"CNN stopped reporting the news a long time ago"

Larry King

In 2016, Harvard University published a study that showed all the MSM outlets, and how they are trying to slant the news and deceive their readers.... "Mind Control"?

Add to this the giant tech companies... the ones that provide us with social media, and the ones who help us search for things...they are all part of this. The social media sites are making a concerted effort to eliminate any members who do not follow the party line.... Mind Control?

This effort was definitely noticed during the recent campaigns for the mid-term elections.

Free speech on the internet will soon be a thing of the past. Alternate news sites will be eliminated, and they (who ever they are) will be able to spoon-feed us information and teach us to perceive a reality that they want us to perceive.  

Adding these things up, you are looking at some form of dictatorship, a dictatorship without a visible "dictator", but controlled by a central entity, whoever they are.

Somebody once said (don't know who) "presidents are selected, not elected"

The election of Trump messed everything up....that's why he must go. They will spare no effort to eliminate him.

Who are "they"?  

Not sure.... it goes beyond the Military Industrial Complex. There are the "globalists", such as George Soros, for example, who has his fingers in just about everything that causes division in this country and in other countries. He is said to have spent over 1/2 billion funding and organizing refugee "caravans" in Europe and in Central America.

Somehow, China is also involved. The giant tech companies all seem to have strong affiliations with China. They may have indirectly meddled more in the elections than Russia.

So.... if you keep repeating the party line, instead of thinking for yourself and keeping informed by reading other sites besides the MSM, you are nothing but a tool of this modern form of dictatorship 

"CNN stopped reporting the news a long time ago"

Larry King

 This quote came from this:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/8/larry-king-cnn-stopped-doing-news-a-long-time-ago/

 Just to clarify, King didn't say that as a supporter of Trump. He actually said that a lot of the anti-Trump reports are fueled by Trump, himself.

 King said something I 1000% agree with: he doesn't remember anything like the shape of the country is in now, antagonism, hatred, etc. He said that the "hatred is fueled by a President who 'goes off crazed,'". He blames the hatred in the country on two things: the internet and cable news. He calls Fox "Trump TV" and MSNBC is "anti-Trump all the time." Regarding CNN, he said "they do Trump". He said (and he's right as I recall this) that CNN was the first network that covered all of Trump's speeches when he was running and made trump the big story by covering him more than Fox News at the start. He said he thinks Trump would like to be a dictator. So he causes a lot of this per King.

IMHO, it's not going to happen. Trump's bad mouthing the media is certainly not Presidential, but I don't see anything illegal there.

Jaguar, I am not a "Trumptard", as they are often lovingly called. I could name a list of things I don't like about the POTUS.  I also give him credit for the positive things. And I am not denying that much of the negative opinions about the President are caused by himself. 

However, I expect my newspapers to present facts, not propaganda. Let me decide on my own who  and what I like.

here is the original list of news media studied by Harvard University. 

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/example-of-media-bias/harvard-study-reveals-media-bias/

you decide who is fair and who is not.

to make a case.... one of my friends, an older gentlemen who does not have a computer, gets all his news from CNN. Talking to him, I am often shocked about the distorted view of reality he has, and he is shocked, when I tell him about events that CNN glossed over or totally ignored.

and more comments here

ttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-harvard-study-cnn-nbc-trump-coverage-93-percent-negative

what is really alarming is the fact that  there is a concerted effort going on to push  alternative news sources out of the internet. Eventually, we will live in a totalitarian state. 

gun ter has that right..."eventually we will have  totalitarian state" .....and blame it all on Trump

Jaguar:

First, welcome to the Forum.

Second,  let me state that I'm a card-carrying Liberal Democrat, which should be obvious from my posts.

Third, it's not fair to ask other posters to spend a good deal of time doing research projects.

Did you actually read the entire article?  If so,  you may understand what they meant by tone.  Here's a nice summary where they compare the negative vs positive coverage to that of previous presidents.   

"A third major part of Harvard’s study compared coverage of President Trump to that of the three previous presidents – Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clintons’ first 100 days.

