OtherGround Forums I just witnessed a murder

12 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 17678
SHOGUN250 -

I don't mean to sound like a TrUmP hAtEr, but I am legitimately uninformed overall with regard to politics. Shouldn't the objective of the press secretary to be to answer the actual questions the media is asking her and laying out the actual plans of the Trump administration, rather than turning around and answering their questions with seemingly petulant little jabs at Obama?

She 100% dishes precise, factual hard intel constantly.  She then puts a Saku vs Arona level beating on them for their faggotry.

I love she.

Edited: 12 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 16243
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

Well normally I'd agree but unfortunately the state of the press is that they operate as a publicity arm of the democrat party.  They don't report what the White House is doing.  Watch them when Trump or the press secretary is speaking.  The Vast majority aren't even listening - ever. Instead they ask a question that's intended to set up a 'gotcha' moment and the second there is any type of response (I mean one syllable) they purse their lips and wrinkle their brow as though they are thinking of what they want to say next to disagree. They obviously don't even listen to anything said much less report anything unfavorable to a the opposition.  Its more than fair to ask why they don't feel compelled to ask basic questions that they would absolutely ask if the roles were reversed.  

12 days ago
3/24/14
Posts: 12315

"Freedom of the Press" comes with a responsibility, but the press has failed to live up to their responsibility.  The earliest glaring examples of that, for me, was the coverage of the Podesta emails.  Journalistic integrity demanded they dig in to what was uncovered, but they didn't. 

12 days ago
3/16/11
Posts: 8276
buddie -
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

Well normally I'd agree but unfortunately the state of the press is that they operate as a publicity arm of the democrat party.  They don't report what the White House is doing.  Watch them when Trump or the press secretary is speaking.  The Vast majority aren't even listening - ever. Instead they ask a question that's intended to set up a 'gotcha' moment and the second there is any type of response (I mean one syllable) they purse their lips and wrinkle their brow as though they are thinking of what they want to say next to disagree. They obviously don't even listen to anything said much less report anything unfavorable to a the opposition.  Its more than fair to ask why they don't feel compelled to ask basic questions that they would absolutely ask if the roles were reversed.  

Agree completely. The press is the people’s last line of defence against tyranny (well, second last, but the last one isn’t something anyone wants to see). Why won’t they ask the most basic of investigative questions? The Epstein scandal, obomagate, Tara reade, Syrian gas attacks, etc. The left-wing MSM refuses to even acknowledge the existence of these things because they aren’t news reporters, the narrativists. And the remember Fox News during the WMD thing? They manufacture consent through narrative control. Goebbels 101. 
 

There used to be ethics in journalism and news corporations would publish based solely on newsworthiness. Now it’s only “news” if it fits the narrative that the powerful want put out there. That’s why everything is falling apart. With the internet, it’s harder to control the narrative so they have to keep using a bigger and bigger stick. The problem is, if you beat hard enough on someone’s head, they’re liable to wake up. We’re seeing it now. 
 

Eric Weinstein is doing bang-up work calling it all out from a left-wing (or if you believe the narrativists, far-right ethnonationalist Nazi) perspective. He did a whole episode simply asking why no one has bothered to even ask the government if Epstein was an intelligence asset. 

12 days ago
6/30/07
Posts: 61195
Andersons'sPiece -

If by murder you mean a slut making shit up, yes I witnessed it. She's hotter the melanamia but not as hot as a basic suburban milf

Slut making stuff up

..................................

 

Laser like political insight right here

12 days ago
7/22/15
Posts: 5603

The things that make the right cream in their pants nowadays. 

Fucking gay.

12 days ago
7/22/15
Posts: 5604

The fact that America has a great party on either side is hilarious.

Its getting worse.

12 days ago
3/12/07
Posts: 14004
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.


how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.


Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

12 days ago
3/12/07
Posts: 14005
buddie -
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

Well normally I'd agree but unfortunately the state of the press is that they operate as a publicity arm of the democrat party.  They don't report what the White House is doing.  Watch them when Trump or the press secretary is speaking.  The Vast majority aren't even listening - ever. Instead they ask a question that's intended to set up a 'gotcha' moment and the second there is any type of response (I mean one syllable) they purse their lips and wrinkle their brow as though they are thinking of what they want to say next to disagree. They obviously don't even listen to anything said much less report anything unfavorable to a the opposition.  Its more than fair to ask why they don't feel compelled to ask basic questions that they would absolutely ask if the roles were reversed.  

I don't disagree, but I don't think the solution is lessening the criticism. I think it's an even distribution between the parties at a greater level. Hammer Pelosie, Schumer, Biden, etc., don't let up on Trump. And yes, I realize this is what she was saying in the first place. I'm just saying she shouldn't be the one to say it. If any government body should be saying it, it should be the courts through enforcing defamation suits.

