Agree.
The media was miserable to Reagan in the eighties, and helped run Nixon out of office in the seventies, and trashed Goldwater in the sixties, and ruined McCarthy in the fifties. That’s when I was born.
This isn’t new. The difference is, we used to be all by ourselves figuring it out.
Those entities that are in the tank for the DNC and it's causes, should be outed.
They've already been outed and they've outed themselves. They didn't need any help from anybody in doing so either.
Your idea simply defines and clarifies them further.
Henceforth starting now and forever more I shall appropriately name these liberal rags by using DNC in front of their names.
A question came up when I expressed my thoughts on this subject. I’d like to run this by you.
I had this terrific idea (LOL), that we should refer to entities such as ABC as the DNC’s ABC Division. Newpapers would be referred to in the same manor. The New York Times would be referred to as the DNC’s New York Times Division.
I’m trying to label the media outlets for what they are.
If folks were to use these types of titles in the source area when posting articles, would it defeat your efforts to scan sources to ensure proper copyright guidelines were adhered to? Would it cause any other problems that you can think of? If it would cause problems, I would certainly want to do whatever it took to avoid it.
I’d appreciate it if you could let us know, so we don’t screw up the works.
A very good start. BUMP! Next we can get down to individual reporters/journalists (off sarcasm) as enablers/co-conspirators/propagandists/mouthpieces for the criminally infested ‘rat party as we examine their body of work, their “nuanced” positions, their one-way conversation, their deception by omission.
Definitions are the guardians of reason and logic.
On board.
The practice could go viral, especially if people used it when speaking, too.
CNN is actually playing it fairly straight on their reporting. Their commentators tend to swing left, but they do have Glen Beck.