Trump received 80 percent negative coverage, with only 20 percent of news reports were positive. Compare that to:

• President Obama, who received 41 percent negative coverage and 59 percent positive coverage.
• President Bush’s news coverage was 57 percent negative – 43 percent positive
• President Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive"

jaguar,

you wrote "Harvard is labeled as a liberal, left wing organization--strange you would use it to justify your position." Apparently you have put me into one corner of the political scene, without knowing anything about me.

I also would like to point out that my contributions to this thread are not about Trump, but about the MSM.... it makes no difference whether I am anti-Trump or pro-Trump

You asked about "tone vs fact".....here are a few tidbits.....

****************

A high-level executive of CNN was recorded, in (2016 or 2017 ?),  stating that CNN sometimes makes up news stories, to please their readers, and to increase revenues (don't have the link for this one).  Of course, I can't verify this story. However, if true, this would be unethical and evil.

****************

The NY times has repeatedly been caught publishing false news stories. All the other news media then pick up the story and repeat it. A few days later, the NYT withdraws the story, stating that an innocent mistake was made, or that their "source" had provided them with false info. Of course, by that time the damage was already done.... and the other news outlets neglected to make correcting statements.

*****************

A clash takes place between Antifa on one side. and KKK and NeoNazis on the other side. The president makes a statement, disapproving of all this violence, and says "there were fine people on both sides". Of course, he is right.... most people on the Left are strongly against these Antifa hooligans, and most people on the right are strongly against KKK and NeoNazis. Yet, the MSM interprets this statement as Trump calling the NeoNazis "fine people".   .... intentionally flawed reporting... tone or fact?

*****************

A few days ago, I watched news clips of violent young men from Honduras breaking down a 20-foot steel gate at the Southern border of Mexico....now known as the "caravan". They were all young men. A few hours later I went back to the same news site to watch these clips again, and, what do you know, they had been replaced with pictures of Hoduran women and their crying and hungry children. Apparently, whoever gives orders to the MSM, had ordered the news site to stop showing the violence. They wanted to appeal to the pity of the US reader. And if you ask google for pictures of the caraven, you will mostly see pictures of women and children, even though 80% of the caravan are young men under 35..... tone or fact?

******************

During the 2016 campaign, a video of Hillary could be seen, where she stated that she would not hesitate to make a preemptive nuclear strike. And another video where she said "when I am president, I will attack Iran". Did any of these news sites, showing a "negative tone", report any of this? Of course not.... their orders were to make the voting public like Hillary and despise Trump.

********************

Not long ago, Assad allegedly attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons. The media showed us pictures of sick children. it was reported on all those news stations. A few months later, a UN inspection team went in to find facts.... and they found no evidence of a chemical attack even having taken place,.. let alone that Assad was behind it. Did these same news stations report this latest finding? Of course not, it would not fit into the narrative of those in control of the news media

*************************************

as I stated earlier, these comments are not about Pres. Trump.... it's all about the media who are the mouth piece of a political propaganda machine. One has to make a conscious effort, surfing the internet, to find alternate news sources... only then can we balance one side against the other and get a half-ways correct picture of reality.

And as I said earlier, the days of having an uncontrolled and free  internet are numbered. "They" (whoever they are) will take over and put an end to it.

1984, here we come

While I am quite sure "jaguar" is vandenplas reborn, I took off this line by line post so as to not add to the problem.

"Is the Associated Press a member of the "MSM"?  Just a yes or a no"

jaguar,

You can ask all the questions that you want but you don't get to tell others how they must answer.....especially with  just a no or yes.

"While I am quite sure "jaguar" is vandenplas reborn, I took off this line by line post so as to not add to the problem."

cfdr,

This is just another example of why you are always welcome here. Your intention is to make positive contributions and avoid adding to the problem. 

In this case, however I believe your astute observations  deserve to be posted. When something is authentic/true..................it's true. 

Please feel free to re insert that post or make those points again if you feel inclined to do so.........because they express an opinion based on an astute observation that should be read. 

Gunter,

Thank you for your excellent thoughts on this topic.

