RAzOR Posted June 30, 2006 Report Share Posted June 30, 2006 (edited) Pain sells. The Republicans keep calling it the liberal media, but when Clinton was in office, you never heard that. Media was bashing on him then, but you never heard the Republicans complaining about the media at that time.As for reporting on secrets, the White House and Pentagon need to fix their own leaks and not blame the media for reporting on them. Reporters don't walk into a room somewhere, open a file cabinet and start reading Top Secret documents. Someone in a trusted position is giving out that information. Nail that person to the wall, otherwise the leaks aren't going to stop.Clinton got passes on a lot of stuff in office. In fact, that's when Main Stream Media started, during Clinton.Clinton just had so many shenanigans going on it was hard to ignore, and, again, media wants to sell sensation. Clinton certainly was sensational.As far as leaking war info, look, the papers are part of this country too. They have a duty just as any other American to uphold the interests of this country and its people. Bush asked the NY Times and the LA Times to not publish the story as it it would directly help our enemy and they did it anyway. Not becuase our tactic was illegal, but because they thought that the program would be controversial and sell copy. That is treason.I don't need to know everything the military does but the papers claim I do. Take Abu Ghraib- a bunch of American killers going through a series of fraternity-typical initiation trials. But the Main Stream Media and the Democrats played it up to nearly an Auschwitz. That hurt our efforts deeply as well. These guys are reckless and unconcerened about information and the analysis of it, as much as they are sensation, sales, and Bush hating. If they weren't you might see what is going right over there in the papers. Edited June 30, 2006 by RAzOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Treason lol.Most of the stuff you see isn't even entirely true or true at all, mostly just to distract us & to some extent, them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan_B Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Most of the shit you see I post isn't even entirely true or true at all, mostly just to distract you.Fixed it for ya ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Ah yes, Grant...always the one who is up and up on the facts. Once again, :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan_B Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Ah yes, Grant...always the one who is up and up on the facts. Once again, Posts dont lie ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zulu Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 Huh? They do here, stuff gets deleted & editted all the time. And I have no idea what you meant by that. w/e, night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
narxs70 Posted July 1, 2006 Report Share Posted July 1, 2006 the only news coverage i ever watch is The Daily Show with John Stewart". it's funny and i like funny stuff. (funny haha, not funny queer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanfbi Posted July 21, 2006 Report Share Posted July 21, 2006 American news suck, I watch russian news, they tend to cover WAY more in same amount of time. All i see on american channels news is irag, bombing...sick of it. I am sick of people thinking that american soldiers "help" or "rescue" afgani citizens by bombing their houses, I am sick of american TV showing only what america is involved with, like if there's gonna be a war between libia and egypt, you'll never know, cuz it's not popular to sell on american tv...russian tv shows almost everything that happens everywhere, not only in russia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prasamin Posted July 25, 2006 Report Share Posted July 25, 2006 i'm never sick of the news unless it's on FNCit's what's happening in the world, we just have to face it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 American news suck, I watch russian news.....russian tv shows almost everything that happens everywhere, not only in russiaLOL!!! Yeah right Vlad! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard of!!! HeeHeeHeeHeeee Haw!!!!I'm sure that the Russian media/press has free range to cover any topic with full access to court documentation, goverment records, or the exposing of corruption without fear of censorship or being thrown in the gulag. Putin is everything Stalin would like him to be. :monkey: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 LOL!!! Yeah right Vlad! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard of!!! HeeHeeHeeHeeee Haw!!!! Wow, only the second time ever that I totally agree with Starfish. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappo Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 American news suck, I watch russian news, they tend to cover WAY more in same amount of time. All i see on american channels news is irag, bombing...sick of it. I am sick of people thinking that american soldiers "help" or "rescue" afgani citizens by bombing their houses, I am sick of american TV showing only what america is involved with, like if there's gonna be a war between libia and egypt, you'll never know, cuz it's not popular to sell on american tv...russian tv shows almost everything that happens everywhere, not only in russia You can always leave the country.American news shows Iraq and Afganistan constantly because Americans are there and it IS news. If the US pulls out of those countries, you will stop hearing about. Do Americans care if there is a war between Egypt and Lybia? Probably not, because it won't directly affect them.Lets get something straight here, Russian TV is only slightly more free to show what they want than when they were under communist rule. If a news station shows Bush doing something stupid that makes him look foolish, the only thing that happens is the conservatives bitch about the "liberal media". If a Russian new station did that with Putin, the station manager will be brought up on some kind of charge, removed from the position and sent to jail, even though is he most likely inocent. The only difference between now and then is how the news is screened. Under communist rule, there would be a political official to make sure everything broadcast had nothing negative about the government. Now, news channels must self screen to make sure they don't get shutdown. Same shit, different system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted August 25, 2006 Report Share Posted August 25, 2006 (edited) and that's why i read newspapers... not watch tv..http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=20490Buying Fox News By Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa A. LappenFrontPageMagazine.com | December 13, 2005Saudi Prince al-Waleed bin Talal boasted in Dubai earlier this week about his ability to change the news content that viewers around the world see on television. In early September 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp. This made the Fifth richest man on the Forbes World's Richest People, the fourth largest voting shareholder in News Corp., the parent of Fox News. News Corp. is the world's leading newspaper publisher in English. It operates more than 175 newspapers, in the UK, Australia, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and the US, and distributes more than 40 million papers per week. In addition, News Corp. owns and operates an international collection of TV outlets, radio stations, magazines, book publishers and film studios. After bin Talal purchased his voting shares in News Corp., on September 23, 2005, he stated in an advertising supplement to the New York Times, “When I invest in a group like CITICROUP, the Four Seasons, the News Corp. or Time Warner, my objective is not to manage those companies.” But this is not quite accurate, considering the Prince’s December 5, 2005 statement given to Middle East Online regarding his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in Paris last November, Fox ran a banner saying: "Muslim riots." Bin Talal was not happy. "I picked up the phone and called Murdoch... (and told him) these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty," he said. "Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots." Fox News Channels new promo should be "We Report On What al-Waleed Decides" With all the money and power Prince al-Waleed has, why the heck are his two of his FNC reporters are being held captive in Gaza? Is Greta that sick of covering Natalee Holloway? Is this in need of a lift for the new fall ratings sweeps? Edited August 25, 2006 by starfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricF Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 www.csmonitor.comMainly where I go for the news these days... Actually educated and almost as objective as I've been able to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starfish Posted September 23, 2006 Report Share Posted September 23, 2006 Clinton got passes on a lot of stuff in office. In fact, that's when Main Stream Media started, during Clinton.Clinton just had so many shenanigans going on it was hard to ignore, and, again, media wants to sell sensation. Clinton certainly was sensational.Clinton has no shame!!! He is so juvenile. To watch him when he starts pointing his finger around just reminds me where that finger has been!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UwJabtvSUQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts