Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,298,373
Nothing this is just bullshit. Next they will start in on Biden. Both of these fuckers ain't worth a thimble full of cold piss. Except to get you stupid fucking morons to watch the news.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,298,377
@previous (A)
Not when you you consider how much money they make because you will open your mouth and let them shovel this shit down your fucking throats all the while the ads keep revenue pouring into their pockets. Get a clue dumb fuck.
> Nothing this is just bullshit. Next they will start in on Biden. Both of these fuckers ain't worth a thimble full of cold piss. Except to get you stupid fucking morons to watch the news.
When are they going to get you to stop posting about it
> It's all an elaborate conspiracy to get people to watch the news? That seems like an odd motivation to go to so much trouble.
Why is a "conspiracy" needed? More people watch the news = higher ratings = more advertising $$$
The incentives are obvious.
I wouldn't say it's a conspiracy so much as businessmen trying to increase their business. Which is what businessmen always do. Is that a "conspiracy"?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 13 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,298,473
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
It the argument then is that those businessmen somehow control the entire US justice system at every level in order to try politicians for fake crimes. THAT is a conspiracy.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,298,482
@1,298,473 (A)
No I never made such an argument. My argument was that news media organizations have an incentive to hype Trump coverage because it boosts their ratings, which boosts their money, etc. I do not believe a "conspiracy" is necessary to explain the media's behavior.