One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
"Unfreedom of the Press" by Mark Levin, who read it and what do you think?
Jun 29, 2019 00:38:57   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "Unfreedom of the press" and well in my opinion, I believe every abled bodied American should read this book.

"It bears remembering that the purpose of a free press like the purpose of free speech, is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, advocate and reinforce America's found principles--that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and well-functioning civil society and republic. Moreover, the media are to expose official actions aimed at squelching speech and communication. But when the media function as a propaganda tool for a single political party and ideology, they not only destroy their own purpose but threaten the existence of a free republic.
"It is surely not for the government to control the press and yet the press is not capable of policing itself. We must remember, we are not merely observers, we are the citizenry."---Mark Levin, from the introduction of "Unfreedom Of The Press"

Up until I started reading this book, I compared the Trump administration to that of one Senator Smith. A character in the Movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." On the Opp, I demonstrated many similarities between Jimmy Stewart's Character, "Jeff Smith" with a real person, Donald Trump.

The movie came out in 1939, and the synopsis of the movie is this, "When the idealistic young Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) winds up appointed to the United States Senate, he gains the mentorship of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). However, Paine isn't as noble as his reputation would indicate, and he becomes involved in a scheme to discredit Smith, who wants to build a boys' campsite where a more lucrative project could go. Determined to stand up against Paine and his corrupt peers, Smith takes his case to the Senate floor."

Frank Capra directed the film, and writers: Sidney Buchman (screen play), and Lewis R. Foster (story) wrote a fantastic story of politics and the struggle between good and evil in the political arena. Although very realistic, the story is still a Hollywood work of fiction, which exposes the political machine that according to Mark Levin began before the Revolution. The difference was society.

You see Mark points out in this great work, that Americans have always been arrogant and always sought to have the upper hand. Take case in point, the political battles between those who supported John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The battle for the presidency did not come easily for founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Whigs, the party of John Adams, waged a press war against the father of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson. This was played out then.

He we are 225 years later fighting the same battles. The difference is the progressive movement.

So my question here, is did you read the book? and What did you think?

Reply
Jun 29, 2019 01:42:08   #
PeterS
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "Unfreedom of the press" and well in my opinion, I believe every abled bodied American should read this book.

"It bears remembering that the purpose of a free press like the purpose of free speech, is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, advocate and reinforce America's found principles--that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and well-functioning civil society and republic. Moreover, the media are to expose official actions aimed at squelching speech and communication. But when the media function as a propaganda tool for a single political party and ideology, they not only destroy their own purpose but threaten the existence of a free republic.
"It is surely not for the government to control the press and yet the press is not capable of policing itself. We must remember, we are not merely observers, we are the citizenry."---Mark Levin, from the introduction of "Unfreedom Of The Press"

Up until I started reading this book, I compared the Trump administration to that of one Senator Smith. A character in the Movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." On the Opp, I demonstrated many similarities between Jimmy Stewart's Character, "Jeff Smith" with a real person, Donald Trump.

The movie came out in 1939, and the synopsis of the movie is this, "When the idealistic young Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) winds up appointed to the United States Senate, he gains the mentorship of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). However, Paine isn't as noble as his reputation would indicate, and he becomes involved in a scheme to discredit Smith, who wants to build a boys' campsite where a more lucrative project could go. Determined to stand up against Paine and his corrupt peers, Smith takes his case to the Senate floor."

Frank Capra directed the film, and writers: Sidney Buchman (screen play), and Lewis R. Foster (story) wrote a fantastic story of politics and the struggle between good and evil in the political arena. Although very realistic, the story is still a Hollywood work of fiction, which exposes the political machine that according to Mark Levin began before the Revolution. The difference was society.

You see Mark points out in this great work, that Americans have always been arrogant and always sought to have the upper hand. Take case in point, the political battles between those who supported John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The battle for the presidency did not come easily for founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Whigs, the party of John Adams, waged a press war against the father of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson. This was played out then.

He we are 225 years later fighting the same battles. The difference is the progressive movement.

So my question here, is did you read the book? and What did you think?
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "U... (show quote)


Snip>>Negative campaigning in the United States can be traced back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his VP.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."


Jefferson went so far as to hire a hatchet man to sit there and slander Adams day in and day out. I haven't had a chance to read Levins book but the press has been nothing but a propaganda machine from day one.

