Pages

Saturday, December 01, 2018

While not being a Breitbart fan, personally, there is a First Amendment to our Constitution after all.

First the Breitbart item which speaks for itself. For limited purposes, a short excerpt of part of an email within a Google internal email chain:

“Thinking that Breitbart, Drudge, etc. are not ‘legitimate news sources’ is contrary to the beliefs of a major portion of our user base is partially what got us to this mess. MSNBC is not more legit than Drudge just because Rachel Maddow may be more educated / less deplorable / closer to our views, than, say Sean Hannity,” Dekel wrote.

Dekel further stated that despite being a Hillary supporter, the media went easy on the Democratic candidate which hurt her election chances in the end: “I follow a lot of right wing folks on social networks you could tell something was brewing. We laughed off Drudge’s Instant Polls and all that stuff, but in the end, people go to those sources because they believe that the media doesn’t do it’s job. I’m a Hillary supporter and let’s admit it, the media avoided dealing with the hard questions and issues, which didn’t pay off.

Eh? You say? This video preserves an item I saw in real time that made my jaw drop, even while holding a view that there was a form of "he who shall not be named." Given that, how does one define "legitimate" reporting outlets? All you can say is somebody doing the camera cuts to memorialize that interchange likely lost his/her job. If you trust MSNBC after that, bless you.

UPDATE: It is disappointing that this YouTube item has gotten only a handful of viewings. I expect Pelosi missed it. There was an attempt to channel things, but it came out okay.