Posted on 09/28/2016 5:19:06 AM PDT by detective
Lester Holt's blatant bias against Donald Trump Monday night held to Hunter S. Thompson's brutal description of journalists and journalism:
Journalism is not a profession or a trade; it is a cheap catch-all for f---offs and misfits – a false doorway to the backside of life.
Holt just proved to tens of millions of Americans that absolute media power corrupts absolutely. If trust and confidence in the media have fallen to the lowest in history, as recently reported, Holt, in his total abandonment of any semblance of objectivity, has lowered both even more.
This bootlicking cog, beholden to his pro-Hillary media masters, didn't bring up Benghazi, the email scandals, the Clinton Foundation slush fund, Huma Abedin's ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, or Clinton's connections to the biggest female oppressors on the planet. With no pushback at all, Holt allowed Hillary to reference an irrelevant 1996 beauty pageant winner as an example of Trump's so-called misogyny.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It's not a lie if you believe it! Dan Rather too, with the same caveat for whether or not he is a liar.
Trump must hammer her on the four dead in Benghazi, the email SERVER scandal, the Clinton Foundation slush fund, Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and her connections to the biggest female oppressors on the planet. Don’t forget how she promised to create jobs in New York then never did. Trump should point out it was the internet boom that made her husband’s presidency seem better for our economy than it was. These things are just a start. He should have an index card for each and every point so he can stay focused on what he needs to say. He should even consider calling her out for disrepecting her for referring to him as Donald in such a formal setting.
If you want to see something amazing about journalism visit the LBJ library in Austin, TX.
They have a room there that is a replica of the oval office at the time.
What is most stunning about it is the three television sets on the right side of the room—one for ABC, one for CBS, one for NBC.
It was obvious that LBJ was fanatical about controlling/monitoring what was said on those three networks.
He understand that journalism was “not” a sacred trust. It was a powerful propaganda platform that could make or break him.
Fortunately those days are gone, and the plutocrats who own and run the major media are losing their power.
“Journalism” is as “sacred” as the Aztec sacrifices of children to the Gods—and it belongs in the dustbin of history with them.
I played football for 6 years and that was long time ago but I still remember all the screaming and yelling from our coaches. By today’s terms some limp wristed snowflakes would call it bullying but we understood that they were trying to make us better. I sure don’t miss the two a days in August in pads with 100 + temps, throwing up, and almost passing out. Or the two a day off-seasons...: )
Yeah. I’m hoping his strategy was to show that Hillary’s $150nm in ads, painting him as a monster, were all lies... that he’s really a man of the people. Having established that (which I believe was successful), he can’t let her skate in the next 2 debates.... and thanks!
Welcome to Trumpland, aka, FR
Good to see you aboard as the train is about to leave the station. Enjoy the views. :-)
Everyone knows how I made my money.... you've been a career politician... how in the world did YOU amass $250 million". That could be a game changer
Hillary was signaling Lester by touching her face with her finger. There is a video out that that shows that. The debate was preplanned by the Democrats and it sure looked to me from the very first question that Hillary had the questions beforehand.
Thanks for that. I missed it... THAT is a game changer! Finally, and awesome!!!
“...it sure looked to me from the very first question that Hillary had the questions beforehand.”..
Having reviewed some of the videos, I agree. Hitlary most definitely had pre-canned responses ready and loaded for responding to the questions. Pretty obvious.
Control the information and you control the people. Information is a powerful social tool, see the Reformation and resistance to teaching the public to read, the totally universal application of controlled media worldwide with extreme examples in USSR and North Korea, Operation Mockingbird in the US. see too, CNN agreeing to be stifled in Iraq as a condition of being allowed to report from there. The press is a corrupt but useful institution.
-- He understand that journalism was "not" a sacred trust. It was a powerful propaganda platform that could make or break him. --
Except not "was." It still is.
The reason that "trustworthy" is claimed, and made to appear to have teeth by firing the likes of Rather, is that the power to control is lost when the audience loses trust.
I think society is stronger when the people are forced to engage their own minds, and to not trust the political institutions like the government and the press. The press will ALWAYS be political. it never was objective, and it is not supposed to be objective. The whole construct of "we have a sacred duty to you" is a means of getting power over the gullible.
I coach at a Catholic school and we had a parent complain that they could hear us cussing during half time from across the field. We were losing pretty badly to an inferior team.
The AD told them to grow up and that was that.
I’m not sure that would have happened at a public school or if the parent were a major donor
I guess it is Trump that has brought into more common usage a word that applies and an indictment of our government, the press, politicans in general and many others. CORRUPT.
As if anyone needs a definition to know what it is, still doesn’t it apply all but perfectly to what the nation has become? Decayed and Putrid seem to fit well don’t they?
Corrupt: having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. Way to go Lester. You maggot.
adjective
1.
guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:
a corrupt judge.
2.
debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:
a corrupt society.
3.
made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.
4.
infected; tainted.
5.
decayed; putrid.
verb (used with object)
6.
to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
7.
to lower morally; pervert:
to corrupt youth.
8.
to alter (a language, text, etc.) for the worse; debase.
9.
to mar; spoil.
10.
to infect; taint.
11.
to make putrid or putrescent.
Good post, thanks for the response
Thanks again
When the moderator interrupted Mr. Trump 41 times, it’s the same as kicking him. You rattle a person and get them off their guard. You kick them with words. It’s a destructive tactic, very low down method of cheap control. Trump, fortunately, kept his cool. Because he’s a gentleman at heart. He doesn’t need better prep to teach him how to go on the attack. He just needs to keep on message and emphasize how he’s going to improve our economy and make us safe.
CBoldt, you and Ciaphus Cain appear to agree more than you actually disagree.
His (assuming he’s a “he”) point is that in order to do the job right, it absolutely MUST be a “sacred trust”. But the media today - especially TV - treats their profession as an extension of politics, rather than a presentation of truth.
Just my opinion, of course.
I doubt it, unless he was being sarcastic.
-- in order to do the job right, it absolutely MUST be a "sacred trust". But the media today - especially TV - treats their profession as an extension of politics --
My point of view is that this "do the job right" condition is a fiction, a self-serving fiction perpetrated by the press. The press wants you to trust it, needs you to trust it, in order to have power over your beliefs. Of course it claims to be trustworthy. But it isn't, never was and never will be. People should reject the ideal, and hold the press to prove the accuracy of every single statement it makes.
Ciaphus Cain thinks that ideally (and I emphasize the word "ideally"), the press should be granted at least a presumption of truth. My point of view is the opposite. Ideally, the press gets a presumption of false. The onus to getting to the truth of the matter properly lies with the individual. If the question is important, get a second opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.