More than 100 newspapers will publish editorials decrying Trump's anti-press rhetoric
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"The dirty war on the free press must end."
That's the idea behind an unusual editorial-writing initiative that has enlisted scores of newspapers across America.
The Boston Globe has been contacting newspaper editorial boards and proposing a "coordinated response" to President Trump's escalating "enemy of the people" rhetoric.
"We propose to publish an editorial on August 16 on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press and ask others to commit to publishing their own editorials on the same date," The Globe said in its pitch to fellow papers.
The effort began just a few days ago.
As of Saturday, "we have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days," Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe's deputy editorial page editor, told CNN.
The American Society of News Editors, the New England Newspaper and Press Association and other groups have helped her spread the word.
"The response has been overwhelming," Pritchard said. "We have some big newspapers, but the majority are from smaller markets, all enthusiastic about standing up to Trump's assault on journalism."
Instead of printing the exact same message, each publication will write its own editorial, Pritchard said.
That was a key part of her pitch: "The impact of Trump's assault on journalism looks different in Boise than it does in Boston," she wrote. "Our words will differ. But at least we can agree that such attacks are alarming."
Journalists have noticed an uptick in Trump's attacks against the news media in recent weeks. He has been using dehumanizing language like "enemy of the people" more often. He has also been speaking to reporters less often, limiting the chances for questions to be asked.
With Trump's words and deeds as the backdrop, some media critics have urged the White House press corps to engage in acts of solidarity. There were cheers last month when reporters in the briefing room deferred to rivals who were trying to ask follow-up questions, and when numerous outlets stood up for CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins after Collins was told she could not attend a Trump event.
The coordinated editorials may be another example of unity across the news business.
Although there's a longstanding debate about the effectiveness of newspaper editorials, there is certainly strength in numbers -- the greater the number of participants, the more readers will see the message.
Pritchard said she expects differing views from the editorials, "but the same sentiment: The importance of a free and independent press."
Tags
Who is online
637 visitors
How 'bout "The Dirty War on America by the press needs to stop" - yup - much better.
When did the "press" become a bunch of whiny snowflakes?
around midnight on nov 8th, 2016 and it was epic
They have always been genrally lazy with a few exceptions, now they are getitng called out for going with the flow instead of being journalists......and they don't much like it. They don't mind teloling everyone else what is wrong with them, they don't like being told the same.
It's called freedom of the press. The 4th estate. It's been part of America since the beginning.
Most all political articles are and have been opinion. That is nothing new.
The free press ended nearly 50 years ago. It’s been primarily the propaganda arm of the Democrats and socialism since then.
and this has been my view of the media since the end of the 60s so it has nothing to do with Trump
Your opinion and nothing more.
Again, your opinion. I don't believe that I said anything about Trump, I don't know why your bringing this up on my comment.
How did the freedom of the press die in the late 1960s?
The press is more conservative now than it has ever been because of corporate control of the media and yet you somehow claim that it is more liberal.
'Socialism' is running the press in the USA??? The USA's economic system has ceased to be based on capitalism (minority control over the nation's productive resources) and is now based on socialism (decentralized control by the people over the nation's productive resources)?? And since the 60's??
Better let the major media corporations know that they are wasting their lobbying funds since they really are not in plutocratic control after all but rather control lies with the people of the USA.
Quite true.
Fully agree. Any ideas on how that might happen?
Nonsense the presses overwhelmingly leftist. Polls and surveys have repeatedly shown more than 90% bote Democrat.
name a single conservative anywhere other than Fox on television
name a conservative newspaper other than The Orange County Register and the Chicago Tribune. Even the Wall Street Journal has a number of leftists now
I think the root cause is an apathetic and ill-informed electorate. People know very little about what is really going on and largely vote based on name recognition and/or other largely superficial factors (e.g. liking one thing the candidate said in an ad - single issue voter).
Beyond the lack of quality information (and understanding) our electorate is simply not engaged in the process. Maybe we think our votes do not matter, maybe it is too inconvenient to treat one's vote as special. Whatever the reason, the electorate is largely a mass of easily manipulated voters ... no wonder the USA wastes obscene amounts of money on political ads.
The problem in debate today is that so many are like you, little knowledge about what socialists declare about their ideology. I’ll let the Socialist International which is the controlling organization for world socialism speak to your faulty understanding
Socialist International
59. Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.
