Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
drbubb

Verrit : Hillary's cringey new propaganda machine

Recommended Posts

Replace Verit with THIS:

 

hht6ekD.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BELIEVING that Hillary is anything other than a Huge Failure

 

... is as stupid as believing in Flat Earth theory

 

flatearth3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SEEING THROUGH the Lies!

The Lie Stream bias is even being admitted by Liberals

 

 

 

Even Liberals are seeing thru the Lies

 

Saritha Prabhu, Federalist

I’m a liberal Democrat who didn’t realize for a long time that our mainstream media is biased. For years, I consumed news and commentary from my favorite media sites uncritically: CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times. From time to time, I watched Fox News to see what “the other side” was saying.

I lived in a kind of information bubble, but like most bubble-dwellers I didn’t know I was living in one. Ironically, the 2016 election opened my eyes to this “Truman Show”-like media universe we’ve all been inhabiting.

My awakening came accidentally when I realized in 2016 that I just couldn’t support Hillary Clinton (I ended up protest-voting for Gary Johnson). I thought Clinton was arrogant, entitled, corrupt, and dishonest. I couldn’t believe the Democratic Party would nominate someone who was the subject of an FBI investigation.

. . .

Ironically, had I been a Clinton supporter, I’d have likely been blind to the media bias. To be clear, I’m not talking about individual reporting, which is usually great, but a persistent institutional bias that colors almost all coverage and commentary.

 

To be sure, the media on the Right is often biased as well. The degree to which Sean Hannity carries water for Trump is often amusing to watch. But the mainstream media’s bias is something else, and it affects me personally. It leaves me feeling angry, betrayed, frustrated.

As an immigrant from India who didn’t know much about the politics of this country 15 or 16 years ago, for years I trusted many mainstream outlets to give me an honest view of current events. It is now apparent to me that they haven’t presented an objective picture of current events, but a slanted, curated version that serves their purposes.

, , ,

Some examples: The Times’ left-leaning columnists wrote mostly anti-Trump columns for much of 2016, and acted like Hillary’s problems were happening in a galaxy faraway. Paul Krugman, especially, lost credibility in my eyes for literally becoming a Hillary shill in 2016, insisting repeatedly that her email troubles were overblown and a right-wing concoction.

I couldn’t bear to watch Rachel Maddow in 2016 and still can’t. She’s a fine journalist who has wide knowledge and command of the facts, but her relentless, overdone partisanship was and is too much for me.

Things got so bad that The New York Times issued a post-election letter to its subscribers, saying they looked forward to “rededicat[ing] ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism.” But it was too late, at least for me. The damage was done, and I’ll never look at the paper the same way again.

; ; ;

They didn’t actually have to overdo it. By virtue of his personality, President Trump gave them a lot of material, and they’d have been fine if they’d covered his flaws and missteps straight up. But they overplayed their hand, and not a little. Many mainstream journalists have become a little grandiose. They’ve joined the “Resistance,” and see themselves as grand defenders of democracy, as brave protectors of norms and institutions.

The result is, you see a lot of preening, grandstanding, boundary-crossing journalism.

 

Donna Brazile’s Accusations Were Big News

What actually prompted me to write this article was something that seemed to me like the last straw. It was the Donna Brazile story—her recent explosive allegations that the 2016 Democratic Party primary was riddled with malpractice, that Hillary had secretly taken over the Democratic National Committee a year before becoming the Democratic nominee.

You’d think this was a huge news story, but not if you were following CBS, NBC, ABC, or The New York Times. In the crucial initial days, these outlets devoted little or no time to it. They covered the story days after Politico broke the story, and Brazile appeared subsequently on “Morning Joe,” ABC’s “This Week,” and so on, but it was too late.

The Times especially outdid itself. It buried the Brazile story deep within a story titled, “Hillary Clinton Gets an Award and Tears are Shed.” In the first couple days when the story broke, I got a better sense of the story when I watched “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and read Glenn Greenwald’s commentary.

. . .

I didn’t go to a fancy journalism school, and don’t even have a journalism degree, but I know enough to realize that what is happening is bad, and that when the media self-divide into rabidly partisan camps, citizens suffer and democracy suffers.

When Sean Hannity says “journalism has died in America,” I agree with him.

 

=

> see : Veritas thread: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=21372

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GALLUP: HILLARY POPULARITY AT RECORD LOW...

4febxaumoeuejhb2gfv5ig.png

  • Hillary Clinton favorable down five points since June, to 36%
  • Prior low was 38%
  • Bill Clinton favorable also down five points, to 45%

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Hillary Clinton's image has declined since June and is now the worst Gallup has measured for her to date. Her favorable rating has fallen five percentage points since June to a new low of 36%, while her unfavorable rating has hit a new high of 61%.

. . .

Since losing to Trump, Clinton's favorable ratings have not improved, in contrast to what has happened for other recent losing presidential candidates. In fact, her image has gotten worse in recent months as Democratic leaders, political observers and Clinton herself have attempted to explain how she lost an election that she was expected to win. Meanwhile, controversy continues to swirl around Clinton given continuing questions about the fairness of the 2016 Democratic nomination process and her dealings with Russia while secretary of state. There has also been renewed discussion of Bill and Hillary Clinton's handling of past sexual harassment charges made against Bill Clinton in light of heightened public concern about workplace behavior.

==

lead_large.jpg?1481843950

That 36% must be some of the dimmest, and least patriotic people in America

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty Lady loves Power, the power of the News media

Her idea is to manipulate, not to inform better

Hillary Clinton Wants to Be CEO of Facebook

The failed presidential candidate said that the social media platform is the largest source of news in the world, and she'd like to be in charge of it.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told Attorney General Maura Healey (D-MA) that she would like to be CEO of Facebook, while receiving the Radcliffe Award at Harvard on Friday.

“If you could be a CEO of any company right now, what would you choose?” Healey asked.

“Facebook,” Clinton quickly answered.

The former secretary of state explained that Facebook “is the biggest news platform in the world.”

“Most people in our country get their news, true or not, from Facebook,” she said. “It really is critical to our democracy that people get accurate information on which to make decisions.”

> https://ntknetwork.com/hillary-clinton-wants-to-be-ceo-of-facebook/

BTW, she may be a little out of date...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×