We have a petition going, and also a "Basket Boycott" where we're encouraging people to fill their baskets and abandon them at Bed Bath & Beyond with a protest note.
www.BasketBoycott.com
FYI, r/conservative peeps shit all over this, saying it was too mean. We disagree ... we HAVE to fight back against this ongoing censorship.
I'm 55, so didn't really understand GG until after it was largely over.
My son took me through the whole censorship crackdown on it. It red-pilled him and really opened my eyes as well.
It's a good question.
By and large they were complete patsies under Obama, with a few exceptions of reporters who chose fame over partisanship.
Probably the same?
People talk about "control" but it really doesn't work that way.
I mean, there is definitely editorial control and guidance involved in any news agency, but it generally goes this way ....
Executives and editors get up in the morning and start consuming their news. In the pre-internet days it came from many fewer sources, but the net obviously broadened that immensely.
If you work in NYC, which a hugely disproportionate number of journalists do, the local media has a HUGE affect on groupthink. The morning tv shows give you cues. Literally walking to work and seeing the Times/Post/Daily News on every street corner affects. And "knowing" you live it the center of the world puts icing on the cake.
At a 24/7 place like Fox, there are editorial meetings, discussions and decisions going nonstop.
I'd have 2x meeting daily with Roger Ailes, the heads of news, programming, internet (me), biz channel, DC bureau, and some non-editorial positions. We talk about the top stories we were working on and sometimes would have changes/guidance/suggestions for one another. Roger would certainly give his insight ... rarely demanding narrow specifics, but "hey, this needs attention" or "everyone's ignoring this angle."
Then, different divisions and shows would have their meetings throughout the day. At the .com, I'd hear about new stories we were working on, how things clicked the day before and give guidance.
The upper management at Fox leaned conservative. Some strongly, some more "east coast soft" conservatives and some liberal. That's really what made us look at the world differently from other outlets, which were all shades of liberalism.
It was pretty clear that if the older more senior guys didn't bring up conservative points, the younger producer/journalist types would parrot what they saw in NY or AP that day, and we'd move left.
Finally, and maybe this has changed, but despite what's usually written about Fox, we weren't out trying to elect certain politicians or push causes, primetime hosts notwithstanding. We were trying to present underreported truths ... and get more viewers and online users. We were a news business.
Anyhow, that's what I saw.
I only had them given to me in PDF format.
So far, the small batch I released are the only group of them. Hopefully they do a dump of many more, but I don't know.
I promoted this on my personal Twitter/Parler pages, so that should help.
And I became an activist when I realized that I needed to do more than simply report, but help build up the conservative media ... seemed more accurate.
I believe Snowden's selective release of documents exposed a government that had lied and gone out-of-control with surveillance. I truly believe the power that gives them is a serious threat to our republic.
Assange I view as a conduit journalist and we need need to protect them or we'll never learn truths. Still, many of the things he released were immoral to do so.
Manning deserved to go to prison. Her (nee his) releasing tens of thousands of random wartime documents went well beyond "whistleblowing" ... it was espionage.
I think it's a symptom of their TDS.
I'll have a McDonald's malt -- chocolate only -- once every few years. My guilt at the calories usually overwhelms my pleasure.
Thanks HD, I appreciate your open mindedness, a rare quality to find online.
I try to separate what I "know" versus what I "believe", but it was bizarre to be in the "nope never heard anyone mentioning CP" and then having that "break" within the hour.
All best --Ken
Sort by best. For some reason, "new" makes 95% of them disappear.
I'm answering everything I know and am asked. Sorry if I don't know every detail you want.
They are.
They have a solid defense, but corporations often bow out of lawsuits for a number of PR reasons.
The Rich family is literally saying Fox intentionally pushed a false story, which is nonsense.
We're firmly shifting to an era of partisan journalism, where each side is spinning their usually-true-by-highlighly-edited facts.
To get the full story these days takes dipping into both camps. It's easier to see the liberal camp, of course, because it completely dominates the media landscape.
Thanks, I hadn't heard of it and will check it out.
I think conservatives have a moral obligation to expand their platform use whenever possible.
Probably "controlled" by reading the NYT and WaPo every day. By hanging out with people who believe & repeat the liberal narrative 24/7.
I mean, my girlfriend's 90-year-old mom says the same stuff ... she's basically controlled/programmed by watching MSNBC all day.
Thanks.
Chris was very biased and I've always knew he came from the left, but you have a nice conversations with a guy throughout the years and he's always been cool on a personal level, it's hard to gin up the "fuck off and kill yourself" anger because he's a lefty swimming in a lefty ocean. At least for me.
That's a fair point and you're right. He should have.
Most people in life, I give a soft pass to when they're repeating lies they hear in press that was relatively trustworthy up until a few years ago.
I literally saw false documents and info being sent into Fox during Seth Rich ... by someone who knew shit, too.
If you want to "discredit" something as a conspiracy, you only need to inject some false info into the story, which always makes me wary of anything I don't see firsthand. Still, you never know.
Fair point.
Technically, most everything is a conspiracy theory until it's proven. Including Burisma.
Also, they often come in through a public-facing email that gets swamped with spam and irrelevant stuff, so they don't monitor it properly.
Really no idea.
Some of the email code-words seemed bizarre, as well as some really weird artwork.
But every time I dug deep I hit more "this isn't true" narratives than things that made me believe it wasn't true.
I also know that every time I write something anti-conspiracy-theory, I never seem to convince someone online of anything except that I'm an obvious idiot.
You think?
The primetime lineup is pretty solid for him. The contributors stack up close to that. The AM three hours is solid pro-Trump.
A few anchor, like Cavuto, don't seem to be in his camp and, for some reason, weekend news programming seems to mirror the liberal narrative.
I still don't know exactly what we're going to see, but did my best to convey what I was told by people who had access to the full drive.
The leaker, John Paul, mentioned dick picks and a 14 minute video of Hunter doing crack and banging a prostitute. No mention of CP, but most of my voice conversations with him were before the NY Post story drop so I didn't specfically ask about child porn. He made no hint of that.
I have a source at the NY Post, which mentioned the niece text, (JP hadn't noticed or mentioned it) and also said nothing about CP type images.
Is it possible that they either didn't notice or decided to stay quiet about something, yes.
Maybe "false flag" went far, but I've seen time and time again that there's a great scoop and someone forces -- either friendly or foe -- crank up the charges beyond facts ... then the media dismisses the whole thing as a "conspiracy.
I've seen false flags -- firsthand -- put into the Seth Rich story by well-connected operatives, so this shit does happen.
We're asking people to be cool to them ... they're not the problem.
And they'll be paid for putting stuff back, so there's that.