Reply
Jun 29, 2019 01:55:28   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
PeterS wrote:
Snip>>Negative campaigning in the United States can be traced back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his VP.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."


Jefferson went so far as to hire a hatchet man to sit there and slander Adams day in and day out. I haven't had a chance to read Levins book but the press has been nothing but a propaganda machine from day one.
Snip>> i b Negative campaigning in the Unit... (show quote)


Not necessarily.

Mark points out that the public was so s**k of the propaganda machine, that the people destroyed the press. And the party press was all but destroyed. Then in the 1920s-ish, the press established new rules of journalism. It was at that time, reporters were held to the standard of just reporting the news, (the who, what, where and when) and not to become part of the story. The Why and How were reserved to those who printed opinion and editorial pieces.

It wasn't until this new progressive movement that the press was used as a weapon against society in general. Remember Society moves government, not the other way around. Experience hath shown that no law could change society, an unwillful society cannot be changed by government.

Reply
 
 
Jun 29, 2019 02:14:48   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
PeterS wrote:
Snip>>Negative campaigning in the United States can be traced back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Back in 1776, the dynamic duo combined powers to help claim America's independence, and they had nothing but love and respect for one another. But by 1800, party politics had so distanced the pair that, for the first and last time in U.S. history, a president found himself running against his VP.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson's camp accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." In return, Adams' men called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father." As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward. Even Martha Washington succumbed to the propaganda, telling a clergyman that Jefferson was "one of the most detestable of mankind."


Jefferson went so far as to hire a hatchet man to sit there and slander Adams day in and day out. I haven't had a chance to read Levins book but the press has been nothing but a propaganda machine from day one.
Snip>> i b Negative campaigning in the Unit... (show quote)

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly complicated relationship.

However, after all was said and done, they passed their waning years in continuous communication with each other. After they had retired from public service, over the next 14 years, he and Jefferson would exchange 158 letters, writing for posterity as much as for each other. Of the two, Adams wrote many more words, and was often the more confrontational and aggressive, while Jefferson maintained his characteristic philosophical calm. By the summer of 1813, the two men had regained a level of trust that allowed them to truly grapple with the two sides of the revolutionary legacy. That July, Adams wrote “You and I ought not to die before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

Both men died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of Independence Day.

Regarding Levin's book.

Reply
Jun 29, 2019 02:41:34   #
Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly complicated relationship.

However, after all was said and done, they passed their waning years in continuous communication with each other. After they had retired from public service, over the next 14 years, he and Jefferson would exchange 158 letters, writing for posterity as much as for each other. Of the two, Adams wrote many more words, and was often the more confrontational and aggressive, while Jefferson maintained his characteristic philosophical calm. By the summer of 1813, the two men had regained a level of trust that allowed them to truly grapple with the two sides of the revolutionary legacy. That July, Adams wrote “You and I ought not to die before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

Both men died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of Independence Day.

Regarding Levin's book.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly compli... (show quote)




My faviorite founding father was Thomas Jefferson, and incidentally, that is followed up by John Adams then Ben Franklin and finally Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

But before the revolution, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine along with John Paul Jones, and Sam Adams.

Reply
Jun 30, 2019 08:11:13   #
Patsaco1
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "Unfreedom of the press" and well in my opinion, I believe every abled bodied American should read this book.

"It bears remembering that the purpose of a free press like the purpose of free speech, is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, advocate and reinforce America's found principles--that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and well-functioning civil society and republic. Moreover, the media are to expose official actions aimed at squelching speech and communication. But when the media function as a propaganda tool for a single political party and ideology, they not only destroy their own purpose but threaten the existence of a free republic.
"It is surely not for the government to control the press and yet the press is not capable of policing itself. We must remember, we are not merely observers, we are the citizenry."---Mark Levin, from the introduction of "Unfreedom Of The Press"

Up until I started reading this book, I compared the Trump administration to that of one Senator Smith. A character in the Movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." On the Opp, I demonstrated many similarities between Jimmy Stewart's Character, "Jeff Smith" with a real person, Donald Trump.

