TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,319
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
This is a good analogy. I would not have an issue about running the story once on the basis of it is an unproven fact and then revisiting it when more information that is more factual is available.
How does one "prove" a fact to your satisfaction?
Because it seems that the story was proven to the satisfaction of someone at CNN, or else it never would have been reported...
... or are you going to claim -- without proof -- that CNN is in the habit of fabricating stories out of whole cloth?
The problem is however is that IF this is untrue and unable to withstand being taken to court as for evidence
Surely you don't expect CNN to take the story to court?
and it is repeated over and over while an example of Sen Pelosi getting inpregnated by a 15 year old buy (another fictitious story)
Wait just a minute... "another fictitious story"?
Who said the McConnell story was "fictitious"? In my hypothetical, the story is true. The Pelosi story might be fictitious, but in this example, McConnell really did have an an affair with an underage girl.
doesn't get but one or two minutes of time and is presented as nothing but a hit piece by conservatives for the whole time I consider that on the level of advertising for free for Democrats on both counts.
I'm sure you would... with no thought whatsoever regarding who fabricated the fictitious Pelosi story.
Of course, there's also the issue of the credibility of the story... I wouldn't expect any news outlet to give a lot of airtime to a story they don't find plausible. How long would it take for a good journalist to figure out the Pelosi story has more holes than Swiss cheese?
But according to you, they'd still have to give it as much air time as the McConnell story, which they believe (and which is true, whether it gets proven in court or not) or else cough up let's see... 2 counts of advertising for Democrats... $2 million!
The damage by Pelosie's fictional story if it had run for equal time with equal emphasis on it being "truthful" would profit Republicans similarly such that we could see a total of $2 Million of free advertising, 1 million per party but the lack of story emphasis for Pelosie would be a "loss" of $1 Million free advertising making the adjusted loss/gain between the two parties +1 for dems and -1 for Republicans.
Again, ignoring that the McConnell story is true, and the Pelosi story is fictitious.
But this type of free "ads" goes on constantly. If you however keep doing this and then a media source the does the opposite instead of putting it to McConnell they downplay his "story" as fiction and exaggerate Pelosie's story as a horrible truth then the win/loss would be $2 Million in favor of the Republicans.
Once again, ignoring the fact that one story is in fact true, and the other is a horrible lie.
Now if we continue on this thinking and add in a dozen more media outlets doing similarly lopsided storytelling and the left ones are "giving more free advertising dollars" than the right ones AND..... suddenly the left get people to ban and cancel media sources on the right then we have a lopsided and unfair free advertising situation.
Except you're ignoring that this isn't advertising -- it's journalism. You're charging journalists for doing their job -- and penalizing them if politicians on one side of the political spectrum get into more trouble than those on the other.
Free Speech is no longer free -- CNN now has to pay for the privilege.
As long as corporations don't get involved in this media equation <snip>
Tell me you did not just say this.
Who do you think OWNS the media?
I'm sorry, but I find this far too amusing to continue with the rest of the word salad.
Upvote
0