4th Estate Hides it's mistakes

Actually the Mainstream Media is free and thus it freely works for the political and ideological interests of the Democratic Party. What the MSM does not do is work for the interests of the nation.

This is also why one keeps backups.

Aye. I have no doubt that she did do exactly that.

Modern mainstream media originally consisted of the three broadcast networks people received in their homes at zero cost.

Why would the government subsidize this and also regulate the industry (FCC)?

To ensure they send the messages the government desires be sent, and that the masses are able to receive it.

Correct.

😄

They do anything to protect the agenda. Upvote

Hey. I'm sorry, but which party was it that kept attacking the news media? Wasn't the left or centrists

Based on making that statement, which pretty much has nothing to do with this, it seems you may not be fully aware of some key details here... Herridge is an actual journalist. One of the few remaining. She cares about the truth, not whatever her personal political ideology may be, AND her reporting reflects that.

In other words, she's not in the hip pocket of the DNC, or the people actually running the show in the Brandon administration. But most importantly, not in the pocket of her former employer, CBS News. That type of freedom of the press scares the hell out of the democrats, and the Brandom administration in particular.

When she started to uncover more of the details surrounding Hunter's laptop and some other details about the Biden administration, CBS officials fired her (officially they say she was "laid off") and in what is apparently an unprecedented move, also seized her files, computers, and records, which included details from and about privileged sources.

How does that square with the 1st Amendment in your estimation?

Here's a link to a piece about this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-cbs-faces-uproar-after-seizing-investigative-journalist-s-files/ar-BB1iIx6W

From the article:
"The timing of Herridge’s termination immediately raised suspicions in Washington. She was pursuing stories that were unwelcomed by the Biden White House and many Democratic powerhouses, including the Hur report on Joe Biden’s diminished mental capacity, the Biden corruption scandal and the Hunter Biden laptop. She continued to pursue these stories despite reports of pushback from CBS executives, including CBS News President Ingrid Ciprian-Matthews."

Heads up; it's an opinion piece, and is labeled as such. Based on that simple fact, we know the author has more integrity than 95% of those in the media. (won't call them journalists any longer, because they're clearly not)

She should have stayed at FOX, where she worked for over 20 years.

It's hilarious how misleading the Post narrative is here - one of hundreds of people laid off, and *gasp* she had to return the company laptop like literally every other person who has ever been laid off, fired, or even left a company amicably.

But of course, this is how right-wing propaganda works - a couple facts, a cup of innuendo, and presto, Gym Jordan launches a congressional investigation and spends weeks spinning fantastic tales that, of course, are exposed as bullshit within a couple minutes, but you guys keep repeating it on a loop for the next 10 years.

A couple of facts is more than they had for January 6th. Don't act like the left is any different than how you describe the right.

We watched Trump instigate the MAGAt attack on January 6th in real time, while the entirety of the Post's "facts" are "she had to return property of the company she stored personal information on when she was laid off".

"We watched Trump instigate the MAGAt attack on January 6th in real time"

Please provide the link to what you watched.

Something tells me you saw what you wanted to see, not what actually happened.

Here's your chance to prove someone wrong.

You want a link to CSPAN's live stream of the rally and subsequent attack? Do you understand how broadcast television works?

So on C-SPAN (yes, I know how it's actually spelled) your contention is that they showed Trump "instigate the MAGAt attack on January 6th in real time", right?

Okay then, did they erase all that 'real time' video of Trump doing this? Of course they would not, if they actually had it.

I guess a difference between us is that if I thought I'd seen something like what you thought you saw, I would find the link to it on C-SPAN's web site, pronto. That way I'd be able to prove my contention to people who didn't believe me.

But you can't do that.

You seem to actually expect people to believe what you say, just because you say it. That's pretty sad. I guess this is why they couldn't convict of insurrection in the ginned up impeachment when they failed to prove insurrection, right?

Anyway, I watched it in Real Time, too. I didn't see Trump instigating anything. What I did see Trump do was state the following: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."

So the bottom line is you've got nothing. If it was as clear cut as you seem to believe it to be, it should be easy to prove.

See - you know damned well he instigated the attack: first by assembling the MAGAt terrorists on the national mall in response to losing the election, then by the hours of lies by he and his surrogates telling them the election was stolen and that only they could take their country back, and finally by pointing them to the Capitol and telling them he was going to there.

"But, but, but, he said 'peacefully' once after hours riling up the stupid red-hat traitors"

Yeah, that's called covering his ass and you fell for it.

I'm guessing you get your news from left controlled outlets. January 6th was a trump rally, and there is plenty of footage showing people touring around the capitol building peacefully. I don't know a whole lot about it, but at least what I do know isn't propaganda

I literally watched all of it happen in real time, and predicted the crowd of traitors was going to attack the Capitol before it even got going.

