Senate Republicans protect threats of violence under the disgust of protecting the 1st amendment. 1A does not protect against threats or violence. Garland, under GOP attack, defends memo on violent threats against school board officials - ABC News A Senate hearing grew heated on Wednesday as Republicans repeatedly demanded Attorney General Merrick Garland retract and apologize for a memo he issued earlier this month aimed at addressing a rise in threats against school board officials around the country. "I wish if senators were concerned about this that they would quote my words," Garland responded. "This memorandum is not about parents being able to object in their school boards. They are protected by the First Amendment as long as there are no threats of violence, they are completely protected."
Wait, aren't they now calling MSMs darling Fauci a liar? Isn't China gearing up over MSMs lies? Aren't people marching and protesting in the streets all over the world because of MSMs mandate agenda? I don't see anyone in the streets protesting any of the alternate news sources.
You must have missed this.. "A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit against Fox News after lawyers for the network argued that no "reasonable viewer" takes the primetime host Tucker Carlson seriously..." In a court of law, the Fox lawyers argued that no reasonable viewer takes Carlson seriously. Let that sink in.
So MSM has an agenda but it isn't what you seem to believe. 1. They want clicks, ratings, viewers so they can make money. 2. They don't want to be left out of reporting a big story 3. They want to be the first or exclusive reporters of a big story 4. They want to be recognized for and have all of the above earn them more of #1. They won't cover or will minimize certain angles if they fear they it will hamper any of the above. They won't go very in depth on stories because the general audience doesn't have the attention span. They make mistakes, most often because they are more concerned with #s 2 and 3 than being accurate. Different MSM outlets have different strategies to help them achieve these goals. Sometimes those are trying to appeal to a political ideology of an audience. What they don't do are sit in meetings with all of the other MSM outlets and decide on an agenda and how they can spread it. That doesn't happen. People aren't in the streets marching in protest over MSM. That isn't happening hardly anywhere. People are in the streets marching to protest things they are unhappy about with their government, laws, votes, etc. They aren't protesting the news coverage in large numbers anywhere in the world including the United States. Nobody is protesting alternative sources for news or sources that aren't news, like Project Veritas because their viewership is so small in comparison. All but a very few people don't take Veritas seriously. Of those that do, many change their minds about them after doing a minimal amount of research. Also most protests aren't over media coverage period. But when you try and make a point and you use a source like Veritas to try and make that point, people won't take it seriously. And that is the correct thing to do because the fact that it's Veritas, precludes it from being reliable in any way. Far different than when MSM media makes mistakes, hypes certain things, and doesn't cover other things.
Man, you are one naive dude. If you think the MSM is not lying to you on purpose and they don’t have a clear agenda to do so, then God bless your heart. Why do you think most Americans simply do not trust the MSM anymore?
But why is MSM more reliable than the alternative news sources? Is it because we have been told so or is there actual proof? MSM has been caught lying many times in the past. Why would this be any different? Where there is smoke there is always fire. Always.
Why can’t the liberals in here at least admit it that there is some monkey business going on with the MSM? Instead they’re just attacking the source or dismissing it all together. Why and why?
My guess is for them to finally admit that something is wrong would also mean that they would have to rethink everything about this fantasy that we have been living in. They would have to do what many Americans have feared for so long. Face the truth.
If you all have noticed, every time they look and see that vaccination numbers are down, a brand new, shiny variant comes out. It never fails. Also, when certain leaders don't go with the program all of a sudden their state or country ends up having the most Covid cases. They tried that with Greg Abbott and Texas, but my man shut that nonsense down. They have a pattern that they follow.
Who is 'they'? And am I correct in saying that your theory in this post is that 'they' are creating variants and spreading those variants in a strategic manner?
"They" are the ones who are keeping these lies going. MSM, government, etc. The variants are fake. There is no variant(s). They still haven't purified and isolated an actual virus to show anything. All we have to go by are their lies.
There are plenty of alternatives that have various amounts of reliability. It has been proven that Veritas doctors their footage. They won't release the source unedited tapes. MSM will release their unedited source material for people to check. Thus outlets that will do that are more reliable than outlets that won't. It isn't that hard to weigh which is more reliable. It isn't because we have been told so. It is definitely because it has been proven.
As someone who's worked both in MSM and Alternative News Sources (and voted for every Republican Presidential candidate until Trump), I can assure you that MSM is often much more reliable because they have a much larger system of checks and balances, whereas alternative news sources often do not have any checks and balances. Will MSM have biases? You bet, but if they try to straight-out lie, they will get called out for it quickly not only in public, but in their own newsrooms. I still have friends in front of and behind the cameras across the country and yes, some are liberal, some are conservative, and some are moderate.
I have asked for a source from you to show stories on the vast number of people suffering death or serious side effects from the vaccine. I'm willing to investigate these alternative news sites outside the MSM, but you refuse to provide a link to these sites that you use to uncover this info. Why is that?