60. The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:
- democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;
- worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;
- self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;
- public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;
- democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;
- international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.
61. There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.
Did you (or Dean) actually read what you just quoted?
By read I mean genuinely make an attempt to objectively understand what they are describing.
Yes, did you?
Is that all you have to offer? You put forth an excerpt on Democratic Socialism which clearly depicts objectives at odds with the authoritarian, command economy, redistribution of wealth, etc. labels and somehow you think this advances your position.
As with Marx, you seem to read only what you wish and ignore the rest. One can 'study' for 6 decades using such an approach and never really learn much of anything.
Just take the notion of democratic control (by the people, not by a minority) of the productive resources of a nation and then, armed with that notion, see if you can see how the words in your quote correlate with that philosophy.
By the way, I am not suggesting you should accept Democrat Socialism or that it is even correct. My objective is to encourage people to intellectually get beyond simplistic slogans and labels and try to understand this complex subject area rather than blindly make cartoonish boogie-man comments.
Who are these supposed liberal news sources? BBC, NPR, UPI, and AP are centrist at best and NPR can be quite conservative on political issues. American broadcast news is center right because of the corporate ownership viewpoint.
Somehow you have been convinced that Fox News is centrist so anyone who disagrees with Fox is rabidly leftist.
so... let me get this straight. only the fourth estate gets to have an opinion? (rhetorical, for obvious reasons)
the press is free to say whatever they like and "anyone" is free to call bs on their lies. and to be hinest trump has not said anything about the press we did not already know for about 20yrs. trump is just the first president to call them out on it.
when trump tries to shut down cnn?? please let us know
I didn't say or insinuate anything of the sort...Don't be making stuff up.
He's going to try to shut down cnn...LOL, where did you get that from, it sure wasn't in anything that I posted...
Cheers and you better have more coffee.
I said "when" implying if he ever did? that would indeed be an attack on the press.
I never said he "was" going to do anything.
deleted
I simply copied your word/comment and asked a question of you...LOL, actually english is one of four languages that I speak...You should try to make a comment without trying to insult if that's possible for you.
Cheers and try more coffee and dancing lessons.
Let's see... There's the courts who most certainly get to have an opinion. There's Trump who has no problem tweeting his opinion all over the world. There's Congress who seems too afraid of the President and his minions to have an opinion so it seems Trump has effectively squashed any dissent from Congressional Republicans and now seeks to squash the press. The press is not, nor should be, a rubber stamp for this or any other President.
"If english isn't your first language"?????
Watch your step - CoC violation there - plus a personal offense.
Obviously you never learned Chippewa or Ojibwe have you - you know, some of those ORIGINAL first languages in the U. S., eh?
Where did you get the idea English is the only complicated language in life?
That is like folks who claim some IQ disparity among anyone who disagrees.
They always throw out some score less than MENSA.
The Trump administration, and it's surrogates mouthpieces and handlers, are engaged in a non stop propaganda campaign to claim Trump is the victim. Nothing has ever been more absurd.
The truth is that the media has been far too easy on Trump. This is a man who has NEVER , not even once, been required to prove and demonstrate to the American people that he has the knowledge of the issues required to lead the United States. He has never sat for a tough interview. Never.
The media has been "tough" on him? Uh, no.
John - on my threads, please stay on topic. The topic deals with the newspapers amassing - not Trump.
Stay on topic.
the moderator can decide if my comment is off topic. i don't think it is.
So, as the author of the seed/thread/article, such as yourself on many, many, many daily seeds/threads/articles, I can't state that you're not on topic????
Interesting how you can and others can't, eh?
Trump's unprecedented assault upon the American free press must be met with fierce and coordinated resistance...
Or not.
Truth hurts, eh?
The topic is the newspapers - not Trump.
Stay on topic.
Trump has Sinclair waiting in the wings. The assault on free press and free speech will be waged in the dank halls of wealth.
This is why Citizens United is so important to so few.
The Constitution be damned. Birtherism and puffy grabbing is the new order. It must be protected at all cost.
