Delicious.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.b9b6170af690
You just don't have enough emotion. You have to start drooling and raving more..
That's going to really confuse DB. A story criticizing CNN carried by the Washington Post.
And NOBODY has yet explained why it is so bad that some Trump team members talked to some Russians? This is nothing more than the Yankee version of Stephen Harper and his "hidden agenda"! The one that never appeared during his decade as prime minister!
Actually, lots have people have explained it.
I cannot stand CNN anymore.
I was at the folks house today and CNN was on the tube and they're still talking about what they don't know about Russia's involvement in the election and if they do know something that they don't know if it was illegal or not...
Like honestly how long can CNN talk about nothing?
What i want to see on CNN for example is how American, European and Canadian arms and weapons are being used by Saudi Arabia to decimate the Yemeni population...
Have you ever watched the sort of stories covered by the cable networks? Most of their news is about nothing. An episode of the Khardashians will push a major news story to the background.
I cannot stand CNN anymore.
I was at the folks house today and CNN was on the tube and they're still talking about what they don't know about Russia's involvement in the election and if they do know something that they don't know if it was illegal or not...
Like honestly how long can CNN talk about nothing?
What i want to see on CNN for example is how American, European and Canadian arms and weapons are being used by Saudi Arabia to decimate the Yemeni population...
Have you ever watched the sort of stories covered by the cable networks? Most of their news is about nothing. An episode of the Khardashians will push a major news story to the background.
I think that applies to most traditional TV and Radio and Print news.
Fortunately we have a new medium in the internet which allows for a two way participation between presenter and receiver, and gives a person choices in how to receive news - due diligence takes it from there.
ex:"After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies.[5] The usual method was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to cooperating or unwitting reporters.
Those reports would be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters, which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.
These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views, such as William S. Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (The New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of The Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (The Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James S. Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (The Christian Science Monitor).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
I think that applies to most traditional TV and Radio and Print news.
Fortunately we have a new medium in the internet which allows for a two way participation between presenter and receiver, and gives a person choices in how to receive news - due diligence takes it from there.
ex:"After 1953, the media network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies.[5] The usual method was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to cooperating or unwitting reporters.
Those reports would be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters, which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.
These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views, such as William S. Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (The New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of The Washington Post), Jerry O'Leary (The Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James S. Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (The Christian Science Monitor).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
Actually there have been many online retractions, if its required and you don't do it, you get sued.
I do agree that canadian media has a few more ownership options then the US does, however they do share many advertisers also owned by the same or similar groups.
Oh yuo dont agree that a Quebec Separatist leader might just have a different agenda than an Anglo Saxon bleeding heart LIE-beral and that both might have a different view than an Alberta oil man? HAHAHAHA!!
And really- why are Muslims such as Toronto Police Service Imam Khan- the newly hired spiritual advisor to Muslim cops whining he was taken out of context when he got publicly spanked for his blog detailing his views on women? A retraction is one thing- simply deleting the offending items and denying they said what they got caught saying as too many Muslims do when challenged is NOT the same as a retraction!
You are using FAKE NEWS to defend your fake news! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! AND you are probably annoyed that so many Cdns think of people such as you as LIE-berals!
Do liberals actually care about CNN? It seems to be singularly conservative obsession.
Danbones prefers to get his info from the Daily Stormer or Info Wars.
You got your peepee story there.