I also think journalism should have a self-policing body for inaccurate reporting. Nothing state run, but the industry should at minimum police itself with heavy industry penalties for inaccurate or malicious reporting.

12 days ago
1/2/06
Posts: 10941

Her game plan is so on point and powerful. It will never get old because there are a million of these blatant examples. 
 

It lays bare for anyone with half a brain what the media is about. 

Edited: 12 days ago
6/22/13
Posts: 1434

You know your country is fucked when you rather hear zingers than policy. 

If the WH staff and GOP had any faith in their leader and policy they would just ignore the majority of the press BS.  But... no, they would rather troll and then cry that the press is hostile.  Pretty weak shit and says more about the WH than the press.  Pure deflection    

 

12 days ago
4/22/17
Posts: 4490
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.


how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.

If they were impartial journalists then sure, but they're not. They're activists masquerading as journalists, and anyone can see their intention isn't to inform. 

Edited: 12 days ago
11/9/10
Posts: 70365
Andersons'sPiece -

If by murder you mean a slut making shit up, yes I witnessed it. She's hotter the melanamia but not as hot as a basic suburban milf

What was made up? There have been records released that show all of this. So I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to point out what was made up. 
 

And what makes her a slut? She’s a good looking woman with a prominent position she has to be a slut? Way to be a sexist piece of shit. Pretty much par for the course with you though. 

Edited: 12 days ago
7/15/04
Posts: 58236
JJitsu -
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.

 

how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

Yup. Even my California Commie ass knows this Texas Faggots right. 
 

She’s the ultimate Karma on these fuckers. She sat there and got bitched out on CNN by people like Angela Rye and the fat Black tepublican one and the fat Black bald one that’s running Joe Biden’s campaign and the Fat Latina fake Republican one and Charles Blow and a bunch of other shitstain human beings for two years just smiling, being polite and respectful and waiting for her moment. Now she has it and it’s awesome.

They created the monster, she knows exactly what they’re going to do and say because they used the “cute little blonde innocent girl with the crucifix” on CNN as a punching bag. They gave her the playbook and are now pissed. awesome!

CNN was a great boot camp for this top 1% Harvard Law graduate. She was piled on daily by panels filled entirely with "neutral" analysts.

Except they all suffered TDS and anti-Republican bias while she was attacked from all angles with no backup.

Forged in the fires from the pits of hell (CNN's panels) she has risen from the ashes like a Phoenix to haunt and destroy the very same people that created her.

Edited: 12 days ago
7/15/04
Posts: 58237

 

Edited: 12 days ago
7/15/04
Posts: 58238
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.

 

how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.

 

Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

Sorry but this post is just off.

First off, Kayleigh DOES report on the White House, policy, future plans, and the reasoning for it. Your premise that all she does is attack Obama or Democrats is just factually incorrect.

In saying that, you can do both. You can explain policy AND defend yourself, the administration, and the party.

Second, these journalist hacks aren't "the people". They are "some" people. Most are acting as political extensions of the DNC with the sole purpose of making Trump and Republicans looks as bad as possible for the sole purpose to influence the public to tank his re-election and to get a Democrat in office and hopefully gain the majority in congress.

Nobody is saying journalists shouldn't hold the government responsible. We are saying it shouldn't be so biased and spun so deeply that the journalists become political activists or basically propaganda extensions of the DNC. That isn't the "truth" either. Far from it actually.

And it continues to get progressively worse and more biased. The media can be critical but when they spin or frame virtually everything to make a president or administration or party look bad no matter how inaccurate, they have lost all credibility as harbingers of truth, facts, and reason.

 

12 days ago
11/9/10
Posts: 70372
TexDeuce -
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.

 

how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.

 

Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

Sorry but this post is just off.

First off, Kayleigh DOES report on the White House, policy, future plans, and the reasoning for it. Your premise that all she does is attack Obama or Democrats is just factually incorrect.

In saying that, you can do both. You can explain policy AND defend yourself, the administration, and the party.

Second, these journalist hacks aren't "the people". They are "some" people. Most are acting as political extensions of the DNC with the sole purpose of making Trump and Republicans looks as bad as possible for the sole purpose to influence the public to tank his re-election and to get a Democrat in office and hopefully gain the majority in congress.

Nobody is saying journalists shouldn't hold the government responsible. We are saying it shouldn't be so biased and spun so deeply that the journalists become political activists or basically propaganda extensions of the DNC. That isn't the "truth" either. Far from it actually.

And it continues to get progressively worse and more biased. The media can be critical but when they spin or frame virtually everything to make a president or administration or party look bad no matter how inaccurate, they have lost all credibility as harbingers of truth, facts, and reason.

 

It is hilarious to hear the media spend the last 3 years talking about holding the president accountable. Since they didn’t for the previous 8 years. 