Good luck with that! Sinclair just got busted trying to pull a fast one on the government. The FCC has in it's options to actually pull Sinclair's license. It's that big of a deal.
deleted
Tribune sued Sinclair for $1 billion and pulled out of the deal. Sinclair is in hot water over this deal.
deleted
I predicted on another site after the Trump won the GOP nomination that if elected president.....he would lose his business empire, every tangible asset, his family, his country and his freedom. In other words, Trump will become America's Roland Freisler.
deleted
You keep sticking to your predictions which all get proven wrong.
If the Democrats continue their push for the final assault on capitalism, they will lose in a landslide
After the war, the remaining members of the Freisler family changed their names--completely dissociating from that past.
Freisler was killed in the same courtroom he prosecuted the Hitler assassination conspirators by an allied bomb dropped from a B-24 Liberator on Feb 3, 1945. A fitting end for the Nazi.
Capitalism is dead. Murdered by Supply Side Economics.
"SHAME"...
Nonsense. Unfortunately We haven’t had capitalism for over 100 years
What economic system have we had?
I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion of either semantics or economics but at least since I was taking political science courses over forty years ago the consensus has been that ours is a Mixed Market Economy or just a Mixed Economy.
"If men were angels we wouldn't need governance. Men aren't angels". Anarchy isn't a viable form of government.
I agree that ours is a mixed economy based on capitalism . We have a weak social democracy (capitalism).
My question was not really a request for information but rather a challenge to livefreeordie who claimed:
Crony Capitalism which is Marxist fascist control of the economy
“Crony Capitalism” is Fascism
America formally abandoned capitalism with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. Since that time, businessmen have increasingly used political connections to achieve their business ends. Whether they are lobbying for tougher standards on light bulbs (GE), or using eminent domain to seize private property (Donald Trump), or requesting subsidies for wind farms (T. Boone Pickens), they seek to use the power of government to squelch competitors, artificially inflate prices, or gain some other advantage. Unable to convince consumers and competitors to act voluntarily, they resort to government force.
The proper name for such a system is fascism. In a fascist system, property is privately “owned,” but its use is dictated and controlled by government officials. Consider the mountains of regulations that govern and control virtually every industry, from the financial sector to health care, from food to broadcasting, from land development to manufacturing. Consider the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies: OSHA, EPA, SEC, FAA, FTC, FDA, and more. Virtually no activity escapes the control and regulation of some government agency.
When government officials have such immense powers, individuals and businesses seek to influence the use of that power. They make campaign donations, offer investment opportunities, and provide other perks to politicians. In exchange, Congressmen use their political power to benefit their cronies. What cannot be achieved in a boardroom is achieved in a Congressional hearing room. This is not capitalism.”
Crony capitalism is still capitalism.
And there is no such thing as 'Marxist fascist' ....
Do you truly not understand that Marx and Engels popularized the word 'capitalism'? Marx used the word 'capitalism' to give a name to that which he believed was wreaking havoc with the working class. Marx, if anything, was an anti-capitalist. Equating crony capitalism with 'Marxist' anything is absurd.
Of course fascism is Marxist. Revision is historians should be hung for the way they rewrote history after WWII
For Mussolini, 19th century socialism was obsolete and to be superseded by state collectivism which compares a lot to Lenin's Democratic Centralized Collectivism
...given that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
Fascism has always been a leftist ideology. Fascists separated themselves from the Communists over Statism.
Marx wrote that socialism should be the transition from capitalism to communism. Communism is ultimately according to marx a form of anarchy (absence of government) where the workers are an entity unto themselves and no government is needed.
The Fascists agreed with much of Marx's views on socialism but being Statists, believed that they could instead control capitalism to support a dominant central government that redistributed the wealth which in turn would continue to give them the populist support to rule.
Fascism and the American Left
In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto ). [68] The Manifesto was presented on June 6, 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia . The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded [69] ); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate . [70] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage , worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[ who? ] profits. [71] It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry, and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive. [72]
Socialism and Fascism: A Political-Economic Spectrum Analysis | Walter Block
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
Stalinism was Fascism, not Communism
Hitler himself on the matter:
"There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
Ref. from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks , London, T. Butterworth, 1940
Mussolini wrote: "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual."
Goebbels on Nazism =Socialism
We are socialists because we see in socialism , that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and regaining German freedom. Socialism, therefore, is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total fighting brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the fatherland!
The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism’s nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach , putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive
FDRs love of Fascism
In the North American Review in 1934, the progressive writer Roger Shaw described the New Deal as “Fascist means to gain liberal ends.” He wasn’t hallucinating. FDR’s adviser Rexford Tugwell wrote in his diary that Mussolini had done “many of the things which seem to me necessary.” Lorena Hickok, a close confidante of Eleanor Roosevelt who lived in the White House for a spell, wrote approvingly of a local official who had said, “If [President] Roosevelt were actually a dictator, we might get somewhere.” She added that if she were younger, she’d like to lead “the Fascist Movement in the United States.” At the National Recovery Administration (NRA), the cartel-creating agency at the heart of the early New Deal, one report declared forthrightly, “The Fascist Principles are very similar to those we have been evolving here in America.”
Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter , repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
. In 1935 former President Herbert Hoover was using phrases like “Fascist regimentation” in discussing the New Deal. A decade later, he wrote in his memoirs that “the New Deal introduced to Americans the spectacle of Fascist dictation to business, labor and agriculture,” and that measures such as the Agricultural Adjustment Act, “in their consequences of control of products and markets, set up an uncanny Americanized parallel with the agricultural regime of Mussolini and Hitler.” In 1944, in The Road to Serfdom , the economist F.A. Hayek warned that economic planning could lead to totalitarianism. He cautioned Americans and Britons not to think that there was something uniquely evil about the German soul. National Socialism, he said, drew on collectivist ideas that had permeated the Western world for a generation or more.
In 1973 one of the most distinguished American historians, John A. Garraty of Columbia University, created a stir with his article “The New Deal, National Socialism, and the Great Depression.” Garraty was an admirer of Roosevelt but couldn’t help noticing, for instance, the parallels between the Civilian Conservation Corps and similar programs in Germany.”
Chomsky on America's Ugly History: FDR Was Fascist-Friendly Before WWII
George Kennan, later famous as one of the architects of post-war policy, was actually the American Council in Berlin up until Pearl Harbor. He was sending back reports which are public, which were qualified. He said we shouldn't be too harsh in condemning the Nazis since a lot of what they are doing is kind of understandable and we could get along with them and so on and this is one strain and a major one. But there was also plenty of criticism and condemnation. But the general attitudes were fairly mixed.
At the Munich Conference late 1938, Roosevelt sent his most trusted adviser, Sumner Wells, to Munich and Wells came back with a pretty positive report saying we can really work with Hitler, this conference opens the possibility of a period of peace and justice for Europe and we should work out ways to interact and deal with him. That was late 1938! And so it was quite a mixed story.
Kennan was one of the founders of the deep state
Of course! Everything is Marxist!
A fine definition of Fascism. Mussolini implemented Fascism - not Socialism. You claim to have studied Marx yet you somehow manage to think that Marx was in favor of an authoritarian state that held the control rather than the people holding the control. It is a staggering misread on your part - as if you did not understand even the most basic principles held by Marx and Engels.
Correct.
It is not anarchy, it is a stateless society. Basically this is Marx tossing out a utopia without really defining it. He was saying that eventually society will be able to produce all that is required to sustain comfortable life for all citizens and the need for a state will fade away. But I will go ahead and say that you are mostly correct here too.
The Fascists had no interest whatsoever in what Marx actually proposed. They sought authoritarian control over everything. Now you have returned to cartoon land.
Stalinism certainly was closer to Fascism than it was to Communism (as Marx defined the term). Stalinism is the polar opposite of Marx' Communism.
You are quoting the Nazi propaganda minister.
The Nazis (as I have noted earlier) claimed to be 'socialists' and even incorporated the term in their name. But it was purely propaganda. Obvious for anyone who understands what the terms Fascism and Socialism actually mean.
Now you claim FDR was an aficionado of Fascism?? FDR was definitely a statist (by deed) but painting him as a budding fascist is going off the deep end. Are you of the opinion that FDR was assuming authoritarian / dictatorial rule, rule by force / oppression of the people, control over the productive forces of the economy, etc.? Is so I suggest your views might just be a tad extreme (and entirely out of touch with history).
Do you see socialists under the bed and hiding behind the doors?
I sure am glad you don't wanna get bogged down talking about something that is not the topic of this thread.
Get back on topic.
The reach of The Deceiver is long. His Shadow is longer. Deceit and deception are his weapons. Without those willing to wield those weapons for Him--He is weak/powerless.
