DailyCaller and Others Misrepresent Clinton Fundraising Email

a reply to: dragonridr

This is fun.

Who gets to determine "neutrality"?

a reply to: dragonridr

Do you think there should be limits or "controls" of the press?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dragonridr

This is fun.

Who gets to determine "neutrality"?

Don't think anyone would be simply reporting the facts and let people draw there own conclusion. But that also means that you think neutrality should be required. However is that truly reasonable in today's world?? We rely on people to tell us everything from where to eat to what to watch. We are inundated with personal opinions daily. Should we hold the news media to a higher standard??

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dragonridr

Do you think there should be limits or "controls" of the press?

That the million dollar question.giving this some thought I could see you could create two standards one being news that reports just thr facts. And the other being commentary where they can eject there beliefs in to the story. Maybe having to label them one or the other would help many people.

a reply to: dragonridr

Aren't we the media now?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dragonridr

Aren't we the media now?

No were an opinion piece

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dragonridr

Do you think there should be limits or "controls" of the press?

'
I know you didn't ask me but this is actually something I have mulled over several times.

Freedom of the press vs obligation of truth from the press.

There are several examples of the MSM falsifying stories and/or purposely misinterpreting information to push specific narratives.

Should they be allowed to? I hate to infringe on something, but I have to say no, they should not be allowed to purposely lie and mislead, unless the express intent is satirical. This is what I mean

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: dragonridr

Do you think there should be limits or "controls" of the press?

'
I know you didn't ask me but this is actually something I have mulled over several times.

Freedom of the press vs obligation of truth from the press.

There are several examples of the MSM falsifying stories and/or purposely misinterpreting information to push specific narratives.

Should they be allowed to? I hate to infringe on something, but I have to say no, they should not be allowed to purposely lie and mislead, unless the express intent is satirical. This is what I mean

Well I agree in that regard in no instant should any public media stage an event with the intent to deceive. But the problem becomes what to do if they do?? Jail or a fine or loss of broadcastimg rights?? And who would decide a court or a goVT agency?? And how would you stop this from bwing abused

a reply to: dragonridr

I have no idea how to enforce such a thing.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I see nothing wrong with the alleged misleading information. Anything is fair game in politics.

If it hurts that witch even a little, I'm good.

a reply to: dragonridr

Well there used to be this thing called the Smith mundit act i think it's called...that made it illegal to use such propaganda on us. That's been repealed for i think about 3 years...wonder why someone would want to repeal that? I would advocate jail time for heads of such media outlets for out right lies. I would also suggest the same for anyone appearing in such blaten lies on behalf of the company. This approach is two fold...most of the "reporters" and actors won't want to risk it but it still gives consequences to those giving the go ahead or possibly even the orders to lie in such a manner.

And there should be a clearly defined label on actual news rather than the propaganda we see on most media outlets. It should be easier to sue people for lying to the people under the guise of being a respectable authority on something.

If you look at Donald's quote about the lible laws he specifically says if they're false...i tend to agree that it should be easy to sue someone saying false things about someone especially if it's negative.

a reply to: theantediluvian

read your first line.....

I was a petitioner for a no name democrat. LOL

I assume that is what you are talking about.

OR are being a complete idiot in acusing me of being a paid political operative.

I now work in junk removal and am joining the army you tool. I mean REALLY. That is your rebuttal?

You are a self declared Globalist...Want a quote?

Not reading anymore. Youre a liar and have no defined values, integrity, or respect for the opinion of others you dont agree with.

Aslo, I now think you work for CTR.

You are trying too hard. WAY TOO HARD. What a fail of a thread /Shill bot.

I hope that bible of a post took forever to write.

Know that I will never read it because that is how pathethic I think this is.

Fail.

a reply to: tadaman

Maybe if we break this wall of text down so that you can ACTUALLY read it, which it appears that you still have NOT done, you'll begin to see the error of that recent thread's title.

