a law unconstitutional to the extent that it would make such media use unlawful. The Court reaffirmed the need to protect the first amendment interests and took particular note of the fact that the material was a matter of public interest:

“The Court holds that all of these statutes violate the First Amendment insofar as the illegally intercepted conversation touches upon a matter of “public concern,” an amorphous concept that the Court does not even attempt to define. But the Court’s decision diminishes, rather than enhances, the purposes of the First Amendment, thereby chilling the speech of the millions of Americans who rely upon electronic technology to communicate each day.”
”

From https://jonathanturley.org/2016/10/17/c ... ore-104984