(12-19-2016, 02:51 PM)Big Rock Wrote: Here's some impressive and inspiring resistance:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

(12-19-2016, 04:33 PM)cletus1 Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 02:51 PM)Big Rock Wrote: Here's some impressive and inspiring resistance:

Find the nut and parade her around. Same o same o.

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

(12-19-2016, 06:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.
Maybe it's just me.

(12-19-2016, 06:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.
Maybe it's just me.

(12-19-2016, 05:03 PM)Big Rock Wrote: Angry leftists are not hard to find (even around here). And they are fun to watch.

(12-19-2016, 06:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.
Maybe it's just me.

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote: Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

(12-19-2016, 07:45 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote: Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

Well, I think these article excerpts are interesting and relevant. That's why I post them. It's okay with me that people don't agree with me or don't even bother to read them.
I do think it's weird and hilarious that lefties insist on clinging to their demonstrably false narratives about why their preferred candidate lost an election that they were so certain she would win. It seems like a lot of the local lefty media consumers try to mimic what they see on the tube: grim, appalled, censorious and (of course) sanctimonious.

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 06:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.
Maybe it's just me.

Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

(12-20-2016, 12:04 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 06:12 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 04:57 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

Quote:Little has been as bewildering and painful to journalists as Trump's attack on them. The sense of horror and foreboding that this will continue into 2017 and beyond is existential. For the media, this is an attack foremost on its rights and prerogatives. For Trump, it is an attack foremost on the media's sensibility and culture. The more Trump makes the media his punching bag, the more it reacts with a singular voice against him — the more the Trump point, that the media represents the world opposed to him and his supporters, is proved. Hence, the more Trump continues to dump on the media.
It is an ongoing debate about how much self-awareness and calculation there is on the Trump side, leaving underreported how little self-awareness there is on the media side.
At the recent annual dinner of the Committee to Protect Journalists, already a high moment of self-congratulations for the journalism establishment, the evening's host, David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, reframed the CPJ's mission from aiding journalists in extremis abroad to defending them in the U.S. itself. (The New Yorker is, among many other publications, eagerly repositioning itself as a leader of the moral opposition to the Trump age.) The evening's main honoree, CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, called the black-tie gathering at the Waldorf Astoria to the barricades.
The not-so-subtle shift of media purpose has been from reporting to resistance — or of reporting about the Trump apocalypse in place of the Trump administration. Brian Stelter, the young host of CNN's Reliable Sources, now each Sunday turns to the camera to deliver a personal homily: grim, appalled, censorious — accompanied with dramatic facial expressions — about the week's most egregious anti-media Trumpisms.
Trump, on his part, seems to do everything imaginable to stir the sense of outrage that most compels the attention of the shocked-shocked media (as opposed to what, at the start of a new administration, usually is a starstruck media). "Mr. Trump's focus appeared to careen unpredictably from hour to hour," declared The New York Times on Nov. 30 as he logged memorable media moment after memorable media moment: a tweet against flag burning; a dinner at a New York restaurant with Mitt Romney; a triumphant turn at the Carrier plant in Indiana; a series of chatty conversations with otherwise uptight world leaders. Meanwhile, an agape media, full of umbrage, disbelief and panic, has elevated his cabinet picks to daily drama and turned Trump's business affairs into an impeachable offense weeks before he is even to take office.
This is part of the sudden new journalism credo about not "normalizing" the 45th president (a concept originated by pro-Palestinian groups trying to restrict or ban any "normal" activities — including kids soccer games — between Israelis and Palestinians). In other words, Trump, despite the paradox of his election, ought to be considered a rogue occupant of the White House. And, too, that the media should not commence ordinary relations with him. Journalists who were seen to have some relationship with the incoming White House — former CNN host Piers Morgan, with whom Trump logged a personal call, or MSNBC morning host Mika Brzezinski, who showed up for a meeting at Trump Tower — suddenly were social media pariahs.
Quite a direct consequence of the media's declaration that nothing is normal is, in addition to making every Trump gesture a media kerfuffle, to elevate everything to the exceptional — precisely, one might assume, the "look at me" status Trump seeks.
If part of the Trump goal is to shift the narrative of modern American life from urban-global-multicultural to middle-American-nationalist-populist, then going after the media, the chief representative of the former, is bound to solidify his standing with the latter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/michael-wolff-how-media-wars-will-replace-culture-wars-trump-era-957143?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.
Maybe it's just me.

Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

That's a pretty asinine remark.

(12-20-2016, 12:02 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:45 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote: Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

Well, I think these article excerpts are interesting and relevant. That's why I post them. It's okay with me that people don't agree with me or don't even bother to read them.
I do think it's weird and hilarious that lefties insist on clinging to their demonstrably false narratives about why their preferred candidate lost an election that they were so certain she would win. It seems like a lot of the local lefty media consumers try to mimic what they see on the tube: grim, appalled, censorious and (of course) sanctimonious.

Good to know you don't care that at least two of us don't bother to read the high lighted parts of a giant block of text you post and would like to at least hear your opinion.
How many people do you think are here? And the rest of your post above about lefties? I don't have a clue why that's relevant.

(12-20-2016, 08:40 AM)orygunluvr Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 12:02 AM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:45 PM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-19-2016, 07:21 PM)Hugo Wrote: Ya know Big Rock, some people don't know what to do with all them... words and stuff.  Y'all need to put at the top of these posts, "READ THIS", then will know what they are supposed to do with it.

