Where is our free and independent press core?

[angrychair]

All we have is Trump's propaganda core in the news media.
I don't care if it's Hannity or Maddow, they are all the same in the end: propaganda and Gaslighting ( YES, Hannity is a lot more obvious but Maddow is not doing her job either and in the end the result is the same)

I'll change my mind:

*When they start asking serious questions, directly to trump and his surrogates and demanding actual answers (not word salad, no fake news stories and no false statements)

*stop letting trump surrogates on their shows to monologue for 5-10 minutes straight and then move on to their next segment leaving the trump surrogates unchallenged and unanswered.

*When they start actually addressing trump's criminal actions in a serious manner and with as much effort and vindictiveness as they did with non-criminal actions of Clinton or Obama or Sanders.

*When they actually challenge the insanity of a president-elect using a social media app as a tool to bullly and abuse and intimidate people as well as to air half-baked policy positions with no foundation in reality.

*When they humbly and without reservation, apologize for having a live video on full screen of a empty podium, for almost 30 minutes, that trump would eventually walk to while the Democratic Party candidate was small screen with no audio for that entire time while giving a speech at a large event

The so called "press" does that then I may consider believing they are the press and not a bunch of elementary school newspaper "reporters" pretending to be real journalists.

[LaydeeBug]

1. They aren't free. They are slaves to ratings and profit and Russian propaganda. nt

[marybourg]

2. Although they might resemble an eaten-up apple,

the word following "press" is really "corps".

[liberal N proud]

3. They have not been independent for a long time

The 24/7 news killed independence

[Chipper Chat]

4. Rachel seems to be under a lot of pressure.

I've noticed lately that she has become nervous and edgy. I'm wondering if she has been "advised" by her superiors to tone down the progressive agenda or she will go the route of Big Ed.

[emulatorloo]

10. She a progressive. Of course she's nervous and edgy about Trump's election.

She did a great show on Indivisible's guide to activism against Trump earlier in the week.

Last night her show was about the Russian hacking report.

Btw I highly recommend you take a look at the guide if you haven't already:

https://www.indivisibleguide.com

INDIVISIBLE
A PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR RESISTING THE TRUMP AGENDA

Former congressional staffers reveal best practices for making Congress listen.

[elleng]

5. Gone

'The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine.[1]

The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the Doctrine. However, the proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public-access channels, and the Internet have eroded this argument, since there are plenty of places for ordinary individuals to make public comments on controversial issues at low or no cost at all.

The Fairness Doctrine should not be confused with the equal-time rule. The Fairness Doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.'>>>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[old guy]

6. They have been MIA for a good many years.

[truebluegreen]

7. Fwiw, I think you mean "corps"

or, in this case, "corpse."

[Different Drummer]

8. I'd go along with "corpse." n/t

[emulatorloo]

9. Did you watch Maddox's show last night? Obviously not

You wanna draw false equivalencies between Hannity and Maddow? Knock yourself out.

However it is total bullshit.

[angrychair]

12. All due respect

Doing one or two things right doesn't make up for a whole lot of wrong.

Read my list of requirements...don't think it's to much to ask...not doing it just once or twice but every episode.

[TheBlackAdder]

11. One day, when media has met their purpose, they will be clamped down on as well.