Mic drop
-
Apparently, the WH may have crossed a line that is too much even for Rupert Murdoch.
Which, all things considered, is really going some.
-
Because he’s heard it over and over and is tired of giving the kid crying wolf a megaphone.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.
I really don't care if her statement is true or not. The point is that as a "journalist" he should at least afford her the courtesy of hearing what the Press Secretary of the President of the United States has to say.
But he didn't . He cut her off, and he shut her up because he didn't like what she was going to say (accurate or not). This is not "journalism". This is hackism/censorship.
Pick your adjective.
But, we'll never know whether what she said was true or not, because, like Twitter, he told her to shut up.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
-
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
A wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution is not news?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
As I said before, I don’t think the news host cut her off because of her immediate comments but of comment she made before.
I think it is pretty well known that Fox News usually likes President Trump. That is why I posted it. When one of your supporters starts to question your views, it is a bit more “shocking”.
But I also think that every news organization does not show 100% of everything. I have listened to many news programs before where they “cut away” from what is being said by someone from the President team (not only President Trump but also President Obama).
-
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
A wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution is not news?
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the media’s rights to do so.
If you don’t like a particular medium, use a different medium or start your own.
-
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, the First Amendment guarantees the media’s rights to do so.
If you don’t like a particular medium, use a different medium or start your own.
Likewise, if you don't like what this nation was built on, get out and go live somewhere else.
-
Heard what over and over again?
It's been 6 days since the election, so, in the last 6 days, how many times has the Press Secretary made the accusation that he didn't air?
It's a serious question. She made a statement that he didn't want to hear.I am confused. I’m sure you’re aware the President (himself or his press secretary) has made numerous references to a fraudulent election, illegal votes, etc etc etc...right? At some point, when the press secretary starts repeating it again...I think it’s fine for a media outlet to decide to stop letting such reckless and dangerous claims from being aired to the masses. As Cavuto said, they would pick up the claims and air them if evidence is ever presented.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
A wanton disregard for the U.S. Constitution is not news?
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
-
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
-
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
CNN has done an amazing job getting people to repeat “without evidence”
They really have, a very effective strategy
-
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
Where did you get the silly notion there is no evidence?
-
In other words, it's fine for the media to censor an Administration official at anytime over anything?
Yes, although I wouldn't use the word censor, which would generally be the other way around (gov censoring media), and doesn't apply here since Fox isn't preventing other outlets from carrying the coverage.
And reckless and dangerous? A call for a fair election is reckless and dangerous?
Yes, claiming there is fraud and illegal voting, without evidence, is reckless and dangerous, especially when it's coming from the President's office.
CNN has done an amazing job getting people to repeat “without evidence”
They really have, a very effective strategy
CNN has done an amazing job getting people to repeat “without evidence”
RUSSIA!!!
-
