Can the MSM be punished for their "election tampering"?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: network dude

Wasn't it wikileaks that released all the emails reelection? I could of sworn it was. The narrative now is blaming Russia, but I remember Assange stating it wasn't Russia that hacked the DNC, but a disgruntled DNC insider that released all the data.

hmmm. the main stream tsunami rolled over that without even blinking.

Quick, bury that...

The narrative is that Russia gave the documents to wikileaks - but so far not a shred of evidence has been provided to support that narrative. Evidence is not high on the agenda for media like CNN though.

CNN can only report what they are being told by the United States intelligence community.

As long as they accurately report what their sources are claiming, they are accurately relating the story.

a reply to: network dude
Whoever the whistleblower is that revealed the corruption that is the Democrat Party should be commended, not attacked...

a reply to: Greggers

Too chez! The views of the various fronts (White House, Military Industrial Complex, Pentagon, Wall Street, the Bankster Cartel's, the intelligence agencies, the DNC+RNC, etc) of the Corporatocracy (that runs the whole show) is all they ever "report" on.

Glad you're finally getting it!

What a phony premiss. Trump got a huge amount of free promotion. And Trump did in fact say dumb ass things regularly.

a reply to: UKTruth

So if the FBI, CIA or NSA concluded that a foreign country was responsible for interference with the election, you would accept that? Yes?

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Greggers

Too chez!

You mean touche?

The views of the various fronts (White House, Military Industrial Complex, Pentagon, Wall Street, the Bankster Cartel's, the intelligence agencies, the DNC+RNC, etc) of the Corporatocracy (that runs the whole show) is all they ever "report" on.

Please. It's all about drama to them. They are trying to keep butts in the seats and eyes on the set. So for every viewpoint, there is an opposing viewpoint.

Glad you're finally getting it!

Too bad you're not.

originally posted by: Iscool
a reply to: network dude
Whoever the whistleblower is that revealed the corruption that is the Democrat Party should be commended, not attacked...

Thousands of emails and nary a smoking gun. If it was a whistleblower, he should probably be fired from the cause.

a reply to: Leonidas

You would actually believe anything that the CIA would say? If so you might as well tell everyone to believe in the CNN.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Leonidas

You would actually believe anything that the CIA would say? If so you might as well tell everyone to believe in the CNN.

Perhaps then you should merely preface all your comments on this subject with, "I don't believe anything the CIA says. Ergo, I automatically assume Russia was not involved simply because the CIA claims it."

It would save people a lot of time messing around trying to debate anything with you.

a reply to: network dude

If you HONESTLY and TRULY want to punish the MSM,

1. Pick a channel

2. Stop buying products that are advertised by the channel.

3. Send an e-mail to that company HQ letting them know that you will not be buying ___________ again until they stop purchasing advertising on ____________network.

I'm doing this now with my most hated network... CNN. Latest product boycotted is Arm and Hammer. Stopped buying Arm and Hammer toothpaste last month, and sent an e-mail to A&H Headquarters ( www.churchdwight.com... ) to let them know.. and told them that our family boycott will remain in place until no Arm and Hammer ads appear on CNN.

Some suggest STOP WATCHING a certain network. This doesn't immediately affect the bottom line. They make their $$$ from companies buying advertising. Trim back that revenue stream and their entire house of highly-paid talking heads comes crashing down. It wouldn't take long at all for this to happen if specific "high value" products are targeted by ENOUGH consumers.

a reply to: Greggers

The CIA overthrows democratically elected governments worldwide for the benefit of Wall Street for generations now, they created and have employed Al Qaeda since it's inception to this very day, they're responsible for MILLIONS of deaths and even more suffering worldwide, they're the ones that got US into this mess with Russia, it's their butts on the line here on everything to do with this case, yet we're supposed to believe them?

It'd be like going down to a courthouse where some pathological liar of a career criminal was on trial and asking him if he were guilty.

And you've already been exposed to the data behind my opening statement there. You know better by now! How you can even stick up for them, or the DNC, or the GOP, or the Pentagon, or Obama, or Bush , or the MSM (all one in the same treasonous traitorous mass murdering pathological lying career criminals) screams volumes about your moral character, judgement and credibility as a human being.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
screams volumes about your moral character, judgement and credibility as a human being.

Go after the ball. Not the player.

