So, right now the terrorist attack in England is a huge story but CNN is still talking Trump & Flynn

[njfan47]

This pretty much tells you all you need to know. It's all about Flynn/FBI and nothing about all of the positive news about Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia, the roundup of illegals by the border patrol (I was fortunate to see some of this in action in the Miami area last week; the van took about 10 minutes to pull over despite two border patrol vans driving behind and next to it), stock market gains, positive trade deal with China, etc.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's an all-out war. Luckily that nobody with any sense takes these jokers seriously. One clown just commented that "the trip is a way to get back on track."

 

[Stalker]

Europe's open door policies with poor to nonexistent vetting are literally killing their people, while here in America we thwart a man trying to protect us. The Left with their anarchist friends are playing right into the hands of terrorists.

 

[njfan47]

Europe's open door policies with poor to nonexistent vetting are literally killing their people, while here in America we thwart a man trying to protect us. The Left with their anarchist friends are playing right into the hands of terrorists.

Yep, just more evidence of the failure of socialism. Still waiting for CBS or NBC to cover the breakdown in Venezuela.

 

[tulla]

Yep, just more evidence of the failure of socialism. Still waiting for CBS or NBC to cover the breakdown in Venezuela.

A few quick points:

I watched some CNN last night and a bit this morning. During the hour I watched last night (8-9) it was entirely about the Manchester bombing and it was certainly the main story this morning. Just looked at its homepage and it's by far their #1 story.

About Venezuela: Brazil is also in crisis, and our media are almost entirely silent about that too. I honestly think it's mostly a matter of American media providing very little coverage to much foreign news, especially from South America and Africa. Maybe that's because they think the public has little interest. Maybe it's partly because of budgets. Certainly lots of newspapers have closed their foreign bureaus.

And about Europe not doing any vetting and the terrorist events being a result. I don't know about the current incident but in the recent one in London, the killer was born in Birmingham. Can we agree that many--though by no means all--such incidents in the U.S. and other parts off the west are carried out by young men and (much less frequently) young women who are not refugees or immigrants and who get radicalized partly through the net?

 

[njfan47]

A few quick points:

I watched some CNN last night and a bit this morning. During the hour I watched last night (8-9) it was entirely about the Manchester bombing and it was certainly the main story this morning. Just looked at its homepage and it's by far their #1 story.

About Venezuela: Brazil is also in crisis, and our media are almost entirely silent about that too. I honestly think it's mostly a matter of American media providing very little coverage to much foreign news, especially from South America and Africa. Maybe that's because they think the public has little interest. Maybe it's partly because of budgets. Certainly lots of newspapers have closed their foreign bureaus.

And about Europe not doing any vetting and the terrorist events being a result. I don't know about the current incident but in the recent one in London, the killer was born in Birmingham. Can we agree that many--though by no means all--such incidents in the U.S. and other parts off the west are carried out by young men and (much less frequently) young women who are not refugees or immigrants and who get radicalized partly through the net?

A few quick points:

I watched some CNN last night and a bit this morning. During the hour I watched last night (8-9) it was entirely about the Manchester bombing and it was certainly the main story this morning. Just looked at its homepage and it's by far their #1 story.

About Venezuela: Brazil is also in crisis, and our media are almost entirely silent about that too. I honestly think it's mostly a matter of American media providing very little coverage to much foreign news, especially from South America and Africa. Maybe that's because they think the public has little interest. Maybe it's partly because of budgets. Certainly lots of newspapers have closed their foreign bureaus.

And about Europe not doing any vetting and the terrorist events being a result. I don't know about the current incident but in the recent one in London, the killer was born in Birmingham. Can we agree that many--though by no means all--such incidents in the U.S. and other parts off the west are carried out by young men and (much less frequently) young women who are not refugees or immigrants and who get radicalized partly through the net?

That's good, but they dedicated pretty much an entire hour to the Trump issues when news was still developing from the attack. It was about a five-person roundtable. I found it interesting in light of what was going on in the world. But, they are determined to accomplish a task and they are going to put maximum effort into it.

Right, both Venezuela and Brazil are failures of socialism. Of course, I can't prove the media's motives for not covering it. It's just speculation and it definitely is partly due to the fact that neither country is a big deal here or worldwide.

