klehner wrote:
vitus979 wrote:
Problem is the media isn't much better.
Nonsense. Reputable outlets are
far more trustworthy. They don't publish known falsehoods.
And "reputable" doesn't mean "ones I agree with."
Would you call the NYT reputable? Well they apologized to their subscribers for their poor coverage of the Presidential election.
Having said that, I respect the NYT for that. They were just one outlet in the great majority of main stream media ignoring, for instance, what was happening inside the Trump rallies. NYT at least had the gumption to see and admit their error.
But the fact remains that reputable outlets as a whole IGNORED the grass roots support for Trump. I saw it happening real time, hearing reports of the crowds and watching youtube videos, and then reading NYT and "reputable" outlets and seeing nothing, except maybe a story about Trump not liking babies.
Something is real broke within the "reputable" outlets. The truth is that the "reputable" outlets did not report the Trump groundswell because they were afraid to add fuel to the fire. But if they are not reporting, how can they be reputable?
We are back to were we have been for millennia. There is no reputable outlets. There are only outlets for each side.
________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev