speaking of disinformation on social media, the biggest spender on pro-Trump Facebook Ads, other than the Trump Campaign, is reportedly a secretive New York-based newspaper,The Epoch Times, a publication that's tied to the Falun Gong, a religious group banned in the PRC The publication has reportedly spent over $1.5 million on pro-Trump Facebook advertising across the last six months. Those ads have been described as featuring "unidentified spokespeople" who "thumb through a newspaper to praise Trump, peddle conspiracy theories about the 'Deep State,' and criticize 'fake news' media." The ads are part of an Epoch Times Facebook page called " Coverage of the Trump presidency by The Epoch Times." https://www.businessinsider.com/epoch-times-pro-trump-facebook-ads-2019-8
If only we had politically conscious popular white and rich reality show star with enough followers to proclaim it. We need about 8 Marc Cubans (based on their twitter followers count) to cooperate here. Fertita won't do - too poor. MLE still untapped. PS If only press kept their mouth shut, we'd already have Greenland and the WALL with China and Mexico paying for them. (And even if they didn't, Trump could just tweet that they did and no one would be the wiser)
Agree, if true (and wouldn't shed any tears). But that story sounds pretty ... outrageous? ie, if true, he's definitely gotta go, I would think. But...is it actually true?
People who think Trump is the enemy of the American people are the enemy of the American people. Gee, that was fun! Should we continue, or did you have something more productive to add to the conversation? FWIW...there are many who felt the media was very biased for a long time before Trump ever said a thing about it. It has only become more biased since his election...because so many of them believe as Deckard does. There is absolutely no deny, at this point, that by far the most objective MSM outlet is FoxNews. They have more criticism of Trump, more people there who aren'tTrump fans, than the converse at any of the other outlets. Think about what that says about the other networks, where they and their followers used to scream about how biased Fox was....yet seem to have no issues at all with how biased all the others became. This is precisely why Trump's statement is so true. It was something that has needed to be pointed out for a long time, and is only truer and more appropriate now.
I watched that interview. It was pretty striking. What it shows is that there was definitely an agenda. It's amazing to me that so many people still deny this (the bias in the MSM).
likewise. And the productive discourse continues! One could wonder if you were even capable of adding anything to a conversation besides these one liners, but the evidence is so overwhelming against that there wouldn't be much to ponder.
We are more or less a surveillance state with the amount of dirt tech, telecom, and credit industry has on us. Is this the price of modernity?
Amazing how someone who doesn't even understand the difference between life and health insurance and who uses the term "enemy of the people" towards just any sort of criticism of himself has such insightful understanding of news journalism today. It's as if you think that Trump's attacks in the media are based in some altrustic desire to solve a problem rather than just brings giant cry baby who can't handle criticism. You are giving the manchild too much credit.
Clearly, you rarely read this forum. Some of your back slapping buddies would tell you that not only do I post here often, I frequently create posts that have multiple paragraphs. In fact, I've complained before that certain members here should actually post their opinions, not simply cut and paste material. That would apply to anyone in this forum, regardless of how they fall politically. An example of a trump supporter who posts his own opinions is @dachuda86. A trump supporter who largely posts cut and paste material would be @Os Trigonum. Both are members I value, even if I disagree with them. We have arguments on occasion that can get "out of hand," but they are assets to the BBS, in my humble opinion. That's certainly a paragraph. Now go forth and broaden your sources of information. Thanks in advance.
If it is, I miss those days when I enjoyed the modernity of 40 or 50 years ago. Much of the "progress" we have to deal with today didn't exist, and I managed quite well without it. I even enjoyed myself, a lot. More than a lot, actually. Unintentional double post!
Yeah... 50 years ago you didn't have to lock the doors of your house in order to feel safe inside and could "uber" for free. Different era
No, I'm pointing out that this was an issue long before Trump said a thing about it. All he's doing is giving it a more prominent voice. One could argue his motivations but one could also argue that his motivations aren't even relevant. Personally, I have found that Trump doesn't exhibit his usual bravado on this...he's always pretty calm and even keeled. So, while I would agree he does often act childishly, and sometimes seems unable to handle criticism...I haven't seen it when he talks on this issue. So, yes, I do think he's trying to solve a problem. Or at least put the press in a bad light, which works in his favor (which, btw, was Jon Stewart's take...and he think Trump will inevitably win that battle, as the more the press rebels against it, the more it works in his favor).
There is absolutely nothing to suggest this from Trump's rhetoric. I would appreciate it if you elaborate how you drew this conclusion? If he was serious about his criticism of modern journalism he wouldn't praise the likes of Hannity, Genine Peirro, Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones. They epitomize everything wrong with modern media. Trump displays his motivations on his chest. I find your take absurd enough to where I think you are gas lighting me or arguing in bad faith. There is no nuance in your statements. Jon Stewart's criticism is nowhere near the same ballpark as Trump's. Trump's criticism entirely is dependent on whether a news piece is critical or praiseworthy of him. Stewart's criticism was in the realm of what we essentially call " click bait". He thinks the news media doesn't prioritize actual important news and relies on flashy headlines and low hanging fruit news pieces to generate more views. That is his criticism. He doesn't think the NYT fabricates sources to make Trump look bad. A simple way to evaluate your take, is to form a thought experiment of what would Jon Stewart's new media look like when his perception of what is wrong with modern news media is solved vs what Trump's idealized version of news media would look like. Stewart's idealized new media would cover more important subjects in a nuanced often boring manner that doesn't cater towards the lowest common denominator such as nuanced coverage of health care issues in America. Trump's idealized version of new media would just be news media listing Trump's hyper-realized versions of his accomplishments.
