for its willing role in this propagandist hoax?
What if any consequence will the corporate media face
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
Trump stood his ground, called it for the hoax and ruse it was from the beginning, and gave the FakeNewsMedia enough rope to let it hang itself.
This much-needed exposure of the man behind the curtain would not have happened with any other president.
The Trump years are a lot of fun.
This much-needed exposure of the man behind the curtain would not have happened with any other president.
The Trump years are a lot of fun.
You're the dumbest bitch on this site
Unfortunately, I don’t think the media will suffer long-term. Short-term ratings may dip, but leftists have short memories. They want to be given red meat to tweet about and accuracy of reporting has proven not to be important.
To be clear, ANYONE who thought that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election deserves their own stupidity. And they probably need the fake news to keep their own sanity.
To be clear, ANYONE who thought that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election deserves their own stupidity. And they probably need the fake news to keep their own sanity.
i got lotsa peeps on ignore so i dunno who this refers to
i give it a like
for its straightforward approach
media is not here to be credible
nor the sentinel of our democracy
media is a business with an agenda
next to saving the supreme court
trumps greatest leagacy will be the advent of fake news into the american vernacular discrediting the media and the overwhelm and destruction of the MSM as a representative amongst centrist normal free thinking americans
nor the sentinel of our democracy
media is a business with an agenda
next to saving the supreme court
trumps greatest leagacy will be the advent of fake news into the american vernacular discrediting the media and the overwhelm and destruction of the MSM as a representative amongst centrist normal free thinking americans
1st Amendment and all that...
They might have some financial repercussions if people stop watching.
Here's the deal: 90% of liberals inside and outside of the media knew this was a false narrative, they knew it was a witch hunt but they were perfectly fine with destroying people’s lives to achieve their agenda. It’s how they think.
The other 10%, true blue believers like @toontown, @Syskatine, @07pilt, and @Pokeabear are shills that will believe anything as long as it damages the other team.
The other 10%, true blue believers like @toontown, @Syskatine, @07pilt, and @Pokeabear are shills that will believe anything as long as it damages the other team.
Very true.
The inability to think outside of one's own ideological comfort zone isn't an attractive quality.
Thank the lord I’m not trying to attract you based on your value set.
For now, at least, the FakeNewsComplex faces outright humiliation.
The Trump years are a lot of fun.
The Trump years are a lot of fun.
That you even try to use the word "value" in connection with your principles in life is laughable.
Do you even know what the word means?
To answer the original question, I suspect lost ratings will be the consequence. The meat on the bone of CNN, NYTimes, MSNBC, and others in covering Trump has been the Russia collusion story. Now that that bone has been blanched, and the meat removed, I can't imagine that whatever morsels they try to serve going forward are going to draw the same attention. That said, I suspect that Biden announces his bid on Monday in order to change the subject.
Oh please.
It absolutely is when start talking about “consequences” that the press are supposed to suffer.
"There will soon enough be an effort to memory-hole it, but the media coverage of the Russia investigating was abysmal and self-discrediting —obsessive and hysterical, often suggesting that the smoking gun was right around the corner, sometimes supporting its hoped-for result with erroneous, too-good-to check reporting. Never has so little come of so many screaming chyrons. Every mini-scooplet was played up like major news, and if you went on air and said that collusion was unlikely and we should wait for the evidence, you were often treated like you were in the tank for Trump. The last two years have been a disgrace, and no one should forget it."
-- Rich Lowry, National Review.
-- Rich Lowry, National Review.
You quoted a tweet and asked a question.
I responded to your question by stating that any “consequence” that may come will be market drive and not governmental sanction because of the 1st Amendment.
And I’m right in saying that.
Can we at least agree, that anonymous reporting of 'facts' is dead? After 2 years of quoting anonymous sources that have now ALL been shown to be wrong, will there be any credibility in those articles in the future?
One other item, I'm strongly considering shorting the NYTimes stock. I can't see any way this doesn't lead to a decrease in its subscriber base among moderates.
I don’t think anonymous source reporting is dead. It should be in my book, but I’ve long doubted pretty much all media reports in favor source records and evidence made explicitly in the record....which I doubt just slightly less.
People in general will keep believing the anonymous sources that bolster the world view they have and doubting the ones that don’t.
True, but they aren't looking for news. They are just looking for reinforcement of their existing belief system.
In general...I think the overwhelming majority of people have moved beyond looking for “news” or “truth”.
We are truly in a post-factual, perception is reality society.
Pretty much all forms of media...MSM, alt, whatever....is seeking to influence rather than simply report.
Correct. Which was my point. I also mentioned in another thread where I wondered if people who hated Trump for collusion were angry with the media who lied to them for two years. Wondering if there will be massive ratings consequences.
This makes “consequences” sound a bit more sinister. Maybe I’m wrong. No big deal either way
The question in this thread thread about consequences was open and wide if you don’t read it in context or in conjunction of a separate thread.
My first post in response said: 1. First Amendment, and 2. Maybe financial consequences from loss of credibility.
Raddad responded that this isn’t about the First Amendment. I responded that it is in evaluating what consequences are in play. I’m not sure why using the same word everyone else was using sound more sinister when I use it in saying there won’t be governmental ones, but may be financial ones from market forces. I at no point suggested that you were advocating for particular consequences. After all, you merely asked a question.
As you say, though...no big deal.
It won't be directly at the media, but I have to wonder if Trump or Trump Jr. (who's been disparaged by many) could potentially file libel suits against some of the talking heads who have been on the media circuit. I'd have to think that the Trump personal lawyers are combing through footage of Brennan, Comey and others. Again, that's not attacking CNN directly, but rather their source of 'in-the-know' guests.
Even then, actual malice...which is a First Amendment concept....is a mighty tall hill to successfully climb.
No doubt.
In your world where wrong is right and right is wrong I'm sure it gets rather confusing.
Similar threads
