Comments by "J Groovy" (@jgroovy1973) on "Fox News" channel.

  1. 2
  2. 2
  3. 2
  4. 2
  5. 2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. 2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. When media bashers say "The media lie," they can almost never name a specific lie. When outlets report a fact, 99% of the time, it is accurate. It would be a little closer to the truth to say the media DECEIVE. That's far from deliberately mis-stating facts. Usually when I ask a media basher to name some lies the media have told, I get, "Trump colluded with Russia, Nick Sandmann, and Jussie Smollett." Those replies are nonsense. First, Trump DID collude with Russia. Collusion means COOPERATION, which he clearly did. It's not a legal term. Collusion does not mean "found guilty of criminal conspiracy." But set that point aside. The facts made Trump look guilty. When it was reported that three of Trump's top people met with surrogates of the Russian government to trade dirt for favors, that was a FACT. No reporter said, "Don Jr took a flash drive from a Russian agent." That would be a lie. The facts looked bad, so naturally the opinions in editorials were negative. Let's say media report that a man's wife is missing and her husband had blood in his car, gunshot residue on his hands, and lied to police. Editorials about domestic violence would cast the husband in a negative light, and nobody would say the media were lying. Jussie Smollett lied to police, and media simply reported the facts. The suggestion that somehow the media know the truth about things nobody else knows is absurd. Believing that they deceive us every time a story makes a liberal look bad is ridiculous, especially when the liberal isn't even a politician, and the story has nothing to do with politics. Nick Sandmann is the exception that proves the rule. The media didn't lie. They mis-characterized. It was a mistake, and they paid for it. If deception was standard practice, news outlets would have been sued out of existence long ago. Also, there is no objective truth in that story. It's based on what was going on in Sandmann's head, and what his intentions were. There are many news outlets, many stories, and many reports every day. Media bashers love to say "the media" as if it's one homogeneous, connected group. So, even when a reporter makes a mistake or even lies, to paint the entire industry as liars is as absurd as saying "Starbucks cheats you" because a barista once over-charged you for a scone. The same type of conservative who says, "It's just a bad apple" when a trigger-happy cop shoots an unarmed person will call the entire media a group of serial liars when a single reporter makes a mistake. There is a LOT I don't like about news media, and I don't believe everything I hear. But I assume simple facts are accurate unless there's real reason to believe otherwise. On rare occasions when the facts they report are inaccurate, I first assume they made a mistake before I start conjuring up wild conspiracy theories. People should simply recognize the difference between FACT and OPINION. "16 Trump associates lied about their contacts with Russia" is a FACT. "All of their lying makes them look like they're hiding something" is an OPINION, but it's also a reasonable opinion to have. News outlets compete with each other, often by way of sensationalism. They aim to get the facts right because if ABC gets it wrong, CBS will get it right. Sponsors are their masters, not the DNC. (That idea is laughable. Media have WAY more money and power than the DNC, which is made up of mid-level politicians who can't get elected to office). For the same reason, media don't block stories about dirty politicians just because they're Democrats. They're not the sole gatekeepers of information. Notice that the "liberal" media promptly reported on the Hunter Biden investigation. It's a sensational story. They work for sponsors. It makes no sense to limit themselves to half of the market. It's ironic that the biggest media bashers nowadays are fervent Trump supporters who complain about bias. Trump coordinates with FOX News, and he habitually lies. Those people are hypocrites at best, but usually it's flat-out projection. Hypocrisy is accusing others of what you also do. Projection is accusing the innocent of what you do. It's notable that during Trump's first month in office, he actually told the press corp, "If you're going to hold us to getting every little thing right, I'm just going to stop having these press briefings." Yes, he actually said that.
    2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. Facts: This happened AFTER Trump and his campaign found out Russia was attacking our election, and AFTER the FBI told them to call if they saw anything suspicious: -- Trump said, "Russia, if you're listening..." -- 16 Trump associates contacted Russians regarding the election. ALL except Roger Stone denied it until confronted, then said there was nothing wrong with it. (So, why lie?) Then, Stone denied his previous statements that he was in touch with Assange and Guccifer 2.0. (The very people who hacked the DNC and released the emails). -- The Trump Tower meeting. (Straight-up collusion). -- The request to change the RNC platform to benefit Russia against Ukraine. -- Papadopoulos suggested a meeting with the Russians. -- Trump continued to pursue a real estate deal in Moscow, and lied about it. (He is reputed to have offered the penthouse suite to Putin. If true, that's a major emoluments crime). -- Paul Manafort offered to give briefings on the campaign to Russia. By the way, Manafort literally worked for Putin. Then he "just happened" to become Trump's campaign chairman. -- Trump repeatedly praised Putin, never once condemning him. Instead, he cast doubt on the CIA. -- Kushner met with a SANCTIONED Russian bank to trade sanction relief for personal favors and to set up a back channel to the Kremlin. -- Flynn told the Russians not to retaliate for sanctions. -- Trump, at Putin's request, invited Russian ambassadors into the Oval Office, where he spilled Israeli spy secrets and said the FBI Director he'd just fired was a "nut job". -- Trump continued to cast doubt on Russia's guilt. -- Trump sided with Putin in front of the world at the Helsinki summit. -- They never called the FBI. Did the Democrats make them do ANY of that? Are these things not cause for suspicion? If you say, "no", it would be pretty hypocritical to insist that the Page/Strok texts, Uranium One, and Obama's hot mic are proof of crimes, especially a deep state conspiracy. The above are all what's called circumstantial evidence. It's all right off the top of my head. There is so much more implicating evidence. Again, my point is that they KNEW what Russia was up to, but did those things anyway.
    2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2