Interesting. See, I don't have a Twitter account, so the only time I see the Presidential Tweets is... From the media. I do have fakebook, but I rarely login, haven't posted in ages, and 95% of my "friends" are unfollowed so I don't get their meal pictures, leftist articles/rants about Trump, etc.Montegriffo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:47 amI guess that the difference is that no one thinks the first example of domestic terrorism was inspired by the words of the President.Otern wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:31 amSo, we have two pretty similar events this month:
One Trump supporter sent a bunch of packages that looks like mail bombs. It gets a shitload of attention in the media, as it should. People are talking about it. Everyone and their grandmother knows about the story.
And, earlier this month, another guy sent letters containing ricin to Trump and Mattis. Not a single word about it in Norwegian media. And barely mentioned in mainstream media in general. Right into the memory hole.
To me, it looks like the ricin letters were a larger threat, but let's assume the pipe bombs do in fact have a functional trigger mechanism, and proper explosives. Why the massive disparity in coverage of these two events?
At the very least, the events should both have equal amount of coverage, if the mainstream media actually cared about neutrality and providing factual and balanced information.
How the media handled these two events, is way scarier than some nutjobs sending dangerous letters to political opponents.
Pretty sure has at best maybe 5% of the national population following him on twitter, where exactly do you think the other 95% get their "knowledge" about what he's tweeted?
But, by all means, let's blame it all on him, and not the media that magnified his reach into being elected into office and is still going bonkers over every stupid thing he tweets magnifying him even more. Ever heard the phrase about Hollywood actors busted for drugs or whatnot, "even bad news is good publicity"?