The movie came out in 1939, and the synopsis of the movie is this, "When the idealistic young Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) winds up appointed to the United States Senate, he gains the mentorship of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). However, Paine isn't as noble as his reputation would indicate, and he becomes involved in a scheme to discredit Smith, who wants to build a boys' campsite where a more lucrative project could go. Determined to stand up against Paine and his corrupt peers, Smith takes his case to the Senate floor."

Frank Capra directed the film, and writers: Sidney Buchman (screen play), and Lewis R. Foster (story) wrote a fantastic story of politics and the struggle between good and evil in the political arena. Although very realistic, the story is still a Hollywood work of fiction, which exposes the political machine that according to Mark Levin began before the Revolution. The difference was society.

You see Mark points out in this great work, that Americans have always been arrogant and always sought to have the upper hand. Take case in point, the political battles between those who supported John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The battle for the presidency did not come easily for founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Whigs, the party of John Adams, waged a press war against the father of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson. This was played out then.

He we are 225 years later fighting the same battles. The difference is the progressive movement.

So my question here, is did you read the book? and What did you think?
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "U... (show quote)


Excellent read Is also read it. It was an eye opener. We have been blinded and led by the press for a very long time. It is time to remove the shackles and start watching and reading real, unbiased reporters. Stop being SHEEPLE and start opening your mind to what is really happening. T***h is very cathartic.

Reply
Jun 30, 2019 08:41:58   #
rafterman Loc: South Florida
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "Unfreedom of the press" and well in my opinion, I believe every abled bodied American should read this book.

"It bears remembering that the purpose of a free press like the purpose of free speech, is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, advocate and reinforce America's found principles--that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and well-functioning civil society and republic. Moreover, the media are to expose official actions aimed at squelching speech and communication. But when the media function as a propaganda tool for a single political party and ideology, they not only destroy their own purpose but threaten the existence of a free republic.
"It is surely not for the government to control the press and yet the press is not capable of policing itself. We must remember, we are not merely observers, we are the citizenry."---Mark Levin, from the introduction of "Unfreedom Of The Press"

Up until I started reading this book, I compared the Trump administration to that of one Senator Smith. A character in the Movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." On the Opp, I demonstrated many similarities between Jimmy Stewart's Character, "Jeff Smith" with a real person, Donald Trump.

The movie came out in 1939, and the synopsis of the movie is this, "When the idealistic young Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) winds up appointed to the United States Senate, he gains the mentorship of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). However, Paine isn't as noble as his reputation would indicate, and he becomes involved in a scheme to discredit Smith, who wants to build a boys' campsite where a more lucrative project could go. Determined to stand up against Paine and his corrupt peers, Smith takes his case to the Senate floor."

Frank Capra directed the film, and writers: Sidney Buchman (screen play), and Lewis R. Foster (story) wrote a fantastic story of politics and the struggle between good and evil in the political arena. Although very realistic, the story is still a Hollywood work of fiction, which exposes the political machine that according to Mark Levin began before the Revolution. The difference was society.

You see Mark points out in this great work, that Americans have always been arrogant and always sought to have the upper hand. Take case in point, the political battles between those who supported John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The battle for the presidency did not come easily for founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Whigs, the party of John Adams, waged a press war against the father of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson. This was played out then.

He we are 225 years later fighting the same battles. The difference is the progressive movement.

So my question here, is did you read the book? and What did you think?
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "U... (show quote)


No, I haven't read the book. I probably won't for quite some time. However, I have read in other places similar comments to what Levin writes about. The press/media/msm is supposed to be "above the fray" so to speak - i.e., Report the facts, explore notions, probe, etc in a NON-JUDGEMENTAL, neutral manner. However, in our history, that has NOT always been the case as cited by Levin. In the MSM reporting in Trump era, it is probably the most bias against any President whereas the press was OVERLY optimistic - always painting the bright and shinny picture, sort of protecting like a mother hen - of Barack Obama. Maybe he got a break because he was the first black-American elected to be our President - who knows. The question I have is what will happen when the 1st women is elected President? During the Obama Era when anyone disagreed or criticized him the r****t label was used, so when a women is President will anyone who disagrees or criticizes her be labeled a misogynist? I believe that Bush II and Clinton both got hammered by the media, but each received a high number of platitudes as well, certainly a much more fair and neutral attitude and demeanor than the outright h**e President Trump receives today.

