Mainstream Media Whines As Trump Calls on Less Established News Outlets

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: MysticPearl

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: burntheships

I agree 100%. I can't wait until we have a state-run media, sponsored by the president.

Then we won't have to worry about what are facts or not nor having to ask tough questions. So much simpler.

Interesting you bring up state run media when Trump's doing the exact opposite, expanding the media pool and bringing in more voices.

No, he's not. Don't let your love for Emo Don fool you into confusing his thin skin with a sense of ethics. He's not doing this to balance out the media; he's doing it because some of those networks hurt his feelers.

Believe me, if he were on good terms with all of them and he still did this, I'd be all behind him on it. But his reasoning is obvious and it's not noble.

You should have watched the election we had

I'm glad to see that Trump is doing this. I hope he keeps it up.

The little guy is no less deserving of getting the exclusive big scoops. Good call!

a reply to: burntheships

It helps opening up new media sources,helps the economy,the rest are owned by a major liberal corporation,less biased news

I'm wondering now how long before the big media corps buy up the now favoured small up-coming media companies.

It's usually what happens isn't it? The corporations absorb smaller ones to keep control of every aspect of everything.-----

a reply to: burntheships

Sorry, didn't you say "affiliate of ABC"? Isn't that the pro Trump mainstream ABC? Not sure if you are stupid, trying to be smart or are just besotted with the man to the point of blindness.

a reply to: markosity1973

Trump is breaking the monopoly

Which is also how you break corrupt power.

a reply to: Abysha

It's already "state" operated. What do you think the FCC is all about? Unless you're talking about it being operated by individual states, it's already being operated by the federal government, i.e "the state."

originally posted by: doobydoll
I'm wondering now how long before the big media corps buy up the now favoured small up-coming media companies.

It's usually what happens isn't it? The corporations absorb smaller ones to keep control of every aspect of everything.-----

Why buy them up when they just make them affiliates? That's what's happened in this example where Trump then wants an ABC affiliate to get more questions answered. Now, why would Trump be more happy to take questions from an affiliate of a mainstream pro Trump TV organisation than one which isn't so keen to kiss his ass? Hmmm, that's a tricky one isn't it?

originally posted by: doobydoll
I'm wondering now how long before the big media corps buy up the now favoured small up-coming media companies.

It's usually what happens isn't it? The corporations absorb smaller ones to keep control of every aspect of everything.-----

Why buy them up?

They can rehash the news stories of the little guy (saying "as reported by blah blah blah") and they have the manpower that the little guy does NOT have where they can go to politicians or financial experts or college professors and say "so Trump said this - what's your take on it?" and pump out a lot of commentary explaining what the impact of Trump's latest faux pas is.

In fact, this is what some of them are doing right now.

With the click-through on advertising, having someone do your initial work while you find two or three commentaries on it just makes creating three or four articles out of one speech quite easy. You get more click-through and more revenue and the little guy gets less.

easy-peasey.

originally posted by: burntheships

It’s refreshing to see a White House give voice to lesser known news outlets – it’s more democratic in a way, opening the press corps up to different lines of questioning.

Precisely. Now watch the so-called "democrats" (progressive-"democrats") watch them call this "FASCISM !" which would be funny on so many levels.

Giving more smaller voices in the media, suppressed by the big CORPORATE media with the big banks supporting them a voice and suddenly "progressive" democrats have a problem with it. Somehow allowing more media to have better access and a voice among their big money competitors (Read: Liars) is most likely indicative of some sort of Korean fascistic media control scheme.

(Just don't tell them that you would want to do the opposite and let less media have a voice in such a case) Or actually , do tell them and watch and laugh how they squirm and wriggle while they attempt to teach you how that is in all actuality not the case and fling words like "Dichotomy" at you without even knowing what it means in a effort to convince you of their "progressive" religion aneee/reldra style.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: burntheships

I agree 100%. I can't wait until we have a state-run media, sponsored by the president.

Then we won't have to worry about what are facts or not nor having to ask tough questions. So much simpler.

Ah look , there is one already not even 3 posts into the thread. They are up early today. And already in their conditioned state even!


Am imprezzed.

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: burntheships

I agree 100%. I can't wait until we have a state-run media, sponsored by the president.

Then we won't have to worry about what are facts or not nor having to ask tough questions. So much simpler.

well the last administration laid the groundwork for that by making propaganda by the govt legal to disseminate to its people back in 2012, and then the recent passing of "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act" that allows them to alter or block any and all information deemed to go against the govt's agenda. thank u obama

a reply to: uncommitted

None of the above.

There was not one media agency aside from Fox that was
honestly reporting about Hillary's emails.

It may have been the big break when a small station got
Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the plane.

And I'll leave you to my posting history to figure out the rest,
thank you.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

This is not accurate.

FCC does not choose content for the stations,
radio, talk, news, or otherwise.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

This is not accurate.

FCC does not choose content for the stations,
radio, talk, news, or otherwise.

although they do deem what content is inappropriate. in some ways i feel like they overstepped their bounds a little bit after the whole janet jackson super bowl mass censorship fiasco. for the most part though what isnt allowed probly shouldnt be anyhow.

a reply to: TheScale

Yes, that was kind of silly after the fact.

FCC does curious things sometimes, like regulate signal strength,
and times of day for certain stations which that alone can be punative.

Mainstream media is becoming obselete.

As much as I don't like Alex Jones, he gets more traffic than MSM.

This is good news.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: burntheships

It helps opening up new media sources,helps the economy,the rest are owned by a major liberal corporation,less biased news

Right. Could it be we are so conditioned to the deep bias in the
mainstream we hardly can see it clearly anymore?

a reply to: burntheships

Don't you mean ...he called on the two Reporters in his pocket who he gave questions to and didn't take other questions?

So as to avoid embarrassing questions about his Chief National Security advisor being a Russian plant?

It would be good to have straight up discussions around here..