You seem to know him quite well. But as for me and my House, we will serve the Lord
Literally their own complaint is that the president unfairly criticizes them.
I sympathize a little, but that's hardly an assault on the 1st Amendment. The president has as much right to speak up and complain about the news media as anyone else. They are not immune from criticism whether its fair or unfair.
And these whiny liberal journalists didn't have a word to say during the 8 years Obama was critical of right-leaning news media. FoxNews complained, of course, but they are so vastly outnumbered by leftist media that many people were never made aware of it.
Here's a clip of Obama criticizing FoxNews and then saying :
I've heard Trump be very critical of the press - certainly much more than Obama - but I don't think I have heard him say something that sounds like a plan to actually change how the media reports a story. Though it sounds ominous, I doubt Obama intended to march into FoxNews with the Marines and rewrite the news.
Here are more clips of Obama criticizing the media .
Every day, members of the news media tell stories they think are important and not what politicians think are important. They also report stories with a narrative, emphasis, or facts that politicians disagree with. Twas ever thus and will continue to be. Sometimes elected officials complain a lot, others not at all. But the media is not due some kind of special shielding from criticism just because they decide it's unfair.
Presidential Feuds With the Media Are Nothing New
Have a look at this quote:
Ya know who wrote that? Thomas Jefferson.
We should thank the press for trying to keep politicians Honest (some anyways) ... however when they no longer can report unbiased then the press should thank the people for trying to keep them honest.
Are journalists and other press people not allowed to have opinions ?
these are editorials they are publishing ... which by definition are... ready ? .... opinions ! ... but this isn't allowed anymore ? Trump is certainly allowed his opinion.. and they are allowed to respond in kind, right ? (and vice versa obviously)
Ask Alex Jones it appears there is an attack on editorial freedom these days.
Did Alex Jones post his "editorial" in a newspaper or on Facebook (which is completely different) ? I thought we were discussing newspapers as per the seeded article, right ?
I think you would have a hard time finding a newspaper that would publish his editorials.
yes, i can agree to that.
When was he arrested?
I'd ask the companies that stopped broadcasting him why. I suspect it was over financial reasons involving viewership concerns. Follow the money.
...................
In other words perhaps the general public isn't interested in buying Mr Jones BS any more.
Obviously you've never heard of "InfoWars" have you? Yup - a newspaper to some.
oh i've heard of them - i guess i never got a subscription to their daily/weekly/monthly physical newspaper like i've known people to do with New York Times or Boston Globe etc. Did you ever subscribe to their physical newspaper ?
Not since the internet
understand. I haven't seen anything about subscribing to InfoWars physical newspaper , i've seen Boston Globe and New York Times :
can you share the link providing InfoWars physical newspaper subscription ?
i appreciate the effort but you failed to provide what i asked for:
you provided a link to sign up for an email newsletter - completely different than a physical newspaper . Now, can you share a link providing InfoWars physical newspaper subscription or is InfoWars not really a newspaper ?
According to it's website, it is not a newspaper - just a newsletter and talks show with tons and tons of merchandise.
and i agree - which means they are not subject to the seeded article since it specifically states - newspapers , correct ? i appreciate your honesty
( i just was discussing the topic and sticking to what the seeded article stated )
I saw something about the press being accused by the President of publishing not actual news and doing coordinated attacks on his presidency.......they got so upset that they are coordinating attacks on his presidency through the editorial/opinion pages.
For Phoenix13, the problem is that the press is not really reporting the facts, they are cherry picking which facts to report and throwing in their opinion. That is editorial, not news reporting. Since when did we need to be guided in what to think by the press?
ok i understand that.. but the seeded article states:
so they are talking about... editorials... right ? not news reporting - but editorials... right ? this whole article is about... editorials, right ? and editorials... are ... opinions, right ?
It's really pretty funny.
"Although there's a longstanding debate about the effectiveness of newspaper editorials, there is certainly strength in numbers -- the greater the number of participants, the more readers will see the message."
Readers have ALREADY seen the messages.
That's part and parcel why Trump was elected in the first place.
Oh the irony!
/
So they published hundreds of editorials on Trump and ignore ANTIFA attacking them, trying to take their equipment, and verbally abusing them. It is insulting how stupid they think people are.
Let's see what the Editorials look like on the 16th.
I already know what they look like. They look like the Democrat Party.