Reply
 
 
Jun 30, 2019 11:39:21   #
Owl32 Loc: ARK
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly complicated relationship.

However, after all was said and done, they passed their waning years in continuous communication with each other. After they had retired from public service, over the next 14 years, he and Jefferson would exchange 158 letters, writing for posterity as much as for each other. Of the two, Adams wrote many more words, and was often the more confrontational and aggressive, while Jefferson maintained his characteristic philosophical calm. By the summer of 1813, the two men had regained a level of trust that allowed them to truly grapple with the two sides of the revolutionary legacy. That July, Adams wrote “You and I ought not to die before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

Both men died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of Independence Day.

Regarding Levin's book.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly compli... (show quote)


Proof that intelligence still exist. Mark Levin possess a sound mind,and intelligence, love of country. He is truly a T***H SEEKER.

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 06:52:36   #
PeterS
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
Not necessarily.

Mark points out that the public was so s**k of the propaganda machine, that the people destroyed the press. And the party press was all but destroyed. Then in the 1920s-ish, the press established new rules of journalism. It was at that time, reporters were held to the standard of just reporting the news, (the who, what, where and when) and not to become part of the story. The Why and How were reserved to those who printed opinion and editorial pieces.

It wasn't until this new progressive movement that the press was used as a weapon against society in general. Remember Society moves government, not the other way around. Experience hath shown that no law could change society, an unwillful society cannot be changed by government.
Not necessarily. br br Mark points out that the ... (show quote)

RW media doesn't follow the rules of who, what, when, and never has so why are you pointing your crooked little finger at mainstream media as being the culprit in your little story?

And the point you are trying to make is that the press is supposed to be objective, not subjective and RW media fully centers around subjective reporting--giving people what they want to hear, not necessarily what is true. In fact, if a report doesn't tell you what you want to hear you cons will dismiss it and either demean and denigrate the author or pretend like the story doesn't even exist.

An example of this is when Shepard Smith did a piece on the Uranium One controversy and exposed it as a fallacy largely created by Fox News. The replies I got were that Smith couldn't be trusted because he was a liberal to no replies at all and even though the count was in the hundreds the only replies were from Democrats and the off conservative who only tried to discredit Smith as a hack for the left so his work couldn't be trusted--even though not a single Republican showed how Smith was in error...

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5646426075001/?playlist_id=2694949843001#sp=show-clips

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 06:53:51   #
PeterS
 
Owl32 wrote:
Proof that intelligence still exist. Mark Levin possess a sound mind,and intelligence, love of country. He is truly a T***H SEEKER.

T***hseeker or purveyor? The two are not the same...

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 07:08:39   #
PeterS
 
Ranger7374 wrote:
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "Unfreedom of the press" and well in my opinion, I believe every abled bodied American should read this book.

"It bears remembering that the purpose of a free press like the purpose of free speech, is to nurture the mind, communicate ideas, challenge ideologies, share notions, inspire creativity, advocate and reinforce America's found principles--that is, to contribute to a vigorous, productive, healthy, and happy individual and well-functioning civil society and republic. Moreover, the media are to expose official actions aimed at squelching speech and communication. But when the media function as a propaganda tool for a single political party and ideology, they not only destroy their own purpose but threaten the existence of a free republic.
"It is surely not for the government to control the press and yet the press is not capable of policing itself. We must remember, we are not merely observers, we are the citizenry."---Mark Levin, from the introduction of "Unfreedom Of The Press"

Up until I started reading this book, I compared the Trump administration to that of one Senator Smith. A character in the Movie, "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." On the Opp, I demonstrated many similarities between Jimmy Stewart's Character, "Jeff Smith" with a real person, Donald Trump.

The movie came out in 1939, and the synopsis of the movie is this, "When the idealistic young Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) winds up appointed to the United States Senate, he gains the mentorship of Senator Joseph Paine (Claude Rains). However, Paine isn't as noble as his reputation would indicate, and he becomes involved in a scheme to discredit Smith, who wants to build a boys' campsite where a more lucrative project could go. Determined to stand up against Paine and his corrupt peers, Smith takes his case to the Senate floor."

Frank Capra directed the film, and writers: Sidney Buchman (screen play), and Lewis R. Foster (story) wrote a fantastic story of politics and the struggle between good and evil in the political arena. Although very realistic, the story is still a Hollywood work of fiction, which exposes the political machine that according to Mark Levin began before the Revolution. The difference was society.

