Mainstream Media Outlet Suggests Putting the Racist, Bigoted Christian Sexual Predator on Mt. Rushmore..

Presidents Day is an important holiday for us to reflect upon those who we have elected to the highest office in our land.

We are lucky to currently have a leader in President Trump, whose term so far has been, I would argue, one of the most successful in our history.

If this keeps up, much to the chagrin of many Democrats, the presidents on Mount Rushmore may have to make room for a new addition.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Boris Epshteyn formerly served as a Senior Advisor to the Trump Campaign and served in the White House as Special Assistant to The President and Assistant Communications Director for Surrogate Operations.  

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:That’s the guy that Sinclair media forces local news broadcasts to air on the stations they own. It’s pretty fucked bob.

MiamiSpartan wrote:You did see the word "Opinion" at the beginning of the headline, right? And did I miss somewhere where this is the position of the TV station?

Also, what is your point that he was an advisor to Trump? Should he not be hired by by the station as a political commentator because of that?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Opinion: President Trump's term so far is one of the most successful in our history

Can't get much bolder than that statement.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I just like pointing out how unethical and immoral the mainstream media is as it relates to their support for the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator.

And how is the media outlet supporting him? Because they had an opinion piece by a former aide? They have opinion pieces by people against him, as well.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And how is the media outlet supporting him? Because they had an opinion piece by a former aide? They have opinion pieces by people against him, as well.

Do they? I’m not gonna go verify so I don’t really know. What I do know is that they are Sinclair owned. So the answer is very possibly “no, no they do not.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/heres-what-happened-the-last-time-sinclair-bought-a-big-city-station/2017/05/08/92433126-33f7-11e7-b4ee-434b6d506b37_story.html

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
don't start introducing facts into the discussion.

You're right, we shouldn't introduce facts, such as the fact that the same station published this opinion piece on Presidents Day last year:

Opinion: Trump doesn't deserve Presidents' Day praise

I know that you have this belief that when the media bashes Trump, they're really promoting him, but that's not what you were doing in this case.  My point is just that it's an Opinion piece.  The very first word of the headline identifies it as such, in order to clearly differentiate this from a news story, and in order to tell the audience that this is the biased view of one person, and does not claim to be remotely unbiased.

Furthermore, every media outlet publishes/broadcasts their biases one way or the other.  Newspapers publish endorsements, TV stations often have owners/general managers that have little segments where they give their opinion, etc., and both sometimes have employees, guests, etc. publish/broadcast an OpEd.  As long as it's stated as an OpEd, and not news, why do you have an issue with it?  If you were complaining about a media outlet publishing this as news, fine, the criticism is warranted.  When you're complaining about something that is so clearly published as an OpEd, then your criticism of the station for publishing it is just ridiculous.  While I disagree entirely with pretty much every word of the piece in the OP, it's a great part of democracy and the free press that they do opinion pieces, as long as they're labeled as such.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
don't start introducing facts into the discussion.

You're right, we shouldn't introduce facts, such as the fact that the same station published this opinion piece on Presidents Day last year:

Opinion: Trump doesn't deserve Presidents' Day praise

I know that you have this belief that when the media bashes Trump, they're really promoting him, but that's not what you were doing in this case.  My point is just that it's an Opinion piece.  The very first word of the headline identifies it as such, in order to clearly differentiate this from a news story, and in order to tell the audience that this is the biased view of one person, and does not claim to be remotely unbiased.

Furthermore, every media outlet publishes/broadcasts their biases one way or the other.  Newspapers publish endorsements, TV stations often have owners/general managers that have little segments where they give their opinion, etc., and both sometimes have employees, guests, etc. publish/broadcast an OpEd.  As long as it's stated as an OpEd, and not news, why do you have an issue with it?  If you were complaining about a media outlet publishing this as news, fine, the criticism is warranted.  When you're complaining about something that is so clearly published as an OpEd, then your criticism of the station for publishing it is just ridiculous.  While I disagree entirely with pretty much every word of the piece in the OP, it's a great part of democracy and the free press that they do opinion pieces, as long as they're labeled as such.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You're right, we shouldn't introduce facts, such as the fact that the same station published this opinion piece on Presidents Day last year:

Opinion: Trump doesn't deserve Presidents' Day praise

I know that you have this belief that when the media bashes Trump, they're really promoting him, but that's not what you were doing in this case.  My point is just that it's an Opinion piece.  The very first word of the headline identifies it as such, in order to clearly differentiate this from a news story, and in order to tell the audience that this is the biased view of one person, and does not claim to be remotely unbiased.

Furthermore, every media outlet publishes/broadcasts their biases one way or the other.  Newspapers publish endorsements, TV stations often have owners/general managers that have little segments where they give their opinion, etc., and both sometimes have employees, guests, etc. publish/broadcast an OpEd.  As long as it's stated as an OpEd, and not news, why do you have an issue with it?  If you were complaining about a media outlet publishing this as news, fine, the criticism is warranted.  When you're complaining about something that is so clearly published as an OpEd, then your criticism of the station for publishing it is just ridiculous.  While I disagree entirely with pretty much every word of the piece in the OP, it's a great part of democracy and the free press that they do opinion pieces, as long as they're labeled as such.

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You're right, we shouldn't introduce facts, such as the fact that the same station published this opinion piece on Presidents Day last year:

Opinion: Trump doesn't deserve Presidents' Day praise

I know that you have this belief that when the media bashes Trump, they're really promoting him, but that's not what you were doing in this case.  My point is just that it's an Opinion piece.  The very first word of the headline identifies it as such, in order to clearly differentiate this from a news story, and in order to tell the audience that this is the biased view of one person, and does not claim to be remotely unbiased.

Furthermore, every media outlet publishes/broadcasts their biases one way or the other.  Newspapers publish endorsements, TV stations often have owners/general managers that have little segments where they give their opinion, etc., and both sometimes have employees, guests, etc. publish/broadcast an OpEd.  As long as it's stated as an OpEd, and not news, why do you have an issue with it?  If you were complaining about a media outlet publishing this as news, fine, the criticism is warranted.  When you're complaining about something that is so clearly published as an OpEd, then your criticism of the station for publishing it is just ridiculous.  While I disagree entirely with pretty much every word of the piece in the OP, it's a great part of democracy and the free press that they do opinion pieces, as long as they're labeled as such.

Dog you really should dig in a little more on Sinclair and all the shit they’re doing. It’s not great.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Sinclair is awful. Nothing in Miami's post contradicts that or indicates that he is unaware of that fact.

I’m not disregarding the fact that bob probably didn’t realize that it was Sinclair when he posted it originally either. The problem with his post, as it relates to Sinclair, is that when 90% of their opinion pieces are “trump is our God King” you can’t really hide behind “oh it was just an opinion piece” anymore. It’s an opinion piece being published by a group with an extremely clear goal in mind, not just merely “showing their biases.” Pretending that Sinclair is some kind of fair actor that operates like other media outlets is not right.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: I don't even know what "Sinclair" is.. the point is, the mainstream media is awful and relies on a very stupid electorate.. (and needs to make certain they remain stupid)... to make money.

Sinclair is a media company that has been purchasing local media outlets and has been known to do things like force the local anchors to read somewhat outrageous pro trump propaganda while also putting guys like this Boris dude on air on those stations. The result is that when grandpa is watching his local news source his brain is getting filled with bullshit by people he trusts and has been watching for years who are being forced to read things under threat of their jobs. Everyone needs to know who Sinclair is and which station is their Sinclair affiliated station.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I’m not disregarding the fact that bob probably didn’t realize that it was Sinclair when he posted it originally either. The problem with his post, as it relates to Sinclair, is that when 90% of their opinion pieces are “trump is our God King” you can’t really hide behind “oh it was just an opinion piece” anymore. It’s an opinion piece being published by a group with an extremely clear goal in mind, not just merely “showing their biases.” Pretending that Sinclair is some kind of fair actor that operates like other media outlets is not right.

No one's hiding behind anything, and no one said anything about whether they're a "fair actor" or not. The article is still clearly labeled as an opinion piece. As such, any reader should be able to take it as such, not as a news story, regardless of whatever else they may present as news. While I know about Sinclair, I don't have a list of all of their stations memorized. 90% of the people who have read that probably didn't know that the station is owned by Sinclair and/or what Sinclair's political motives are. Therefore, it is very relevant that it's labeled as an opinion piece. In light of Sinclair, perhaps it's even more relevant, as even they labeled it a clear opinion piece.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
No one's hiding behind anything, and no one said anything about whether they're a "fair actor" or not.  The article is still clearly labeled as an opinion piece.  As such, any reader should be able to take it as such, not as a news story, regardless of whatever else they may present as news.  While I know about Sinclair, I don't have a list of all of their stations memorized.  90% of the people who have read that probably didn't know that the station is owned by Sinclair and/or what Sinclair's political motives are.  Therefore, it is very relevant that it's labeled as an opinion piece.  In light of Sinclair, perhaps it's even more relevant, as even they labeled it a clear opinion piece.

People need to be aware if they are reading/watching Sinclair though. Before even reading the article, I saw the authors name and googled the station name and Sinclair. That’s why I said earlier that everyone should be aware if they have a local Sinclair affiliate.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
you're asking an awful lot of Americans..

ya know.. to be engaged.. isn't, like, Dancing With The Stars or that one Duck show with all of the jesus-lovin' bearded rednecks on??

Bob yesterday:  "I don't even know what "Sinclair" is"

Bob today:  "you're asking an awful lot of Americans" (to be engaged enough to be aware if they are reading/watching Sinclair).

Irony, thy name is Bob.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
if you're watching and getting "news" from the mainstream media, you're not engaged.

but that's my opinion. You're welcome to yours.. please keep me in your thoughts and prayers.

You said "that's asking a lot of Americans" in direct response to Travis saying that people need to be informed about Sinclair. Yesterday you didn't know who Sinclair was. That's pretty rich irony, that's all. Just poking a little fun at you.

I wasn't poking fun at your media conspiracy theory (not in that post, anyway).