"post 68!" about a half-dozen times.
whatever that is supposed to mean.
"post 68!" about a half-dozen times.
whatever that is supposed to mean.
yep: buckle-up comrade. Maybe your eyes are ready to be opened and you can join the rest of us.
They are angry with pool reporting because they were always at the top of the heap before the Trump administration, since they're no longer at the top of the heap they resent it. ABC, CBS and NBC were all included in the pool.
is that what those shitshows were called?If you didn't figure out I'm not a Trump supporter by now....
My neutrality ended with the Presidential debates.
It seems like we're in a hopeless situation. We either get extremely corrupt corporate media or we get extremely corrupt state media. The Fox News channel isn't even legal in Canada because there's some kind of law against fake news.
Have a look at what happened with Sun News Network in Canada. It was viewed as essentially a Fox News analog. It didn't go well for them.
I think what they're protesting is being excluded entirely (the topic of this thread). And even if you take issue with the slant or accuracy of the New York Times, I don't think you'd dispute that they're asking important questions when they query the Trump administration about links to Russia?They are angry with pool reporting because they were always at the top of the heap before the Trump administration, since they're no longer at the top of the heap they resent it. ABC, CBS and NBC were all included in the pool.
Temper tantrums often cause collateral damage, I guess. There's no justifiable reason to block any of them.So why did they want to block Politico?
Why are they so far off the rails and thus illegitimate? Do you have some examples? Is it just because they're telling you what you don't want to hear? Do you have the same complaints for organizations like "The Washington Times"?Good. Maybe they'll start actually reporting instead of writing one-sided / slanted / opinion articles constantly and passing it off as news. The four outlets they list are usually so far off the rails that you would have to have brain damage to consider them legitimate news outlets. None of them have been presenting the American people with the truth for a while, and have primarily been shilling for Democrats for several years. Not saying other outlets are better, but these four are clearly regularly biased in their reporting.
Good. Maybe they'll start actually reporting instead of writing one-sided / slanted / opinion articles constantly and passing it off as news. The four outlets they list are usually so far off the rails that you would have to have brain damage to consider them legitimate news outlets. None of them have been presenting the American people with the truth for a while, and have primarily been shilling for Democrats for several years. Not saying other outlets are better, but these four are clearly regularly biased in their reporting.
So why did they want to block Politico?
This is just a standard press pool for coverage. Something that has been done for decades at the White House. The only difference is the big dogs in the media are the ones being excluded instead of the numerous little dogs of the media.I think what they're protesting is being excluded entirely (the topic of this thread). And even if you take issue with the slant or accuracy of the New York Times, I don't think you'd dispute that they're asking important questions when they query the Trump administration about links to Russia?
Not The New York Times, or CNN right now.Why are they so far off the rails and thus illegitimate? Do you have some examples? Is it just because they're telling you what you don't want to hear? Do you have the same complaints for organizations like "The Washington Times"?
Furthermore, what sources do you consider "legitimate"?
Why are they so far off the rails and thus illegitimate? Do you have some examples? Is it just because they're telling you what you don't want to hear? Do you have the same complaints for organizations like "The Washington Times"?
Furthermore, what sources do you consider "legitimate"?
What sources do you consider legitimate? I don't care about which ones you don't consider legitimate.Not The New York Times, or CNN right now.
So how do you know anything?To one degree or another I have doubts about every media outlet. If your question is which one i believe in absolutely my answer would be ............ none.
To one degree or another I have doubts about every media outlet. If your question is which one i believe in absolutely my answer would be ............ none.
You read stories from the full spectra of the media and then make a call based on experience.So how do you know anything?
This is just a standard press pool for coverage. Something that has been done for decades at the White House. The only difference is the big dogs in the media are the ones being excluded instead of the numerous little dogs of the media.
The OP didn't even include a story or a source to this topic.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/whi...excludes-several-outlets-press-gaggle-n725366
"NBC News was allowed into the off-camera briefing and decided to stay with the intention of sharing all newsgathering material with journalism colleagues. The "pool" was also in the room — meaning that, under a longstanding agreement, the material would be shared with all media colleagues regardless of who was physically present."
https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold