Tom Brockaw says Trump is on a 'jihad' to destroy the credibility of the FBI

[MorningGlory]

Does anyone remember when Brockaw was a journalist?  When he actually presented the news instead of his leftist opinions?  Yeah, I barely remember it either.  I would seem to me that the FBI has done just fine destroying their credibility without any help from anyone.  Isn't using the term 'jihad' a little racist for a tolerant, inclusive liberal?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tom-brokaw-says-fox-news-200807738.html

[ayin jade]

Funny, the media is on a jihad against trump and our current govt.

[other one]

 Odd how people on the left don't want you to expose their corruption and somehow their corruption is your fault when you expose it...     It would be embarrassing to be a progressive.

[kamptlneb]

It's amazing to me how convoluted his thinking must be.

[SavedByGrace1980]

MG, I followed your link and this is the headline:

Tom Brokaw Says Fox News Is 'On A Jihad' To Destroy FBI's Credibility

So his 'beef' (in this case) isn't with Trump; it's with Fox News.

Whatever one thinks of FNC, you have to admit it's become a convenient whipping boy of The Left.  As a last resort, if the 'messenger' is solely "Fox News", then the messenger can be shot and there are no further consequences.

I've always wondered who gets to determine which 'scandals' are a threat to the republic and our way of life - and which ones can be safely ignored.  If the 'scandal' is carried on CNNCBSABCNBCMSNBCWASHPOSTNYTIMES, then it's one we should all worry about.  The perpetrator is one to be feared and hated.  It's been a while since I've read "1984", but in that novel there was something I believe called  'the two-minute hate.'

That's what I see the mainstream media providing.

Fox, however, seems to be different.  When they cover a scandal that paints a statist like Obama in a bad light - say, Benghazi for instance - then it can be ignored by the rest of the media with no consequences.

If it is ever inconveniently brought up in polite conversation, then it can be dismissed with a simple "Where did you hear that, on Fox News?  What are you, stupid?"

Brokaw longs for a time when he (and Uncle Walter and Danny boy Rather) had no opposing views on the nightly news.  In the time of only 3 networks, one could tune into ABC and see the exact same stories covered in the exact same way as they would on NBC or CBS.  And they, of course, usually followed the lead set by the NY Times earlier in the day.

Life was so much more simple, then.  EEEEEVIL Fox News.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[MorningGlory]

9 hours ago, other one said:

 Odd how people on the left don't want you to expose their corruption and somehow their corruption is your fault when you expose it...     It would be embarrassing to be a progressive.

Yes, it would.  I thank the Lord for being shielded from such a fate.

[MorningGlory]

7 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

MG, I followed your link and this is the headline:

Tom Brokaw Says Fox News Is 'On A Jihad' To Destroy FBI's Credibility

So his 'beef' (in this case) isn't with Trump; it's with Fox News.

Whatever one thinks of FNC, you have to admit it's become a convenient whipping boy of The Left.  As a last resort, if the 'messenger' is solely "Fox News", then the messenger can be shot and there are no further consequences.

I've always wondered who gets to determine which 'scandals' are a threat to the republic and our way of life - and which ones can be safely ignored.  If the 'scandal' is carried on CNNCBSABCNBCMSNBCWASHPOSTNYTIMES, then it's one we should all worry about.  The perpetrator is one to be feared and hated.  It's been a while since I've read "1984", but in that novel there was something I believe called  'the two-minute hate.'

That's what I see the mainstream media providing.

Fox, however, seems to be different.  When they cover a scandal that paints a statist like Obama in a bad light - say, Benghazi for instance - then it can be ignored by the rest of the media with no consequences.

If it is ever inconveniently brought up in polite conversation, then it can be dismissed with a simple "Where did you hear that, on Fox News?  What are you, stupid?"

Brokaw longs for a time when he (and Uncle Walter and Danny boy Rather) had no opposing views on the nightly news.  In the time of only 3 networks, one could tune into ABC and see the exact same stories covered in the exact same way as they would on NBC or CBS.  And they, of course, usually followed the lead set by the NY Times earlier in the day.

Life was so much more simple, then.  EEEEEVIL Fox News.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Well, that was my error; I put in the wrong headline.  Now....no cookies for me!