Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 34
Thanks Tree44Thanks

Thread: Why The Media Wants Clinto To Shut Up!

  1. #21
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    27,715
    Thanks
    16709

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    anyone here think the media would cover the entire daily WH briefings if HRC had been elected?

    They created Trump , did everything humanly possible to make sure he got elected, now they're cashing in.

    That's more than a bit of a stretch.

    The press in general did give Trump a lot of coverage and air time. But most of it was not flattering. The guy was a totally unconventional blowhard carnival barker all through the campaign. That made him very "newsworthy".

  2. #22
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    27,715
    Thanks
    16709

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Drama sells whether the people involved are liked or loathed. So the fact her book is selling does not mean that Mrs. Clinton is loved.
    Hillary tends to be polarizing.

    She is loved by many.

  3. #23
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42,404
    Thanks
    30369

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by the watchman View Post
    actually, the only time they usually covered it was if the president spoke. Today was the first time I actually watched most of it. Had to laugh at Huckleberry Sanders saying HRC was the one that ran a negative campaign. Which is another first. Using the WH press briefings for that type of unbridled vitriol.
    Hope Hicks has now been put in charge, beauty Queen. New version of Fox News. Sanders too hicky.

  4. #24
    Veteran Member MaryAnne's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    42,404
    Thanks
    30369

    From
    Englewood,Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    That's more than a bit of a stretch.

    The press in general did give Trump a lot of coverage and air time. But most of it was not flattering. The guy was a totally unconventional blowhard carnival barker all through the campaign. That made him very "newsworthy".
    Not at first while he was knocking off 13 Republicans. If Trump sniffed,the media was right there.
    Thanks from Friday13

  5. #25
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73,500
    Thanks
    37431

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by pragmatic View Post
    That's more than a bit of a stretch.

    The press in general did give Trump a lot of coverage and air time. But most of it was not flattering. The guy was a totally unconventional blowhard carnival barker all through the campaign. That made him very "newsworthy".
    it is not. Trump got an estimated 3 - 5 billion dollars in free media coverage. They'd cover his entire rally. Whereas, other candidates were lucky if they got 10 minutes of coverage. Hell, they'd cover his friggin plane landing and taking off. Or an empty podium up to a half hour before he was scheduled to speak. The media stood to profit more from his presidency than most anyone else. They'd cover every drip , drip , drip, of Hillary Clinton's campaign emails. Or her foundation. Whereas, Trump was barely vetted by comparison. All this stuff we're only now hearing about should have been revealed during the election. Russia deliberately released the damaging information about Hillary Clinton and the media gleefully played along. Now they have the audacity to question the Trump campaign colluding with Russia?

    What a bunch of hypocrites.

    Oh and btw, it's not the medias job to only focus on what's supposedly "newsworthy". A lot of the coverage of Trump, especially on progressive networks, was unwanted. Their job is to contribute to a "well informed citizenry " And they dropped the ball big time.
    Last edited by the watchman; 12th September 2017 at 01:42 PM.
    Thanks from Panzareta and Friday13

  6. #26
    Above the FRAY Friday13's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,909
    Thanks
    13116

    From
    SoCal
    Quote Originally Posted by OHjulie View Post
    I wonder if it's also that simple-minded worry that journalists have of being
    called liberal when they're being fair in their reporting yet accused by conservatives
    of being biased. You know, those loudmouthed conservatives, they're kind of stupid,
    but they can be intimidating.
    "We" have never let Hillary Clinton speak for herself

    Say what you want about her politics —*love her, hate her, or anything in between —*throughout her career one thing is constant. No one has ever accepted Hillary Clinton’s right to speak for herself.

    [...]No one listened.*

    And that’s the first sentence we’re going to write, when some day we write the story of her political life. No one, ever, listened to what Hillary Clinton had to say for herself.

    So after the election she wrote a book to explain herself. She’s taken heat for this, which is understandable*—*after all, she lost, and the party will move on, as it should — until you realize what this is. It’s an attempt to speak for herself, a right which she has forever been denied. The public has decided that she should be covering herself in sackcloth and ashes and going into seclusion right now. But she has refused; instead, she wants to tell her story as she experienced it.

    Say what you want about Hillary Clinton. But can you deny her that right?