12 days ago
5/10/04
Posts: 20238
Andersons'sPiece - 

If by murder you mean a slut making shit up, yes I witnessed it. She's hotter the melanamia but not as hot as a basic suburban milf



CNN MSNBC and the leftist media makes shit up and bald faced lies every single day.
12 days ago
3/24/14
Posts: 12317
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.


how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.


Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

The difference between the last and today is media ownership. In the last, there were a gazillion voices in the media, so it acted as a check & balance against each other. When the FCC allowed the mass consolidation of media outlets, so that every market across the country is owned by one of 4 companies, the game changed radically.  Fox tries to say they're different, but they aren't. The consolidation has made it very easy to coordinate the message the masses receive, and we should all be terrified of the implications of that.  This should scare the shit out of everyone in the country:

 

 

Affiliates across all outlets (including Fox) and cross the country, all broadcasting the same coordinated message, verbatim.  Holy fuck.

12 days ago
12/26/19
Posts: 563

Ouch, that was a beating.

11 days ago
11/17/10
Posts: 48

I am not for either party but that was pretty awesome to see her handle the press like that

11 days ago
2/27/20
Posts: 1873

She is beautiful and white and successful. 

 

Everything the left hates most.

 

11 days ago
8/23/06
Posts: 4438
KGB4HD -
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.


how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.


Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

The difference between the last and today is media ownership. In the last, there were a gazillion voices in the media, so it acted as a check & balance against each other. When the FCC allowed the mass consolidation of media outlets, so that every market across the country is owned by one of 4 companies, the game changed radically.  Fox tries to say they're different, but they aren't. The consolidation has made it very easy to coordinate the message the masses receive, and we should all be terrified of the implications of that.  This should scare the shit out of everyone in the country:

 

 

Affiliates across all outlets (including Fox) and cross the country, all broadcasting the same coordinated message, verbatim.  Holy fuck.

They are like bad actors. So, the question becomes: Who are the directors?

11 days ago
7/13/09
Posts: 17077

Good video by this faggy French Canadian lawyer about what the press does. 
 

11 days ago
3/12/07
Posts: 14015
KGB4HD -
WikiTheWalrus -
BigEyedFish -
WikiTheWalrus - 
BigEyedFish -
TexDeuce - 
WikiTheWalrus -

As a citizen, I would rather the press secretary focus on providing information about what the white house is doing over her/him telling the press what they should be covering.

Seems overly "1984" the other way.

We are past that point bucko.

First off, she does explain what is going on at the White House and the reasoning at every one of these pressers. 

However, due to the absolutely insane level of hostility and partisanship from these "journalists" she feels compelled to fight fire with fire as well. Which she should. 

When you are constantly under attack and most questions are framed to make Trump and Republicans look bad, it stands to reason one would feel compelled to fight back to expose these partisan hacks.


how anyone in their right mind could look at what is happening today with the media and come to any other conclusion than that ^ is beyond me

What to believe should be left to the individual to decide. Go ahead and defend the actions of the president, but telling the media what they should cover is overstepping, imo.


Im not defending actions of the president.  I have witnessed, and so has anyone else with eyes open, a stunning change in the media.  

The media has turned political activist and are no longer media.  You cant have negative reporting all the time on a presidential administration.  No administration did absolutely everything bad or wrong.  This media pushed fake russia and fake impeachment down the throats of everyone mercilessly then never talked about any of it again after they were proven wrong (mueller report - russia).  The Impeachment everyone knows was BS.  

Im not telling the media what to cover. Im telling the media to act like legitimate media and not political actors, which they are. 

I'm not saying you're telling the media what to cover. Although I think it should be the people who tell the media what to cover. I'm saying the government shouldn't or else it's basically a defacto state run media if the media falls in line. That's the whole reason for freedom of the press.

I don't think the partisan view of media has changed at all since the beginning of this country. It's always been slighted in favor of the media owners and their agendas. The Founding Fathers used the media to influence how they wanted the voting population just as much as the media today does. Granted, literacy and technology improvements have made media consumption more widespread, but Franklin and others used the media the same as the owners of today.

Ultimately, my point is that the media should always have a critical eye to everything the government does or else the media's role is meaningless. 

The difference between the last and today is media ownership. In the last, there were a gazillion voices in the media, so it acted as a check & balance against each other. When the FCC allowed the mass consolidation of media outlets, so that every market across the country is owned by one of 4 companies, the game changed radically.  Fox tries to say they're different, but they aren't. The consolidation has made it very easy to coordinate the message the masses receive, and we should all be terrified of the implications of that.  This should scare the shit out of everyone in the country:

 

 

Affiliates across all outlets (including Fox) and cross the country, all broadcasting the same coordinated message, verbatim.  Holy fuck.

I very much agree with this. The Telecommuncations Act of 1996 definitely changed the field. But even then, the restriction on ownership didn't come about until 1934. Prior to that there weren't restrictions.

I do think the ownership restrictions were a protection against what we see in media today. And I don't have an issue going back.