By jaguar - Nov. 13, 2018, 8:50 a.m. Is the Associated Press MSM?

It would be helpful to me if you would respond a yes or a no to each of the questions, below:

Is Reuters News MSM?

 Is ABC News MSM?

Is CBS News MSM?

Is NBC News MSM?

Is Fox News MSM?

Is CNN News MSM?

Is the Wall Street Journal MSM?

Is the Washington Post MSM?

We need to know which ones to read/watch/believe.

jaguar,

I note that nobody here has taken you up with a response in the form that you are asking for.

Let's me follow with some similar type questions for you:

Is a wolf a dog?

Is a fox  a dog?

Is a bear a dog?

Is a fish a dog?

Is a deer a dog?

Is a chicken a dog?

Is a pig a dog?

Is a cat a dog?

We need to know so that we will know which ones to serve on a dinner plate and which ones to keep as pets (-:

Thanks Mike, but anyone looking at those posts should suspect the same thing as I did.

Just go through them line by line and think about how difficult it is to not see them for what they are.

You are an authentic guy cfdr and able to recognize traits that others miss.

Hi jaguar,

I throw in one more recent example....

Just this week, the president failed to participate in a ceremony at a French cemetery holding the remains of WW1 soldiers. The reason: his helicopter could not take off, due to torrential rains.

As expected, internet forums came alive ridiculing the president. Pictures were shown him playing golf in the rain, but he did not bother to honor the fallen soldiers. From bloggers, this kind of stuff is expected. However, there were numerous major news sites who also heavily criticized the president ... "making us ashamed"

Every half-brained reporter knows that a POTUS (any POTUS) on  the move is a carefully planned event. The secret service has each minute of the trip on a tight schedule, from departing his house, to arriving at the destination. He must arrive at exactly the right time, not 10 minutes late, or 10 minutes early with nothing to do but twiddling this thumbs.

So, now, an unforeseen change in weather made this impossible. What is he to do? Cal;l the local police and ask for an escort? And even if the escort arrives in 15 minutes, he would now have to travel through heavy traffic, going about 40 mph, to the destination which happened to be 50 miles away. By the time he would have arrived at the cemetery, the ceremony would have been over.

Give me a break!

So you ask, which of the news media is MSM? If your favorite news station criticized the president for missing this event, it is MSM !

You keep asking, which of the news medai is MSM? I sent you the Harvard study.  Just reads the numbers and come to your own conclusions. Sure, there are other news papers who definitely are MSM, but they were not investigated by Harvard

 You make a big point about "tone" vs "fact". It doesn't make any difference, when the sole purpose of their reporting is to show the president in a bad light, rather than being neutral reporters. It doesn't have to be fake "fact".... just reporting in a certain "tone" is enough to influence the masses, and steer the masses towards liking or disliking a certain person.

And this is what a real newspaper is not supposed to do

Again, I am not trying to defend Trump, and I am not complaining about the news stories "not being to my liking", as you said.... I am merely trying to point out the game these news stations are playing. They are nothing but propaganda tools. And their propaganda has been quite successful... how else could Hillary have gotten that many votes? (even against the most "unpresidential" candidate in history)

Carlberky asked you not to ask other posters to do the research for you. I already included the graph provided by Harvard. Just look at the names with the worst one-sidedness. If any newspaper is not on that list, I have no comment.

 I personally believe that you are simply trolling me, even though you ask your questions very politely. However, I don't want to make it a career out of answering your questions. You go ahead and read whatever news sites you read. My comments wont make a difference anyway. And I read the sites that help me offset their reporting against the MSM reporting.

One more time.... I am not a "trumpster".... I am just a thinking person

signing out.... I am done with this thread

Thanks very much Gunter for being so patient and providing comprehensive answers and numerous examples to illustrate your point clearly...........more than once.

damn almost fell off my chair when I read "guilt by association is simply not allowed"...after over 2 straight years of the left answering each and every question about republicans by saying "racist" each time a simple question is raised we have heard "homophobe" islamaphobe.......phobe this and phobe that but no guilt by association is not allowed...sure jag or vandy you go right on down that road