Why am I not surprised?

I appreciate your invitation to research 2 years of 2020 election coverage, I certainly don't have time for that, or much interest. On this thread we're discussing Columbia University protests, you specifically said, "allow themselves to report on issues they previously ignored", I posted a timeline that shows, in my opnion that they didn't ignore it at all. My simple question is, is CNN derelict in their reporting of this issue? 

"After researching this time frame, your questions will all be answered." I'm asking your opinion.

Since you're concerned about the 2020 election, what are you thoughts on Fox News lying about the election and not reporting that they lied? I'm sure there's no research require for your response.

      Fox lied, owned up to it and paid the price. CNN reporting on the Columbia protests is, as I previously stated, a safe topic for them to report on since the coverage of the Columbia issue is widespread.

Sounds good, conservation completed! Although I disagree Fox News owned up to it, in my opinion the paid the money to bury it as much as possible. Most importantly they did not report it to their viewers or readers, so not much "owning up". Everyone has a different take on things though.

Go Nuggets!

You're talking to David as if it were possible to have a decent conversation with him. You'll learn.

You might have noticed that he weasels away from any question he can't or even doesn't want to answer. Fox News did NOT ever report that Fox News had lied about the election. They didn't have the balls to admit it. Likewise, ask David point blank who won the 2020 Presidential election.

It's only a matter of time before he screams at you, calls you a liar, and tells you that you're destroying America. He cannot tolerate opinions that differ from his.

  Here we go - as expected.

It seems David and I had a candid conversation, no need to inflame it.

People who dont watch CNN should refrain from saying what CNN didnt say.    Its kinda embarrassing.

After initially crapping on you for the crime of expressing an opinion he didn't agree with, he's been almost civil to you in this thread, albeit while touting his tiresome idiot conspiracy theory nonsense.

So if you can control him, more power to you.

Boilerman, although the National Inquirer isn't a serious media company, I'd be courious on your thoughts on this type of influence:

ABC News April 25, 2024

"Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker is set to return to the witness stand in Manhattan on Thursday to continue his testimony about an alleged conspiracy with Donald Trump to identify and kill negative stories about the then-presidential candidate ahead of the 2016 election.

Earlier this week, Pecker told jurors that he became Trump's "eyes and ears" during the election, allegedly transforming a supermarket tabloid into an extension of Trump's presidential campaign by spending thousands of dollars to kill negative stories about Trump.

"I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it would have to the campaign," Pecker testified on Tuesday about a $30,000 payment for a disproven story that Trump had an illegitimate child."

I'll weigh in.

First of all, the National Enquirer is several steps above the "news sources" that David considers legitimate, such as Newsmax, mxm.com (or whatever it is), Fakebook, Fox Nooze, etc. So don't worry about their fealty to the truth.

All that aside, I'm puzzled that this testimony is relevant to the issue at hand, except perhaps to show a pattern of behavior on the Orange Turd's part--? But everyone knows, and it's been proved beyond the remotest doubt, that the Turd is a crook and a shady operator. His campaign did far more egregiously wrong things in 2015/16 than pat to have tabloid news stories squelched.

Isn't the issue at hand simply: did he or did he not make that hush money payment?