Because they understand the importance of the media. That's something you, as a Trumpite, don't seem to understand.
This fake news thing: What will the news media learn?
- Thread starter Murphy
- Start date
Because they understand the importance of the media. That's something you, as a Trumpite, don't seem to understand.
Hey, Murphy? Ask Eagle Prick if he's a delusional moron who puts together 2+2and comes up with 647.892 and says that I claim to have been in "Combat" because he was wanted to make one of his typical Yankee loudmouth lying bullshyte attacks on another poster?
I usually have the piece of garbage on ignore, but this has gone far enough.
What the fukc is a foreign troll like that doing on here, anyway? Shouldn't he be posting on a Yank Alt-Reich thing?
Last edited:
There was Meagan Kelly who tried to push her way into a restricted area and tried to sue for assault when security put her back where she belonged behind the line. Sported a little bruise on her wrist to prove 'assault'. If that isn't 'fake', I don't know what is!
Then there was Wolf Blitzer, when Trump said they were 'CONSIDERING' repealing Obama care, said 'there you go! They're going to REPEAL Obama care. Again, fake reporting. 'Considering' doesn't mean 'going to'.
Then there was Wolf Blitzer, when Trump said they were 'CONSIDERING' repealing Obama care, said 'there you go! They're going to REPEAL Obama care. Again, fake reporting. 'Considering' doesn't mean 'going to'.
I do get tired of news orgs putting their spin on things. It's funny you should mention Wolf B. He always struck me as someone's older, hard of hearing uncle. He hears most of the conversation, but misses the main point.
Time and AP missed a golden opportunity to cover that briefing yesterday. Dedicated newspeople would have been in that room in a heartbeat. It would have been a story about what happened during the briefing and not as much about any WH announcement.
I wonder if they have that skype (or closed cct) screen going yet. A couple of months ago, I posted a story about the WH putting in a camera so that all media could watch a live feed of the daily briefs.
Time and AP missed a golden opportunity to cover that briefing yesterday. Dedicated newspeople would have been in that room in a heartbeat. It would have been a story about what happened during the briefing and not as much about any WH announcement.
I wonder if they have that skype (or closed cct) screen going yet. A couple of months ago, I posted a story about the WH putting in a camera so that all media could watch a live feed of the daily briefs.
Awww... c'mon Curious. You were so proud of your battles against the "enemies of NATO" and since you were asked to explain you've been retreating from backing away.
So here is your shot... what battles did you fight in again?
You want me to leave?
You mad?
*snicker*
Waaaa he hurt my feelings waaaaaa waaaaa . Stupid Americans coming on here and interrupting my trolling waaaaa .
My apologies for the length. The Tapper video is rhetoric. CNN link at bottom. Jake Tapper, Sara Murray and Brooke Baldwin, used it throughout.
Rhetoric is "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content."
- Italics are mine - murph
---
CNN Headline - Tapper: White House excluding the press is 'un-American'
Murphy - The WH excluded the press? I don't think so! The press was there; just not CNN and a few others. That headline is a lie. Does not letting CNN in make the Trump WH 'un-American'? It sounds like an opinion. You're angry, but no need to lie.
CNN - CNN, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and Buzzfeed were blocked from an off-camera press briefing Friday held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer just hours after President Donald Trump again said much of the press represents "the enemy of the people," this time during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
Murphy - Are you suggesting that CNN was not allowed in because Trump said, "...much of the press represents 'the enemy of the people'," Are you saying that Trump told someone (paraphrased), "Don't let CNN in. They are an enemy of the people."
When Trump said, "much of the press...", he didn't mean all, Jake. But heck, I'll run with it. Did he name any of the 'un-American' news orgs a few hours prior?
CNN - It is "indicative of a lack of basic understanding of how an adult White House functions," he added.
Murphy - And this, Jake. "a lack of basic understanding of how an adult WH functions." Are you suggesting that they are acting like children? Is that your opinion, or something that you are reporting as news? It sure sounds like an opinion. To me, it sounded like an insult. But perhaps you can explain how an adult WH functions. I guess an adult WH lets CNN into briefings. Is that right, Jake?
