• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Fake But Accurate" Stories Discredit Liberal Journalism

Status
Not open for further replies.
LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment.

Fast forward to 2017 and we find that this attitude, considered an outlier in 2004, has become the norm in American journalism. Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false, but their hatred of Trump is so great that they in their own minds feel justified in pushing out these half baked reports based on little more, in some cases, than one wavering anonymous source, or less.

Over at CNN, where panels consist of nothing more than talking heads who compete with each other at bashing Trump, they hired a crack team of investigative reporters to go after Trump. One of them had even won the Pulitzer Prize at one point. Nevertheless, almost the first thing this team did was fall flat on its face by publishing a story about one of Trump's associates, Scaramucci, being under investigation. The story wasn't true, and Trump crowed about that, crowed about fake news being undone. Zucker, head of CNN, was embarrassed and pissed and warned his reporters to be more careful. And so this crack team followed up that report with another stinker that also proved to be false, the idea that Comey would deny that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation. But Comey confirmed under oath that he told Trump so in testimony to Congress. So CNN had no choice but to fire their crack investigative team.

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
 
BTW ... where was good old George? :2razz:
 
LowDown said:
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment...

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
Click to expand...


Yellow journalism is nothing new...

Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

CNN is a prime example. Talking heads mixing personal commentary with news bites and creating news to project a narrative affecting public opinion.

I find it funny that the NYT published this article because it (as well as the once highly regarded Washington Post) have fallen into the same hole as CNN and other media outlets.

I have to admire the Wall Street Journal as one of the last holdouts...but as mentioned in a recent article, even they are being corrupted:

Wall Street Journal Editor Admonishes Reporters Over Trump Coverage. “Could we please just stick to reporting what he said rather than packaging it in exegesis and selective criticism?”
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/...admonishes-reporters-over-trump-coverage.html

News has always had a flavoring of gossip, but with the constant use of anonymous sources gossip has become the news.

Oh I long for the days of such luminaries as Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment.

Fast forward to 2017 and we find that this attitude, considered an outlier in 2004, has become the norm in American journalism. Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false, but their hatred of Trump is so great that they in their own minds feel justified in pushing out these half baked reports based on little more, in some cases, than one wavering anonymous source, or less.

Over at CNN, where panels consist of nothing more than talking heads who compete with each other at bashing Trump, they hired a crack team of investigative reporters to go after Trump. One of them had even won the Pulitzer Prize at one point. Nevertheless, almost the first thing this team did was fall flat on its face by publishing a story about one of Trump's associates, Scaramucci, being under investigation. The story wasn't true, and Trump crowed about that, crowed about fake news being undone. Zucker, head of CNN, was embarrassed and pissed and warned his reporters to be more careful. And so this crack team followed up that report with another stinker that also proved to be false, the idea that Comey would deny that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation. But Comey confirmed under oath that he told Trump so in testimony to Congress. So CNN had no choice but to fire their crack investigative team.

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What's the problem with talking heads? They have been part of the news media business for the past thirty years! How would so-called conservatives regulate this market? It sounds like you just want to ban opinions you don't like. Pointing out one story that CNN pulled does not fit in your model that the MSM lies constantly. What about Fox News pushing the Seth Rich story? Why no outrage from you about that? they didn't even have the balls to apologize to his family!
 
Looks like some folks prefer to get their news from Russian bots.
 
LowDown said:
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment.

Fast forward to 2017 and we find that this attitude, considered an outlier in 2004, has become the norm in American journalism. Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false, but their hatred of Trump is so great that they in their own minds feel justified in pushing out these half baked reports based on little more, in some cases, than one wavering anonymous source, or less.

Over at CNN, where panels consist of nothing more than talking heads who compete with each other at bashing Trump, they hired a crack team of investigative reporters to go after Trump. One of them had even won the Pulitzer Prize at one point. Nevertheless, almost the first thing this team did was fall flat on its face by publishing a story about one of Trump's associates, Scaramucci, being under investigation. The story wasn't true, and Trump crowed about that, crowed about fake news being undone. Zucker, head of CNN, was embarrassed and pissed and warned his reporters to be more careful. And so this crack team followed up that report with another stinker that also proved to be false, the idea that Comey would deny that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation. But Comey confirmed under oath that he told Trump so in testimony to Congress. So CNN had no choice but to fire their crack investigative team.

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
Click to expand...

I think the sooner one understands that the public perception is manipulated (for better or for worse) by those behind the scenes including the CIA, the less surprised one becomes at stories like this.

Your points are valid, but really, it's old news. As Casey noted, when everything the American people believe is false, we can judge the success of our misinformation efforts. I'd say we're pretty much there.
 
LowDown said:
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment.

Fast forward to 2017 and we find that this attitude, considered an outlier in 2004, has become the norm in American journalism. Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false, but their hatred of Trump is so great that they in their own minds feel justified in pushing out these half baked reports based on little more, in some cases, than one wavering anonymous source, or less.

Over at CNN, where panels consist of nothing more than talking heads who compete with each other at bashing Trump, they hired a crack team of investigative reporters to go after Trump. One of them had even won the Pulitzer Prize at one point. Nevertheless, almost the first thing this team did was fall flat on its face by publishing a story about one of Trump's associates, Scaramucci, being under investigation. The story wasn't true, and Trump crowed about that, crowed about fake news being undone. Zucker, head of CNN, was embarrassed and pissed and warned his reporters to be more careful. And so this crack team followed up that report with another stinker that also proved to be false, the idea that Comey would deny that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation. But Comey confirmed under oath that he told Trump so in testimony to Congress. So CNN had no choice but to fire their crack investigative team.

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
Click to expand...

I don't know what journalists learn in their journalism majors. And perhaps their outlets have retrained them in the name of profit. But the Who--what-where--when-why school is apparently dead. I've never seen such CONSTANT hyperbole in news articles as we have today. So easy to spot. So wrong.
 
"Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false."

You have it slightly backwards: Time and time again Trump says things to the media that prove to be false. And yet, he doesn't publish retractions.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't know what journalists learn in their journalism majors. And perhaps their outlets have retrained them in the name of profit. But the Who--what-where--when-why school is apparently dead. I've never seen such CONSTANT hyperbole in news articles as we have today. So easy to spot. So wrong.
Click to expand...

The answer to the question of "what journalists learn" is answered by the proliferation of outfits like the one linked below. Poynter publishes the Tampa Bay Times, and is the owner of PolitiFact.

https://www.poynter.org/

Poynter partners with Open Society Foundation (Soros), the Knight Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and all the usual alt-left Progressive suspects.

http://about.poynter.org/about-us/press-room/poynter-receives-grant-knight-foundation-strengthen-local-journalism-digital-tra

$1.3 Million in Grants from Omidyar Network, Open Society Foundations Will Expand Poynter's International Fact-Checking Network | Poynter

https://www.poynter.org/news/poynter-receives-750000-ford-foundation-grant-expand-sense-making-programs
 
Nickyjo said:
"Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false."

You have it slightly backwards: Time and time again Trump says things to the media that prove to be false. And yet, he doesn't publish retractions.
Click to expand...

I think the Right is pretty damned sick of the word parsing going on. Gotcha games get old.
 
Nickyjo said:
"Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false."

You have it slightly backwards: Time and time again Trump says things to the media that prove to be false. And yet, he doesn't publish retractions.
Click to expand...

What you say is true - Trump, like many politicians, definitely tells some whoppers. The news media is not to blame for pointing that out unless it is at the exclusion of covering the remaining Trump factual statements (or positive deed) related news. At the point where what Trump said (or did) that was not lies (or having a negative impact) is dropped in order to stress an overall negative image is where that media bias by omission comes into play.
 
I think there is validity to the claim that today's mainstream media is agenda driven. This particular thread happens to discredit liberal journalism.

But what is NOT acknowledged, is that for every valid example of influenced libbo journalism that is biased and agenda driven, I can show you 5 examples of conservative, agenda driven propaganda that is either slanted, misleading or an outright, bald-faced lie. It seems the alt-right refuses to believe any media presented that doesn't have the Russian seal of approval or agree with their ****-eyed ideology.

So, it is fair to point out liberal bias. But it is hypocracy to deny that the liberal's counter-parts are twice as bad at doing it.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I'm confused. What's the problem with talking heads? They have been part of the news media business for the past thirty years! How would so-called conservatives regulate this market? It sounds like you just want to ban opinions you don't like. Pointing out one story that CNN pulled does not fit in your model that the MSM lies constantly. What about Fox News pushing the Seth Rich story? Why no outrage from you about that? they didn't even have the balls to apologize to his family!
Click to expand...

You're hallucinating. I didn't say anything about getting rid of the talking heads at CNN or restricting their speech. Even if I'm favor of free speech I'm allowed to criticize speech that I don't think is true.

Here's a laundry list of other items of fake news from CNN if you want more examples: An Answer For Chris Cillizza: Five Fake Stori | The Daily Caller
 
Captain America said:
I think there is validity to the claim that today's mainstream media is agenda driven. This particular thread happens to discredit liberal journalism.

But what is NOT acknowledged, is that for every valid example of influenced libbo journalism that is biased and agenda driven, I can show you 5 examples of conservative, agenda driven propaganda that is either slanted, misleading or an outright, bald-faced lie. It seems the alt-right refuses to believe any media presented that doesn't have the Russian seal of approval or agree with their ****-eyed ideology.

So, it is fair to point out liberal bias. But it is hypocracy to deny that the liberal's counter-parts are twice as bad at doing it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's see the examples.

Russia? Is that still a thing?
 
Nickyjo said:
"Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false."

You have it slightly backwards: Time and time again Trump says things to the media that prove to be false. And yet, he doesn't publish retractions.
Click to expand...

Nope. What often happens is that the media misinterprets or distorts what Trump said and then criticizes their own straw man.

For example, the media criticized Trump for saying that General Pershing had his men dip bullets in pigs' blood. Except that Trump never said anything about blood dipped bullets.

And the time the media criticized Trump for saying there had been terrorist attacks in Sweden. Except that he never said that.

And the time the media criticized Trump for saying that the Constitution was outmoded and impeded progress. Except that he never said that.

And so on, and so forth.
 
Here's part of what Jonathan Tobin said yesterday in his article "How ‘Fake but Accurate’ Stories Sunk Liberal Journalism" at National Review on this:

While Rather’s conduct seemed to illustrate the traditional liberal bias of the mainstream media, his exit from CBS was also seen as an object lesson of what happens when journalists let their political opinions get the better of their professional judgment. But though his conduct was viewed, perhaps incorrectly, as an outlier in 2004, by 2017 such attitudes are now very much mainstream.

Since Trump took office, the willingness of journalists to mix opinion with news reporting has grown. Opposition to Trump and his policies is now seen as justifying any breech of the church–state divide between news and opinion. Any efforts to rein in this bias is denounced as buckling under to Trump’s intimidation even if those doing so are merely asking the press to play it straight rather than to signal their disgust and opposition to the president. CNN Investigates Team, Trump & New York Times? Reporting | National Review

Tobin is right--this NY Times article should make for sobering reading for journalists who care about the future of their profession, and for "so long as liberal bias is substituted for solid reporting, it won’t be possible to credibly answer those who cry 'fake news' any time they don’t like Trump’s coverage."
 
LowDown said:
Nope. What often happens is that the media misinterprets or distorts what Trump said and then criticizes their own straw man.

For example, the media criticized Trump for saying that General Pershing had his men dip bullets in pigs' blood. Except that Trump never said anything about blood dipped bullets.

And the time the media criticized Trump for saying there had been terrorist attacks in Sweden. Except that he never said that.

And the time the media criticized Trump for saying that the Constitution was outmoded and impeded progress. Except that he never said that.
G
And so on, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Don't know about the constitution comments, but FOX news was pretty clear that he raised the issue of pig's blood and Pershing. He apparently made a second reference to the mythical issue. In speaking of the need to restrict refugees he made reference to something that happened the night before in Sweden. Again, nothing happened. No one has to make up lies about Trump. He is quite outrageous enough to provide fodder for the alleged liberal media. The NYTimes (eek!) and various other fact checkers have catalogued these pretty well. He has been making stuff up for years.

Google "Trump's lies" and watch your computer explode. Of course, why trust Google?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Yellow journalism is nothing new...

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

CNN is a prime example. Talking heads mixing personal commentary with news bites and creating news to project a narrative affecting public opinion.

I find it funny that the NYT published this article because it (as well as the once highly regarded Washington Post) have fallen into the same hole as CNN and other media outlets.

I have to admire the Wall Street Journal as one of the last holdouts...but as mentioned in a recent article, even they are being corrupted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/...admonishes-reporters-over-trump-coverage.html

News has always had a flavoring of gossip, but with the constant use of anonymous sources gossip has become the news.

Oh I long for the days of such luminaries as Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow.
Click to expand...

I do miss Cronkite, the man would mix banter with his words though not to the extent that the current media operatives have skirted.

I believe this form of reporting was escalated when Trump started calling out fake news against a mass of agencies, after CNN spurned the reaction on. From then on, most other networks were taking it personally, aside from FOX. Who I might add can do just as bad as CNN in their reporting, though with a zeal that I think is unmatched by a majority of the base out there.

If Trump had not started his whole fake news outcry Which in my opinion was a bad move on his part, as a president who doesn't respect the freedom of the press is lacking something morally. Given enough time the media would have buried itself with all of these erogenous claims.
 
Captain America said:
I think there is validity to the claim that today's mainstream media is agenda driven. This particular thread happens to discredit liberal journalism.

But what is NOT acknowledged, is that for every valid example of influenced libbo journalism that is biased and agenda driven, I can show you 5 examples of conservative, agenda driven propaganda that is either slanted, misleading or an outright, bald-faced lie. It seems the alt-right refuses to believe any media presented that doesn't have the Russian seal of approval or agree with their ****-eyed ideology.

So, it is fair to point out liberal bias. But it is hypocracy to deny that the liberal's counter-parts are twice as bad at doing it.
Click to expand...

Yeah liberals can have some rather bat-**** crazy responses to things.
 
LowDown said:
In 2004 Dan Rather destroyed his own career by pushing a story about George Bush's days in the National Guard, Bush had supposedly walked off his post as the War in Vietnam wound down, becoming AWOL in order to pursue other things. The story was false, based on fraudulent documents, but to this day Rather still believes that the story was true. His burning hatred of Bush and of Republicans overwhelmed his journalistic judgment.

Fast forward to 2017 and we find that this attitude, considered an outlier in 2004, has become the norm in American journalism. Time and time again the media publishes stories about Trump that prove to be false, but their hatred of Trump is so great that they in their own minds feel justified in pushing out these half baked reports based on little more, in some cases, than one wavering anonymous source, or less.

Over at CNN, where panels consist of nothing more than talking heads who compete with each other at bashing Trump, they hired a crack team of investigative reporters to go after Trump. One of them had even won the Pulitzer Prize at one point. Nevertheless, almost the first thing this team did was fall flat on its face by publishing a story about one of Trump's associates, Scaramucci, being under investigation. The story wasn't true, and Trump crowed about that, crowed about fake news being undone. Zucker, head of CNN, was embarrassed and pissed and warned his reporters to be more careful. And so this crack team followed up that report with another stinker that also proved to be false, the idea that Comey would deny that he had told Trump he wasn't under investigation. But Comey confirmed under oath that he told Trump so in testimony to Congress. So CNN had no choice but to fire their crack investigative team.

Like Dan Rather, to this day these guys still believe that they were right. So it is with many of the memes floated out about Trump by the news media. Proven false, but still allowed to remain in the public mind; in reality fake and not accurate, proof only of what the news media thinks of Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/business/media/cnn-retraction-trump-scaramucci.html?mcubz=0
Click to expand...

So, your suggesting there is fake news. Got an example?
 
MaggieD said:
I think the Right is pretty damned sick of the word parsing going on. Gotcha games get old.
Click to expand...

So the only issue I have with the analysis many have is the idea of multiple truths. I do not, under any circumstance, believe that to be true. For most items, there is just ONE truth. For those issues that are of opinion, that is s different thing.
So, if a president says someone wired his office, but has NO proof, then that should never be stated as truth if there is no evidence. If a president says he needs a wall to keep the country safe, that is an OPINION that should be debated.
Then there are the so called talk jocks on conservative radio and fox. You need to determine, as a consumer of that content, if the outlet broadcasting that content is a NEWS station, or if it is an ENTERTAINMENT station. As an example, FOX says that it is FOX NEWS. But the ceo of FOX has stated, in court and under oath, that his cable station is not a news station, but an ENTERTAINMENT station. Most radio talk stations are ENTERTAINMENT stations.
So, who cares? I believe we all should. If you believe Hannity is news, you are wrong. Hannity and others on FOX are not required to tell the truth. Which is why he and others are not on news stations. They call themselves news stations, but their charter tells the truth, and they are Entertainers.
So, no, in my opinion, news is still news and is regulated as such. On news stations, if you tell lies purposefully, you get punished, in the form of time off the air, or fired.
So, net is I prefer that i want to listen to broadcasters who try to tell the truth, and admit when they were wrong. Not entertainers telling people what they want them to believe.
 
RSHERMR said:
So the only issue I have with the analysis many have is the idea of multiple truths. I do not, under any circumstance, believe that to be true. For most items, there is just ONE truth. For those issues that are of opinion, that is s different thing.
So, if a president says someone wired his office, but has NO proof, then that should never be stated as truth if there is no evidence. If a president says he needs a wall to keep the country safe, that is an OPINION that should be debated.
Then there are the so called talk jocks on conservative radio and fox. You need to determine, as a consumer of that content, if the outlet broadcasting that content is a NEWS station, or if it is an ENTERTAINMENT station. As an example, FOX says that it is FOX NEWS. But the ceo of FOX has stated, in court and under oath, that his cable station is not a news station, but an ENTERTAINMENT station. Most radio talk stations are ENTERTAINMENT stations.
So, who cares? I believe we all should. If you believe Hannity is news, you are wrong. Hannity and others on FOX are not required to tell the truth. Which is why he and others are not on news stations. They call themselves news stations, but their charter tells the truth, and they are Entertainers.
So, no, in my opinion, news is still news and is regulated as such. On news stations, if you tell lies purposefully, you get punished, in the form of time off the air, or fired.
So, net is I prefer that i want to listen to broadcasters who try to tell the truth, and admit when they were wrong. Not entertainers telling people what they want them to believe.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about propagandists, advancing an agenda? Do they exist, and should we watch them?
 
RSHERMR said:
So the only issue I have with the analysis many have is the idea of multiple truths. I do not, under any circumstance, believe that to be true. For most items, there is just ONE truth. For those issues that are of opinion, that is s different thing.
So, if a president says someone wired his office, but has NO proof, then that should never be stated as truth if there is no evidence. If a president says he needs a wall to keep the country safe, that is an OPINION that should be debated.
Then there are the so called talk jocks on conservative radio and fox. You need to determine, as a consumer of that content, if the outlet broadcasting that content is a NEWS station, or if it is an ENTERTAINMENT station. As an example, FOX says that it is FOX NEWS. But the ceo of FOX has stated, in court and under oath, that his cable station is not a news station, but an ENTERTAINMENT station. Most radio talk stations are ENTERTAINMENT stations.
So, who cares? I believe we all should. If you believe Hannity is news, you are wrong. Hannity and others on FOX are not required to tell the truth. Which is why he and others are not on news stations. They call themselves news stations, but their charter tells the truth, and they are Entertainers.
So, no, in my opinion, news is still news and is regulated as such. On news stations, if you tell lies purposefully, you get punished, in the form of time off the air, or fired.
So, net is I prefer that i want to listen to broadcasters who try to tell the truth, and admit when they were wrong. Not entertainers telling people what they want them to believe.
Click to expand...

Might want to leave the ‘MaggieD’ quotes alone...........
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom