General Discussion

iemanja

(57,811 posts)

41. So your problem is evidence?

Reply to Scrivener7 (Original post)

Wed Jun 24, 2026, 11:31 PM

2 hrs ago

What you want appears on an opinion page.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

42 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 15 hrs ago OP

I had the same reaction, Scrivener choie 15 hrs ago #1

Excellently phrased!!! n/t returnee 15 hrs ago #2

Thank you! Scrivener7 15 hrs ago #4

They aren't stupid. Wednesdays 15 hrs ago #3

I agree. But I'm beginning to think it is going to backfire on them. They're doing it to Scrivener7 15 hrs ago #5

Media are owned by oligarchs. usonian 14 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 12 hrs ago #27

I watch ABC Nightly News ( which has lately become the ABC Nightly Weather Channel for some reason) Ray Bruns 14 hrs ago #7

There is a flip side here. Trump is an attention hog. By not talking about him you undermine his relevancy. flashman13 14 hrs ago #10

There's a paradox relogic 14 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 13 hrs ago #23

The solution is to give him the coverage he's earned BaronChocula 12 hrs ago #25

Yes. Why any outlet pays a White House correspondent under this regime is beyond me. Scrivener7 12 hrs ago #28

My husband and I predict the lead story: Tornadoes/weather, airplanes falling out of sky/colliding, shootings, Trump. betsuni 14 hrs ago #11

This is a great headline. I approve of their approach. reACTIONary 14 hrs ago #8

Seriously, I'm asking. Tell me why. Because I just don't understand. Scrivener7 12 hrs ago #29

For several reasons, and with one exception.... reACTIONary 10 hrs ago #30

I hear you. And thank you for taking the time. But I'm still going to disagree. Scrivener7 9 hrs ago #32

Personally, I think investigating the claim is better... reACTIONary 8 hrs ago #33

We disagree, but I do appreciate the conversation. Be well. Scrivener7 8 hrs ago #35

You also!!! reACTIONary 8 hrs ago #36

Because it's made you forget about Epstein questionseverything 7 hrs ago #37

Not me! Scrivener7 7 hrs ago #38

Well yes, they DO know, but they keep dancing around it FakeNoose 14 hrs ago #9

The media dance the bumbling two-step as well as trump. erronis 14 hrs ago #12

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

Seriously.......... popsdenver 13 hrs ago #15

You.. homegirl 13 hrs ago #17

(NOT!)newsmax is even more propaganda driven than fuxnews. yellow dahlia 13 hrs ago #18

Sorry, but people vastly overestimate the number of people who watch Fox News Wiz Imp 13 hrs ago #22

Thanks! Those are interesting numbers! reACTIONary 8 hrs ago #34

"which went into his cronies' pockets,"...And most probably into his, or his family's pockets. Escurumbele 13 hrs ago #16

The tragedy that people need to understand is the fact that to cover his grift and stupity, Escurumbele 13 hrs ago #19

Right! Raise doubts? yellow dahlia 13 hrs ago #20

Every night from 1979 to 1981 BidenRocks 13 hrs ago #21

They're smart people. They know what they're doing. Politicub 13 hrs ago #24

;-{) THIS Goonch 12 hrs ago #26

Now they cater to the few Magats reading their crap mdbl 9 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 6 hrs ago #39

"Being useless" is, in fact, useful to some. hay rick 4 hrs ago #40

So your problem is evidence? iemanja 2 hrs ago #41

For many years, I used to believe that journalism should present facts and let the reader decide. SouthBayDem 39 min ago #42