As far as the rest of your post goes, you've made it perfectly clear that you would not, under any circumstances, trust the word of the American Intelligence agencies on matters to which our government has entrusted them. Furthermore, you don't trust anything spoken by the MSM, the FBI, or any other agency that conflicts with your preconceived notions and biases.

However, you appear to be perfectly willing to believe no-name websites and stories clearly fabricated from whole cloth, provided those stories support your biases.

Seems pretty obvious where the problem lies.

a reply to: Greggers

That's all you got huh?

Just sick of the lot of you making bogus arguments, you're shown the truth that puts them to rest, and then in the next thread it's the same BS loaded arguments all over agian.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Greggers

That's all you got huh?

It was sufficient.

Just sick of the lot of you making bogus arguments, you're shown the truth that puts them to rest, and then in the next thread it's the same BS loaded arguments all over agian.

I haven't made any bogus arguments. I haven't seen any truth that puts them to rest.

If you're sick of the internet, perhaps you should take some time off.

a reply to: network dude

A good way to do it would be to Repeal Bill Clinton's 'Telecommunications Act".

Passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in large-scale deregulation of the entire US media industry, removing many limitations on the number of different media outlets that can be owed by a single company. Today, six corporations control 90 percent of all of the media output in the United States. As we will see, this has affected the quality, variety, and accessibility of US media in a number of ways.

10 Ways Mass Media Ownership Hurts The Public

a reply to: network dude

Based on your OP—I take it you have never heard of Edward Bernays, or read "Propaganda - History As a Weapon" published way back in 1928?

www.historyisaweapon.org...

[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War. The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala. His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual. — Noam Chomsky

You asked:

Can the MSM be punished for their "election tampering"?

Please...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

RT should be allowed to report however they want, right?

Correct, Russia Today should be allowed to say anything it wants. The Russian government does not allow that, but the United States and other western nations do allow it to say what it wants. So long as we consumers of information understand that it is reporting from a perspective authorized by the Russian government we know how to evaluate its biases and accuracy. (At least those of us with critical thinking skills.)

To address the rest of your post, I do not advocate censorship, nor does the move to encourage honesty in reporting. If globalresearch wants to publish Russian propaganda, they can. But there is nothing wrong with identifying the source for their statements. In fairness, they do that. It's just that casual readers don't bother to check out the journalists' bios, or if they do, they do not understand what a phrase like "Analyst for the Eurasian Observatory For Democracy & Elections" really means.

originally posted by: karl 12
a reply to: network dude

A good way to do it would be to Repeal Bill Clinton's 'Telecommunications Act".

Passed in 1996 under President Bill Clinton, the Telecommunications Act has resulted in large-scale deregulation of the entire US media industry, removing many limitations on the number of different media outlets that can be owed by a single company. Today, six corporations control 90 percent of all of the media output in the United States. As we will see, this has affected the quality, variety, and accessibility of US media in a number of ways.

10 Ways Mass Media Ownership Hurts The Public

Great point. It comes as no surprise that a bill to make it easier to use the media as a propaganda arm was introduced by a Clinton.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

FIRST: What media? You mean Russia Times? Are you insinuating that RT had some major impact on the election, or that they shouldn't be able to report as they wish???

Absolutely not. As usual, you are seeing things that are not there. Russian media had virtually no impact on the election. The question was directed to establish a particular member's stance on international journalism.

SECOND: Of course Russia is going to be anti-Hillary. She blew up their ally! And you already know this yet you're going to approach every new thread as if this fact isn't reality. Afterall, the MSM doesn't lay that out there for us, so why not be a total stooge for the WAR MONGERS all across the site here, right?

As usual, you fail to understand the subtleties of the situation. Like American analysts, Russian analysts assumed that the Democrats' "machine" would assure a Clinton victory. Their selective leaks and internet whispering campaign against Clinton were designed to undermine her authority once in office. The Kremlin has been testing NATO's resolve by invading NATO members' waters and airspace. Erdogan has demonstrated that the proper response was to shoot down a jet to prove his mettle. Clinton would have the nerve to do this, and the propaganda mill would portray this as proof that she is the war monger.

THIRD: Since when are SJW's all about Neo-Colonialism and Multi-National Corporatism????

I can't help you there. You are the one who has created these confusing categories in your own mind.

a reply to: network dude

No. It obviously doesn't work that way.