Dem Politicians Trying To Cancel Cable Networks

#26
#26
LouderVol said:
Didnt Trump kick out some media types because they pushed bs stories about him?
Click to expand...
There's a fundamental difference in not having a seat at a single type of event and being banned from all broadcasts. Nobody stopped the press companies that were banned from WH events from reporting, and not every media outlet gets a seat in the WH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, Matt2496, allvol123 and 1 other person
#27
#27
ButchPlz said:
There's a fundamental difference in not having a seat at a single type of event and being banned from all broadcasts. Nobody stopped the press companies that were banned from WH events from reporting, and not every media outlet gets a seat in the WH.
Click to expand...
So going after the media is ok? As long as it's your guy doing it, according to their wants?

Again the right looks more left every time I come on here.
 
#28
#28
LouderVol said:
Didnt Trump kick out some media types because they pushed bs stories about him?
Click to expand...

He kicked out Acosta because he was being an extreme douche. There were other agencies that whined they didn't get in on the little mini briefings they would have from time to time.

Obama tried to keep Fox News out until it backfired on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, StarRaider and Weezy
#29
#29
LouderVol said:
So going after the media is ok? As long as it's your guy doing it, according to their wants?

Again the right looks more left every time I come on here.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said at all. I said there is a fundamental difference, and there is.

I don't think being at the press secretary conferences is something that's needed for a news company to do their job. I do believe being wholesale deplatformed prevents them from doing their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#30
#30
Grand Vol said:
He kicked out Acosta because he was being an extreme douche. There were other agencies that whined they didn't get in on the little mini briefings they would have from time to time.

Obama tried to keep Fox News out until it backfired on him.
Click to expand...
So fox and friends are just being douches, and complaining they arent getting their briefings.

Not just you GV, but people need to admit they are fine with the idea of media being interfered with, as long as they agree with it. This isnt some huge stance on the principal of the 1A, it's a stand that my side is losing so now it's not fair.
 
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
So fox and friends are just being douches, and complaining they arent getting their briefings.

Not just you GV, but people need to admit they are fine with the idea of media being interfered with, as long as they agree with it. This isnt some huge stance on the principal of the 1A, it's a stand that my side is losing so now it's not fair.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point.
 
#32
#32
ButchPlz said:
That's not what I said at all. I said there is a fundamental difference, and there is.

I don't think being at the press secretary conferences is something that's needed for a news company to do their job. I do believe being wholesale deplatformed prevents them from doing their job.
Click to expand...
Tomato tomatoh.you are either fine with interference, or you arent.

Start it with Obama if you want, but this is the escalation that Trump was a part of.

The issue with playing partisan politics is the pendulum swings.
 
#33
#33
LouderVol said:
Tomato tomatoh.you are either fine with interference, or you arent.

Start it with Obama if you want, but this is the escalation that Trump was a part of.

The issue with playing partisan politics is the pendulum swings.
Click to expand...

Again, if you're going to be that extreme, you need to advocate for every media outlet on earth to have a seat at press conferences.
 
#34
#34
ButchPlz said:
Again, if you're going to be that extreme, you need to advocate for every media outlet on earth to have a seat at press conferences.
Click to expand...
I believe they should be able to request it, and then if granted be allowed in, and then allowed to act as a media member.

Remember when the media was supposed to be against the government? But douche acosta was against my guy, so I was fine with him being banned?

Are the tabloid news, or those papers that post about elvis living on the dark side of the moon, media types worthy of the same protection? Because I am fine with their being a standard, and holding both sides to it. But that's not the case here. You are wanting to protect yourself and focus on the others.
 
#35
#35
LouderVol said:
I believe they should be able to request it, and then if granted be allowed in, and then allowed to act as a media member.

Remember when the media was supposed to be against the government? But douche acosta was against my guy, so I was fine with him being banned?

Are the tabloid news, or those papers that post about elvis living on the dark side of the moon, media types worthy of the same protection? Because I am fine with their being a standard, and holding both sides to it. But that's not the case here. You are wanting to protect yourself and focus on the others.
Click to expand...
So if you believe there should be a standard, then you believe that some outlets should be barred from entry? That's kind of contrary to what you were saying.

And again, the apples to oranges comparison of trying to wholesale ban an outlet from broadcasting anything to anyone and not allowing an outlet a seat at a specific event is what I was getting at. The Democrats are essentially trying to ban the tabloids in your example from existence, it has nothing to do with press conference access.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loggervol
#36
#36
LouderVol said:
So fox and friends are just being douches, and complaining they arent getting their briefings.

