Posted on 01/27/2016 9:45:16 AM PST by Mariner
Panic Time for FOX and GOP….
FOX News host Greta Van Susteren asked her conservative viewers if they will tune in to Thursday’s GOP debate now that Donald Trump has announced he will not participate.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Read it on a posting at THIS site.I think you may have too.
Hubby thinks it’s his duty to watch.
I promised the dogs baths at that time.
Same time as the Debate
Oh yes it is, FOX stepped in it. Only Cruz supporters are sticking up for FOX, which they will until FOX buries him.
Point is, nobody will acre what they say at that debate. They won’t be watching.
CNN
Thank you
Yes, of course - but what truth?The problem lies in the issue of objectivity. Actually being objective - and actually knowing that you are objective - is impossible. Consequently altho it is certainly desirable to try to be objective, and it is even legit to claim to be trying to be objective (if in fact you are trying), claiming actually to be objective only proves that you are not even trying to be objective. If you were trying, you would be aware that you did not know what effect where you stand depends on where you sit. And the situation is not improved by joining a mutual admiration society (e.g. the Associated Press) of people who reliably credit each other’s objectivity.
It is impossible to state everything that you know, let alone everything that is true. And since half the truth is often a great lie, where you stands colors your “truth.” No matter how truthful you think you are being.
Journalists are critics. They do not do things, they only report the results of the actions of others. It follows that when Theodore Roosevelt said
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeatthat the journalist is, by that accounting, not the man but the critic. And the critic “does not count.” So it is only to be expected that journalists dislike and oppose that formulation, and that journalists would oppose the man in the arena. So what would be the opposite of TR’s formulation? What would be the extreme expression of the contrary? I put it to you that Elizabeth Warren has provided that formulation:
If you have a business, you did’t build that.For that reason if for no other, we know that the default position (where the journalist “sits&rdquo) of journalism is competitiveness with entrepreneurs - and where the journalist stands is in favor of an economy run by critics rather than doers. Journalists naturally stand for socialism.If you want information which does not inherently slant socialist, you must avail yourself of openly and explicitly “conservative” information/commentary sources. Another way of deriving the same result is to apply O’Sullivan’s First Law to journalism.
This was all cooked up last summer and for "personal" reasons. "FAIR & BALANCED" my Aunt Fanny !
It was taken by Greta, so you are wrong; unless you’re talking about a different poll and even then, you’re wrong!
Poll FReep: If the election were held today, who would be your first choice for President of the United States?
Trump will be there in spirit. Probably every question they ask will be about what he’s said or done, and how the other candidates feeeeel about it. Worse than if Trump shows up, really.
Now 87 percent say that without Trump they will not watch the debate
“Just hear on the Rush show that ad revenue is $750,000 per minute for the debate...if Trump is there...It’s $150,000 per minute without him.”
When one figures that it was almost certainly a 20-something millennial metrosexual ‘journalism’ major that sent out that tweet giving Trump the justification to claim the debate was rigged, one has to WISH to be a fly-on-the-wall during that prick’s next performance review.
Gotta add Rafael Ted Cruz. Bummer
Every man I’ve even known to use their middle name, had some undeniable issues.
It was in The UK Daily Mail.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.