The Media Industry

Well, actually it isn't supposed to happen. People aren't supposed to be hacked - not politicians, not individuals, not federal employees. No, it isn't supposed to happen. Yes, it does happen. Murder happens too, but we still take it seriously when it happens and go to great lengths to avoid it and punish those who do it. Furthermore, the hack is one thing. The use of the hacked material in the election is another, and that certainly isn't supposed to happen and isn't common.

It doesn't matter if anyone changed their vote. Trump won fair and square. That isn't the point.

And again, you're right. The information found is terrible, and it should be discussed and taken seriously as well. The media shouldn't be ignoring. Podesta is an ***. The DNC did screw Bernie Sanders around. They did make fun of Catholics. The do have sleazy relations with the mainstream media. Those are big topics that should be discussed.

 

Interesting timing if you know who owns CNN

 

Get ready for merger mania. This was the primary reason Softbank's Son met with Trump. The FTC and FCC stood in the way of his desire to merge Sprint and T-Mobile. Expect that to be rubber stamped by those same regulatory bodies within the first 18 months of the Trump administration.

 

There was an estimated 450 reporters there. President Trump had already called on one CNN reporter. The other CNN reporter felt entitled to throw out questions without being called on. Never mind the other 448 that were there wanting to ask a question. CNN is fake news PERIOD. Never before have we seen any major news network have no integrity. We are America and integrity has to be on top of the list no matter how much they hate a Candidate, Congressman, or President. I think CNN will never recover from this. They sold their soul to the devil and lost. Do you know how bad CNN has to be to make MSNBC look somewhat normal?

 

What I mean is ... we can't be incredulous that our enemies try to do us harm. We must be prepared for their attacks; cyber, propaganda, physical.

Clearly neither the DNC nor Podesta took cyber security seriously enough.

I'm not giving Putin a pass here, but we cannot prevent such attacks, only have the preparedness to an extent the effort has a very low prob success and that the attempt would bring its own risk factor and would be greatly detrimental to the actor.

We've hardly presented that either.

 

I don't think anybody is incredulous, and you are right that the DNC and Podesta didn't take this seriously when it mattered. My concern is that there is a very stark difference in how each side has approached the issue, and neither promotes a pursuit of the truth. Democrats and the media basically think it's the apocalypse and a weapon they can deploy to explain away Hillary Clinton's defeat and delegitimize the entire Trump Presidency. They don't care what's true and what's false.

Trump and Trump-friendly Republicans largely dismissed the Russian angle until very recently in order to counter the Democrats' plan of attack. They acknowledge it now and give the obligatory, "we're going to stop it," but that's ringing hollow, because of how Trump has approached Russia throughout the campaign. He has basically acted like belligerent *** (sometimes justifiably) to Mexico, Germany (and most of Europe), China, and pretty much everybody who isn't entirely in his camp, but he has always been conciliatory and quick to defend Russia. In light of that, his new tough talk just doesn't inspire much confidence.

Like I've long said, this matter needs an independent investigation that deals with the cyber issues as well as possible political influence. In fact, that's the much bigger and more dangerous element.

 

That's a fair take also.

 

The unintentional metaphor for mainstream media

 

maybe my definition of incredulous isn't accurate ... but the left is losing it's "stuff" over this as if it wasn't supposed to happen. Afterall, we had the best-seen-to-date diplomacy in the Obama administration to include (#HisSilentinBengHazi) as SOS. So, yeah, there is plenty of incredulity.

AFA the GOP response, maybe we oughta give the guy a chance to effect the change needed when he can actually do that with the authority of the Office?

I think relations with Russia are going to be particularly sensitive as we go forward addressing a common enemy; ISIS. China isn't dealing with them. Germany has literally opened their gates ... Mexico? eh, not a factor in this fight to the extent they would facilitate more illegal immigration of of people from ISIS to our land.

 

Agreed. We may never be buddy buddy with Russia, but we can find enough common ground to ally against a mutual enemy with an 8th century mindset.

 

Just now on MTP they're talking about Comey. One of the guests was making the point that Comey was, unfortunately, caught up in a political storm caused by the (mis)judgement of Hillary and the DNC who nominated a candidate under FBI investigation. That's a fair point right?

As soon as he said that the NYTimes Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper gave an eye roll worthy of an Exorcist movie. You're not a pundit lady. Pathetic.

 

Pathetic but not surprising. Meet the Press has pretty much dropped all pretense of objectivity. Like I said in another thread, it started when Russert died and just kept going downhill.