CNN - The White House was "handpicking the outlets they wanted in for this briefing, so Breitbart, The Washington Times, One America News Network, news outlets that maybe the White House feels are more favorable, were all allowed in," Murray said.
Murphy - Ok, Sara Murray, why did they do that? Were you told why? Was there a statement about exclusions issued by the WH? And what about the ones that were let in? You say, "maybe the White House feels are more favorable, were all allowed in," Maybe? You have to provide some kind of proof. Not innuendo. Not maybes, could be, or perhaps. You are supposed to be reporting the news, Sara.
CNN - Murray and Baldwin also surmised that the White House likely was responding to recent CNN reporting on the conversation between the White House and FBI and the previous stories on Trump campaign contact with Russians.
Murphy - Murray and Baldwin "surmised" that the WH "likely was responding" to recent CNN reporting. Well, that could be. Or maybe not. But both of you are news anchors. You are not editors. You were supposed to be reporting about what happened when you went to the WH. You gave us opinions. No proof.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, this was supposed to be a news story about the WH not letting in some of the major news orgs. It wasn't an opinion piece. Surmising is a supposition that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.. You have no evidence. That's tacky, for a news anchor.
CNN - "The White House is clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting about conversations between the White House chief of staff [Reince Priebus] and senior officials in the FBI," Murray said.
Murphy - Murray also said that the WH "is clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting..." A reporter said that. Can you substantiate that conclusion, Sara? Did someone at the WH say that they are clearly incensed? That's an opinion again, not a news report.
And the 'excellent' CNN reporting. In whose view? Yours? That's opinion yet again.
---
What we have here is a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. A first year journalism student would be ripped to shreds if they delivered something like this. More to the point, viewers should be angry that this news event was being misrepresented. To me, it lends credence to the claim that the press isn't objective or honest. Certainly not CNN at least.
It's rhetoric. "Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content." News reporting is not about what the reporters think or feel. They are supposed to be informing their audience about what happened, providing proof where necessary.
Look at the words they spoke. More rhetoric.And some lies.
Excluding the press is 'un-American'. Enemy of the people. Adult White House. Surmised. Handpicking news outlets that maybe the White House feels are more favorable. And the WH is "clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting."
Tapper: White House excluding the press is 'un-American' - CNNPolitics.com
Rhetoric is "language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content."
- Italics are mine - murph
---
CNN Headline - Tapper: White House excluding the press is 'un-American'
Murphy - The WH excluded the press? I don't think so! The press was there; just not CNN and a few others. That headline is a lie. Does not letting CNN in make the Trump WH 'un-American'? It sounds like an opinion. You're angry, but no need to lie.
CNN - CNN, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Politico and Buzzfeed were blocked from an off-camera press briefing Friday held by White House press secretary Sean Spicer just hours after President Donald Trump again said much of the press represents "the enemy of the people," this time during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.
Murphy - Are you suggesting that CNN was not allowed in because Trump said, "...much of the press represents 'the enemy of the people'," Are you saying that Trump told someone (paraphrased), "Don't let CNN in. They are an enemy of the people."
When Trump said, "much of the press...", he didn't mean all, Jake. But heck, I'll run with it. Did he name any of the 'un-American' news orgs a few hours prior?
CNN - It is "indicative of a lack of basic understanding of how an adult White House functions," he added.
Murphy - And this, Jake. "a lack of basic understanding of how an adult WH functions." Are you suggesting that they are acting like children? Is that your opinion, or something that you are reporting as news? It sure sounds like an opinion. To me, it sounded like an insult. But perhaps you can explain how an adult WH functions. I guess an adult WH lets CNN into briefings. Is that right, Jake?
CNN - The White House was "handpicking the outlets they wanted in for this briefing, so Breitbart, The Washington Times, One America News Network, news outlets that maybe the White House feels are more favorable, were all allowed in," Murray said.
