The Britisher - About the White House Press Ban - As always this gentleman's analysis is spot on.

Many of these journalists, or their editors, would have flunked my high-school journalism class.

I want them to remember what their august role is, and to start taking it seriously once again. Journalism is valuable to me. It's valuable to any nation. But, this isn't journalism. What they are publishing in the name of "journalism" is, to me, inexcusable. It is an insult to their profession.

The Styxhexenhammer Audio Show Episode 6 A rather entertaining and scathing critique of the media so far, a good listen .

H.A. Goodman - TRUMP CALLS RUSSIAN HACKING FAKE NEWS ON TWITTER: Democrats Blame Russia for Clinton's Loss

Pretty good analysis in my opinion - Imagine other companies such as banks, or even tech firms using the same statements?

"We are highly confident, that your money is safe" or "We are highly confident that our operating systems are safe from hackers"


You know, I am highly confident that have confidence.

It's also fun to observe what the media thinks of VP Pence ... "a nice, predictable, 'old white guy' who's a professional politician like the POTUS is supposed to be." They crop photos of him to slice off the word "VICE" from the seal on his podium.

- - -

As far as the "Russian hacking" is concerned, I think it's fake news propaganda, too. Given what I understand about the design of these systems ... which operate off-line to the world. Nevertheless, we were insane to design any voting(!) system that does not have an auditable p-a-p-e-r trail. We should have known that the day would (very quickly) come when "the wrong candidate won an election."

And who else could it be but The Big Bad Wolf of the über-profitable ¢old War days?

Yes they'd like Trump to be as muted as Pence. What I see here and other videos I posted mentions that the 'press' is pretty much being bypassed with a direct platform to the population, i.e. Twitter. This is Trump's advantage, it is HIS words (albeit perhaps some input by his lawyers) - but it cannot be spinned in any way, this is what the dinosaur media can't stand. It is still raw and unprocessed, and are no longer in control and influencing what they want the masses to believe.

- - -

Well this isn't working anymore thankfully. Again the genie has been let out of the bottle (internet) - and people are pretty much waking up. Again though I will reiterate - this is why the MSM is spewing out this fake news stuff, and what again worries me is that eventually the US might want to start taking pages out of the Chinese playbook in terms of censorship, it can happen.

Styxhexenhammer666 - The Time Has Come for A Social Media Movement Against the Corporate Media - just uploaded and another great analysis, however now I see a big target on him. He is pretty much calling for a war now(against the corporate media) - which is good, but of course now it is only a matter of time that the MSM and their minions will begin to write hit pieces on him. BTW I already subscribed to him, not saying anyone here should but I just really like his analysis (just like The Britisher). This is what the MSM would label as 'fake news' , because he stimulates thinking, just like some RT stuff that I post, even though you can technically compare RT as the big guy compared to a youtuber, though maybe RT might have a pass, barely because it at least offers an opposite view, even though it is most times pro-Russian obviously.

Speaking of RT lol - this was just uploaded


RT Crosstalk - Bullhorns: Media Wars

Jeebizz,

Since my request in post #5 you've had almost 50 posts in General without a single post in a technical forum. This is a final request to change that ratio before your privileges in the General forum are temporarily suspended. Please contact me directly if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks.

--jeremy

Frankly, to my way of thinking, this sort of approach is fairly simple-minded:

First of all, what exactly might we mean in our use of terms such as "social" vs. "corporate" media? Well, here we have a very distinct problem: "corporate" media consists of (about six ...) very-definite corporate entities, whereas "social" media is completely amorphous.

Therefore, I fail to see two well-defined "armies" who might actually "wage war" upon one another.

Second: "In any meaningful discussion of an otherwise 'faceless enemy,' you must always define your appointed enemy in some terms other than(!) "anti-you." If you can't do that, then your 'enemy' is actually nothing more than a straw man ... a stereotype familiar to propagandists everywhere. He's engaged with you – "surely, in a fight (of course) to the death, which you, surely, must [self-]righteously oppose."

But – isn't the fundamental purpose of any media enterprise "[just] to sell advertising?!"

Nearly all the time, "movements™" accomplish absolutely nothing. And, in any case, all(!) of the parties concerned are merely exercising their: Freedom Of Speech.

The term, "fake news," actually has a very specific meaning: "deliberate falsehood," not "objectionable [to you]."

Beware of becoming "the angry young man," for this young man jousts with windmills, and sometimes dies trying. "What a waste of a good life."

This is a very interesting segment because it is noticeably different from the others. All of the correspondents are standing around the same table, along with the host, and the host appears to have much(!) to talk about.

"Mister Trump is just 'surprised' at something that has been done to people in dozens of [other] countries, dozens of times ..." (As spoken by an obviously-not-American representative of "Spootnik International.") Hmmm.

(And please: "do not jump to conclusions." Watch it.")

Gee, wouldn't it be refreshing to encounter such a thing in American media?!

And I also find it extremely interesting that the panelists refer to several things that ... gosh darn it ... I simply do not see(!) in my American news-feeds.

Wouldn't "Uncle Walter" be rolling in his grave, to have been "so utterly scooped(!)" in this way?!