Multiple local news stations say the same thing verbatim
People who liked this video also liked
Comments
7 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.


2. krazeeeyez commented 4 years ago
#1. Something tells me "Sinclair Broadcast Group" may well be.. Extremely Dangerous to our Democracy!


3. RobertTusk commented 4 years ago
US journalism was already in poor shape after Reagan.
Clinton's 1996 telecommunications act finished it off.
US media was sold to corporations.
6 corporations now own most of the media so the agenda is not journalism but profit - by any means necessary.
That is why the US general population is pretty clueless about what s going on.
Clinton's 1996 telecommunications act finished it off.
US media was sold to corporations.
6 corporations now own most of the media so the agenda is not journalism but profit - by any means necessary.
That is why the US general population is pretty clueless about what s going on.


4. snotraddict commented 4 years ago
#3 is it profit driven or agenda driven when the majority of political donations from media is given to Democrat candidates?


5. trancetunes (moderator) commented 4 years ago
#4 yet another moron living in a small bubble of democrat republican political spectrum...lol...i highly doubt #1, #2, or #3 care for either party if they are even from the united states.
Both of those parties are full of right wing sociopaths..
Both of those parties are full of right wing sociopaths..


6. thundersnow commented 4 years ago
#4 You taking over for sux, bashing Democrats..lol


7. snotraddict commented 4 years ago
#5 and #6, it's actually a serious question with actual facts. You can bash me personally all you want, I can take it, but for actual dialogue among adults, I am curious.
Sure, "news" is for profit but when everyone is in lock-step, what is the underlying motive? Is there one, or is it pure laziness?
I'm not sure.
But you have to admit that if the media that so many people get their info from (and their opinions); would it be a healthy relationship that it seems to side mostly with one party when they're supposed to be neutral?
#6 "taking over for sux", did sux go somewhere? Admittedly I do like to poke the cat once in a while with regards to Democrats
, but know that my personal feeling is both parties are abhorrent and I hate politicians pretty much across the board.
#5 specifically, nope the same moron you've called out before.
As a moderator on a site that's barely hanging in there, you may want to read carefully (I didn't mention 1 or 2) and maybe grow some skin. Bashing your viewers personally (which you seem to do often ) may not be the best strategy for the longevity of the site. By definition a moderator does preside over, but the root word, moderate is defined as: "make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent."
Perhaps chill a little and enjoy the show. We can disagree and be respectful.
Sure, "news" is for profit but when everyone is in lock-step, what is the underlying motive? Is there one, or is it pure laziness?
I'm not sure.
But you have to admit that if the media that so many people get their info from (and their opinions); would it be a healthy relationship that it seems to side mostly with one party when they're supposed to be neutral?
#6 "taking over for sux", did sux go somewhere? Admittedly I do like to poke the cat once in a while with regards to Democrats

#5 specifically, nope the same moron you've called out before.



+4 1. ComentAtor commented 4 years ago