National Enquirer made up the story about Ted Cruz

[Anonymous]

It's disgusting but not surprising. Trump is sleaze.

[Anonymous]

So when Trump was talking about 'fake news" he wasn't lying, just projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Ditto

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when Trump was talking about 'fake news" he wasn't lying, just projecting.

Yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They wanted, and want, Trump to win. The incalculable damage to the country and the people who live in if the GOP get in office and pass all their Project 2025 dreams doesn’t matter to these billionaires and corporations; they want their taxes cut again and for there to be zero guardrails on their ability to profit across their businesses. That’s all.

[Anonymous]

You often see the "propaganda via headline" on this board. A handful of MAGA posters will post a sensationalist headline having clearly not read the article itself (which will often completely contradict the headline). It happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when Trump was talking about 'fake news" he wasn't lying, just projecting.

As usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Surely everyone understands that tabloids MAKE STUFF UP?

No, not everyone understands that.

especially MAGA crowd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

I’m more talking about the mainstream, non-tabloid media who covered the 2016 Trump campaign obsessively and without critique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I might feel bad if it was anyone other than Ted Cruz.

Well during the general election the Enquirer would constantly run stories about Hillary.

The Other Way the National Enquirer Helped Elect Trump
In addition to a secret agreement to bury the story of an alleged affair, the tabloid publisher AMI also published a stream of outlandish attacks on Hillary Clinton.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/12/national-inquirer-helped-trump-attacking-clinton/578116/

These “stories” get picked up by the more mainstream media and Hillary would have to answer questions about these stories. The stories were a long the lines of do you still beat your dog? You know stories to increase negative perceptions of candidates.

+1
The same media were supposed to pretend is “liberal.”

+1 Here’s how the “liberal media” reacted:

The people who runs these media outlets either wanted Trump to win or they are the dumbest people alive. There’s no other explanation for their behavior.

They were only thinking of the ratings, click$, and controversy. They didn’t think he could win so it was totally fine to obsessively cover his sideshow of a campaign because people were interested!!!!! Free market baby!!!!!

In 2016 I was working at a place that often had cable news playing on the break room and lobby TV’s - not usually Fox News, even, it was a pretty even mix of Fox and CNN and the network morning shows if I was there early in the morning - and I swear half the time the news networks were covering a Trump rally. Just giving him critique-free, uncritical airtime. I stopped watching the Today show in 2015 because they would have Trump call in seemingly every morning and just let him rant and never push back or question. Then when he was actually elected in 2016 it was the worst thing ever and how could this happen, oh but now we’ll cover him critically and ask questions because that’s what’s getting ratings and clicks and public support now.

Actually that is not what happened. The Enquirer bought the rights to negative stories about Trump and buried the stories.

They buried stories critical of Trump, but also coordinated directly with Trump to make up fake stories about his opponents in the GOP and Hillary Clinton (aka "fake news").

They were doing both - Pecker admitted to it yesterday on the witness stand. It was direct coordination with Trump himself and then Michael Cohen on behalf of Trump.

How is that legal?
Surely that can’t be legal, right?