Not just you GV, but people need to admit they are fine with the idea of media being interfered with, as long as they agree with it. This isnt some huge stance on the principal of the 1A, it's a stand that my side is losing so now it's not fair.
Click to expand...

There is a big difference in the Obama Admin straight up not letting Fox in (which caused an outcry from a lot of other agencies) and the WH Press Secretary having one of her little 4-5 reporter sit downs that not everyone would get invited to each time. The difference was, she tended to mix it up and had different ones when she did them.

I'm not okay with the media being interfered with just like I'm not okay with social media having the power they do.

Now, when a GOP Rep, Senator or President starts asking the private sector why they carry CNN or MSNBC when it's been proven they reported on lies for years, let me know and I'll be outraged as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loggervol
#37
#37
ButchPlz said:
So if you believe there should be a standard, then you believe that some outlets should be barred from entry? That's kind of contrary to what you were saying.

And again, the apples to oranges comparison of trying to wholesale ban an outlet from broadcasting anything to anyone and not allowing an outlet a seat at a specific event is what I was getting at. The Democrats are essentially trying to ban the tabloids in your example from existence, it has nothing to do with press conference access.
Click to expand...
So you think we should be seeing all the stories about JFK partying with aliens on the nightly news?

In my world there has to be some level of truth behind it for it to be considered news, able to market and broadcast itself as such. In the Dems opinions they dont believe some conservative sites meet their requirement. Just like Trump didnt think X met his requirement. In their opinion some sites are bad enough to be taken down.

Since there is obviously no agreed upon standard for what the media "should" be, this is what you get. Each side escalating.
 
#39
#39
LouderVol said:
So fox and friends are just being douches, and complaining they arent getting their briefings.

Not just you GV, but people need to admit they are fine with the idea of media being interfered with, as long as they agree with it. This isnt some huge stance on the principal of the 1A, it's a stand that my side is losing so now it's not fair.
Click to expand...

Trump didn't have CNN's credentials revoked, he had a single reporter. You might have a point if he would have kicked the entire network out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol
#40
#40
hog88 said:
Trump didn't have CNN's credentials revoked, he had a single reporter. You might have a point if he would have kicked the entire network out.
Click to expand...
And the Dems have actually turned off Fox news?

I am sure LG would have complained by now.

Deeds....







....words.
 
#41
#41
LouderVol said:
Remember when the media was supposed to be against the government? But douche acosta was against my guy, so I was fine with him being banned?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference in what Acosta did to get tossed (if you recall the incident) and a reporter asking tough questions.

Let's face facts here, Acosta was not ever a "reporter" while covering the WH under Trump. He went out of his way to try to aggravate, incite and provoke Trump every chance he could get. And yes, he needed a timeout over his conduct that day. It's not like Trump banned CNN entirely either. Just revoked his specific pass.

So, this "freedom of the press" thing shouldn't work when you are hogging the microphone and shove away a WH aide's hand to keep it. Yes, the White House should have some say in whether the conduct of one of the reporters is out of line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, GSD82, StarRaider and 1 other person
#42
#42
LouderVol said:
And the Dems have actually turned off Fox news?

I am sure LG would have complained by now.

Deeds....







....words.
Click to expand...

I think Obama tried to ban Fox News (the entire network) from the press briefings.
 
#47
#47
Like, I don't know why it's so hard for some of you sh*tbirds to grasp the simple concept of allowing private entities to run themselves how they'd like.

I doubt you'll find many in here who would OK government committees calling these sorts of shots. Sure, if you take anything on OAN as credible, you're probably retarded, but the government shouldn't te you whether or not it's alright to feed yourself that misinformation.
 
#48
#48
ButchPlz said:
In b4 resident idiots see no problem here.
Click to expand...
I guess our resident idiots would say they can start their own cable & satellite company.

Stupid libs can say what they want but this is trying to censor half of the American people on the basis that they think and have values and opinions that are different. Where have I seen this before...oh yeah 1930's Germany.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and GSD82
#49
#49
LouderVol said:
Didnt Trump kick out some media types because they pushed bs stories about him?
Click to expand...
Maybe but the network/newspaper of the individual that was banned still was allowed to have a reporter that was able to attend the briefings/pressers.

This is "Were going to shut you down! Permanently!" if you disagree with us!
 
#50
#50
Grand Vol said:
He kicked out Acosta because he was being an extreme douche. There were other agencies that whined they didn't get in on the little mini briefings they would have from time to time.

Obama tried to keep Fox News out until it backfired on him.
Click to expand...
And CNN had like two other reporters at the briefings as well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top