Today we’ve great possibilities to spread news. But it is very difficult to get the real information unbiased. Breitbart is known to be very biased even here over the ocean. But it seems the „normal“ media in USA is biased, too.
E.g. we never understood how Bush jun. got his second election where it was clear he started a war based on wrong information. This is unthinkable here. It would be the one point which would dominate the discussion and would make him unvotable here. Your media seemed to move the discussion away from this fact and relativated his guilty to make him votable. Another example is the Hillary Email discussion. This is a topic which is minor at best but was discussed the whole time. I guess it is possible Trump kills a person in TV and get reelected if media helps him. Unthinkable? But killing one person is much less a problem than starting a war where thousands are killed. Breitbart would find 100 reasons why this person has to die and would find other topics to report. Good and neutral media are the base of a working democracy. For sure you have a problem. Von: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] Im Auftrag von That One Guy /sarcasm Gesendet: Sonntag, 22. Januar 2017 07:05 An: af@afmug.com Betreff: Re: [AFMUG] [OT: Politics] Can we? Im pretty confident the next few days is setting the stage to effectively shutting down "media access". Im all for it in the current environment. Between press releases, Publicly accessible data, FOIA responses, live streamed events, and one on one interviews (and yes...twitter) the press really is the dialup internet method of getting information. We know more in real time then the press could ever package up and present. The current mindset of media in press conferences is that of militants (both sides of the media isle) and there is zero professionalism from either one. Neither really gives a damn what the answer is anyway, theyre going to report whatever their preconceived response was either way. Question: Did we send B52 Bombers to hit an ISIS target? Answer: Yes CNN under Obama: Obama authorizes successful airstrike removing 100 ISIS fighters in final days of his presidency. This act ensures that those who would commit terror will be addressed accordingly, even during the transition of power. Breitbart under Obama: Obama, the snake furthers military conflict day before leaving office, leaving all Americans at risk during a tumultuous time of transition. Kills 100, ensuring a retaliatory response. Had the same attack been authorized today: CNN under Trump: MILITARY FIASCO: Trump bombs random targets. Top military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, refuse to verify there were no civilian casualties, at least 100 confirmed dead. War crime charges possible? Breitbart under Trump: God Emperor Trump authorized the removal of 100 ISIS top leaders in his first act as Commander in Chief. Rumors of ISIS surrender. Barack Obama potentially one of the dead operatives. On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jeremy <jeremysmi...@gmail.com <mailto:jeremysmi...@gmail.com> > wrote: I'm all for it. I think that everyone is probably just impressed by the first white house press briefing and the remarks at Langley. What an amazing public speaker this one is. Have you ever had a friend or friend's uncle or something who did too much meth? You know how they start out with one sentence and then before you know it they have told fifteen other stories before they ever get to the point...if they ever do??? We have four years of that to look forward to. Just watch the full speech at the CIA, you will see what I mean. Or don't....save yourself the pain. On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:27 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com <mailto:j...@kyneticwifi.com> > wrote: Can we talk about politics yet? :P -- If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
