LOL, that is the cynical view, and I am a cynical bastard. It's up to the reader to separate fact from fiction, and independent media is most helpful in that regard. MSM is designed for those who have no desire, consciously or unconsciously, to separate fact from fiction. Most like having authority figures do their thinking for them. Free thinkers prefer to think for themselves.
Bullshit, who gives programing such as masterpiece theater, Downton Abbey, Nova, Sesame Street, 10 other great kids shows, Maybe you think kids should watch ads for Mcds, candy and toys for hours on end. Never mind This old house, Nature, Poldark, and a host of other programs I watch PBS more than any other network.
Like Reagan said trust but verify. There are10s of good sites on you tube. But all in all I have a greater distrust in for-profit media than I do in PBS. Which gets most of it's funding from private donations and memberships and licensing. As long as they only get 1/3rd of their funding from the government I think the private funding will keep their feet to the fire.
Reagan had it backwards. Verify before you trust. Governments and its minions are inherently untrustworthy. The thinking Left used to know that. "Lenin quotes Engle’s definition of the state “the special force for suppression: a state.” The State and Revolution", VI Lenin, Penguin, 1992, p.16.
Definitely fake news by failure to use proper standards for verification. It isn't a case of intentional deception but it's similar to cases where many news outlets jump on a story so quickly because they want it to be true. This one is particularly sad, though. Fox was taken in by a man claiming stolen valor. That they (Fox or other news outlets) have to validate a claim of military service before talking to someone claiming to be a vet or, alternatively, cloak all stories in "claims to be" disclaimers is very sad. Not nearly as damaging to the public discourse or the nation as other widely published fake news but it is a case of the same kind of failure: failure to verify a story before going to press.
No, it is about truth. The whole purpose of the free press was exactly so that the press could give their opinions including in editorializing. I don't have a problem when talking heads on cable tell a story and then give their opinion of what it means or whether it's right or wrong - oh sure, when I disagree I yell at the TV and tell it how stupid they are, but I would fight to defend their right to say stupid things. What I don't like is when they give equal weight to an opinion on one side and a lie on the other. Differing opinions or takes on a story, whether I agree or not, is legitimate news. Reporting a lie as though it is simply a different opinion is a lie; it's fake news.
And truth is the middle, no bullshit from one side or the other. I am not saying the news to appeal to the 50% of our nation that is Purple.
Correct, before it is colored left or right. You report it straight down the center, not leaning to the left or the right.
Indeed; but do not forget to include ABC, CBS, and NBC . . . all three of which long ago became propaganda arms of the Democratic National Committee. NBC, of course, helps fund MSNBC.
"Nine minutes later, Lockhart sent a second tweet which said, “Ok maybe I made up the convo, but you know that’s exactly what they’re thinking.” The HOR impeachment of Trump is in parallel with this type of narrative. Doesn't matter what Trump actually said what matters is what democrats think he actually meant when he said it.
Whoops. A political analyst is NOT a reporter. This is either a case of fake posting on the internet, aka BS spewed by a troll, or a lack of reading comprehension. A reporter is the person who gathers information, not necessarily facts because some sources of information may or may not be factual, and then validates their credibility to put together a news story. It's called a news story not because it's made up, but because it has a narrative to explain the facts in a manner that keeps people's interest. An analyst is someone hired to bring their opinion and perspective to an existing news story that was already reported on by a journalist. Occasionally, they offer those views and opinions on developing stories. That said, they are NOT reporters. You should know the difference before making a post that equates them because now you have done nothing but expose your own ignorance.
The entire faux impeachment fiasco is based on those in the Banana Republic Party "knowing what they are thinking".
Not at all what I said, once again poor reading comprehension wins the day! What I said is there's a difference between a news analyst and journalist. The OP didn't make that distinction because it hurt their bogus argument. To answer your NEW question, no an analyst shouldn't lie. Neither should a journalist. Nor a president...but I digress...But it does happen. In this case, the analyst admitted their wrong doing and hopefully is punished per policy. If not, then that's a failure on CNN's part and they should do better to not let it happen again. Happy? I doubt it, but it was worth a shot.
Sorry, but my party isn't hip enough to shop at the Banana Republic. We are more of a party of Lands End, but good try with the clever catch phrase! You're almost as good as your president at it. Almost. It's his one skill in life so I really want to give him credit where credit is due because otherwise he's in debt, just like he is in everything else at life.
