Exclusive MSM Analysis Reveals: They Have Gone FULL TABLOID (Trump Tapes vs. WikiLeaks Reveals All)

Some of that "funding" for Hillary's net-sysops being put to use no doubt.a reply to: cprnicus

With the election soon coming to an end I wonder what the media will do to fill the void? Sure they'll have the couple of weeks follow up on the election, but they can't milk that forever.

originally posted by: SRPrime

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: elementalgrove
Honestly I believe that ever since the initial email scandal happened the elite had to come up with a plan, because it is not just Hillary that is being exposed, it is the whole damn cabal.

This is why I have perceived Trump as their literal Trump card to be used to guarantee that no matter what gets leaked, he will be the topic of discussion.

It sure does look like it now.

From the first moment I heard Trump was getting in I figured it had to be a Neocon plant job to ensure Raand Paul would never get any air time. SO I never even clicked on a link or anything about the election ordeal.

Then in spring time this year an old 'IIB friend' brought it to my attention that the entire media apparatus had been in full tilt smear campaign against Trump all along, like how they did Ron Paul. So this got my attention.

So upon further analysis Trump looks like he might actually be the real deal (aside from his personal indiscretions). If the MSM hadn't been smear campaigning him all along, though, I'd be hardliner against him and Hill from the get forevermore. That would be too obvious though, of course, it just seems way too incredible that they'd have the gaul to go about eating the GOP apart from the inside, while also fully exposing the Media + DNC for what they are in this process.

The real truth is the Donald is himself a Hillary supporter and said on the record that he was running for president to prove that he could lose it. This means that likely the media smear campaign against him was with his consent and that he ran as faux opposition to Hillary, as such -- choosing the next president. In other words, he never intended on winning, he was losing on purpose --this whole Grab her by the P thing is just an example of him escalating the game plan. You think he started off modest and accelerated to "I can shoot someone in the street and not lose support" and he's NOT actively trying to lose support?

The issue is -- he got WAY MORE support than they ever expected. The American public was more stupid than anticipated, so they had to step it up with a hot mic scandal, some untrue accusations of him preying on underage girls -- so on, this is all a planned escalation to turn the unexpected trump supporter crowd into Trump doubters, as has been the plan from the onset. The actual votes don't matter, but the vibe does. Nobody is going to question why Hillary won come next month, and that's all that matters.

Way back in the day Trump said he'd only run for president if he knew he could win -- now he's actually running for president, and he's doing it on the pretense of losing on purpose, on the record... It's quite clear trump is NOT the real deal, but he was being used as a tool to keep the circus going as the presidency was just being handed off, they had to create a TV narrative that could explain how she won.

It's really simple, The Donald has been a red herring from the onset, oh and by the by -- I called this back in 2008, that Hillary automatically wins in 2016. I called it here on ATS before I was put on timeout by ATS mods for posting in the 9/11 forums when they were on the lock down. My old account had thousands of posts and tens upon tens of thousands of stars -- I've been around ATS for a really long time, and the weather here back in 2008 was a lot more credible too.

Hills camp did start the birther thing, Trump took it as his because, it's not surprise if Trump says/does something stupid, it's a better look for TPTB. Trump ran the birther thing into the ground as a fake scandal so when he released [fake or not] his Birth Certificate, he'd be a shoe in -- because his biggest scandal and all the venom and shade thrown at Obama during his campaign turned out to be "fake" in the narrative. So he defacto became the best candidate.

What am I saying? That Trump helped persuade the public opinion towards Obama during his election cycle. Obama was the pick before the elections started -- all Trump did was ensure the public opinion wouldn't doubt the outcome -- the same as now.

So he's done this 2 elections in a row now -- I mean seriously... ask yourself what relevance Trump had in 2008 and in 2012 to the political system? None. He had absolutely no reason to even get TV time talking about it -- but alas, he had it, didn't he?

Trump/Obama/Clinton are all friends in real life -- and they are working together staging a show on behalf of TPTB to keep the show going while they just enact their master plan.

Trump's campaign manager went to work for CNN for christ sakes. It doesn't get anymore obvious that he's never been a real candidate -- it also doesn't get more obvious that Hill's is the chosen president and was chosen before Obama was even inaugurated.

