B-Man Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) Constitutional scholar Chris Cuomo reminds us rubes what the Second Amendment ‘was created for’ (and other fun facts) Firearm advocate Theresa Inacker makes a FOOL of Chris Cuomo during CNN’s gun-control Town Hall . Edited August 8, 2019 by B-Man
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 We don't need to do any fact-checking on our stories it's all those other fake news sites that need to improve their journalism oh wait: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/black-families-once-lived-off-their-southern-farmland-their-descendants-are-struggling-to-hold-onto-it/2019/07/22/37b3132a-a975-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html 1
Nanker Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 6 hours ago, B-Man said: Constitutional scholar Chris Cuomo reminds us rubes what the Second Amendment ‘was created for’ (and other fun facts) Firearm advocate Theresa Inacker makes a FOOL of Chris Cuomo during CNN’s gun-control Town Hall . Touche! Christy actually reveals that he owns a gun!
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 ...CNN can rebound quite nicely.....adding ONE viewer equates to a 25% increase in viewership, right?...... 1
Koko78 Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Nanker said: Touche! Christy actually reveals that he owns a gun! What the actual *****? Anyhow, Cuomo's dipshittery aside, that was a cleverly-worded question by the lady.
DC Tom Posted August 9, 2019 Posted August 9, 2019 6 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said: We don't need to do any fact-checking on our stories it's all those other fake news sites that need to improve their journalism oh wait: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/black-families-once-lived-off-their-southern-farmland-their-descendants-are-struggling-to-hold-onto-it/2019/07/22/37b3132a-a975-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html I love the correction they added, which is basically "We were wrong."
/dev/null Posted August 9, 2019 Posted August 9, 2019 13 hours ago, Nanker said: Touche! Christy actually reveals that he owns a gun! Of course, he needs to protect himself from Les Deplorables that shouldn't own guns 1
B-Man Posted August 9, 2019 Posted August 9, 2019 As if we needed MORE proof CNN is a biased joke of an outlet –> Check out how they ‘covered’ armed man at MO Walmart .
njbuff Posted August 9, 2019 Posted August 9, 2019 1 hour ago, B-Man said: As if we needed MORE proof CNN is a biased joke of an outlet –> Check out how they ‘covered’ armed man at MO Walmart . When will it end? 1
B-Man Posted August 11, 2019 Posted August 11, 2019 CNN gets requests for follow-up to January’s sympathetic story about illegal alien evading ICE (who killed a father of 5 last week) 2 1
B-Man Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 CNN Fails to Note Crime Jumped After Colorado Gun Control . 1
B-Man Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 Shocker! Journo tells CNN panel why ‘idea of objectivity’ for reporters doesn’t work in the Trump era 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, B-Man said: Shocker! Journo tells CNN panel why ‘idea of objectivity’ for reporters doesn’t work in the Trump era What is: "Really ***** dangerous" for $1000, Alex. 1 1
Taro T Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, B-Man said: Shocker! Journo tells CNN panel why ‘idea of objectivity’ for reporters doesn’t work in the Trump era Wonder if any of them ever step back and ask why when they do objectively present information that the interpretation of events that they come away with isn't the same as a significant portion of their audience/ the public? If not, why not? Shouldn't they be interested in WHY they feel (yes, that word was chosen intentionally) the need to spin what could/ should be presented objectively? If their interpretation of events is correct, shouldn't the events speak for themselves and others will come to that same conclusion? And regardless of which side of an issue someone believes they're on, if they can access the source material they can take the spin out entirely. Edited August 12, 2019 by Taro T 1
SoCal Deek Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Taro T said: Wonder if any of them ever step back and ask why when they do objectively present information that the interpretation of events that they come away with isn't the same as a significant portion of their audience/ the public? If not, why not? Shouldn't they be interested in WHY they feel (yes, that word was chosen intentionally) the need to spin what could/ should be presented objectively? If their interpretation of events is correct, shouldn't the events speak for themselves and others will come to that same conclusion? And regardless of which side of an issue someone believes they're on, if they can access the source material they can take the spin out entirely. I don’t believe everything I read or hear but this may be part of the answer you’re looking for: Mark Levin cites a long, long, long list of the ex-Obama and ex-Clinton administration staff who are now high up in the traditional media sources you’re depending on to provide unbiased news. Once you understand the fact they are NOT trying to give you unbiased news this all makes a lot more sense. Those that are commonly referred to as the Main Street Media are actually just a clown car of Democratic Party operatives laying heavy spin on an unsuspecting electorate. It’s actually brilliant!
Taro T Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: I don’t believe everything I read or hear but this may be part of the answer you’re looking for: Mark Levin cites a long, long, long list of the ex-Obama and ex-Clinton administration staff who are now high up in the traditional media sources you’re depending on to provide unbiased news. Once you understand the fact they are NOT trying to give you unbiased news this all makes a lot more sense. Those that are commonly referred to as the Main Street Media are actually just a clown car of Democratic Party operatives laying heavy spin on an unsuspecting electorate. It’s actually brilliant! Totally get that the partisan operatives are going to partisan operate, so to speak. But not all of the "journalists" that believe objectivity is passe come out of the political ranks. And further, one of the (if not the) best talking head of the last 20-30 years was Tim Russert who was Chief of Staff for Moynahan and also had held a high ranking position as an advisor in Mario Cuomo's regime. He'd hold everybody's feet to the fire regardless of affiliation. We need more like him, regardless of their background.
DC Tom Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 3 minutes ago, Taro T said: Totally get that the partisan operatives are going to partisan operate, so to speak. But not all of the "journalists" that believe objectivity is passe come out of the political ranks. And further, one of the (if not the) best talking head of the last 20-30 years was Tim Russert who was Chief of Staff for Moynahan and also had held a high ranking position as an advisor in Mario Cuomo's regime. He'd hold everybody's feet to the fire regardless of affiliation. We need more like him, regardless of their background. Tim Russert died in June of 2008. And no one held Obama's feet to the fire. Coincidence? #ClintonBodyCount
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 On 8/9/2019 at 10:45 AM, njbuff said: When will it end? ...it won't....they believe they are a "credible news source"....go figure......same with PMSNBC......
njbuff Posted August 12, 2019 Posted August 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...it won't....they believe they are a "credible news source"....go figure......same with PMSNBC...... It’s all mind-numbing. I should go back to being the most non-political person ever, it’s a lot easier on the mind. I guess with the Bills and Devils sucking for so long, I needed another interest. I hope both my teams are good so I have absolutely no focus on politics whatsoever. ? 2 1
Recommended Posts