Well, you know. "Press" is how old folks refer to "the media". Conrad Black has an article out titled: Election Emerges As Titanic Battle Of Press v. Trump. In it, toward the end, he hits on an issue that's really been bothering me, and should bother all Americans. The press--or media, if you prefer--has a privileged status under current interpretations of the Constitution. That privileged status seems to me to be quite unwarranted, in that the press has show itself to be both biased as well as remarkably uninterested in factual reporting. Their role in electoral politics in so many ways--from fake polling to fake reporting to ignoring of relevant facts--is a scandal that should be readdressed by the SCOTUS. Here's how Black puts it:
This election is the supreme test of whether the electoral process will weigh the merits of the competing candidates, or whether a dishonest press can exploit and abuse the constitutional protections it receives by info-assassinating the incumbent while the challengers skulk about Delaware wearing masks.
This is a decisive election in terms of the legitimacy of its methods and the ability to resist press manipulation. This is even before we get to the determination of important policy matters. The defeat of a rather successful president by an incompetent rival carried to the goal line by corrupt media, would produce the greatest crisis American democracy has faced since the Great Depression and Roosevelt, if not the Civil War and Lincoln. The forces of righteous discernment should be heard from as soon as the public focuses on the election which is normally shortly after Labor Day. What we have now is a dangerous and fraudulent levitation.
"This is a decisive election in terms of the legitimacy of its methods", esp. given the MSM's massive role in covering for the DS/ Dems' ferocious assault on DJT, from no later than right after the 2016 election.ReplyDelete
For a detailed timeline on much of this, see
Wow; this is interesting. Things in here I hadn't heard of before. took me an hour to go over the whole timeline. How factual is all of this?Delete
How factual is all of this?Delete
I can't say that I know, or that it's worth Mark's time to wade thru it.
So, I recommend just using it, as an encyclopedia for refreshing oneself on the basics.
It's lack of links makes it problematic for deeper objectives.
This is perhaps the most comprehensive timeline I've seen. It really WOULD be nice if the author provided links to the information cited. Thanks for sharing it, though. It is encyclopedic. I've bookmarked it.Delete
That timeline starts in 2007, with an entry on how Simpson and his wife (then w/ the WSJ) wrote articles on the Russians and Manifort, etc.ReplyDelete
For other (most less detailed) timelines, seeDelete
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cialWWJ907vV3b9HPS2lhEspZh0WoPHqixUuKed_hFI/edit#gid=125747095 (Chuck Ross),
http://www.bookWormRoom.com/2019/08/15/probable-cause-a-coup-Russiagate/ (Wolf Howling),
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/469504-the-curious-timeline-for-taking-down-trump (Sharyl Attkisson),
(Old folks, indeed!) “Press” (which always referred to newspapers and magazines and those who reporters and journalists who wrote for them) is probably more accurate tha the nondescript “media”. Press. Pressure. Works for me. Newspaper publisher Black uses it advisedly...ReplyDelete
I’m more worried about the Internet Giants.ReplyDelete
What has happened with HCQ has been terrifying.
W/ respect to the election...the "press" may try to manipulate the election in favor of Biden, but US stock markets would appear to have priced in a Trump win.ReplyDelete
Its hard to imagine that the markets would be trading near or above record highs today if a Biden win were considered likely.
Of course, there is always tomorrow.
Seems likely. I've been staying away from the overheated poll-chatter.Delete