This is one of those "every accusation is an admission" things - yeah right-wing controlled outlets have shown you plenty of footage showing people calmly walking around, but they don't show much of the thousands of hours of footage where those same people were breaking windows, violently attacking capitol police, breaking into offices, and generally committing treason in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

But again, that was all broadcast live as it happened, and on Parler where the traitors proudly posted it themselves.

Look, I'm not going to argue here, if you want to find the truth, go look for it. It's obvious neither of us is going to convince the other. And about much of your statement, you are just plain wrong. No other way to put it, just wrong. Incorrect information.

"...if you want to find the truth..."

They're simply not interested in the truth.

Their truth is anything negative about Trump, true or not.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

― George Orwell, 1984

I was not there in person, and I don't think you were either. The only evidence of our eyes and ears is secondhand at best.

Nonsense - CSPAN and numerous other outlets broadcast the attack live over the course of hours while hundreds live-streamed the event because a sitting president attacking congress with an army of goons was clearly a historic event that needed to be preserved.

Seeing raw video is no more "secondhand" than looking at something through a camera or a telescope, but I appreciate you having that ready in the holster in defense of The Party.

The "attack" was broadcast, but your contention about Trump instigating it is utter fantasy.

Yes, fantasy, because you want to believe it soooooo badly but you have zero proof.

He spent months lying about the election being stolen.

He assembled the idiot traitors on the national mall.

He and his sycophants spent hours lying to those morons, riling them up to attack the Capitol by telling them only they could stop the certification.

Then he pointed their dumb asses to the Capitol they promptly and violently attacked.

The only fantasy here is the idea he didn't coordinate and launch the attack on the Capitol.

"and *gasp* she had to return the company laptop"

Wow, talk about cherry picking. If that was all she had been forced to do, your point might have some legitimacy.

This type of gaslighting is exactly how left-wing propaganda works.

Cherry picking facts to push a false narrative, and to even make it look like they actually believe in the 1st Amendment.

This is why in a court of law, the witness swears to tell the truth, THE WHOLE TRUTH, and nothing but the truth.

On the odd chance that you're interested in both sides of the story, here's a link to an op/ed piece about it by Jonathan Turley. He makes the point that CBS doesn't normally treat journalists who have been 'let go' this way. IF... that matters to you at all.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-cbs-faces-uproar-after-seizing-investigative-journalist-s-files/ar-BB1iIx6W

He doesn't actually say they don't normally treat journalists who have been let go this way - he heavily implies it in his usual long-winded manner, but what he actually says is journalists who have left weren't treated this way, and that's completely expected.

Someone who gives their two week notice, has a going away party, and packs their office before leaving on their final day is naturally going to gave a different experience from someone who gets walked out during a corporate layoff.

Long-winded? I usually read that as being blessed with a short attention span.

Here's some of the article, all of which support what I say, and makes it seem that you're just brushing it aside. Of course you can do that, as you seem to have the habit of ignoring facts or statements when they don't suit you. (even in an op/ed piece! 🤣) But the rest of the freedom-loving world has taken notice, as we do when the 1A is under assault.

From the article:

Many of us were shocked after Herridge was included in layoffs this month, but those concerns have increased after CBS officials took the unusual step of seizing her files, computers and records, including information on privileged sources.
...

I have spoken confidentially with current and former CBS employees who have stated that they could not recall the company ever taking such a step before. One former CBS journalist said that many employees “are confused why [Herridge] was laid off, as one of the correspondents who broke news regularly and did a lot of original reporting.”
...

A source within the the union, SAG-AFTRA, confirmed that it has raised this controversy with CBS and remains extremely concerned about the effect of this action on journalistic practices and source confidentiality. The union believes this is “very unusual” and goes far beyond this individual case. “It is a matter of principle,” a union spokesperson added. “It is a matter of serious concern. We are considering all of our options.”
...

Given the other layoffs and declining revenues, the inclusion of Herridge was defended by the network as a painful but necessary measure. But then something strange happened. The network grabbed Herridge’s notes and files and informed her that it would decide what, if anything, would be turned over to her. The files likely contain confidential material from both her stints at Fox and CBS. Those records, it suggests, are presumptively the property of CBS News.

For many of us who have worked in the media for decades, this action is nothing short of shocking. Journalists are generally allowed to leave with their files. Under the standard contract, including the one at CBS, journalists agree that they will make files available to the network if needed in future litigation. That presupposes that they will retain control of their files. Such files are crucial for reporters, who use past contacts and work in pursuing new stories with other outlets or who cap their careers with personal memoirs.

You're confusing opinions (you know, the 'op' part of 'op/ed') with facts.

The entire article is him being purposely obtuse to the difference between resignation and separation and describing how he and other anonymous sources feel about one person being affected by the layoff.