Do you have an answer to my question? It's pretty hypocritical when one of your driving policies is about illegal undocumented workers when you're wife worked illegally no?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Drak For This Useful Post:
We need to severely punish undocumented workers! Except for my wife!
Or any hot undocumented lady with a grabbable p$%#$.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
This is how the media works. The thing with the Clinton email story is that it continues to trickle out as a teaser instead of just a full blown and completely solved scandal. Comey, Podesta emails, DNC leaks, rogue FBI agents. New information seems to come down every minute of every day and that is why this continues to be in the news over and over again.
But there's a difference between one article about the FBI mentioning a new source of emails that has to be examined and covering the entire front page with what amounts to speculation.
But you are right about the constant stream, at least in part. Again I think the coverage has been disproportionate and at times irresponsible, but it is how the way the media currently works (which should change).
I think that was the intent behind the Podesta emails too incidentally, being dripped out a bit at a time, the intent that they'd be in the news constantly. It hasn't really worked out as most of the emails are benign and only appeal to people who are willing to think Clinton is a satanist based on Podesta's dinner invitations.
But I disagree that the media has been kind to Clinton, analysis of coverage shows that the media has focused on the mostly irrelevant story of the emails (contributing to the conflating of the different things going on into one big story in the minds of voters), giving that far more time than all the other things combined. That's hardly positive.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
It's received about the same amount of coverage as Bill's past sexual impropriety has in the media. Both are topics obviously irrelevant (but then again, so is the vast majority of what is discussed in the US election cycle and in this thread).
That she worked illegally is mostly irrelevant (or should be, it was only like what, 7 weeks?). The story is somewhat relevant because a) they lied (which obviously doesn't hurt them as Trump supporters eat dozens of lies a day) and b) it contrasts with Trump's very hard stance on a policy subject.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
That she worked illegally is mostly irrelevant (or should be, it was only like what, 7 weeks?). The story is somewhat relevant because a) they lied (which obviously doesn't hurt them as Trump supporters eat dozens of lies a day) and b) it contrasts with Trump's very hard stance on a policy subject.
Mind you she no doubt lied on her visa application form where they ask you if you've done anything that would exclude you from being eligible for a visa, the visa should be rescinded and therefore she should be deported!!!
But there's a difference between one article about the FBI mentioning a new source of emails that has to be examined and covering the entire front page with what amounts to speculation.
But you are right about the constant stream, at least in part. Again I think the coverage has been disproportionate and at times irresponsible, but it is how the way the media currently works (which should change).
I think that was the intent behind the Podesta emails too incidentally, being dripped out a bit at a time, the intent that they'd be in the news constantly. It hasn't really worked out as most of the emails are benign and only appeal to people who are willing to think Clinton is a satanist based on Podesta's dinner invitations.
But I disagree that the media has been kind to Clinton, analysis of coverage shows that the media has focused on the mostly irrelevant story of the emails (contributing to the conflating of the different things going on into one big story in the minds of voters), giving that far more time than all the other things combined. That's hardly positive.
The media was very kind to Hillary, especially in the primaries. The one thing the Podesta emails continue to highlight is the rather cozy relationship between many media outlets and the Clinton Campaign. I mean, it was only in March when Sanders had significant negative attention turned on him, which was largely unfounded.
Washington Post ran 16 negative stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 hours
As I mentioned before many media outlets have picked sides during this presidential campaign and that has caused many to start looking at other not so reputable sources. Combine this with Google altering their search results for HRC and you are having more people start to distrust "mainstream" sources.
But why do they care that much? They care that much because the extensive media coverage tells them they should care that much. If it wasn't a big deal then it wouldn't be on the front page for so long would it (is what people would naturally assume)?
...
I heard on one podcast put it this way.. the media strives to communicate the truth, and strives to be balanced. Trump feels the media is rigged because of their attempt to present the truth which highlights his compulsive lying. But the real problem is the media seems to place balance even ahead of truth, which results in false equivalencies.
...
I don't believe the media strives to communicate the truth or to really care about a balance as fairness. As businesses they strive to retain attention, and within those businesses they have individuals who variously report their versions of truth, entertain, attempt to shock etc. The mix of those individuals is balanced in order to retain the attention of their target audience and to grow that audience.
While newspapers are producing media for an audience that actually reads, and so have a different segment to target, they're also desperate to retain attention. They're not about truth either.
Whether for an audience that reads or not, what the media seek is attention.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
Whether for an audience that reads or not, what the media seek is attention.
I guess that's true in a way, but there seems to be room for both journalistic integrity and tabloid. Tabloid doesn't get my attention while BuzzFeed of all places has done some really good political reporting so gets my attention.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Try it for yourself and see. Simply put, Google is not showing results that people are searching for in their auto-complete bar when it comes to Hillary in particular. There is also some serious conflicts of interest when it comes to Eric Schmidt working for the Hillary campaign.
