Jump to content

Democrats Would not Survive Honest Reporting


Recommended Posts

You can bet the left is planning a smear campaign on Sharyl Attkisson...

 

"Sharyl Attkisson, the investigative reporter who resigned from CBS News and said the network clamped down on stories critical of the Obama administration, on Sunday said Media Matters targeted her and may have been paid to do so."

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/20/sharyl-attkisson-says-she-became-a-target-of-the-left-over-her-reporting-and-guess-how-cbs-news-treated-bush-compared-to-obama/

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can bet the left is planning a smear campaign on Sharyl Attkisson...

 

"Sharyl Attkisson, the investigative reporter who resigned from CBS News and said the network clamped down on stories critical of the Obama administration, on Sunday said Media Matters targeted her and may have been paid to do so."

 

 

I would buy her book.

 

There should be a House Un-America Activities Investigation.

 

The Unholy Alliance

 

There is an Unholy Alliance that is a cancer in America.

 

There is a question as to whether the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry is the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party or the Democratic Party is the political wing of the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry.

 

The Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry makes big money from pornography, and the Democrats make sure the pornography is legal. The Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry makes political contributions to the Democrats to make sure the pornography stays legal. News is not a profitable industry so the pornography is used to fund the news activities.

 

The Democratic Party makes big money by managing the health care/welfare programs of the Poverty Plantation that is produced by the homosexuality, adultery and drugs advocated and encouraged by the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry.

 

When compared to perfection, Republicans did not look good, but when compared to democrats, Republicans look brilliant. Without the propaganda support of the Atheistic Liberal News Media the democrats would look ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, the Republicans wouldn't survive honest reporting either.

 

I disagree.

 

I believe you are a PLASD that loves the fact that the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry has am Unholy Alliance with the Democratic Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

I believe you are a PLASD that loves the fact that the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry has am Unholy Alliance with the Democratic Party.

And I believe you are an ignorant ass who has no idea what he is talking about. The difference between what you believe and what I believe is that my belief is supported by proof. Yours is based on a wholly incorrect assumption that your pea-sized brain made because you believe that political affiliation is a binary choice. It is not, thankfully.

 

In other words, I am not a Democrat, so your lame-ass attempt at a response by way of ad hominem fails miserably. Sorry, junior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of the politicians in Washington would not survive honest reporting.

 

Of course, they may survive given that the public just keeps voting them, or their likeness, into office regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I disagree.

 

I believe you are a PLASD that loves the fact that the Atheistic Liberal News and Entertainment Industry has am Unholy Alliance with the Democratic Party.

 

Sorry, pinhead, but NEITHER Derpocrats NOR Republitards will survive honest reporting OR historical review OR another Anchorman movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can bet the left is planning a smear campaign on Sharyl Attkisson...

 

"Sharyl Attkisson, the investigative reporter who resigned from CBS News and said the network clamped down on stories critical of the Obama administration, on Sunday said Media Matters targeted her and may have been paid to do so."

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/20/sharyl-attkisson-says-she-became-a-target-of-the-left-over-her-reporting-and-guess-how-cbs-news-treated-bush-compared-to-obama/

What does being honest have to do with reporting what each side believes differently about existing presently truthfully?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I am saying is...report it all as it really happens.

they do. but reality is read between the lines.

 

What line separates parent and child? What line separates existing and extinct? Don't use "extant" either.

 

what is the time between child and grandparent? What is the difference? Inversion of the self contained matter universally positioned as this planet and everything adding together within the atmosphere, currently as it is happening specifically..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Democrats Would not Survive Honest Reporting"

 

This is absolutely true.

 

The ONLY thing keeping the Democratic Party in the running is a dishonest media.

 

That's why the next time Republicans (and more specifically conservatives) in power, they should address this problem.

 

One suggestion is to make the public airway networks pay if they don't report stories of political significance fairly.

 

If TV News programs report or don't report a news item that is non-political in nature, they get to do it for free.

 

Who cares if we learn that a cat was stuck in a tree or the XYZ bank was robbed.

 

But if the news item involves politics, then they should present both sides of the issue in a full and complete manner.

 

We can have a panel of *judges*, who swear under oath to be impartial, listen to major mainstream TV media broadcasts each day.

 

They then judge how biased each broadcast is on a sliding scale with regards to each story that definitely should be covered that day.

 

Say the scale is 1 to 10 ... 1 means it's judged to be very biased and 10 means it's judged not biased at all.

 

If the group of judges on average agree that the reporting on a given story is relatively unbiased, then there is no penalty.

 

But if they judge on average that it's biased, then the media outlet gets sent a bill whose amount depends on how badly biased.

 

If the average rating is 7-8, then the cost is $500 for that one story for every day it's not covered.

 

If it's a 5-6, then the cost is a $2500.

 

If it's a 3-4, then the cost is $5,000.

 

If it's a 1-2 in terms of bias, the cost is $10,000.

 

Failure to report a significant news item at all will automatically be judged a 2 in terms of showing bias.

 

That's $10,000 per non-covered political story, per day, as long as at least half the judges view that as significant news.

 

That could add up to big money rather quickly for the mainstream media.

 

The results should be published on the internet every day so we can judge both the bias of the news media and judges.

 

Make the networks cover this rating as well, or that tacks on another $5,000 per day.

 

I think a system like this could be set up that wouldn't be biased toward either party.

 

Say by randomly picking judges from members of the general populace who pass a reading comprehension test.

 

Judges can be paid positions ... say just as much as a real judge since this will be an important full time position.

