On Sat, 27 May 2017 08:28:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/27/2017 7:46 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 5/26/17 8:58 PM, Poco Deplorevole wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2017 13:18:58 -1100, Boating All Out
wrote:


So who's complaining about the "Deep State?"
What could be more "Deep State" than back channel communications to
our enemies?
The Kushner kid should have learned from his convict dad that crime
doesn't pay.
What a bunch of reprobates we have in charge here.
Thugs, bullies and criminals.
Long live the Free Press! Go get 'em.

Nothing requires the Free Press to be the Biased Free Press. Perhaps
if it simply reported the news,
as in 'news' papers, or 'evening news', more people would keep their
subscriptions. Since 2009, the
Washington Post circulation has dropped by some 37%.


"Biased" to Herring means legitimate news outlets are telling the truth.
Circulation of paper copy newspapers is down for many reasons, but the
better papers are working hard with other ways of getting their product
to those who want depth to their news. Republicans like JohnnyMop prefer
an ignorant population because such people are easy to manipulate.


I agree with BAO. I am all for a Free Press. It's a cornerstone of our
checks and balances system incorporated in our Constitution.

However, a "Free Press" to me doesn't mean an overtly and politically
biased press that relies on sensationalism and scantily researched
articles full of "undisclosed sources" and sinister innuendo. The
left-leaning cable news networks are notorious for quoting these
articles and putting their own spin on them, creating an entirely
different interpretation of what the article suggests. For example, the
recent articles by the NY Times and the WashPost regarding the
activities of Jared Kushner ended up being reported as Kushner being
under investigation by the FBI as a "person of interest"... a
meaningless legal term, but dripping with intrigue and innuendo.
The Times and Post were honest enough to acknowledge that proposed
"secret channels" were never set up but the cable media never mentions
that. I'll give MSNBC a bit of credit by acknowledging in a short
sentence before going to a station break after delivering their
"Breaking News" about Kushner that MSNBC had not independently
confirmed that Kushner was under any kind of criminal investigation.

It took MSNBC and CNN a while to even admit that Kushner has volunteered
to testify to the Senate Intelligence committee regarding any knowledge
he has. So far, the SIC hasn't accepted his offer. Also, the FBI
hasn't even contacted Kushner or his attorney to provide any information.

Unfortunately and because of the decline of print circulation, more
people get their news input from the cable news ... and the network news
stations. They also get input from social media, a factor that has
never before had so much of an influence and distribution of bull**** or
twisted interpretations of events.


I watched a few minutes of the Mad Cow show on MSNBC but the cow was
off last night. They do seem to be giddy about the chance of bringing
down the White House (like that has ever been a good thing)
Everyone wants to break another Watergate.