Newt Gingrich: Political Coup happening to America Right Now.
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
How is it you are so stupid?
http://www.worldtribune.com/new-low-gallup-shows-public-trust-in-media-down-8-points-from-last-year/
"Just 32 percent of Americans say they have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the media, down eight points from last year."
And a serial philanderer just like John Edwards. Both men cheated on their cancer-stricken wives. Remember Edwards? You guys were quick to bury him for his transgressions. Gingrich? Not so much.
The media have not been fair. They keep reporting on the things he says and does.
You are citing "World Tribune?" It's nonsense for the non-thinking.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/09/08/fit-to-print-2
As for the Gallup poll, Republicans and their equivalents fueled the drop in media trust:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
And why do you think that is? Because they are turning to shit sources like World Tribune (the site at one time included a prominent feature, Cosmic Tribune, with an extraterrestrial focus), Fox and Breitbart and are having their minds vacuumed of whatever gray matter once remained in their now desiccated brains.
So, yes, how is it that you're so stupid?
Last edited:
So you think discrediting a source, that merely reported the results of the Galllup poll and at the same time quoting the Gallup poll, when it suits your agenda, makes you look intelligent? You are really the epitome of stupidity.
What I did is refer to the Gallup poll itself, as presented by Gallup, rather than the predigested and slanted pablum that tells you what to think without your having to make the effort.So you think discrediting a source, that merely reported the results of the Galllup poll and at the same time quoting the Gallup poll, when it suits your communist agenda, makes you look intelligent? You are really the epitome of stupidity.
But in this case, your source got it right:
Gallup also pointed to the lower standards for journalism with “the prevalence of blogs, vlogs and social media.”
“Americans may be wary of placing trust on the work of media institutions that have less rigorous reporting criteria than in the past.”
You know, like, say, Breitbart.
And they got it right that Republicans don't trust the media when they don't like what they hear.
So, I guess we're in agreement after all. There is less trust in the media because of slant sites like the ones you favor, and Republicans equate trustworthiness with hearing what they like.
Last edited:
These are actually very good questions.
One problem obviously is that many, indeed most, potential voters lack the interest or time to pursue issues deeply. They tend to form a generalized belief by their exposure to bits and pieces of information in the media. In short, they are highly vulnerable to propaganda masquerading as news. They tend to be either trusting, eg older people, or naïve, eg millenials, and don't think to question why shittalking by Trump 20 years ago is more important than an FBI investigation being rigged to clear Hillary of serious national security offenses.
While the media are nominally private, there are only three major TV networks, two or three important newspapers and three cable TV nets. Other than Fox News, all are very liberal in the best of times and have clearly been totally in the tank for Hillary. Fox itself has violated its viewers trust by attacking Trump relentlessly, both on air and in the debate it hosted.
There is one change that could be made to improve matters slightly. Under current libel laws, the media get special permission to libel people who are deemed public figures unless actual malice is shown. Given the obvious coordination between reporters and the Clinton campaign, Trump may be able to show actual malice in some of the false reports about him, but generally it is an impossible burden. The UK has no such rule and manages to boast a press that is far more robust than ours.
Democrats desperately want to do two things, both of which are very bad ideas. One, they want to reinstate the misnamed "fairness doctrine" under which broadcasters are forced to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. In practice however, it was only used to silence conservative opinion shows, while biased "news" reporting was not challenged. Two, they want to regulate the internet. Obama was whining the other day about the need to censor "incorrect" information, like maybe AGW skepticism or criticism of immigration.
Blablablabla. Fact is, you dumb fuck, trust in media hit an all-time low, contrary to what java posted. End of discussion.
LOL. The problem is with the TV and cable networks and major newspapers. They obviously have no "reporting criteria" except to run it by the Clinton camp to see if they object.