FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Vanto on November 05, 2019, 08:10:24 pm
-
Because that's what Amy Robach claimed in some leaked footage:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776482189/abc-news-defends-its-epstein-coverage-after-leaked-video-of-anchor (https://www.npr.org/2019/11/05/776482189/abc-news-defends-its-epstein-coverage-after-leaked-video-of-anchor)
If this is true, then yet again, I find myself disgusted at how many people were carrying water for that monster. Of course, considering Project Veritas is involved, I'm taking this with a pretty big grain of salt.
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
Honestly, sometimes I think people are right to call the press the "enemy of the people", just not necessarily for the reasons they may believe.
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
That's legal? That really doesn't jive well with the concept of a free press.
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
That's legal? That really doesn't jive well with the concept of a free press.
The Enquirer bought exclusive publication rights to the stories, then didn't run them. So it was a matter of the women in question being contractually barred from seeking any other venue in which to publish the stories, whatever the Enquirer did with them.
As for the NYT, I think there it was more a matter of Weinstein's companies placing ads in the Times. Once they'd started pulling in enough revenue from online subscriptions, they were able to take the financial hit of not having the Weinstein ads as a result of running the stories about his behaviour.
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
That's legal? That really doesn't jive well with the concept of a free press.
As long as 90% of the media is controlled by five or six companies, the concept of a free press is a sad joke.
-
Wasn't there also confirmation that the NYT sat on the Weinstein stories until recently?
For that matter, look at how many Trump stories the Enquirer bought to keep them from hitting the press during the 2016 election (which is basically an in-kind campaign contribution).
That's legal? That really doesn't jive well with the concept of a free press.
As long as 90% of the media is controlled by five or six companies, the concept of a free press is a sad joke.
100% agreed.
-
Two prison guards have been charged as part of an investigation into Epstein's death:
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/prison-guards-charged-jeffrey-epsteins-death-071568 (https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/prison-guards-charged-jeffrey-epsteins-death-071568)
Honestly, the more details that come out about this story, the more I start to believe conspiracy theorists may actually be on to something for once.