A deafening media silence on the Obama-Hezbollah scandal

Erod said:

Even if he broke laws with illegal wiretapping and covered for Hezbollah to placate an deal with a sworn enemy?

Click to expand...

Fearandloathing said:

And you are basing all this on a piece that uses the words "now imagine...." in its second paragraph.

Yeah, that's how UFO sightings happen...."now imagine..." Rod Serling walking past a mile post with "eyou, eyou, eyou..' blaring and you get the idea.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

Well, you know one thing that the NY Post has in common with Fox News?? Both are owned by News Corp. Isn't it amazing how News Corp is still having an obsession with Clinton and Obama and ignoring things with Trump?

Click to expand...

iguanaman said:

Obama is not President anymore. I am more concerned with Trump people making deals with a sworn enemy as shown by their constant contacts with Russian agents and then lying about them. If Trump got Russia to give up their nuclear weapons like Obama did with Iran I would be happy not worried.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

I'll listen to Charles Krauthammer, thanks.
Charles Krauthammer Calls For The Arrest Of Barack Obama !!! - World Today 365

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

Propaganda is information used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view but not necessarily of a biased or misleading nature. Propaganda can be true. Getting the truth out can be propaganda.

Click to expand...

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented.[1] Propaganda is often associated with material prepared by governments, but activist groups, companies and the media can also produce propaganda.
In the twentieth century, the term propaganda has been associated with a manipulative approach, but propaganda historically was a neutral descriptive term.[1][2] A wide range of materials and media are used for conveying propaganda messages, which changed as new technologies were invented, including paintings, cartoons, posters, pamphlets, films, radio shows, TV shows, and websites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

The Stand Down lies were lies?

That must be why the response was immediate and devastating.

Do you EVER ask this question: "If this is true, what else must be true?"

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

Politico is now defined as a 'Conservative Master"?

Click to expand...

Garlyn said:

I think the politico story released is not just a conservative think tank. I heard about the the story on NPR and proceeded to.lookup the article. Honestly going after the criminals post President Obama administration only reinforces the idea that Obama' s staff was more focused on a deal with Iran than moving forward with the data project Cassandra found.

I also beehive this sort of thing happens much more than we will ever know. Investigations or indictments delayed because of international politics.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

I think you might need to update your definition a bit.



Now, what business is it of 'news' organizations to "influence an audience and further an agenda" ? Isn't news supposed to inform? Inform of facts and events?

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

Propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

The above definition is what I used in forming my post. I also point to that part of the definition you used: "..but propaganda historically was a neutral descriptive term." All I said is that propaganda CAN be true. What specifically did I say that you can refute?

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

I'm still back at 'news' shouldn't be propaganda, it is to inform, convey events and facts.

What you are saying is that some propaganda can be true, what'll add is that propaganda, to my experience anyway, has a kernel of truth but runs off with it far further than it should.

Click to expand...

Erod said:

https://nypost.com/2017/12/21/a-deafening-media-silence-on-the-obama-hezbollah-scandal/



This is why fake news is a thing. It's not just how news is presented, and even fabricated. It's the amount of real news that gets virtually ignored by huge swaths of the media, or given only token mention before being swept under the rug.

The media simply isn't interested in real journalism anymore. The entire institution of Journalism is long dead and buried.

And that is why nobody paying attention believe a single word or story that is reported. The narrative is baked in, and we know it.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

oh fenton, I've posted a DEA press release from February 2016 announcing the actions and results of Project Cassandra that proves your conservative masters are lying to you again. remember when your conservative masters told you these lies?

President Obama was born in kenya
His BC is a forgery
the stimulus will cause hyper inflation dollar collapse, market to zero
death panels
the vile and disgusting stand down lies

so please explain how that press release from two years ago was part of this "conspiracy" don't whine about about me. respond to my post. thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

I agree news should not be propagandist. I'm just pointing out facts of the definition. Still, can you give me any examples of news being propagandist that add up to any significance? Or, being more so on one side than the other?

Click to expand...

All The Proof You'll Ever Need That America's Media Really Are 'Fake News'
By JOSEPH CURL, December 10, 2017
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24513/all-proof-youll-ever-need-americas-media-really-joseph-curl

There need be no doubt anymore: America's mainstream news media hypes fake news — and that's a fact.

This past week was disastrous for the press. A slew of fake stories rained down, pushed by anxious anchormen placed in powerful posts. And we want to note before we go on, that ALL of this happened in a single week.

On Friday December 1, ABC News reported that former national security advisor Michael Flynn was ready to testify that Donald Trump, while still a candidate for president, directed him to contact Russian officials. That would've been a big no-no. But it wasn't true. The network waited most of the day to issue a "clarification" that said president-elect Trump directed Flynn to reach out to the Russians — a huge difference, as incoming administrations routinely begin communications with foreign leaders.

The stock market plunged on the "news," dropping 350 points. A day later, the reporter responsible for the story, Brian Ross, was suspended for four weeks and the network said he would no longer cover President Trump.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Yep. Red the citation, there's a few more in there for your amusement. Suffice it to say we are now in the land of the 'news' (political propagandists) media. Since they quote each other so often, they are no longer independent checks on each other, and can safely be considered a single voice with a single agenda and a single 'message'. You'll have to consult other news sources to perform as a check on them.

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

What do you mean “are now” in? We were in much more years ago with Hearst “yellow press”. As far as the most quoted, that is Fox News. A single voice and agenda? And, what is that? You still do not provide even examples, facts, of what you claim. The distinction between "president-elect" and "president" has no bearing on the fact of what was said and done was by the same person.

Click to expand...

eohrnberger said:

Yep. Red the citation, there's a few more in there for your amusement. Suffice it to say we are now in the land of the 'news' (political propagandists) media. Since they quote each other so often, they are no longer independent checks on each other, and can safely be considered a single voice with a single agenda and a single 'message'. You'll have to consult other news sources to perform as a check on them.

Click to expand...

bluesmoke said:

“We were in much more years ago with Hearst “yellow press”.

You didn’t acknowledge the fact of the above statement. As though things are different than they ever were before.
I’m not going to waste time on the total of your allegations. Be specific. Take your pick of what best supports your claim. Give examples of what proves that you say “the news media is out to destroy Trump”. Be specific. I’ll take them one-by-one. Please proceed.

Click to expand...

• Study: 91 percent of recent network Trump coverage has been negative
  The mainstream-media critics over at the Media Research Center have been evaluating “evaluative” statements about President Trump on the three main nightly newscasts — ABC’s “World News Tonight,” “CBS Evening News” and “NBC Nightly News.” Over the summer — June, July and August — 91 percent of such statements have been negative, as opposed to 9 percent positive, the organization has determined. “Analyzing the networks’ spin makes it clear that the goal of all of this heavy coverage is not to promote the President, but to punish him,” write Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella in a posting on NewsBusters, the very prolific blog of the MRC.
  
  For the sake of comparison, Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center earlier this year found that negative Trump coverage swamped positive Trump coverage over his first 100 days in office. See the chart below, but beware: Those red and green bars don’t include a significant portion of the coverage that Shorenstein categorized as “neutral.”
  
  
• Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative
  How negative was press coverage of President Trump's first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
  
  The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump's initial time in office. They found, to no one's surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.
  
  The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
• Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump
  A whopping 91 percent of news coverage about Donald Trump on the three broadcast nightly newscasts over the past 12 weeks has been 'hostile', a new study finds.
  
  The study, conducted by the conservative Media Research Center, found that not only has Trump received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to the study.
• Study: News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents
  Compared to other recent presidents, news reports about President Trump have been more focused on his personality than his policy, and are more likely to carry negative assessments of his actions, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project.
  
  Researchers studied news stories from the early months of Trump's presidency, determining whether each story evaluated Trump overall in a positive or negative light. If a story had at least twice as many positive as negative statements, Pew said it had an overall positive assessment of the president. The reverse was also true for stories with a negative assessment.
  
  Fully two-thirds of news stories about Trump from his first 60 days in office were negative by that definition — more than twice the negativity seen in stories from the first 60 days of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Barack Obama's presidencies.
• Trump press coverage 'sets new standard' for negativity: Study
  
  

Vern said:

Your double spaced question reply is not clear. Please clearly state what you believe concerning the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies and then support your position. there are 8 reports to choose from to back up your narrative. Unless of course you believe the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies.



the "source" for the claims that are easily debunked by the DEA press release is conservative think tank employees. It just seems to me that after the never ending string of lies from the right such as

President Obama was born in Kenya
His Bc a forgery
death panels
the stimulus will cause hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero
the vile and disgusting " stand down" lies

you'd be less gullible. since you're concerned, please explain why you believe something so easily debunked .........again.

Click to expand...

Vern said:

Your double spaced question reply is not clear. Please clearly state what you believe concerning the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies and then support your position. there are 8 reports to choose from to back up your narrative. Unless of course you believe the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies.



the "source" for the claims that are easily debunked by the DEA press release is conservative think tank employees. It just seems to me that after the never ending string of lies from the right such as

President Obama was born in Kenya
His Bc a forgery
death panels
the stimulus will cause hyper inflation, dollar collapse, market to zero
the vile and disgusting " stand down" lies

you'd be less gullible. since you're concerned, please explain why you believe something so easily debunked .........again.

Click to expand...

code1211 said:

An officer that led a force in position to respond from Tripoli said this:

“I was not ordered to stand down. I was ordered to remain in place,” Gibson told the House Armed Services Committee. ” ‘Stand down’ implies that we cease all operations, cease all activities. We continued to support the team that was in Tripoli.”

Most people, including me, see little difference in the language. The people who were murdered probably saw little difference as well.

Click to expand...

For a good expose of the incident, please reference this article.

Boehner and Benghazi - FactCheck.org

Click to expand...

Vern said:

I'm going to ignore your made up fantasy about the Trump's magical response and explain to you the "stand down" lies as reported in fox news was the annex was told to stand down. In addition to the annex responding immediately, a team was sent from Tripoli. the "updated stand down" lie was that Hick's team was told to "stand down". The quote you post to cling to the vile and disgusting "stand down" lies was a second team was not sent to Benghazi from Tripoli. Yes, a second team. Besides the fact that it would have left the actual embassy unprotected, the second team would not have arrived in Benghazi until everyone was already evacuated to the airport with Libyan militia support as well as the first team sent from Tripoli


No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds

“Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies surrounding the incident, the report concludes that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.”

No stand down order or military missteps in Benghazi attack, GOP-controlled intel panel finds | Fox News




I've read it as well as several of the republican reports. Maybe you should read it because you clearly have not. Now that your "stand down" lies have again been proven to be lies, please address the latest lying conservative narrative about the DEA operation.

Click to expand...