Is CNN on a witch hunt?

@cb7893 is correct. I don't like these conversations and will not express an opinion, but I will comment on factual matters.

60 Minutes interviewed Bill Clinton during the primaries regarding Jennifer Flowers. You may recall this is when Mrs. Clinton made her statement "I’m not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” I believe there may have been some disparaging remarks about baking cookies in that same interview but I can't swear to that part.
 
KP2020Dad said:
They interviewed Clinton for the affair he had with an intern while he was in office, not for the affairs he had prior to being POTUS.
Click to expand...

They interviewed both Bill and Hillary about his affair with Gennifer Flowers during the election before he was voted in as President.
 
kinnem said:
@cb7893 is correct. I don't like these conversations and will not express an opinion, but I will comment on factual matters.

60 Minutes interviewed Bill Clinton during the primaries regarding Jennifer Flowers. You may recall this is when Mrs. Clinton made her statement "I’m not sitting here as some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.” I believe there may have been some disparaging remarks about baking cookies in that same interview but I can't swear to that part.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I was thinking of the later interview.
 
cb7893 said:
KP2020Dad said:
They interviewed Clinton for the affair he had with an intern while he was in office, not for the affairs he had prior to being POTUS.
Click to expand...

Since President Clinton was not yet POTUS at the time of the interview, how could the "old pros" at 60 Minutes have been asking about any affairs other than those prior to him becoming POTUS.
Click to expand...
My mistake. I was thinking of the later interview.
 
In other news. I am at Pensacola NAS today. Low cloud ceiling and kind of windy, so the Blues cancelled practice this morning.
Maybe I'll get to see them fly tomorrow. I'm hoping for CAVU.
 
To answer your question, @Maplerock, I consume most of my news from Reason Magazine (VERY libertarian (small "l" libertarian) but highly objectives) as well as WSJ for my primary sources of news. Occasionally, I venture into the territory of WAPO but never delve into CNN or Fox. Both pander to a certain type of voter, as others have mentioned above, and I find their articles to lack in both content and factual information.

To address the recent interview, 60 Minutes is one of the few television programs I have and will continue to watch due to the myriad and overall quality of their content, but I was honestly appalled by the most recent interview's shaky premise and content. The

(1) Daniels claimed that she was frightened subsequent to meeting this alleged thug in a parking garage and then proceeds to her exercise class without an issue. Too scared of this thug but not scared enough to go straight home? Also too scared to tell the police because it would make her a target but not scared enough to do a nationally televised interview?
(2) Daniels gets on her moral soapbox by claiming that she is concerned about her child's innocence because he/she can understand the news about her ALLEGED affair but shows no qualms about the fact that her child will equally be able to understand that she was an adult film star.
(3) Daniel's lawyer claims that he has evidence for Daniel's claims but refuses to share this evidence, if any. The fact that he isn't sharing is not a monetary problem, as both he and Stormy claim that there is a $1 million fee incurred every time Stormy speaks out.
(4) Daniels cries foul play on Trump/his lawyer's behalf now, but has previously denied claims that she is making now about the ALLEGED affair and subsequent ALLEGED pay up.
(5) The mere fact that the MSM has to resort to using a porn star as a means of attacking Trump for something that happened when he was a private citizen 10+ years ago.

I am by no means a Trump supporter (though I will admit that the economy is going great right now), but I don't believe that our president deserves all the flak. I would even go as far as to say that the all these attacks based on Stormy Daniels and his private comments to others demonstrates that he is doing rather well in office right now. Otherwise, the MSM would be attacking his policy positions rather than his private life.
 
It is always interesting to get international perspective on United States news. I regularly log on to canadafreepress.com, which leans conservative. Their motto is '" Without the United States, there is no free world". The dailymail.co.uk site can be somewhat almost-tabloid in many of their articles, but they do cover many things that happen in the United States that the U.S. press never reports. Other sites I check regularly are americanthinker.com, which definitely leans conservative. Whatfinger News is a news aggregator, similar to Drudge. Unlike Drudge, Whatfinger clearly marks specific sites as "left" or "right" in their links. I believe it is important to get an array of viewpoints, not just rely on one network or media site for all of the news.

This is a link to English language international newspapers: http://www.inkdrop.net/news/

The U.S. Coast Guard actually has their own newspaper.

Unfortunately, the Prague Post filed for bankruptcy and ceased publication in 2016, but there are other Czech Republic papers available.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Sandydesert said:
If you are serious about asking, the name of the Coast Guard paper goes by the highly original and extremely creative name of coastguardnews.com. :D:D

http://coastguardnews.com/
Click to expand...

Just know that’s not an official Coast Guard publication...
Click to expand...


Thank you for clarifying. I know about the starsandstripes site, but I was wondering why the Coast Guard had an online paper and the others didn't. Reading the coastguardnews site was quite informative. Americans hear a lot about the USN, AF, Marines, and Army, but there are almost never news reports about the CG or the MM's.
 
Sandydesert said:
Thank you for clarifying. I know about the starsandstripes site, but I was wondering why the Coast Guard had an online paper and the others didn't. Reading the coastguardnews site was quite informative. Americans hear a lot about the USN, AF, Marines, and Army, but there are almost never news reports about the CG or the MM's.
Click to expand...

The different Times papers (Army Times etc) are also not official publications.
 
Sandydesert said:
It is always interesting to get international perspective on United States news. I regularly log on to canadafreepress.com, which leans conservative. Their motto is '" Without the United States, there is no free world". The dailymail.co.uk site can be somewhat almost-tabloid in many of their articles, but they do cover many things that happen in the United States that the U.S. press never reports. Other sites I check regularly are americanthinker.com, which definitely leans conservative. Whatfinger News is a news aggregator, similar to Drudge. Unlike Drudge, Whatfinger clearly marks specific sites as "left" or "right" in their links. I believe it is important to get an array of viewpoints, not just rely on one network or media site for all of the news.

This is a link to English language international newspapers: http://www.inkdrop.net/news/

The U.S. Coast Guard actually has their own newspaper.

Unfortunately, the Prague Post filed for bankruptcy and ceased publication in 2016, but there are other Czech Republic papers available.
Click to expand...

Just looked up WhatfingerNews. Whoa! That's not a balanced site. The sources of the top three news articles were telling: the Wash. Times, Fox News, and Breitbart (one of these not being a legit news source and filled with article comments that are blatantly racist). Then Whatfinger highlights sites like Geller and the Patriot Report, and Info Wars. Granted, there is the occasional article from Guardian or BBC, but it seems to be for articles that support news that goes against what the left might support.
But I see where they do label Guardian as "left wing" but I didn't see any of the other sources labeled "right wing" (or "conspiracy tin foil wing") which seems to imply that sources like Breitbart, the Time, or Info Wars are moderate.
I can see what finger they're giving anything that is not far right wing. I'll stick to Drudge. Along with The Economist, WSJ news, Axios, and Politico.
 
unkown1961 said:
The sources of the top three news articles were telling: the Wash. Times, Fox News, and Breitbart
Click to expand...
Based on the site and the algorithms, the top 3 you see can be different than the top 3 the someone else sees.
 
AJC said:
unkown1961 said:
The sources of the top three news articles were telling: the Wash. Times, Fox News, and Breitbart
Click to expand...
Based on the site and the algorithms, the top 3 you see can be different than the top 3 the someone else sees.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't visit any of those three sites, so their algorithm must be off. I don't even have them as sources at my personalized Google News page.
In any event, those three seem to be the preponderance of news sources at the site as a whole, so it's not unusual that they pop up as a top 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top