New Video: James O'Keefe attempts to interview CNN head Jeff Zucker
- Thread starter NZ Poke
- Start date
i cant do twitter at work, so can't follow the link? Was this an 'ambush' interview? If so, and Zucker ducked it, then this report is just as fake as most of CNN's news.
The corporate media seems to have agreed on the term "provocateur" to describe O'Keefe -- you'll generally see this word in most articles about him.
Once the media agrees on a term / buzzword, they use social engineering to push it out.
Here's an example of this social engineering in action ---- in this case the buzzword was "power through."
Now I agree with this. The cutup done last week where it showed 40 or so different news anchors all state that the Georgia election was a "referendum on Trump", clearly demonstrates this.
Sharyl Attkisson explains this in her new book The Smear. It's all orchestrated and totally produced to get a specific message or narrative to the masses.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...-media-giving-artificial-news-public-politics
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/...-media-giving-artificial-news-public-politics
Last edited:
Hashtag/buzzword and meme warfare if far from the exclusive purview of "the corporate media".
Which is something I am certain you, as a Pepe /pol/ powerspammer yourself, are WELL aware.
I remember when all the rage was to discuss whether GW Bush had the "gravitas" to be President.
Every Tom, Dick and Mary on TV was spitting this out and you knew they never even heard of the word until the DNC talking points came out.
Every Tom, Dick and Mary on TV was spitting this out and you knew they never even heard of the word until the DNC talking points came out.
So you're ok with the MSM, who is supposed to have some sort of journalistic integrity, orchestrating a narrative to sell to the masses? I think that's different from something like POL or Slate or Huffpost or infowars doing the same. Wouldn't you agree?
Agree with this. There's always legit bad stuff he exposes, but it is generally far enough in the weeds only those of us that follow politics closely even care. I've tuned him out.
Trumps acceptance speech being labeled dark by most media outlets within minutes of him giving it is a decent example.
No. I wouldn't. And if it is different then why in the hell did the Trump administration give Infowars Press credentials. This is what is so irritating about the "fakenews" bs I see from people that post /pol/, Infowars, gateway pundit etc. as if they SHOULD just as trusted because they are MORE reliable and truthful than mainstream media.....but then argue like you do that they shouldn't be held to the same standards.
They are all....ALL MEDIA....selling a narrative to attract readers....to sell ads....to make money.
Hell, orchestrating a narrative to sell to the masses for personal power and profit is exactly what Trump, the left, the right, are all doing too.
So your expectation of NBC news is the same as that for infowars and slate? I can get down with that, but I feel like the big three, at least, should put more weight on getting it right than getting ratings (at least more so than cable news and the like). Integrity has value.
Why?
If the White House treats them all the same (or in cases like Infowars, etc....even more favorably), why should you or I evaluate them with differing standards of integrity? Why should you or I place the that onus on the Big III when it isn't placed on all the other media outlets cited endlessly by everyone.
Besides, I'm talking about how IT IS....not how it SHOULD BE. All of them should value unbiased, accurate, truthful reporting over ratings. All of us should stop relying on those that don't exhibit integrity, but it should be all of them that lack it. Grading integrity on a curve is bs, imo.
I asked a question. Didn't say I was following anyone's lead, and I think you missed my point. To answer your question, though...I have stated multiple times there are things that Trump has been doing that I approve of. I guess I'm following his lead on those.
However, holding the "Big 3" to a different integrity level while using media outlets with even less integrity to assist in your accumulation of power and money is hypocritical and I'm not going to buy off on that.
I'm not personally prone at setting my expectations at different "bars of success" when it comes to integrity.
Either they have it or they don't....and if they don't, nobody SHOULD be relying on them...whomever they are.
Call me a cynic, but I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you are establishing any expectations for integrity from any part of the media.
I'm sure there are some idealists out there but I'm thinking they are often difficult to separate from the din of the opportunists who will gladly use any means at their disposal for advancement, which could easily include posing as one of the idealists.
Now, wanting integrity from them is quite different, IMHO. Like JD said, they should all be striving for accuracy and impartiality. But I think we all know that reality is far from that ideal.
The question I have is if anyone thinks there is any chance that there will ever be a move toward that integrity again. Personally, I don't think so.
I'm sure there are some idealists out there but I'm thinking they are often difficult to separate from the din of the opportunists who will gladly use any means at their disposal for advancement, which could easily include posing as one of the idealists.
Now, wanting integrity from them is quite different, IMHO. Like JD said, they should all be striving for accuracy and impartiality. But I think we all know that reality is far from that ideal.
The question I have is if anyone thinks there is any chance that there will ever be a move toward that integrity again. Personally, I don't think so.
