Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1
Poor analogy.
Commercial bankers have very little to no influence over how the public perceives the candidates. Conversely a free and independent press is needed in our constitutional republic.
Having them favoring one side while actively participating in undermining the other is not the free press the Founding Fathers wanted for a healthy society.
Sure they are not controlled by the present government per se, but since their ideologies align, it is in effect the same thing.
|
The statement was meant to reflect that NO one needs to wear their political affiliation on their sleeve. It's a private matter and uniquely American. Journalists are held to a standard, as am I. If a consumer doesn't like the news outlet, or my deal, they can shop elsewhere.
For example I enjoy NPR, but I'll be damned if I paid Daniel Schoor any attention when he opined. I could care a less if he donated to Kermit the Frog. He was intolerable to me.
P.S.- Have you ever studied the press of the past? They routinely and unabashedly skewered politicians not in their favour. In fact modern 'msm' pales in comparison.
Quote:
With the formation of the first two political parties in the 1790s, Both parties set up national networks of newspapers to provide a flow of partisan news and information for their supporters. The newspapers also printed pamphlets, flyers, and ballots that voters could simply drop in the ballot box.
Federalist poster about 1800. Washington (in heaven) tells partisans to keep the pillars of Federalism, Republicanism and Democracy
By 1796, both parties had a national network of newspapers, which attacked each other vehemently. The Federalist and Republican newspapers of the 1790s traded vicious barbs against their enemies.[10]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_m...rican_politics
To skewer a politician is more American than apple pie! Go America!!!