Well, I think these article excerpts are interesting and relevant. That's why I post them. It's okay with me that people don't agree with me or don't even bother to read them.
I do think it's weird and hilarious that lefties insist on clinging to their demonstrably false narratives about why their preferred candidate lost an election that they were so certain she would win. It seems like a lot of the local lefty media consumers try to mimic what they see on the tube: grim, appalled, censorious and (of course) sanctimonious.

Good to know you don't care that at least two of us don't bother to read the high lighted parts of a giant block of text you post and would like to at least hear your opinion.
How many people do you think are here? And the rest of your post above about lefties? I don't have a clue why that's relevant.

Yep, not many here, you guys have become as irrelevant here as nationally. Besides, you hack posts into discernible pieces and highlight with bold text the parts you feel are relevant to whatever the jumbled mess you post is supposed to represent from your point of view. So now you have taken on the forum post monitor?

(12-20-2016, 08:57 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are not obligated to read it, but it's there for those of us who may enjoy the more complete content from something we otherwise may not stumble on.

(12-20-2016, 10:55 AM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 08:57 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are not obligated to read it, but it's there for those of us who may enjoy the more complete content from something we otherwise may not stumble on.

That's my only point. Forums have a tendency to devolve into echo chambers of agreement or hate fests, and I don't want to participate in either. I post content from the WSJ because it's well-written and interesting and because most people here do not have access to it (because the cost is prohibitive). I post the links because anyone can choose to pay for whatever they want to read. You can decide to buy it or not. I'm just quoting an excerpt that I think conveys the gist of an argument. I highlight the parts that I find most interesting or relevant. I don't see how that could be offensive. I try not to be offensive most of the time. Sometimes I do get rhetorically aggressive. That is almost always a mistake.

That's all.

(12-20-2016, 10:55 AM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 08:57 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are not obligated to read it, but it's there for those of us who may enjoy the more complete content from something we otherwise may not stumble on.

That's my only point. Forums have a tendency to devolve into echo chambers of agreement or hate fests, and I don't want to participate in either. I post content from the WSJ because it's well-written and interesting and because most people here do not have access to it (because the cost is prohibitive). I post the links because anyone can choose to pay for whatever they want to read. You can decide to buy it or not. I'm just quoting an excerpt that I think conveys the gist of an argument. I highlight the parts that I find most interesting or relevant. I don't see how that could be offensive. I try not to be offensive most of the time. Sometimes I do get rhetorically aggressive. That is almost always a mistake.

That's all.

(12-20-2016, 01:48 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 10:55 AM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 08:57 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are not obligated to read it, but it's there for those of us who may enjoy the more complete content from something we otherwise may not stumble on.

That's my only point. Forums have a tendency to devolve into echo chambers of agreement or hate fests, and I don't want to participate in either. I post content from the WSJ because it's well-written and interesting and because most people here do not have access to it (because the cost is prohibitive). I post the links because anyone can choose to pay for whatever they want to read. You can decide to buy it or not. I'm just quoting an excerpt that I think conveys the gist of an argument. I highlight the parts that I find most interesting or relevant. I don't see how that could be offensive. I try not to be offensive most of the time. Sometimes I do get rhetorically aggressive. That is almost always a mistake.

That's all.

OMG who said what you post is offensive?   I said what I thought as politely as POSSIBLY I could.


"TV....Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.

Maybe it's just me."
 
Keep posting the way you are I don't really care. I just (silly me) thought you might want to know why I don't respond. If you don't care GREAT. It's just too bad because you are often an exception to the rabid hate filled right wingers who dominate here.
Good fucking Grief Larry says I can't handle big words OL says I'm the forum monitor and Wonky tells you to keep on posting. As if anyone said different. Even though he's the third person who wishes you would explain WTF you are trying to get at.

 I understand your reasoning so don't bother with a response.

(12-20-2016, 02:00 PM)Hugo Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 01:48 PM)tvguy Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 10:55 AM)Big Rock Wrote:

(12-20-2016, 08:57 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: We are not obligated to read it, but it's there for those of us who may enjoy the more complete content from something we otherwise may not stumble on.

That's my only point. Forums have a tendency to devolve into echo chambers of agreement or hate fests, and I don't want to participate in either. I post content from the WSJ because it's well-written and interesting and because most people here do not have access to it (because the cost is prohibitive). I post the links because anyone can choose to pay for whatever they want to read. You can decide to buy it or not. I'm just quoting an excerpt that I think conveys the gist of an argument. I highlight the parts that I find most interesting or relevant. I don't see how that could be offensive. I try not to be offensive most of the time. Sometimes I do get rhetorically aggressive. That is almost always a mistake.

That's all.

OMG who said what you post is offensive?   I said what I thought as politely as POSSIBLY I could.


"TV....Ya Know Big rock, I'm not complaining but your posts typically look like the one above and I don't have the patience to decipher them and figure out what you are getting at.

Maybe it's just me."
 
Keep posting the way you are I don't really care. I just (silly me) thought you might want to know why I don't respond. If you don't care GREAT. It's just too bad because you are often an exception to the rabid hate filled right wingers who dominate here.
Good fucking Grief Larry says I can't handle big words OL says I'm the forum monitor and Wonky tells you to keep on posting. As if anyone said different. Even though he's the third person who wishes you would explain WTF you are trying to get at.

 I understand your reasoning so don't bother with a response.

In regards to MY comment, Jesus Christ man, get a fucking sense of humor.