Donald Trump just hired Breitbart's executive director to be his new campaign CEO.

[NAME] --

Whenever you hear about a right-wing conspiracy theory somehow making its way into the mainstream of political dialogue, there's a good chance that Breitbart News had something to do with it.

Never heard of Breitbart News? It's a fringe website where there's no opinion too ugly, too divisive, or too outright crazy to be worth breathless promotion.

The one about President Obama being a secret Muslim born in Kenya?

Breitbart was all over that "story.

" Or maybe you heard about the time they attacked an opponent -- a conservative Republican, no less -- by calling him a "renegade Jew."

Why does this matter?

Donald Trump just hired Breitbart's executive director to be his new campaign CEO.

Now, we've had a conservative media in this country for a while. I don't always like what they have to say, but I respect their role and their right to exist. Breitbart is something different. They make Fox News look like a Democratic Party pamphlet.

They're a different breed altogether -- not just conservative but radical, bigoted, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy peddlers who never have been and never should be anywhere near the levers of power in this country.

But Donald Trump just gave them a broad new mandate to shape his campaign, his message, the future of the Republican Party, and quite possibly the country.

It goes without saying that we have to beat these people.

But I want to beat them so decisively that their kind never rises again.

Doing that is going to take hard work, moral clarity, unshakeable determination, and enough resources to make sure that every last voter in America hears from us every single day about the choice in this election.

We'll never face a challenge more important than this.

Please, chip in to stand on the right side of history and help us send Donald Trump and Steve Bannon back to the fringes where they belong. When you do, we’ll send you a free sticker as a thank you for your support:

a reply to: tadaman

a reply to: tadaman

Blah blah blah. You disingenuous hypccrite. Have you suffered a catastrophic brain injury? You seem to have forgotten that in your very first post in this thread that you are trying so hard to derail, you called me a shill.

I could care a less what you say. I have no respect for you. You bring absolutely nothing to any discussion as far as I can tell. You make s# up (still waiting for that apology) constantly, you're irrational and utterly incapable of objective thought and frankly, you're an idiot.

I now work in junk removal

Awesome. Remove yourself.

a reply to: DAVID64

Nothing to add but cheerleading a tool whose idea of debate is calling people shills? Pathetic.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
It goes without saying that the only way to “beat these people so decisively that their kind never rises again,” is to shut them down completely and elimiate their first amendment rights.

Either that or The Clinton Body Count grows...

originally posted by: DBCowboy
“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
-Hillary Clinton

Ironic.

Listen if you can stand it....

a reply to: theantediluvian

I am just not seeing the big deal here
with your OP, and accusations against the DC.

Since Smith Mundt was repealed, propaganda is legal
Also the news media can legally lie. They do daily,
all of the mainstream news outlets have been caught
in flat out lies.

So even if DC purposely lied, what would make
this more offensive than any other news outlet?

That said, I don't think they did purposely mislead.

We are looking at the news media in the tank for
Hillary, Google, Twitter, Facebook censoring in
favor of Hillary, polling formulas' revised to
attempt to cast her in the lead, and much more.

And she is worried about The Daily Caller....???

We are one phase away from a State sponsored
media, and your worried about someone "misrepresenting"
a leaked email?

Really?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yep!

Look, just because you're butthurt over people not falling for your Hillary Defense Thread, don't take it out on me. I see her for exactly what she is and no amount of deflection or excuses is going to change that.
How you can close your eyes to what she's done and what she will do to this country simply amazes me. But, like I said, take your ire out on someone else. I simply do not care about your opinion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

As America has slid rightward, the old logical fallacies and fears of extremist right wing organizations have become mainstream. I used to see Tucker Carlson on tv; yes, he was conservative, but this DC piece is typical John Birch Society type writing. It misrepresents something to make it easier to attack.

The conservative intellectual, WF Buckley, Jr., warned the GOP against letting their extremism gain power in the party, to rise up, one might say. Too bad it didn't turn out that way. We're all the worse off for it.