Hill's scandal was real, that stuff got hacked wasn't supposed to, but the Trump stuff was all canned and pre-ready to go to cover up what ever got dug out of Hill during her run up. Hence all the media coverage on the Trump Tapes and zilch on wikileaks.

There is no integrity left, voting doesn't matter, you don't matter, the entire system is tyranny. When propaganda became legalized through congress/senate, that should have been the wake up call. Hello fourth Reich.

There are people here who share your opinion that Trump is a plant. I do NOT agree. A plant is in on the game.

According to Megyn Kelly, Hillary chose to run against Trump -- presumably because he would be the least prepared and the easiest to defeat.

The GOP Primary Debates were rigged with phony polls showing Trump winning each GOP debate (he did NOT).

Soros was funding Kasich to stay in to take votes away from Cruz. As soon as Cruz dropped out, so did Kasich.

So Trump became the GOP candidate and the DNC considered him to be a "useful idiot."

Where things started to unravel for Hillary, is that Trump started an actual grassroots movement.

Trump has learned a lot during this race and has really grown as a candidate.

He now genuinely despises Hillary and knows that a President Hillary will destroy the US at home & abroad.

Trump is now in this race for real. The MSM polls are fake. I have NO faith in them -- they're meant to demoralize the Trump supporters so they don't even bother to come out to vote.

If the Trump supporters and anti-Hillary forces stay the course and vote, Trump has a chance of winning by a landslide.

The Dems plan to steal the election, and they can do this if the election is close.

If Trump wins by a landslide, it will be harder for the Dems to steal the election.

It's really, really important that the Trump supporters VOTE.

Study: 91 percent of coverage on evening newscasts was negative to Donald Trump




MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing

Trump tapes versus WikiLeaks

Isn't it obvious the average American can relate to watching a video on TV versus understanding WikiLeaks, email and connection of people and events in them.

The news is about attracting viewers to see commercials which make money for the news outlet.

Now if WikiLeak had been Facebook...

a reply to: roadgravel

It seems you're comparing people going out and reading the emails and trying to make sense of the jumble, opposed to the MSM doing their jobs and reporting the findings.

Since they barely touched the emails over periods of weeks, how could they know what people wanted?

Well Google sure knew, and FOX even reported it early on:

damn man you put lots of work into this,,good job

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Too much work for the news versus gain. They would have to explain the issues in the email to build a bigger negative picture.

I bet the majority of American are lost even trying to understand the server/email issue. Given the security shown by a big part of the government, it's hard to point fingers other than it should in a department control area.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

" One might expect that the "News" would be all over actual political scandals, whereas paparazzi scandals would be less important. And yet, when you run the math, the science now is that the major networks are mostly bent on living up to the model of being sleazy tabloid rag filth. "


Great Thread , I commend you for your in-depth Analysis there .

The Dumbing Down of America Begins with Media .

a reply to: roadgravel

Um, we've already been doing half their job for them.

I cant believe you're seriously arguing in their defense on this stuff. You're putting spin on their spin; rationalizing it, to the point of justifying it.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am not defending them. I am looking at it from their view. It's money, easier the better. I doubt there are many in these big news sites that can even research anything in depth. They play to the lowest denominator. People are not calling them out, at least in a method that could cause a change.

We suspect the new reports can be bought. (See: money)

Being a good, truthful reporter is a very dangerous profession in today's would, IMO.

They don't care why people watch or even learn anything, whether fact or fiction, just watch so ratings sell commercial time.

They don't have to be good or extremely truthful or factual to make money. It's sad but it's the world today.

edit:

Watch the video posted by char-lee. Truth is optional.

The days of TV news reporting is basically over. Similar situation for the newspapers. it's now opinion and directing people's beliefs.

a reply to: roadgravel

You're acting like they'd have to go and hire a whole new team to take on the task. As if they don't already have people there to do that sort of thing.

At the exec meeting:

"Okay guys, we can only afford to pay for Trump's sex tape, or Hillary's wikileaks."

Like it costs them anything to have some interns etc dig through (what we're already digging thru for them), actually put the puzzle pieces together, and have their anchor people actually talk about it. As if they'd have to build entire new broadcasting studio's to be able to, or something, it sounds like you're trying to put this as.

As if they're a nonprofit with a fixed budget. "It'll cost them too much to cover the actual election."

If the Trump tapes is earning so much money, then they have money.

Meanwhile the Google graph shows where the real demand is.

So I dont get your point at all.

People are calling them out everyday. Ruthlessly even...

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't support them. I see it as a fail.

I am saying that they don't care. It business but it's not reporting. They don't care about real research because they don't need it.

I think they have gone to h--- in a hand basket. We can probably bet that the hot topic reporting is guided and paid for by some group at the top.

And now AT&T wants to buy in. We are all being played, if we believe and follow them blindly.

People I know (and love) are completely freaking out because it seems DT has won, yet the predictions were literally an utter-landslide for HC:



I suspect a lot of this media-wide was trying to get votes for the left (since everything else they do seems geared that way). But I think it's going to cause a lot more anguish for a lot of people who are very surprised and twice as horrified just due to the shock of it.

RC

Reposted from my post here:

I picked one of the smaller parts for checking from your posts, the CBS coverage of Wikileaks. You stated it was from the past week so I went 7th-13th. The search that I used was:

site:www.cbsnews.com "wikileaks"

7th
Podesta emails show excerpts of Clinton speeches to Goldman
U.S. intel community "confident" Russia directed hacks to influence election

8th
WikiLeaks exposes some of Clinton's Wall Street speeches
WikiLeaks releases Clinton campaign emails, including excerpts from Wall Street speeches
Russia responds to U.S. hacking allegations

9th
Robby Mook defends Clinton after Wikileaks email dump
Leaked campaign emails show moderate side of Hillary Clinton

10th
Latest leaked emails: Former top aide to Bill Clinton disparages Chelsea Clinton
Hillary Clinton campaign: Donald Trump crossed a line at second debate**

11th
WikiLeaks dumps more John Podesta emails
John Podesta suggests Trump camp had warning of WikiLeaks hack
Donald Trump talks about "the shackles that have been taken off me"**

12th
WikiLeaks releases more John Podesta emails
WikiLeaks releases more Clinton campaign emails
Clinton campaign does damage control after email hack
Clinton deflects email questions by bashing Trump
Trump speaks anxiously about new topic: Prospect of losing**
This Morning from CBS News, Oct. 12, 2016**

13th
Clinton faces scrutiny from newly leaked emails
WikiLeaks emails reveal Clinton campaign's strategy to woo "needy Latinos"

To remind you, you counted the following:

TOTAL: 11 NOTE: At least FOUR of these also cover / are really about the Trump Tape.

You counted... 11.
I counted... 20. (82% more)

I marked the ones that weren't substantially about the Wikileaks release with two asterisks. I came up with 4 as well. I do not know if those are the same 4 as you counted. 3 of the 4 were mostly about Trump and only mentioned the Wikileak's releases. The 4th was a rundown of current news items with short passages about the WL release and Trump.

Some of your links were broken/malformed so I couldn't tell if there were additional pieces that I missed that you included but what was working matched up with my results with the exception that you were missing several, possibly due to your search technique.

Why are you using the Media Research Center? Dont you know they are a conservative attack dog group for the right wing?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just woke up....

Looks like you just did a raw document count. Did you also compare your method versus mine just the same with Trump Tape? Did you count just the ones that actually covered material (i.e. actual stories within them), or was it also the ones that "did" mention 'something' to do with it but the stuff was actually buried?

Trying to remember precisely how I did it, but I'm disappointed in you here: If straight up debunking my methodology itself was your aim (as if I was spirit cooking the books which that's the impression i just got), then you should have figured out which ones I didn't post links to compared to what you found to see what I left out (or somehow overlooked).

And why this is is in here, and not in there.... then again you've maybe posted once or twice in what a few total of my numerous 'big' pieces...

originally posted by: Pyle

Why are you taking credit for work the Media Research Center (a right wing media attack group) does?

Hows that? Come again?