 

I think this would go a long ways towards returning the TV News media to doing the job they are supposed to do.

 

That we the people desperately need them to do if this country is to remain free and prosperous.

 

And if one can show that a judge is not impartial, that judge should be charged with perjury.

 

What I suggest abot does not governing content.

 

Those who want to propagandize can still do it …

 

... but they will have to pay for the use of the public airways medium if they do …

 

... just like they had to pay for the medium they used back in the 18th century.

 

It's obvious that the Founders had no concept of "public airways".

 

They did have the concept of public owned items, however, and wrote the Constitution to protect the rights of everyone with regard that.

 

Or so it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

So it's logical to assume they'd have wanted to protect the rights of everyone when it comes to the "public airways" as well.

 

So that they aren't biased by one party or another.

 

If government can regulate clean water and air, it can certainly do what's necessary to make the public airways clean of bias.

 

It's in the public interest.

 

The precedent is already there with the FCC having the power to decide what words can and cannot be said in the public medium.

 

What I propose just extends that power a bit.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Democrats Would not Survive Honest Reporting"

 

This is absolutely true.

 

The ONLY thing keeping the Democratic Party in the running is a dishonest media.

 

That's why the next time Republicans (and more specifically conservatives) in power, they should address this problem.

 

One suggestion is to make the public airway networks pay if they don't report stories of political significance fairly.

 

If TV News programs report or don't report a news item that is non-political in nature, they get to do it for free.

 

Who cares if we learn that a cat was stuck in a tree or the XYZ bank was robbed.

 

But if the news item involves politics, then they should present both sides of the issue in a full and complete manner.

 

We can have a panel of *judges*, who swear under oath to be impartial, listen to major mainstream TV media broadcasts each day.

 

They then judge how biased each broadcast is on a sliding scale with regards to each story that definitely should be covered that day.

 

Say the scale is 1 to 10 ... 1 means it's judged to be very biased and 10 means it's judged not biased at all.

 

If the group of judges on average agree that the reporting on a given story is relatively unbiased, then there is no penalty.

 

But if they judge on average that it's biased, then the media outlet gets sent a bill whose amount depends on how badly biased.

 

If the average rating is 7-8, then the cost is $500 for that one story for every day it's not covered.

 

If it's a 5-6, then the cost is a $2500.

 

If it's a 3-4, then the cost is $5,000.

 

If it's a 1-2 in terms of bias, the cost is $10,000.

 

Failure to report a significant news item at all will automatically be judged a 2 in terms of showing bias.

 

That's $10,000 per non-covered political story, per day, as long as at least half the judges view that as significant news.

 

That could add up to big money rather quickly for the mainstream media.

 

The results should be published on the internet every day so we can judge both the bias of the news media and judges.

 

Make the networks cover this rating as well, or that tacks on another $5,000 per day.

 

I think a system like this could be set up that wouldn't be biased toward either party.

 

Say by randomly picking judges from members of the general populace who pass a reading comprehension test.

 

Judges can be paid positions ... say just as much as a real judge since this will be an important full time position.

 

I think this would go a long ways towards returning the TV News media to doing the job they are supposed to do.

 

That we the people desperately need them to do if this country is to remain free and prosperous.

 

And if one can show that a judge is not impartial, that judge should be charged with perjury.

 

What I suggest abot does not governing content.

 

Those who want to propagandize can still do it …

 

... but they will have to pay for the use of the public airways medium if they do …

 

... just like they had to pay for the medium they used back in the 18th century.

 

It's obvious that the Founders had no concept of "public airways".

 

They did have the concept of public owned items, however, and wrote the Constitution to protect the rights of everyone with regard that.

 

Or so it's been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

So it's logical to assume they'd have wanted to protect the rights of everyone when it comes to the "public airways" as well.

 

So that they aren't biased by one party or another.

 

If government can regulate clean water and air, it can certainly do what's necessary to make the public airways clean of bias.

 

It's in the public interest.

 

The precedent is already there with the FCC having the power to decide what words can and cannot be said in the public medium.

 

What I propose just extends that power a bit.

 

:D

 

"for the public good" will get you thrown in a concentration camp.

 

Keeping the gvernment out all altogether should be the goal. The INCEST that is the whitehouse press and MSN is an issue but here we have a problem:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, but how do you do it in this day and age?

 

Vote tea party candidates in and hold them accountable.

 

We can also have a constitutional convention:

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall

deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

or,

 

on the Application of the Legislatures of two

thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing

Amendments

 

 

, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents

and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the

Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions

in three fourths thereof

 

 

, as the one or the other Mode of

Ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . .

 

21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vote tea party candidates in and hold them accountable.

 

First, you aren't going to be able to do that in most cases with the mainstream media lying about them and their positions. The point of the OP is that the reason the Democrats remain a strong party is because of a dishonest, biased mainstream media. Even if you manage to get a few tea party candidates into power, you still haven't addressed that issue. Come the next election, that media will still be misrepresenting your tea party positions (as they do now) and hiding all the bad Democrats have done. What I've suggested is an apolitical way to do that.

 

We can also have a constitutional convention:

 

Be careful what you wish for. What makes you think Democrats wouldn't use that to even further trash the Constitution? They could, you know. And the mainstream media would probably portray what they do as a good thing and every change you propose as a bad thing. Indeed, if a constitutional convention were convened, I would probably suggest we do away with electing our representatives but instead randomly select them from the populace, and then let them pick the President and VP from among those among their number who have already served most of a term. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...