 

USA Today opinion piece today called - Whites killed MLK. Now we honor him

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...ion-mlk-day-racial-relations-column/78315390/

I am surprised at the complete disregard for credibility and professionalism that has become an epidemic in journalism. They do not seem to understand how much their profession has been damaged by their own behavior. I would have expected that some of these MSM outlets would have gotten it by now but clearly they have not. Sigh.

 

Uh...that's an opinion piece, right? It's a little hard to see it linking directly to the page but you see it in the URL and this piece at the bottom. I'd assume this would be a little easier to distinguish in the paper itself.

 

Here is a good 8-minute listen to the taxonomy of Trump tweets. This linguist breaks them down to distraction, Trial balloon, preemptive framing and deflection.

It's the distraction strategy that JoeFan revels often about on this board. Which is the most dangerous? Deflection like he's used in the Russian hacking saga?

The best part of the story is a guide for media on how to deal with Trumps tweeting, especially the distraction variety. He claims the best strategy is to start with the truth, acknowledge the tweet then return to topics that matter (i.e. Not Streep or the the Hamilton cast).

 

I agree with that. I believe it's a priority that our elections are fair. That being said it can't be about what only hurts democrats in elections. There is way too much voter fraud as well that Dems don't want to address or even admit there's a problem. Everybody needs ID's for even basic stuff in life. It's such a lame excuse that it's preventing them from voting and everyone knows it. Illegals shouldn't have the right to vote.

 

I understand that it's an opinion piece but USA Today makes the final decision on what they publish. Publishing such an obviously racist and inflammatory headline should be beneath any credible media outlet. Just because it's born out of white liberal guilt doesn't make it any less disgusting. This is exactly why so many voters have tuned out the MSM.

 

I was within you that this viewpoint can't simply be about democrats in elections. My challenge with the "voter fraud" issue is there there is scant evidence of it. I can be swayed but so far all we see is anecdotal evidence that generally is the result of voter commission ineptitude rather than widescale fraud.

We don't have a problem with too many people voting in our elections but rather too few. In fact, our voter participation rate would rank us at the bottom of the industrialized world.

 

You stated there is evidence but in your opinion not much. 1st) how do we know if the Government or media isn't investigating it properly. It's left up to one news media and they proved it's happening. Knowing that then why not act? That one news agency my just pointed at the tip of the iceberg. But according to you there isn't enough to help your party in the results? Then why now get it stopped by requiring an ID to vote in America? If it's important to vote then people will get their ID's. Its so simple to get is what's crazy about the libs argument. If you want a true election, then stop every voter fraud there is and not just pick and choose what helps or hurts your side.

 

Google "voting fraud studies". They exist. I'm relying on these academic studies which in every case admit there are sparse cases of individual fraud but nothing systemic.

Can you point me to which "news media...proved it's happening"? If you can prove it's a major problem I might be able to get on board with voter ID. So far, all the evidence I've read doesn't demonstrate any evidence of anything more than incompetence which won't be cured by voter ID.

 

It's clickbait. Whether the headline was crafted by an editor or the author wanted to incite people to read it doesn't matter. It was clearly created to create controversy.

After reading the article, I agree with this point. I'd hope that USA Today runs a counterpoint "victimhood" opinion piece too. In order to move on we need to acknowledge the horrors of our history but not leverage the past as an excuse for victimhood.

 

The headline is intentionally controversial, but that actually is my point. Shouldn't there be some standards of integrity for our MSM outlets? Is a racist headline acceptable if it drives website traffic?

 

I blame that on the deterioration of media. Editors are a luxury anymore. The cuts in media funding have had an direct correlation to the quality of journalism.

 

And on that we are in violent agreement.

 

Supposedly Blacks are against voter ID saying it disenfranchised blacks. Most states who proposed voter ID set up exceptions to cover nearly every conceivable circumstance including offering dirt cheap and even free ID to those in need.
Compare that to the NAACP convention which required photo ID to get in.
BTW how would anyone know if voter fraud occurred? Say dead people voted ,if they were never removed from the roles how would it be exposed?

 

For an example of disenfranchisement you only need to look at where the 31 DOL offices were that Alabama's Republican governor chose to close for budget reasons. That case is working its way through the courts, I believe. This occurred on the heels of the 1965 Voter Rights act lapsing.

 

Husker?
What? What are DOL offices?
Do you have a link explaining the point you seem to be making?

 

I had the same questions. A Google search revealed this: link. To summarize, Alabama disproportionately closed drivers' license officers in black counties.

 

Thanks. That's the article. I can't find the link to any case working it's way through the courts but the Feds opened up an investigation at the end of 2015.

 

The article I linked to says that the lawsuit was resolved in the last couple of weeks. Alabama agreed to reopen the offices, with limited hours.