Dear Republicans

Originally posted by whodey
The press is as free as the person writing their checks makes it.

How many are funded by George Soros do you reckon? I don't know the exact number, but it is pretty much everything that is out there.

Any ideas?

As for the freedom of the press, when has Trump ever suggested limiting the press? Is he not free to comment on their alleged dishonesty? If Trump is not free to do this, it is you who are against the freedom of speech, not Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

Back when right wingers weren't falling over themselves to kiss King Donald's royal a**, he was threatening to sue conservative groups that truthfully said he had supported higher taxes. http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/22/donald-trump-its-libel-to-quote-dumb-ideas-ive-repeatedly-proposed/

Originally posted by vivify
The reliability of the press to (in general) accurately relay info has never really been in question until Trump ran for office. True, people would criticize the press from time to time for sensationalism or putting ratings before fact; but never has the press been considered more of a liability than an asset.

Obviously, a President who gets more negati ...[text shortened]... the press. Their only criteria for the media's value is whether or not it makes them look good.

An historical consideration of the role of the press throughout the history of the US says something entirely different.
While I agree a good portion of their duplicity has come to light more now than during the time leading up to this, some of that is simply due to the ability of people to receive unbiased information from multiple sources which were unavailable in the past.
That the MSM is pursuing an agenda is without dispute; that it is more noticeable now than in the past is a matter of opinion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
An historical consideration of the role of the press throughout the history of the US says something entirely different.
While I agree a good portion of their duplicity has come to light more now than during the time leading up to this, some of that is simply due to the ability of people to receive unbiased information from multiple sources which were una ...[text shortened]... enda is without dispute; that it is more noticeable now than in the past is a matter of opinion.

90% of US media is controlled by six giant corporations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#The_.22Big_Six.22

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?IR=T

The idea that they are unalterably opposed to the populist leanings of King Donald is a fairy tale that even children wouldn't believe.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
An historical consideration of the role of the press throughout the history of the US says something entirely different.
While I agree a good portion of their duplicity has come to light more now than during the time leading up to this, some of that is simply due to the ability of people to receive unbiased information from multiple sources which were una ...[text shortened]... enda is without dispute; that it is more noticeable now than in the past is a matter of opinion.

You have to admit, that a man who relished poll numbers when they favored in him a primaries, and claimed they're "rigged" when they put him in a bad light, is full of crap. Anyone who believes such a man about the media (which is negative regarding him) is foolish.

Originally posted by no1marauder
90% of US media is controlled by six giant corporations.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_of_media_ownership#The_.22Big_Six.22

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6?IR=T

The idea that they are unalterably opposed to the populist leanings of King Donald is a fairy tale that even children wouldn't believe.

Unalterably?
Not sure what you're driving at, especially in light of the overwhelming denouncements from editors of every major newspaper.

Originally posted by vivify
You have to admit, that a man who relished poll numbers when they favored in him a primaries, and claimed they're "rigged" when they put him in a bad light, is full of crap. Anyone who believes such a man about the media (which is negative regarding him) is foolish.

I am not personally aware of anyone who questions the media's agenda-driven efforts as a result of Trump's tirades against them.
I'm sure such folks exist; I just don't know any of them.
Most of the people I speak to regarding the tyranny of the press see it as an ongoing reality, far before Trump openly called them on it.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Unalterably?
Not sure what you're driving at, especially in light of the overwhelming denouncements from editors of every major newspaper.

Stop looking at the trees and gander at the forest.

Virtually all of Trump's proposed policies will greatly benefit mega-corporations like those who control 90% of the US media. They certainly don't oppose his anti-regulatory, corporate tax cut and other agendas, do they?

The modern media is selling stories just like other parts of Corporate America (more properly now Corporate World) are selling cornflakes and cars. Trump is a good story and Trump's hysterical tirades are an even better one. So they get reported and Trump with his ridiculous thin skin lashes out. Repeat, rinse, repeat.

There is no ideological clash between the MSM and Trump no matter how many low level (reporters) and mid-level (editors) corporate employees are allowed to oppose him.

EDIT: As Matt Taibbi put it regarding the campaign:

He [Trump] tuned in to the fact that all of us [the media] are slaves to ratings, even if we pretend that we're not. To be fair, individually a lot us try to do what we know we ought to do, but the reality is that we work for companies that have to make money. Trump understands that, and he understands that he was making everyone money. He knew we'd keep the lights on. He knew we needed him as much as he needed us.

http://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/2/1/14412450/donald-trump-matt-taibbi-elections-2016-hillary-clinton-media

Originally posted by no1marauder
Stop looking at the trees and gander at the forest.

Virtually all of Trump's proposed policies will greatly benefit mega-corporations like those who control 90% of the US media. They certainly don't oppose his anti-regulatory, corporate tax cut and other agendas, do they?

The modern media is selling stories just like other parts of Corporate Americ ...[text shortened]... om/conversations/2017/2/1/14412450/donald-trump-matt-taibbi-elections-2016-hillary-clinton-media

I get the whole bread-and-circus philosophy, and I certainly don't exclude the reality of collusion at the top on several, if not all, fronts.
I even acquiesce the level of craft and clever which the elite appear to possess in large quantities.
But the attacks from the left leaning MSM not only against Trump, but for domestic terrorism seems--- to me--- counter to their intended ends otherwise.
If he's removed from office or if his administration is otherwise neutralized, how did his presidency serve their purpose?
Since his candidacy and now presidency have opened up lines of inquiry into the deep state, into questioning the powerful but otherwise invisible elite, how was this a best-case scenario for them?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I get the whole bread-and-circus philosophy, and I certainly don't exclude the reality of collusion at the top on several, if not all, fronts.
I even acquiesce the level of craft and clever which the elite appear to possess in large quantities.
But the attacks from the left leaning MSM not only against Trump, but for domestic terrorism seems--- to me--- ...[text shortened]... stioning the powerful but otherwise invisible elite, how was this a best-case scenario for them?

Collusion is not required, merely everyone acting in their own best interests.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I get the whole bread-and-circus philosophy, and I certainly don't exclude the reality of collusion at the top on several, if not all, fronts.
I even acquiesce the level of craft and clever which the elite appear to possess in large quantities.
But the attacks from the left leaning MSM not only against Trump, but for domestic terrorism seems--- to me--- ...[text shortened]... stioning the powerful but otherwise invisible elite, how was this a best-case scenario for them?

never mind