You see Mark points out in this great work, that Americans have always been arrogant and always sought to have the upper hand. Take case in point, the political battles between those who supported John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The battle for the presidency did not come easily for founding father, Thomas Jefferson. The Whigs, the party of John Adams, waged a press war against the father of the Republican party, Thomas Jefferson. This was played out then.

He we are 225 years later fighting the same battles. The difference is the progressive movement.

So my question here, is did you read the book? and What did you think?
I am currently reading Mark's best seller, "U... (show quote)


This is a description I got of the book: But the book is largely filler. Quotations and paraphrasing make up the majority of the book's central chapters. Lengthy and irrelevant block quotes from historians about, say, colonial printing practices ("The use of type commenced in Virginia about 1681...") give the book the air of a padded student essay. He has boasted that the book's chapter on The New York Times would contain major revelations: "What the New York Times did has not been well exposed in the popular culture, and I'm doing it." But in the book, he simply quotes the work of well-known scholars and journalists on the Times' mid-20th century failure to cover the extent of the Holocaust. He conducts no interviews, presents no original research, and visits no newsrooms.

According to the FDA, for something to be marketed as cheese, most of its makeup has to be cheese, not filler. Otherwise, it is generally called "cheese product." If there were similar rules for books, Unfreedom of the Press would have to be sold as "book product."


What would be the purpose of reading a student essay?

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/21/724983201/unfreedom-of-the-press-is-full-of-bombast-and-bile

Reply
 
 
Jul 1, 2019 07:15:01   #
PeterS
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly complicated relationship.

However, after all was said and done, they passed their waning years in continuous communication with each other. After they had retired from public service, over the next 14 years, he and Jefferson would exchange 158 letters, writing for posterity as much as for each other. Of the two, Adams wrote many more words, and was often the more confrontational and aggressive, while Jefferson maintained his characteristic philosophical calm. By the summer of 1813, the two men had regained a level of trust that allowed them to truly grapple with the two sides of the revolutionary legacy. That July, Adams wrote “You and I ought not to die before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

Both men died on July 4, 1826, the 50th anniversary of Independence Day.

Regarding Levin's book.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had a truly compli... (show quote)

We are supposed to be discussing Levins book on the Press. My point was that the press was just as contentious then as it is today. So what was Levins tie into this? Your historical filler tells us nothing that wasn't already available through common sources...

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 07:55:33   #
Rose42
 
PeterS wrote:
RW media doesn't follow the rules of who, what, when, and never has so why are you pointing your crooked little finger at mainstream media as being the culprit in your little story?

And the point you are trying to make is that the press is supposed to be objective, not subjective and RW media fully centers around subjective reporting--giving people what they want to hear, not necessarily what is true. In fact, if a report doesn't tell you what you want to hear you cons will dismiss it and either demean and denigrate the author or pretend like the story doesn't even exist.

An example of this is when Shepard Smith did a piece on the Uranium One controversy and exposed it as a fallacy largely created by Fox News. The replies I got were that Smith couldn't be trusted because he was a liberal to no replies at all and even though the count was in the hundreds the only replies were from Democrats and the off conservative who only tried to discredit Smith as a hack for the left so his work couldn't be trusted--even though not a single Republican showed how Smith was in error...

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5646426075001/?playlist_id=2694949843001#sp=show-clips
RW media doesn't follow the rules of who, what, wh... (show quote)


I h**e to burst your bubble of left wing self righteousness but they are no better with journalistic integrity.

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 07:58:56   #
PeterS
 
Rose42 wrote:
I h**e to burst your bubble of left wing self righteousness but they are no better with journalistic integrity.

They do a better job than the right does. Right-wing media was created solely to be a subjective source of news that cons want to hear not news that is necessarily true...

Reply
Jul 1, 2019 09:09:15   #
Rose42
 
PeterS wrote:
They do a better job than the right does. Right-wing media was created solely to be a subjective source of news that cons want to hear not news that is necessarily true...


No they don't. Poor journalism is bipartisan. Each 'side' thinks they do a better job. The left has more activist journalists and they are just as adept at using words to skew stories.

When people use terms like 'cons' and 'libtards' they show their argument is weak.

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.