Murphy - Ok, Sara Murray, why did they do that? Were you told why? Was there a statement about exclusions issued by the WH? And what about the ones that were let in? You say, "maybe the White House feels are more favorable, were all allowed in," Maybe? You have to provide some kind of proof. Not innuendo. Not maybes, could be, or perhaps. You are supposed to be reporting the news, Sara.
CNN - Murray and Baldwin also surmised that the White House likely was responding to recent CNN reporting on the conversation between the White House and FBI and the previous stories on Trump campaign contact with Russians.
Murphy - Murray and Baldwin "surmised" that the WH "likely was responding" to recent CNN reporting. Well, that could be. Or maybe not. But both of you are news anchors. You are not editors. You were supposed to be reporting about what happened when you went to the WH. You gave us opinions. No proof.
While everyone is entitled to their opinion, this was supposed to be a news story about the WH not letting in some of the major news orgs. It wasn't an opinion piece. Surmising is a supposition that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.. You have no evidence. That's tacky, for a news anchor.
CNN - "The White House is clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting about conversations between the White House chief of staff [Reince Priebus] and senior officials in the FBI," Murray said.
Murphy - Murray also said that the WH "is clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting..." A reporter said that. Can you substantiate that conclusion, Sara? Did someone at the WH say that they are clearly incensed? That's an opinion again, not a news report.
And the 'excellent' CNN reporting. In whose view? Yours? That's opinion yet again.
---
What we have here is a bunch of unsubstantiated opinions. A first year journalism student would be ripped to shreds if they delivered something like this. More to the point, viewers should be angry that this news event was being misrepresented. To me, it lends credence to the claim that the press isn't objective or honest. Certainly not CNN at least.
It's rhetoric. "Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content." News reporting is not about what the reporters think or feel. They are supposed to be informing their audience about what happened, providing proof where necessary.
Look at the words they spoke. More rhetoric.And some lies.
Excluding the press is 'un-American'. Enemy of the people. Adult White House. Surmised. Handpicking news outlets that maybe the White House feels are more favorable. And the WH is "clearly incensed over this excellent CNN reporting."
Tapper: White House excluding the press is 'un-American' - CNNPolitics.com
Last edited:
I like the American input on this forum, and I like Americans...period.
Eagle Shyte is neither a good nor intelligent contributor. He is merely another common, garden variety Yankee troll.
... Nothing there ...
There's a reason for the 'snooty' Canadian stereotype...because of posts like the one you just made.
The high finance people are like Vegas gamblers and some of them make a lot of money out of kooky, anarchic uncertainty.
And then, there's the Crony Capitalism ...
Plutocrats with their crony capitalism are taking over again in the U.S.: Don Pittis - Business - CBC News
It is frightening to see how much the news has been dumbed down.
While yellow journalism has always been a problem, it seems to be on the increase. Years ago, it was only the editor or the publisher (owner) that wrote opinion pieces. The regular reporting staff understood that only one or two people were allowed to write opinions. That's changed.
What we are seeing now are low level reporting staff injecting their opinions into what should be a straightforward story. That's troubling.
Imagine reporting a house fire in a Sikh neighbourhood in Brampton, and suggesting that because there is tension between Sikhs and Muslims, that Muslims may have started it. And the story is published - complete with assumptions.
We saw suppositions, likelys and maybes in the Tapper piece, so it's happening now. Facts are purposely being ignored. I say purposely because an editor would have caught those words and phrases in a minute, and ordered a re-write. The headline would not have been allowed either.
We continue to live in interesting times.
Is there a 'snooty' Canadian stereotype?
Tell us more!
Tell us more!
Tell us where you're from and we'll wheel out those stereotypes, too.
The funny thing that Trumpites can't seem to grasp is that since the inception of CNN, and with the explosion of the web, these organizations aren't "news" orgs. They're infotainment channels and web pages. Everybody but Trumpites seem to able to grasp the concept.