General Discussion

Scrivener7

(60,348 posts)

27. Yes, but to what end? What is the advantage to them of making the media too stupid to pay any attention to?

Reply to usonian (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 24, 2026, 01:46 PM

10 hrs ago

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Grey5

41 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I cannot get this NYT article out of my mind. It's everything that's wrong with the media today. [View all] Scrivener7 14 hrs ago OP

I had the same reaction, Scrivener choie 14 hrs ago #1

Excellently phrased!!! n/t returnee 14 hrs ago #2

Thank you! Scrivener7 13 hrs ago #4

They aren't stupid. Wednesdays 13 hrs ago #3

I agree. But I'm beginning to think it is going to backfire on them. They're doing it to Scrivener7 13 hrs ago #5

Media are owned by oligarchs. usonian 13 hrs ago #6

Yes, but to what end? What is the advantage to them of making the media too stupid to pay any attention to? Scrivener7 10 hrs ago #27

I watch ABC Nightly News ( which has lately become the ABC Nightly Weather Channel for some reason) Ray Bruns 13 hrs ago #7

There is a flip side here. Trump is an attention hog. By not talking about him you undermine his relevancy. flashman13 13 hrs ago #10

There's a paradox relogic 12 hrs ago #13

I agree that there is a paradox here, but I think there is a work around. What needs to happen is to focus flashman13 11 hrs ago #23

The solution is to give him the coverage he's earned BaronChocula 11 hrs ago #25

Yes. Why any outlet pays a White House correspondent under this regime is beyond me. Scrivener7 10 hrs ago #28

My husband and I predict the lead story: Tornadoes/weather, airplanes falling out of sky/colliding, shootings, Trump. betsuni 13 hrs ago #11

This is a great headline. I approve of their approach. reACTIONary 13 hrs ago #8

Seriously, I'm asking. Tell me why. Because I just don't understand. Scrivener7 10 hrs ago #29

For several reasons, and with one exception.... reACTIONary 9 hrs ago #30

I hear you. And thank you for taking the time. But I'm still going to disagree. Scrivener7 8 hrs ago #32

Personally, I think investigating the claim is better... reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #33

We disagree, but I do appreciate the conversation. Be well. Scrivener7 7 hrs ago #35

You also!!! reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #36

Because it's made you forget about Epstein questionseverything 6 hrs ago #37

Not me! Scrivener7 5 hrs ago #38

Well yes, they DO know, but they keep dancing around it FakeNoose 13 hrs ago #9

The media dance the bumbling two-step as well as trump. erronis 12 hrs ago #12

One could argue that the NYT is already useless and basically preaching to the choir. maxsolomon 12 hrs ago #14

Seriously.......... popsdenver 12 hrs ago #15

You.. homegirl 11 hrs ago #17

(NOT!)newsmax is even more propaganda driven than fuxnews. yellow dahlia 11 hrs ago #18

Sorry, but people vastly overestimate the number of people who watch Fox News Wiz Imp 11 hrs ago #22

Thanks! Those are interesting numbers! reACTIONary 7 hrs ago #34

"which went into his cronies' pockets,"...And most probably into his, or his family's pockets. Escurumbele 11 hrs ago #16

The tragedy that people need to understand is the fact that to cover his grift and stupity, Escurumbele 11 hrs ago #19

Right! Raise doubts? yellow dahlia 11 hrs ago #20

Every night from 1979 to 1981 BidenRocks 11 hrs ago #21

They're smart people. They know what they're doing. Politicub 11 hrs ago #24

;-{) THIS Goonch 11 hrs ago #26

Now they cater to the few Magats reading their crap mdbl 8 hrs ago #31

They probably couldn't afford to send a real reporter so they paid Maggie to write something that would not cause Trump 3Hotdogs 5 hrs ago #39

"Being useless" is, in fact, useful to some. hay rick 3 hrs ago #40

So your problem is evidence? iemanja 1 hr ago #41