GOP extortion now?

The media should restrict it's involvement in politics to objective/impartial reporting and/or debates. Not glamorizing or glorifying any politician or party.

You sound like the Australian politician currently complaining about the "mainstream" media..... where the owners of Fox own 70% of the countries newspapers.

So Wolferz why exactly should the Republicans treat these organizations like legitimate media?

Maybe they shouldn't, if you agree to that the Ds should treat Faux news as a team R propaganda outlet instead of an organ of legitimate media too.
After all whats good for the goose is good for the gander if you are going to be fair and balanced.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You sound like the Australian politician currently complaining about the "mainstream" media..... where the owners of Fox own 70% of the countries newspapers.

Fox own 70% of Australia's newspapers? I didn't know that, but what does that have to do with objective/impartial reporting of politics in the USA?

After all whats good for the goose is good for the gander if you are going to be fair and balanced.

Absolutely.

[Wolferz]

I don't really care what the GOP moroffs do. Though I will congratulate them if they can finally manage to graduate to moron. Maybe then they'll get out of the business of playing the poor spoiled little rich guys.

Don't get me wrong, I don't favor either party because they both have selfish agendas that fail to coincide with reality and are most likely in collusion with each other on just about everything.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere and applying all the wrong remedies." ~Groucho Marx

Fox own 70% of Australia's newspapers? I didn't know that, but what does that have to do with objective/impartial reporting of politics in the USA?

Because its a global issue.
You made a comment which happens to mirror a daily moan delivered by the talking heads on Fox about US "mainstream" media(even though it is mainstream itself).
A look at other English speaking places where Newscorp has a longer establishment brings balance and shows that the complaint is pretty hollow whichever side of the fence it comes from.
The media is a mouthpiece of its owners and editors and will always slant to its owners views.
There is no way round it other than government censorship or banning privately owned media.
Neither of those options is in any way desirable.
Since the alternatives are distasteful in comparison with the current model it means it is just something we have to put up with.

[WernherVonTrapp]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Because its a global issue.
You made a comment which happens to mirror a daily moan delivered by the talking heads on Fox about US "mainstream" media(even though it is mainstream itself).
A look at other English speaking places where Newscorp has a longer establishment brings balance and shows that the complaint is pretty hollow whichever side of the fence it comes from.
The media is a mouthpiece of its owners and editors and will always slant to its owners views.
There is no way round it other than government censorship or banning privately owned media.
Neither of those options is in any way desirable.
Since the alternatives are distasteful in comparison with the current model it means it is just something we have to put up with.

I agree with your view on every point and understood these with my original post (except the Fox bit). I was merely making a suggestion in response to Wolferz question concerning the GOP of the U.S.. Even if a News/Media entity chooses which side to pander to, it still doesn't change the fact that it then becomes propaganda. Maybe there isn't anything anyone can do about it, but I'm not registered to vote on global issues, only U.S. ones.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by WernherVonTrapp

Maybe it's; when the media starts courting one political party (and consequently it's ideals) over the other, especially involving a potential presidential candidate, it serves as an example for the definition of "propaganda".

Noun: propaganda
1. Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Noun: propagandist
1. A person who disseminates messages calculated to assist some cause or some government

Adjective:propagandist
1. Of or relating to or characterized by propaganda

The media should restrict it's involvement in politics to objective/impartial reporting and/or debates. Not glamorizing or glorifying any politician or party.

Originally Posted by August

I don't see how NBC or CNN can be considered as anything besides propaganda outlets for the Democrats. These two pieces on Hillary are clearly designed to enhance her image going into the next presidential election.

So Wolferz why exactly should the Republicans treat these organizations like legitimate media?

I think this is probably the crux of the issue. I never read/watch NBC, but I have been reading and watching CNN for years. It's not until you start looking at more right winged news outlets like foxnews does one realize just how slanted CNN really is, because then you have the polar opposite as a point of comparison. What they both report, how they report it, and the choice of words both use is very telling to anyone with good grasp of the English language. CNN may appear not to be biased, but in reality they are as biased as foxnews. Watch them closely and i'm sure you'll see it.

I also think this bit of news further illustrates the ongoing division in the country.