Great post!!!

Some of them are still right here on this forum.

TV media, especially MSNBC and CNN only ask Hillary questions that come from the Republican or Trump people. I have yet to see them ask her a policy or other question not generated from the right wing during this presidential campaign. I won't even go back beyond even tho the same is true for all the decades.
No hosts (readers) or reporters know how to ask a question that is not about emails. Not an original thought among them.
Especially Andrea Mitchell who keeps asking for Hillary to give the "real" reason she used a server. What answer would satisfy her? Not a single answer that comes from Hillary is ever enough, or "true", for any reporter or TV reader.

Last edited Fri Sep 2, 2016, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

In my mind and in my mind only... The worst of the worst..
Yea and worse than Fox News.. We expect lying crap to come out of Fox..

But Mitchell on MSNBC, simply legitimizes to the ignorant. every lie out there on Hillary.

Will not give them the click anymore. I wash my hands of them.

After the election, you will be hard-pressed to find ten people that voted for Donald trump.

a year or so later, they will all be on Youtube...

Times they are a changing

Around here that was so true after Obama won. Oh I voted for Obama they all say. I say bullshit to them and then they look at me with those puppy eyes, would I lie to you. I nod Yes you just did

I say it, I do it, I own it is my moto

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2010/09/now-bush-belly-sneetches.html

I thought I was the only one ticked at Mitchell. Thanks to those who see the same venom I do coming from her, and saying it.

Real fears of a Trump TV network are reportedly swirling at Fox

Although there’s been wide speculation that Donald Trump’s 2016 endgame may be to break into cable news with a conservative network that would rival Fox News, anonymous network insiders talked about Trump TV as a near-certainty that was casting a pall over the network’s future.

The current top talent and leadership will only last through Election Day, one unnamed host told Sherman.

“As of November 9, there will be a bloodbath at Fox,” the host said. “After the election, the prime-time lineup could be eviscerated. O’Reilly’s been talking about retirement. Megyn could go to another network. And Hannity will go to Trump TV.”

An opportunity for reality based news for a change.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/fivepoints/roger-ailes-fox-news-megyn-kelly-allegations

Last edited Fri Sep 2, 2016, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

So to start a network he's going to have to turn to dark money. Ailes was well compensated by Fox but his money and Trump's, however much of their own fortunes they're willing to invest, won't be enough.

They'll have to turn to oligarchs, most likely Putin cronies (many think he's quite familiar with that route). It'll still be a flop though. Trump has way more failed businesses than successes, and Ailes, who wants to work for his disgrace ass but those that can find work anywhere else — oh wait, that was the case with a lot of people at FOX.

It'll still be a flop though.

the Trumpster will be ready to hear more vitriol and hatred AND buy products that support it.

it's hard to sell to smart people who do research. On the other hand, how about the most gullible people on Earth? Trump voters!

Collectible gold coins! Survivalist swag! Bunker junk! Bible vaults! Drone attack insurance! Liberal repellent spray!

would love to cover the destruction of America first hand under a Trump Presidency. 1,000's die in the streets as Trump rounds up Mexicans video at 11. Sick Bastards.

These faces, voices and writers are not journalists. They're corporate whores*. They've sold their souls in the greedy, profits-driven media world, regurgitating Corp-speak and shock-valuable sound bites in the pursuit of paychecks and shameless careers. Journalism standards of honesty, objectivity and balance are concepts totally foreign to them. And they don't give a flying fuck for ethics, consequences or any "greater good."

They are beneath contempt, and cling to a paradigm that is rapidly sliding into obsolescence, given the growing dissatisfaction of mainstream mass media. They are to be pitied as well as disdained.

Nah, Fuck 'em!

___
* no disrespect intended toward those who work in escort services and other personal services.

Let them "officially" go to work for Trump, get ripped my off, and fade away into a manhole cover somewhere.

But as a DU'er recently pointed out quite hilariously, are about an inch thick. Probably less than an inch thick though, given that the M$M is spinning straw into lies of gold to keep viewers tuned in. Their advertisers demand this type of unethical work ethic.

U B brave.

He gets a pass.

that they were all hear reading DU, since you are addressing them directly here?

How effective is it to direct a message crafted for one audience to a totally different audience?

That said, I blame Ronald Reagan for the destruction of a responsible MSM.

By the way there are probably many MSM people who hang around here..

This is probably one of the most populated Progressive sites on the net.
I’m sure many people on the right check in to see what we’re up to..

It must be rhetorical.

It's true that DU is large; the censorship on the site means that most of the people you are talking to can't or won't answer, and may not even see it unless they are sitting around watching every thread that lands on the front page of a forum. At this point, I think that they'd spend most of their time in that other forum: GD 2016, or whatever they called it; I trashed it awhile back.

Still, I don't know that addressing rhetorical remarks to an assumed silent and invisible audience is the most effective use of the device.

All of that aside, it's certainly true that the MSM is nearly useless at best, damaging at worst.

Ronald Reagan’s Benghazi
By Jane Mayer , May 5, 2014

Watching Issa silhouetted against the Belle Époque windows of the Italian Ambassador’s residence, which were wide open to a garden bathed in colored spotlights, I found myself thinking about another tragedy, thirty years ago, that played out very differently.

Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines’ presence as a non-combative, “peace-keeping mission,” had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.

Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agency’s top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.


We must never let them forget

Almost 300 compared to 4

I just don’t know why during the Benghazi Hearings this wasn’t brought up...
Never.. What are we (Dems) so frightened of with regards to St Ron’s failure to protect our
troops...as the article mentions 300 to 4.

That should shut them up.

She should never have been able to rise at any news organization as long as she slept with the guy who bent monetary policy. How do we know that she wasn't slanting her reporting to benefit his policies.

By that standard quite a few reporters/journalists should not be in the buisness and I'm all for complete honesty in politics.

However conflating Dem Dishonesty with Republican Dishonesty is just plain wrong..

Every other word which comes out of the Trump’s Campaign is a lie.
Everything about the Benghazi incident is a lie..
Now they are lying about the released FBI notes..Cherry picking minutia and then calling her unfit to be commander in chief when the notes absolutely exonerate her.
Lying about her physical condition..
Scandals they created to destroy Obama
1) Solyndra Scandal... Lie
2) Fast and Furious......Lie
Here are a host of others.... So comparing Republicans and Dems on the honesty scale.. Is absolutely crazy.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-10-most-outrageous-completely-made-up-obama-scandals/

And then there is this which I just found on DU.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/introducing-a-new-series-trump-and-the-truth

result of much more MSM malfeasance than its regurgitation of smears against Hillary. You are giving Hillary way too much credit. Just sayin'!

PS -- I supported Bernie during the primary and willingly, though not without reservation, plan on voting for Hillary.