Re: What would it take?
 

Yes, so we should just discount anything he says for the rest of his life now for a mistake he acknowledged and apologized for.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163655]Yes, so we should just discount anything he says for the rest of his life now for a mistake he acknowledged and apologized for.[/quote]

Well to be honest he has always had an axe to grind with the GOP, so his remark isn't surprising.

In fact, dan rather would fit right in with today's media...he came from an era where the ethics of journalism were upheld on a daily basis. The expectation was to present the facts to the American people and let the people decide what's right. And you certainly could not interject personal political opinions in presenting the news. When dan rather did that just over 10 years, this was a major embarrassment for cbs...he caught a lot of flack because he created distrust. He was seen as a leader in journalism....he mostly regarded as a joke these days.

I'm for confronting the media becuase it's out of control. Time magazine which NBC also ran the story of trump removing the bust of mlk out of the Oval Office is another example. This story ran immediately and was shared millions of times. The reporter eventually apologized, but that shit doesn't matter, it's already spread. This type of irresponsible journalism feeds into racial sensitivity across the country...it's damning.

Re: What would it take?
 

Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163692]Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.[/quote]

Agree. It's absolutely insane that they're debating facts that can be clearly observed in photos. It's embarrassing, frankly.

I voted for Clinton, but once Trump won I went with the attitude that I'd like to wait and see what he can do. This isn't a good start at all.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=MTK;1163692]Um yeah, I'm still more concerned about the "alternative facts" coming from the WH. The tone that's been set at the start of this administration is very alarming. Even worse than I thought it would be honestly.[/quote]

so funny that those 2 words from that interview are making the rounds...it's a sound bite generation where the attention span is so low and people will not listen to the entire interview for context. Folks will take this and just make up whatever they want...whatever fits in the bubble.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1163711]so funny that those 2 words from that interview are making the rounds...it's a sound bite generation where the attention span is so low and people will not listen to the entire interview for context. Folks will take this and just make up whatever they want...whatever fits in the bubble.[/quote]

Why wouldn't you latch onto those words?? They are by definition an oxymoron. Facts are indisputable, read the dictionary definition. There is only one alternative to a fact: bullshit.

Re: What would it take?
 

Chico to maintain any credibility in these debates at all, you have to admit that phrase is ridiculous. If you don't, or if you try to gloss past it, then you risk never being taken seriously by anybody with a brain.

Re: What would it take?
 

I agree that facts are indisputable.
One fact is that there is no exact or physical count.
One fact is that due to clouds there is not the overhead view that counts are taken from.
One fact is that Trump's inauguration via Nielsen's ratings were the second highest and online/streaming viewership was an all time high.

These are alternative facts to the drumbeat the media ran with one photo and their standing narrative against Trumps presidency

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

Re: What would it take?
 

Not really defending the 2 words but the coverage. Did u see the interview? chuck Todd got bitch slapped. But yet I'm forced to defend 2 words? Psss please...come on bro.

I've stated before, it was dumb to defend a crowd by trump and the administration...but we know what's going on, it was a clear smear campaign be the media to denigrate the incoming administration. why did the media run the side by side comparison to Obama's inaugural crowd?

Its interesting to see the confrontation with the media...I think a lot of folks will be saying it's about time. But I don't know if it necessarily smart, because we can see with just 2 words what can happen.

Re: What would it take?
 

:doh:

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1163730]:doh:[/quote]

Lol...don't worry, hopefully we can start talking about stuff that really matters as the first 100 days begins. If trump effs up with policy pushes i won't give him any slack. I just really the playing field was level when it comes to coverage, lotta bad info out there...

Re: What would it take?
 

Strange times.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163519]Well gosh. I guess our next president should win dancing with stars. First?!? He's the commander in chief not a pop star. I know that's hard for obama fans to grasp since he had the roles reversed in his mind and actions.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

He's not supposed to be a pop star? I'm confused, his social media habits seem to imply he wants to be treated like a pop star.

Re: What would it take?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1163723]I agree that facts are indisputable.
One fact is that there is no exact or physical count.
One fact is that due to clouds there is not the overhead view that counts are taken from.
One fact is that Trump's inauguration via Nielsen's ratings were the second highest and online/streaming viewership was an all time high.

These are alternative facts to the drumbeat the media ran with one photo and their standing narrative against Trumps presidency

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk[/quote]

1) I agree on fact one
2)Fact two is wrong .Back and I think it was a Beach Boy concert the formula the National Parks Dept use to do head counts on the Mall was reveled and I do agree there is no "actual" numbers count they can most certainly do very good estimations.Each section on the Mall can hold x amount of people and such.While it was over cast right around Oath time it lighten up a good amount.
3) Considering the improvement in tech knowledge of course more people were able to watch it in ways that didn't exist even eight years ago.All so does'nt mean people were watching.I kind of use the train wreck theory,people know what's coming but still want to see the car and the train collide.

Re: What would it take?
 

Dennis Kucinich (democratic Pres.primary Candidate 2004&2008) response to Trump's inaugural address

[url]https://m.facebook.com/denniskucinich/posts/10154527639948218[/url]

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk