2/3 Of America Want To Vomit At The Sight Of Trump CNN/MSNBC

[PaulX2]

Why are you showing that lying pile of sh*t's campaign speech for someone who would take away their own mother's Medicaid to impress the Koch Brothers?

[bearsfootball516]

1. $$$

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. There is nothing newsworthy about this speech

Its the same old shit about 270 votes, how he did the impossible. He is completely insane.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

4. A society that cant prevent a takeover is what a sick Society were part of.

Republicans society ENCOURAGES its own takeover.

[BigmanPigman]

3. I just called them both...BOYCOTT CNN and MSNBC!!!!!

This is what happened in 2016 during the campaigns...The fucking moron was given all the fresh air time he wanted while Hillary wanted to discuss issues and was given zero airtime! They showed an empty stage and podium waiting for the fucking moron to appear like the second coming. We may as well not vote or even have midterms if this is the shit we are going to get from the corporate MSM AGAIN! FUCK THEM AND THEIR RATINGS $$$$$$$$. BOYCOTT CNN and MSNBC!
I called both stations and was able to leave a mess with CNN. I tried MSNBC but mailbox was full so I tried Rachel and hers was taking mess.

CNN [phone]
MSNBC [phone]
Rachel's ext. (46250)

[BlancheSplanchnik]

5. 😵

😍

[John Fante]

7. I haven't watched either network since the election

and I won't go near them again (sorry Rachel and Joy).

[Honeycombe8]

11. Aren't you overreacting just a bit? Boycott...because they showed a President's speech?

No, I'm not going to boycott for that.

[BigmanPigman]

12. "Nip it in the bud"

I won't allow this BS to happen again if I can help prevent it!

[Honeycombe8]

15. Nope. There's nothing really wrong with showing a President's speech. A lot of air time to fill.

The stations usually show Presidential speeches, or parts of them. It may have been a slow news day.

So not worthy of a boycott. You have to pick your battles. I am not going to give up two good sources of objective news because they showed a President's speech. Even Trump's. If all you want to see is stuff that you agree with and approve of, you'll have to boycott all objective news organizations. But that's your call. I choose objective news for the most part.

[BigmanPigman]

17. I would prefer if he would hold a news conference.

He hasn't had one of those in over a year. That is unheard of for a new president. This is a campaign rally, not a speech or a news or press conference. It is propaganda, not news. Have him take questions from the press! That would be worthy of live coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

[Honeycombe8]

26. I would prefer it, too. But I don't blame media for showing a President's rally. I'd prefer it if...

I'd prefer it if they wouldn't. It is advertising. But I'm not going to boycott them and get over the top angry. There are so many bigger things to get angry about.

I'll maybe send an email and point out that that was advertising for the Repub candidate and how about giving the opposition some air time. But boycott my main objective news sources? No.

[sharedvalues]

34. You should blame media. For broadcasting lies without challenge

[Honeycombe8]

35. That's not the purpose of "news."

First....you put forth a video without comment. That's news. Second...you opine the truth or lies of it. The first is news, the second is opinion or investigation. Separate things.

When you want opinion, you watch talk shows. Not the raw news. The speech was discussed during Meet the Press, for example.

Some people don't understand the difference between presenting news, and editorializing or giving opinion or investigating things.

[sharedvalues]

39. Ah, so you have fallen into the "bothsidesist" take on what news should be

That's what the right pushes:
news should give each side equal time, without regard for what's true and what's not.

the difference between presenting news, and editorializing or giving opinion or investigating things.

This is a false construct that benefits the right - that some news should be just presented, even if it's a lie. We need to break with that construct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/opinion/both-sides-now.html

Protect the truth! News should transmit the truth. Not just present what people say when it's a lie. News should tell the truth.

[Honeycombe8]

38. So you agree with Trump that CNN & MSNBC are the "enemy of the people"?

How interesting.

CNN and MSNBC are two news orgs on the forefront of challenging Trump and his lies. They are not "the enemy of the people." But there IS a difference between presenting raw news and opinion. Raw news WILL present things you don't like. If it doesn't, it's not legitimate news. Opinion shows will take the raw news and opine about it. Don't confuse the two.

Be careful about doing Trump's job for him: boycotting news organizations that Trump doesn't like.

[sharedvalues]

40. False. Cable News is ratings-seeking infotainment

Just because DJT criticizes CNN doesn't mean CNN is beyond criticism. They have major problems - they basically got DJT elected.

"CNN treats news like sports, and it's making us all dumber"

"CNN had a problem [low profits]. Donald Trump solved it" - a profile of Jeff Zucker, who has done more to damage america than anyone else I can think of.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html


Yes, CNN harms national discourse. They do some good things. But they also got this president elected. It's not because of left-right bias. It's because of ratings-seeking, and normalizing lies in pursuit of profit.

[Honeycombe8]

44. You should re-think anything that leads you to agree with Trump's definition of news.

Seriously.

CNN is one of the largest, most respected news organizations in the world. It is not an enemy of the people. It is not fake news.

[sharedvalues]

49. CNN is infotainment that got this president elected

Also, the president’s term “fake news” is a terrible autocratic maneuver and it’s no coincidence “Lugenpresse”, used by Goebbels, almost directly translates as “fake news”.

Both can be true. CNN is effectively biased for the president, and the president’s attacks are despicable.


Watch this and tell me if you don’t agree that this is a problem.
https://m.

[blue neen]

23. They need to give equal time to Conor Lamb tomorrow.

As it stands, this was free advertising for Rick Saccone, that lying POS.

[sprinkleeninow]

28. I know.I saw news where they blabbered about saccone.

Trash has hardly been in office and he keeps campaigning. I'm gonna puke.

[sharedvalues]

33. There is something very wrong with amplifying propaganda

We should expect honesty and truth from news sources.

By broadcasting lies without challenge, CNN and infotainment cable news hurt the country.
They should fact check him in real-time, with text below him talking.
And Equal time. Fairness. They should give honest people equal time to correct his lies and propaganda.

And objective news sources are those that broadcast truth. It has nothing to do with leaning towards one party or the other. It’s about truth. One party lies. That’s not the news’ fault.

[Honeycombe8]

36. No. Legitimate news presents news and speeches. EDITORIALS take it apart & present

opinions about it.

People have gotten the two things confused. There's raw news. You just present a speech of hte President or whoever. Then you discuss it, give opinions about it. That's opinion...you find that during discussions on news channels, talk shows, or a host that has a partisan news show that is not "raw news" but presents a point of view.

CNN wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't present a President speech, when it's news. I don't get CNN, so I didn't see it. Did they show the whole thing, or just parts of it? Was it live or a video?

I have no problem with it. It was discussed on morning political shows, and will be discussed on the talk shows in the coming days.

[sharedvalues]

42. You're living in a 1980s-1990s news bubble

Your view that news presents what people say without challenge is false, and it's an artifact of a few decades of American news - 1970s-1990s - where news pretended they were unbiased. Of course we know that is dumb; all presentations of facts have a slant. Before that period, people cared a lot about who was speaking and who owned news sources.

Here's The Economist (british center-right publication) explaining that better than I could:

The idea that journalists should be impartial in reporting news is a relatively recent one. “A lot of newspaper people treat it as one true religion, when it's an artefact of a certain set of economic and historical circumstances,” says Joshua Benton of the Nieman Journalism Lab. America's Founding Fathers nurtured a vibrant, fiercely partisan press with no licensing of newspapers or policing of content. During the 19th century newspapers gradually adopted a more objective stance, for several reasons. By appealing to a wider audience, they were able to increase their circulation and hence their advertising revenue. Consolidation, and the emergence of local newspaper monopolies, also promoted impartiality. “When you are the only paper in town, you can't risk pissing off liberals by being too conservative, or vice versa,” says Mr Benton.

So no. News is NOT just presenting news and speeches. News is presenting the TRUTH. The sooner we all recognize that the sooner we will break the hold of right wing propaganda.

[Honeycombe8]

43. No. You're living in the partisan world. That's valid, as long as a person recognizes that.

And keeps partisan/bias separate from raw news.

Raw news presents something. Period. It states facts: who, what, when, where, and how. Or shows a video of what happened. Just facts and events. The "news" doesn't tell you what to think about those events/facts.

Opinion pieces and talk shows with a viewpoint are editorials of "the news," and present a viewpoint about those events/facts.

I like both news and opinions. And to get upset with a news org. for merely showing a video of a Trump speech doesn't make sense. Yeah, he's disgusting and lies. And that would be evident to anyone watching the video. But the "news" isn't the place for CNN to say that.

CNN has opinion pieces and news sections with opinions & editorials. THAT'S where CNN will present any lies that were said in the speech, and things like that. (But really, at this stage, all any news org has to do is merely show a Trump speech and not say anything; because the lying and disgusting nature of almost everything he says is so obvious at this point.)

EXAMPLE: HERE is one of CNN's "analysis" opinion pieces on Trump's Pennsylvania speech: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/11/politics/trump-speech-pennsylvania/index.html

[sharedvalues]

48. False. Artifact of history

More details here.
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/11742641

The problem is this artifact of history is destroying America by allowing propaganda.

[MFM008]

30. What president

The Russians stole our election.
Planted a spy.
Not president. Ever.

[sharedvalues]

32. No. CNN is harming America airing these lies

If you don’t see this propaganda as a big deal, you’re living in a cave.

Demagogues are bad for America. Propaganda is bad for America. But it’s good for CNN and infotainment cable news, because it’s good for ratings.

We should protest CNN and MSNBC putting their own profits ahead of the country.

[Honeycombe8]

37. Oh, please. Give me a break. Trump would LOVE you to boycott CNN & MSNBC.

Please be careful, people, when people "suggest" you be angry about something enough to boycott an enemy of Trump's. Be very careful.

Some people don't seem to understand the difference between news and opinion. I, for one, do not want the news filtered, like the Trumpers do. I can listen and read things on my own. Then I can watch the talk shows and get detailed info.

CNN and MSNBC are not "the enemy of the people."

[Cha]

22. THANKS!

[PaulX2]

6. Trump Instant Mute

Or change channel every time. I don't appreciate being lied to.

[triron]

8. Mueller should be investigating corporate CNN and MSNBC bigwigs for corruption

[Skittles]

9. disgusting

[earthshine]

10. I have long since believed that Comcast did not buy MSNBC for the profits.

Rather, Comcast bought it to control the message, just like its previous owner, GE (a major military contractor).

For example, have you ever heard a discussion of net neutrality or internet privacy on MSNBC?

[marlakay]

13. If everyone doesnt watch

They will see low ratings when he is on.

[notdarkyet]

19. I dont watch him or SS. I see it all as constant day in and day out mind assault of a propoganda

Purpose.

[bucolic_frolic]

14. The other 1/3

actually does vomit

[gay texan]

16. I'm a bit late to the dance

I've been away from media all day, what precisely happened?

[BigmanPigman]

25. Both CNN and MSNBC showed his campaign rally in PA

to support the GOP candidate who is running in the Tues special election. They showed it for over an hour. I turned him/them off. If you have a strong constitution and do not get sick easily here it is.

[OhioBlue]

18. Whenever he comes on, I almost trip over things while running to change the channel or mute.

I mean seriously, as a liberal, listening to him is the equivalent of sitting in an office with an asshole boss that blames his fuck ups on you, while yelling, belittling and condescending to you, insulting your friends and family and threatening to fire people if you don't take the blame, cower at his authority and praise his unworthy self. F. him. I don't care if he is the pResident. They shouldn't normalize. Slow news day? Do some real investigative journalism and air that.

[narnian60]

31. +100

[world wide wally]

20. This is exactly hoew trump got 3 billion dollars worth of free advertising in his campaign

Bullshit

[runtel]

21. I tried to watch

Just to see how he was campaigning for his party. Nope couldn't do it. He was so handsome, he saved the Olympics, nobody but him could have done all of this. People are all talking about it everywhere and that voice. The soft so gentle "believe me". Damn, I had to get up and clean house and you don't even know how I hate that.

[Oneironaut]

24. People are under false the impression that A- CNN and MSNBC are against Trump, and B - they are real

news. They love Trump. He's the villain that they've all been waiting for, and he's making them lots of money. Trump is the man that America loves to hate - it's all a reality show. It's entertainment, not news.

Americans are fascinated by Trump, and they don't want him to leave office. They want more drama, in-fighting, and entertainment. Trump knows this, and he's delivering. America loves a villain, and they love (to hate) Trump!

(I'm not saying this in a good way. My point is, Americans are so hopelessly deluded and disconnected from reality that they want Trump to turn the country into a chaotic mess. They think he's hilarious, and treat him like a TV villain. The White House has become just another extension of reality television.).

[Kath2]

27. Exactly.

Right on and thank you. What I have been saying for a year.

[Honeycombe8]

46. People, be wary of opinions that repeat Trump's opinions of the news.

It's very odd that there are several posts here that are repeating Trump's opinions.

The news organizations are not "fake news," like Trump says. They are not "the enemy of the people," like Trump says.

The way it works is: The news orgs pass on facts and events. That is news. Either a video of a noteworthy Presidential speech (and that speech in Pa was apparently newsworthy, as we all later found out), or a story reciting the facts of it, or an investigative piece reciting facts and events.

THEN there will be the analysis section, where opinions and/or discussions are held, digesting and discussing and giving opinions on the facts & events that were reported.

For example, you will find on CNN a video of all or part of Trump's Pa. speech. It speaks for itself. THEN you find some analysis of it, like, "The 64 most outrageous lines from Donald Trump's untethered Pennsylvania speech." https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/11/politics/trump-speech-pennsylvania/index.html

[PaulX2]

29. Don't Forget Seeing Him Makes Me And Many Others Want To Vomit

I don't know how that can be good for any "station" if you know what I mean.

[Vinca]

41. I wonder whatever happened to the ill nephew he cut off years ago. After his brother died he

supposedly picked up the cost of the care for the brother's chronically ill kid, but then got in a snit about something and cut him off. Wonder if the nephew is still alive. Why does the media ignore things like that along with the mob ties, stiffed foreign workers and use of Chinese steel?

[triron]

45. Only the U.S. media.

[Honeycombe8]

47. News doesn't normally cover extended family, unless they do something noteworthy (or bad).

Just like we didn't see stories about Obama's extended family of Bush's extended family, other than who they were.

I think it falls under the category of "they're private citizens." Jimmy Carter's colorful brother ended up in the news a couple of times because he was a hellraiser or something. But when he wasn't doing something that called attention to himself, his privacy was respected.