The Campaign For DA

4.02.2018

A Must Watch And Read For Those Who Care About America and Journalism

These are the Texas stations that the comrade owns:




35 comments:

Anonymous said...

My problem is one-sided (hidden agenda-driven) reporting on EITHER "side"! Both are bogus. The only journalism I respect is a "just the facts, ma'am" report.

I don't know if that exists anymore.

Gary Tidmore said...

Do you not think "other media" outlets are not driven by the left? Pull you head out of the sand Barry. I wish all of them would simply just report the news as they use to to do, but the sad truth is they are all bias --- one direction or the other.

Anonymous said...

Jesus Christ. Makes me want to go shoot up a pizza parlor and stop Hillary from molesting children.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Sounds like an anti-fake news statement to me. Do you mean to tell me you're pro-fake news?

Anonymous said...

Sinclair is going to make FOX News look like PBS.

Anonymous said...

So a news organization has pledged to air only factual, fair and balanced news and you find this disturbing?

Anonymous said...

For those of you that get your news spoon fed to you by talking heads and are too lazy to get it from other reliable sources, this shouldn't affect you at all.

Anonymous said...

As a member of the despicable Left, Barry relies on Leftist media bias to suppress information.

Anonymous said...

You all are missing the true danger. When any owner of media is allowed by the FCC to buy 20 or 40 or more local stations, it places the news in the hands of a few (whether left or right). The old days where a person or business was limited in how many tv/radio licenses they could hold was a good thing. Same thing on little banks getting snapped up by mega-banks. Bigger Business, whether media or finance, is not better for America.

DF Long Memories

Anonymous said...

TV, including news programs, is a medium for selling advertising. They only value the number of people they can attract as viewers. They are not the source of facts..

Anonymous said...

But....but....but I thought fake news got Trump elected? Or was it white women listening to their husbands? Or was it deplorables who had never voted before? Don't forget the Russians! Or was it election laws? Don't forget sexism! Maybe it's the electoral college? Was it James Comey? Well maybe Tony Weiner? 😂🤣

Anonymous said...

These commentaries are proof-positive that Fake News is alive and well. The largest proprietor of fake news, conservative media, telling their own listeners that they won't play fake news, is ironic enough to applied every head in the state.

Well, at least the ones who see the irony. Not the idiots who eat it up and vote Trump.

Anonymous said...

Good one “Rage.”

wordkyle said...

I read the statement in the article. It actually could have been written by the Left:
- "The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media."
- "...some media outlets publish these same fake stories… stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first."
- "We understand Truth is neither politically ‘left nor right.’"
- "But we are human and sometimes our reporting might fall short. If you believe our coverage is unfair please reach out to us..."

Exactly what part of the statement do you disagree with? How does this make anyone "soldiers" of anything?

Anonymous said...

I was wondering what you were up to these days Brian Jennings.

Anonymous said...

An editorial with no supporting evidence, no data, no argumentative beef. One hundred percent innuendo.

"But we’re concerned about the troubling trend of irresponsible, one sided news stories plaguing our country. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media." [We will provide no examples to illuminate this plague, but you know what we mean.]

"More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories … stories that just aren’t true, without checking facts first." [Bogus reporting has been part of journalism since journalism was born, but we won’t provide data or examples to illuminate why this bears pointing out in April 2018.]

"Unfortunately, some members of the media use their platforms to push their own personal bias and agenda to control ‘exactly what people think.’" [Random and nonsensical quotation marks are a mainstay of the Trump era.] … "This is extremely dangerous to a democracy." [Right — as is an unsupported, evidence-free slam against the country’s press.]

Anonymous said...

Perhaps Wordy should dig a little deeper into Sinclair and their practices. I'm sure he's in favor of the political commentaries the stations "must run" produced by a former reporter for RT, a Russian government-funded international news outlet that the Columbia Journalism Review called "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet."

You're cool with Russian propaganda, right WordKomrade?

Guinjames said...

@1:19. I wholeheartedly concur. I also remember when news people weren't trying to be a celebrity and just read the news. Those were the good old days. Stations didn't try to make money on the news just report it.

wordkyle said...

341 - What part of the statement in the article do you disagree with? Where's the propaganda? BG has a later post that reflects the same complaints as in the article, from the Leftist point of view.

wordkyle said...

904 & 918 - I don't disagree with you. But all media is inherently biased. Everyone shows their bias in the stories they choose to publish or not publish. Small town newspaper does a story on the big new Walmart coming in -- pro-Walmart. "Food for thought" reports health code violations in restaurants -- anti-those restaurants. How much coverage do they give to IRS targeting conservative groups? How much coverage do they give to Fast and Furious? All editorial choices, and the coverage reflects the editors' biases.

And for the peanut gallery, I personally watch little to no Fox News. I'm too busy watching Law and Order reruns (which reflect the producers' biases.)

Anonymous said...

The mainstream media looks more like Pravda than these local Sinclair people.

Anonymous said...

You know what, this is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

So are illegals pouring into our country unchecked. So are illegal drugs. So are those nasty demonic assault gun thingies. So are those poor helpless women who let their husbands tell them how to vote. So are men who are pussies like Barry.

Long live Trump!

Anonymous said...

Barry is a pathetic Leftist loser.

Anonymous said...

Oh it's a cleverly worded "mission statement". But it's indoctrination propaganda. Like I said, dig a little deeper into Sinclair. Their "must run" editorials are gold. They make FOX News look like PBS.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the ol bait and switch. Agreeing or disagreeing with any of those statements is not the issue. One company, or person, or political party controlling the "news", word for word, should be an alarming prospect for anyone, regardless of political affiliation. You're smart enough to know that. Are you just so set in your need for affirmation that you spew argument just for the sake of it?

wordkyle said...

1215 et al - So someone you don't like says "sometimes our reporting may fall short, please hold us accountable" and therefore the message is bad?

A proper, reasonable response might be "I don't like the guy or what he's done in the past, but this particular message is good." Are you guys so far gone that you can't even acknowledge something as simple and clear as that?

Jerry Farewell said...

Bottom line: The right wing controlled media has successfully convinced good people that there exist a left leaning media withfake news tactics.

Media, especially in Dallas, has always lean to the "conservative" side.

wordkyle said...

144 - For years I've documented the bias in mainstream media. The NY Times last endorsed a Republican for president in 1956. Remember Journolist, the cabal of reporters who in 2010 recommended that their journalist members, in the course of reporting, "... take one of them (Republicans) – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists"? Their editorial choices in stories big and small that they don't cover (e.g., Obama's college transcripts.) Then there's the studies and statements that have shown the media's hostility toward Trump. There are many more examples, which I'll be happy to trot out if you want.

JB in Fort Worth said...

Wordkyle, the only thing you've "documented" is your uncanny ability to somehow carry water for every reactionary, right-wing politico or notion under the sun despite having your head lodged in your small colon. All in the comments of this humble blog. I kinda admire that.

Anonymous said...

The only pathetic losers and pathetic fools are the fools and losers that have such a shitty life that the only thing they have to look forward to is to come to this blog and whine about the blog host. HaHaHa. Don't care, but at least come up with new and more clever insults. I hate reruns. Over and over and over, same old schitck. Looking forward for new stuff. Thanks in advance.

wordkyle said...

744 - Au contraire, mon frere. You just choose to ignore information you don't like -- for instance, the documentation in my simple little post at 3:39. Do you think your 8th-grade namecalling compares well with information? Do you seem more knowledgeable, more mature, more credible?

Would you like to take another crack at a response? Or are you happy with what you've already said?

JB in Fort Worth said...

wordkyle, I apologize. I meant small intestine. Small colon doesn't make any sense.

wordkyle said...

128 - No problem. I recognized that you work without information.

JB in Fort Worth said...

wordy, you're welcome. And your selective examples to back up the conclusion you've already drawn entirely undercut your accusation. See, some of us gather as much credible information as we can and wind up at logical (although not always correct, but hey, at least we're trying) conclusions. And where they fall on the spectrum of political ideology is a byproduct of the process.

And that's the last thing I'm gonna say about that. You keep on enjoying your – ahem – insider's view, and good day.

wordkyle said...

235 - "Insider's view?" What kind of examples do you want? That's all public knowledge. I made my point and offered evidence to support it. There's only a certain amount of bandwidth, so of course I was selective. Which of the examples I provided do you not consider credible? So far all you've managed is a "nuh-uh!" Do you think assuming a smug superiority without offering a counter argument makes you a winner? Other than expressing your emotional response, you haven't been very convincing.

Respond or don't, but consider how your argument appears to other readers. Do you want to just insult me, or do you want to convince others that you're right?