    -~-PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE-~-
    Thanks from the watchman and OHjulie

  7. #27
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    12,384
    Thanks
    10299

    From
    Here
    And Just because Trump won the Electoral College while Clinton won, despite all the "hate" for her, nearly 3 million more votes, does not mean he is loved either and if any was "loved" more, it was Clinton.

    Because of the 2000 presidential election, it became clear to Trump and his campaign that Trump didn't need a landslide, but only "just enough" votes to win the Electoral College. America should be wondering why, when it has only occurred 5 times in the history of this nation and one of them included candidates all from the same party, meaning of the four other times, in the history of this nation, TWO of them occurred in the last two times a republican "won" the Electoral College (and the Oval Office), but not the popular vote. How is it that the last two republicans to gain the White House, did NOT win the popular vote, but won the Electoral College?

    Add whatever propaganda and posing the Russians were doing and what I saw was a whole lot more time and people, spending time smearing Clinton and paying attention to Trump's "shock jocking" (controversial statements), than spending time questioning whether Trump was fit for office with his background and his statements. To be fair, it was also the media constantly attacked by Trump as being unfair and biased against him, BUT it was the MEDIA, that was REPORTING Trump's attacks on them.

    The media is in the business of selling news and beating out their competition with "breaking" news means they get a slight edge on numbers of gawkers (that's us folks) and it is the numbers, that they use to also attract their bread and butter, advertisers. As long as we keep gawking and running to the latest news story, they'll keep throwing it out there. People keep blaming the media, yet they get all their news ABOUT the media FROM the media. I think to be an informed public and at the same time an intelligent public, we need to learn how to navigate the information age and understand that for all the information that is put out there that is accurate and true there is misinformation and information that is not true and purposely, not true and designed to make people will not spend the time to corroborate and investigate where the truth might lie, buy into it and those behind spreading misinformation and false information do it for the purpose of getting support for their ulterior motives and agendas. This isn't particular to any particular political side, but at times and through eras, seems to be more dominant in one party, than the other.

    Clinton has always taken responsibility for her losses, but that does not mean there were no other factors involved. A big deal was made of her blame of Bernie Sanders, but her thanking Bernie Sanders and Sanders saying on her worse day she and he were 100 times better than any republicans running and she said he would be the first person she would call for advice.

    Even though there were still a lot of people pointing out problems with Trump, including his contradictions and denials of his own words and his lies, I think between the massive efforts to smear Clinton from the right, people taking both the Democratic primary campaigns as if they were the general election, the DNC leaks and perhaps outsiders (Russians) posing as disgruntled (about Clinton) "leftists", real disgruntled leftists, along with totally ignoring Trump's misgivings and reputation (however incredulous), were "just enough" to push Trump over the top in parts of the country where Trump's history and reputation did NOT precede him.

    Still Clinton got an unprecedented number of votes MORE than the winner of the Electoral College.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 12th September 2017 at 04:06 PM.
    Thanks from the watchman and Friday13

  8. #28
    "Mr. Original". the watchman's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73,500
    Thanks
    37431

    From
    becoming more and more
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryAnne View Post
    Hope Hicks has now been put in charge, beauty Queen. New version of Fox News. Sanders too hicky.

  9. #29
    Member
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    2,898
    Thanks
    3122

    From
    Ohio
    The VRWC has a thing about smart, liberal women.
    They hated Hillary on day 1 when she became first lady
    and trashed her every chance they got.

    Now they direct their ire against those other smart, liberal women
    ....Pelosi, Warren, Harris.

    There's something about smart, liberal women that con guys just can't handle.
    Thanks from Friday13 and Panzareta

  10. #30
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    30,203
    Thanks
    25690

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookycolt View Post
    They attack her because she is a lying corporate monster who has no idea how to campaign and then blames everyone else for her loss.

    Even the links in the OP blame everything but Hillary.

    Why don't they mention all the states she never bothered to campaign in, or the fact she called half the nation deplorable?

    Instead they blame Comey running an investigation.

    Its sad really.
    I tell you what...on Donald Trump's last day...will be the last time I will ever give a shit about him.

    The time you all invest in Hillary is incredible.
    Thanks from Panzareta

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. William Weld Vouches For Clinto
    By MaryAnne in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2nd November 2016, 03:15 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 8th July 2016, 12:58 PM
  3. Google should be shut down and shut down now!
    By Conservatarian in forum Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 2nd July 2015, 06:11 AM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12th January 2011, 06:59 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed