Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Benjamin, Aug 17, 2016.
This speech looks real bad for Hillary:
I'm sure if I broke down his transcript I would have some negative comments, but just listening to the speech while doing other things that sounded amazing. One thing you have to give Trump is that he is an enthusiastic speaker. Even those that don't like him have to admit that (if they're honest).
If someone did not know anything about what we going on, and only heard that speech, there's no way they wouldn't vote for him.
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
I think that was a very good speech. He stayed on message but also kept the feel of spontaneity. It was controlled and brought some very important issues to mind.
It was a pretty good speech, I have to admit.
Too bad it got overshadowed by the shakeup, er, enhancement, of the campaign management staff. Instead of talking about the speech the news cycle is all about the shakeup.
Of course. What else would you expect out of Hillary's media?
That's not Hillary's media. That's just the media. The circus beats the substance in ratings.
Baloney. They're in the tank for Hillary. If you don't realize that, you're completely out of touch with reality.
It doesn't matter if they are in the tank for Hillary. They care about ratings. Covering a speech doesn't get ratings. Sensationalism does. If it also helps Hillary, sure, maybe that's a factor. But I believe they'd cover it as completely unbiased agencies also. Speeches just don't get the same ratings as controversy and drama.
Exception: A controversial speech---that will get ratings because of the controversy.
Not entirely true. There is a liberal bias, just not as much as a lot of people contend.
I've been saying this for years here at BB. You won't convince many people around here.
I'm not denying the liberal bias (to some degree), but I am simply saying that covering the circus isn't always about politics. Ratings are king.
Yep, I agree. Not too many here will, though.
Ratings are King in the liberal media? Really? How then do you explain MSNBC? No it is not always King and the liberal bias is far reaching. Liberals have a message to get out. Some of them have even consulted with Hillary recently to determine to what extent to cover stories.
MSNBC is a biased network for sure, and it has been for a very long time. I won't dispute that. Ratings might be the King's 3rd cousin twice removed there.
Generally speaking, though, ratings matter for corporations because it's a matter of money.
I will grant you, though, that it is reasonable to assume that some members of the media will be seeking to retaliate against Trump for his criticism of the media.
In this case, though, the anti-Trump agenda and the pro-ratings agenda dovetail. Covering the speech would likely be indicative of a pro-Trump agenda because it would mean a ratings sacrifice.
Here's today's problem. Trump's going to Baton Rouge to view the flood damage while Obama is golfing on Martha's Vineyard. So Trump is acting presidential. But Paul Manafort has resigned from his campaign which will likely steal headlines from Trump's visit to Louisiana.
It's like Obama is trying to botch the optics. I'm reminded of Scalia's funeral.
They will be seeking to tear him apart because he does not hold to their extreme far left ideology.
Sure that's why. They will work to ignore anything positive about his campaign or speeches purely because they do not want him to be President. Nothing more.
It's not an either/or. The same coverage can fulfill multiple purposes.
It can but what we do know is that the primary purpose in journalists today is to push an agenda. That agenda today is unAmerican and ungodly.
See what I mean, Stefan?
The primary purpose in journalism is to make a buck. If they can push an agenda as well, they're happy to do so.