A public service is a service to the whole community. It is not necessarily government-run or mandated.I didn't say it was a public service I said they refused to cover it.
Nah, he couldn't find the Oval Office to make that speech without 20 handlers guiding him there, and I'm not sure there are that many left to cart his senile ass around.Isn't this asshole still president for another week? If he's so desperate to talk to the people he can just give an Oval Office address. Most do one anyway as a farewell.
You just put a law in that allows people to sue for wrongful cancellation and puts the burden of proof to the canceller to make their case and have the regular court system process it. It's really not that hard lol.
Remember, corporation, profit is their only incentive, by law. If they see that being anti-free speech is costing them dozens of millions of dollars a month, they'll start being pro free speech.
Let's not even pretend like hypocrisy and double standards are exclusive to Fox NewsYou're right, The only incentive is profit. And they found out that hate and demagoguery is so much more profitable than the facts. They lied to people and got them killed. They lied to people and made divisions between the American People, and there are already laws on Libel and Slander.
It's a fine for them. A tip. These cultists just want their daily dose of outrage.
Your unwillingness to actually link the articles in question and reliance on pre-packaged propaganda collages that you uncritically parrot means your post hasn't actually proved anything.Let's not even pretend like hypocrisy and double standards are exclusive to Fox News
<bullshit snip>
It's clearly profitable for CNN to switch their stance to paint Trump in a negative light. I wonder if that contributed to any division?
People tell me: "no, the negative media coverage Trump gets is just because he does bad things all the time!" and then I look at examples like the above and disagree.
The links are right there in the images for 4/5 of the articles:These could be news articles, they could be opinion articles, or they could be entirely made up in photoshop.
Different people have right to different opinions.The links are right there in the images for 4/5 of the articles:
#1 https://archive.fo/95N8h
#2 https://archive.fo/3w6ZL
#3 https://archive.fo/uH6yn
#4 they appeared to have taken down this tweet, but this seems to be the article in question.
#5 https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/health/donald-trump-health/index.html, published a few days after #4, which was probably why they took down the tweet, and why the screenshot was taken, because it so perfectly highlighted the hypocrisy.
Want more? I got a whole folder of these "collages".
You know what would "debunk" this? If we could find anyone at CNN defending or praising Trump or his polices.Different people have right to different opinions.
They aren't?Not sure you are aware news outlets aren't monolithic entities where everybody marches under the same beat.
Maybe not your average Fox News audience, but the rest of America...Do you think the average person reading CNN is going to distinguish between an opinion piece and "real news"
I bet you do.The links are right there in the images for 4/5 of the articles:
#1 https://archive.fo/95N8h
#2 https://archive.fo/3w6ZL
#3 https://archive.fo/uH6yn
#4 they appeared to have taken down this tweet, but this seems to be the article in question.
#5 https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/health/donald-trump-health/index.html, published a few days after #4, which was probably why they took down the tweet, and why the screenshot was taken, because it so perfectly highlighted the hypocrisy.
Want more? I got a whole folder of these "collages".
"My political/ideological opponents are dumb!" is not an argument.Maybe not your average Fox News audience, but the rest of America...
I first found these yesterday, on another videogame forum.You make them yourself when you 'weren't paying attention to politics', or get them from your alt-right peer group?
Sorry, but based from your past arguments (assuming you are arguing in good faith), you are assuming the average person watches Fox News. And I'm not calling them dumb; I'm calling them used to Fox News being bias in both news reports and opinion pieces, thus expecting the same to happen in CNN and other media outlets. If I'm wrong in my basis, then my apologies."My political/ideological opponents are dumb!" is not an argument.
And when it's deemed useful to help cover things up?A public service is a service to the whole community. It is not necessarily government-run or mandated.
A news program is thus a service offered to inform the public about things going on. They have editorial freedom to decide for themselves what is and isn't useful for the public to know. Thus they can decide that the president announcing what's happening about coronavirus is important for their viewers to know, but not the bits where president is vacuously bullshitting. That is not unreasonable.
Said networks choose to curate the opinion articles normally to push particular views or positions.Different people have right to different opinions.
#1 Opinion article by Heather Boushey and Katie Bethell
#2 Opinion article by Dan Merica
#3 Opinion article by Vanessa Brown Calder
#4 Article by Sandee LaMotte ("What should we know about presidential candidates' health?")
#5 Article by Jacqueline Howard (starts with a link to "What we know about Hillary Clinton’s health" by the same author)
Not sure you are aware news outlets aren't monolithic entities where everybody marches under the same beat. The same could be said about Fox News, but the burden of proving that is yours.
Let's assume that Fox News is biased in everything it does.Sorry, but based from your past arguments (assuming you are arguing in good faith), you are assuming the average person watches Fox News. And I'm not calling them dumb; I'm calling them used to Fox News being bias in both news reports and opinion pieces, thus expecting the same to happen in CNN and other media outlets. If I'm wrong in my basis, then my apologies.
If you refer to views like "racism is bad" or "government should serve the people". Then you're absolutely right.Said networks choose to curate the opinion articles normally to push particular views or positions.
Not according to the allegations of election fraud. The claims say Trump won by a landslide, something not supported by most news outlets other than Fox News. Therefore, according to the claims, we can extrapolate that the mayority of Americans voted by Trump and watch Fox News; making the average American (the average person I assume you asked about) the Fox News' audience. Am I missing something here?What an average Fox News watcher expects is irrelevant, isn't it?
I don't know if you're missing something or not, I just don't see how which channel the average american watches is relevant to my claim that CNN is biased against Trump and has double-standards.Not according to the allegations of election fraud. The claims say Trump won by a landslide, something not supported by most news outlets other than Fox News. Therefore, according to the claims, we can extrapolate that the mayority of Americans voted by Trump and watch Fox News; making the average American (the average person I assume you asked about) the Fox News' audience. Am I missing something here?