I don't think the argument is about where the terrorists are from; it's more about the overall belief that letting these people in in the first place is going to work out just fine. That thought process fails even if you think that Islam is just a religion; the fact that it's a religion plus a whole set of governing principles and a different belief system and tolerance level makes for a nearly impossible integration process. Nobody should be surprised that this is happening. It's coming back here eventually, too.

 

[tulla]

That's good, but they dedicated pretty much an entire hour to the Trump issues when news was still developing from the attack. It was about a five-person roundtable. I found it interesting in light of what was going on in the world. But, they are determined to accomplish a task and they are going to put maximum effort into it.

Right, both Venezuela and Brazil are failures of socialism. Of course, I can't prove the media's motives for not covering it. It's just speculation and it definitely is partly due to the fact that neither country is a big deal here or worldwide.

I don't think the argument is about where the terrorists are from; it's more about the overall belief that letting these people in in the first place is going to work out just fine. That thought process fails even if you think that Islam is just a religion; the fact that it's a religion plus a whole set of governing principles and a different belief system and tolerance level makes for a nearly impossible integration process. Nobody should be surprised that this is happening. It's coming back here eventually, too.

Quick reply before heading out the door:

The American networks are owned by large corporations and their news departments depend on advertising. I'm trying to figure our why they would be promoting socialism or neglecting to cover situations where socialist govts. have failed.

The Manchester bomber was apparently British-born. More evidence of a complicated problem that--to Stalker's point--won't be solved by more extreme vetting.

 

[Stalker]

Quick reply before heading out the door:

The American networks are owned by large corporations and their news departments depend on advertising. I'm trying to figure our why they would be promoting socialism or neglecting to cover situations where socialist govts. have failed.

The Manchester bomber was apparently British-born. More evidence of a complicated problem that--to Stalker's point--won't be solved by more extreme vetting.

Tulle

 

[Stalker]

Tulla; more extreme vetting? They’d likely settle for average vetting!

My point poorly made was intended for the overall. And if this was home grown, you need to vet your own more carefully in the same fashion mothers of this country rose up to create MADD with the inordinate number of alcohol related auto deaths giving us check points. We need a similar effort and awareness against an even greater threat today.

 

[njfan47]

Quick reply before heading out the door:

The American networks are owned by large corporations and their news departments depend on advertising. I'm trying to figure our why they would be promoting socialism or neglecting to cover situations where socialist govts. have failed.

The Manchester bomber was apparently British-born. More evidence of a complicated problem that--to Stalker's point--won't be solved by more extreme vetting.

Regarding the networks, their goal is to promote an agenda, liberalism in this case. Of course, they want profits, but they know that there are a certain amount of people who will make up their audience. Survey after survey of the voting preference/party affiliation of the members of the big TV network news departments/major newspapers shows a dominant amount of democrats.

I don't think it takes great observation skills to see a much different level of coverage of Trump vs. Obama, or Obama vs. Bush. You could even go back to Reagan vs. Clinton. The coverage was just so different.

People like George Stephanopoulos go from democratic administrations (Clinton) to prominent roles at networks like ABC. I can't think of one Republican who has a major position (anchor, talk show host, etc.) at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC. Don't give me Alison Cammarata or Megyn Kelly as examples.

 

[tulla]

Regarding the networks, their goal is to promote an agenda, liberalism in this case. Of course, they want profits, but they know that there are a certain amount of people who will make up their audience. Survey after survey of the voting preference/party affiliation of the members of the big TV network news departments/major newspapers shows a dominant amount of democrats.

I don't think it takes great observation skills to see a much different level of coverage of Trump vs. Obama, or Obama vs. Bush. You could even go back to Reagan vs. Clinton. The coverage was just so different.

People like George Stephanopoulos go from democratic administrations (Clinton) to prominent roles at networks like ABC. I can't think of one Republican who has a major position (anchor, talk show host, etc.) at CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC. Don't give me Alison Cammarata or Megyn Kelly as examples.

Diane Sawyer worked in the Nixon White House before becoming a network journalist, but maybe you're thinking that's going back too far. Anyway, I can't think of anyone but Stephanopoulos who went from working for a Democratice president to working as a host or anchor. Of course, TV news is full of commentators who have worked for Democratic or Republican administrations or who were themselves politicians.

Fox and CNN both focus far too much on commentary and far too little on actual news. It adds to the problem of people having strong opinions based on too little knowledge. Partly that's because talking heads are cheaper than well-researched and produced news stories.