Have a great week-end everyone !

As of August 18, 2025, MSNBC will officially change its name to My Source News Opinion World, abbreviated as MS NOW. This significant rebranding is part of a broader corporate restructuring following NBC Universal’s decision to spin off several cable networks, including MSNBC, into a new company called Versant.

The rebranding of MSNBC to MS NOW is not directly attributed to the Russia-Gate controversy, but it does reflect broader shifts in the media landscape and the network’s evolving identity. While the name change to MS NOW is part of a corporate restructuring and an effort to establish a distinct identity, it also signals a desire to move beyond past controversies and focus on future content and audience engagement. The network aims to redefine itself in a rapidly changing media environment, rather than being solely defined by its past coverage of Trump and Russia-Gate.

While the Russia-Gate saga played a role in shaping MSNBC’s identity and audience during Trump’s first term, the decision to rebrand is more about the network’s strategic direction and independence following its spin-off from NBC Universal. The Russia-Gate controversy has been a contentious topic, particularly regarding how various media outlets, including MSNBC and its prominent host Rachel Maddow, covered the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During the Russia-Gate saga, she focused on various aspects of the investigation, including connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

The Mueller Report, released in 2019, concluded that while there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, the investigation did not establish that the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference efforts. The characterization of Rachel Maddow’s promotion of the Russia-Gate narrative as a « hoax » reflects a polarized political landscape where interpretations of media coverage can vary widely. Media overreach, Trump 2.0 has exposed. Political journalism promoted by a Pravda press corporate established monopoly – that ship has sailed.

The characterization of media outlets, including MSNBC and figures like Rachel Maddow, as part of a « Pravda press » reflects a growing sentiment among some groups that mainstream media serves specific political agendas rather than providing unbiased reporting. This perception contributes to the polarization of public opinion and distrust in traditional news sources. The consolidation of media ownership has raised concerns about the diversity of viewpoints presented in the news. Critics argue that corporate interests can shape narratives, leading to a lack of accountability and a focus on sensationalism over substantive reporting. This has led to calls for more independent journalism that prioritizes transparency and integrity.

The Lame Stream Legacy Media – Fake News – dead in the water. The rise of alternative media platforms and independent journalists presents opportunities for diverse perspectives but also challenges regarding credibility and reliability. The call for a more balanced and accountable media is increasingly relevant in this context.

Streaming media outlets like Google You Tube attract far larger News viewing audience than does Cable Television. Streaming platforms like YouTube have attracted a larger and more diverse audience compared to traditional cable news channels. This is largely due to the accessibility of online content, allowing viewers to watch news on-demand and from various sources. YouTube and similar platforms enable greater interaction between content creators and viewers. Users can comment, share, and engage with news stories in real-time, fostering a sense of community and participation that traditional cable news often lacks.

Streaming platforms offer a wide range of news content, from professional journalism to independent reporting and commentary. This diversity allows viewers to choose sources that align with their interests and perspectives, contributing to a more personalized news experience. Many viewers are moving away from cable subscriptions due to high costs. Streaming services often provide free or lower-cost options, making news more accessible to a broader audience. Younger generations, in particular, are more inclined to consume news through digital platforms rather than traditional cable. This trend is reshaping how news organizations approach content delivery, often prioritizing online engagement and social media presence.

While streaming platforms provide diverse viewpoints, they also face challenges related to misinformation and the spread of unverified content. News organizations must navigate these issues to maintain credibility and trust with their audiences. Face Book, once the biggest player has seen its market share collapse after it together with Twitter threw the 2020 elections by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Hillery Clinton’s treason.

The platforms’ decisions to limit the spread of this Hunter Biden laptop story constituted censorship and influenced public perception of both Biden and President Trump as Presidential candidates. Following the election and the controversies surrounding content moderation, Facebook has experienced fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Some users have expressed dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, leading to calls for alternatives and contributing to a decline in trust. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have contributed to increased polarization among users. Supporters of former President Donald Trump and other critics argue that the platforms unfairly targeted conservative viewpoints.

The controversies surrounding social media’s role in the election have led to increased scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Discussions about potential regulations to address issues of censorship, misinformation, and the power of tech companies have gained momentum. As trust in traditional social media platforms has waned, some users have migrated to alternative platforms that promote themselves as free speech advocates. This shift reflects a broader trend of users.

The narrative surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story has had a profound impact on public perception, influencing how voters viewed both Joe Biden and Donald Trump as presidential candidates. The narrative surrounding this story became a focal point for discussions about media bias and the role of social media in shaping political narratives.

Following the election, platforms like Facebook have seen fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, which has led to a decline in trust. This dissatisfaction has prompted some users to seek alternatives, contributing to a shift in the social media landscape. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have exacerbated polarization among users. Supporters of Donald Trump and other critics argue that conservative viewpoints were unfairly targeted, leading to a perception of bias that further divides users along political lines.

In response to these controversies, lawmakers and regulators have increased their scrutiny of social media’s role in elections. There is a growing discussion about potential regulations aimed at addressing issues of censorship, misinformation, and the significant power held by tech companies. This scrutiny reflects a broader concern about the influence of social media on democratic processes. As trust in traditional social media platforms declines, many users are migrating to alternative platforms that advocate for free speech. This trend indicates a significant shift in user behavior, as individuals vote with their feet and seek spaces that align more closely with their contempt for content moderation and censorship which rapes Free Speech.

The Lame Stream Media concealment of the mental health of President Biden and the flavor of ice cream he likes soft ball questions has aroused a strong sense among the American people that the Corporate Government established monopolies have betrayed American Constitutional Rights.

Critics argue that the Lame-stream media often downplays or conceals information that could influence public perception. This has led to a growing sentiment among some Americans that the media is not fulfilling its role as an independent watchdog, but rather acting in alignment with corporate interests. The perception that corporate entities, including media organizations, have employed their lobbies to have the government to establish protected monopolies – far from limited to Obama-care corruption – raises concerns about the integrity of democratic processes. Many individuals feel that these government established & protected government monopolies prioritize profits over the public good, leading to a betrayal of American Constitutional Rights. This sentiment, particularly strong among those who believe that the media should provide unbiased information and hold public figures accountable.

As a result of these perceptions, there is a growing erosion of trust in both the media and government institutions e.g. corporate protected monopolies, first and foremost Wilson’s 1913 Federal Reserve. Many Americans feel that their rights to access truthful information and engage in open discourse are being compromised. This distrust results in increased polarization which rips the fabric of our society as a nation. A sense of disconnection from the political process, makes Americans distrust the bought and paid for political process that « styles » itself as a « Democracy ».

In light of these concerns, there are calls for greater accountability from both media organizations and government Corporate protected monopoly entities. Advocates argue for the need to ensure that media coverage is fair, transparent, and representative of diverse viewpoints. Rather than a propaganda vomit of emotional opinions and superficial over reactions.

Additionally, there is a push for regulations that address the influence of corporate interests on public discourse and democratic processes. The ongoing discussions about media representation, corporate influence, and the protection of constitutional rights will continue to shape the political landscape and public sentiment in the United States. Addressing these issues is crucial for restoring trust and ensuring a healthy Republic, wherein the State Legislatures determine what Federal Senators and Congress-persons present as bills before Congress.

J’aimeJ’aime

Réponse

2 commentaires sur “Have a great week-end everyone !”

18 août 2025 à 18:00, mosckerr a dit :

As of August 18, 2025, MSNBC will officially change its name to My Source News Opinion World, abbreviated as MS NOW. This significant rebranding is part of a broader corporate restructuring following NBC Universal’s decision to spin off several cable networks, including MSNBC, into a new company called Versant.

The rebranding of MSNBC to MS NOW is not directly attributed to the Russia-Gate controversy, but it does reflect broader shifts in the media landscape and the network’s evolving identity. While the name change to MS NOW is part of a corporate restructuring and an effort to establish a distinct identity, it also signals a desire to move beyond past controversies and focus on future content and audience engagement. The network aims to redefine itself in a rapidly changing media environment, rather than being solely defined by its past coverage of Trump and Russia-Gate.

While the Russia-Gate saga played a role in shaping MSNBC’s identity and audience during Trump’s first term, the decision to rebrand is more about the network’s strategic direction and independence following its spin-off from NBC Universal. The Russia-Gate controversy has been a contentious topic, particularly regarding how various media outlets, including MSNBC and its prominent host Rachel Maddow, covered the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. During the Russia-Gate saga, she focused on various aspects of the investigation, including connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

The Mueller Report, released in 2019, concluded that while there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, the investigation did not establish that the campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference efforts. The characterization of Rachel Maddow’s promotion of the Russia-Gate narrative as a « hoax » reflects a polarized political landscape where interpretations of media coverage can vary widely. Media overreach, Trump 2.0 has exposed. Political journalism promoted by a Pravda press corporate established monopoly – that ship has sailed.

The characterization of media outlets, including MSNBC and figures like Rachel Maddow, as part of a « Pravda press » reflects a growing sentiment among some groups that mainstream media serves specific political agendas rather than providing unbiased reporting. This perception contributes to the polarization of public opinion and distrust in traditional news sources. The consolidation of media ownership has raised concerns about the diversity of viewpoints presented in the news. Critics argue that corporate interests can shape narratives, leading to a lack of accountability and a focus on sensationalism over substantive reporting. This has led to calls for more independent journalism that prioritizes transparency and integrity.

The Lame Stream Legacy Media – Fake News – dead in the water. The rise of alternative media platforms and independent journalists presents opportunities for diverse perspectives but also challenges regarding credibility and reliability. The call for a more balanced and accountable media is increasingly relevant in this context.

Streaming media outlets like Google You Tube attract far larger News viewing audience than does Cable Television. Streaming platforms like YouTube have attracted a larger and more diverse audience compared to traditional cable news channels. This is largely due to the accessibility of online content, allowing viewers to watch news on-demand and from various sources. YouTube and similar platforms enable greater interaction between content creators and viewers. Users can comment, share, and engage with news stories in real-time, fostering a sense of community and participation that traditional cable news often lacks.

Streaming platforms offer a wide range of news content, from professional journalism to independent reporting and commentary. This diversity allows viewers to choose sources that align with their interests and perspectives, contributing to a more personalized news experience. Many viewers are moving away from cable subscriptions due to high costs. Streaming services often provide free or lower-cost options, making news more accessible to a broader audience. Younger generations, in particular, are more inclined to consume news through digital platforms rather than traditional cable. This trend is reshaping how news organizations approach content delivery, often prioritizing online engagement and social media presence.

While streaming platforms provide diverse viewpoints, they also face challenges related to misinformation and the spread of unverified content. News organizations must navigate these issues to maintain credibility and trust with their audiences. Face Book, once the biggest player has seen its market share collapse after it together with Twitter threw the 2020 elections by censoring the Hunter Biden laptop scandal and Hillery Clinton’s treason.

The platforms’ decisions to limit the spread of this Hunter Biden laptop story constituted censorship and influenced public perception of both Biden and President Trump as Presidential candidates. Following the election and the controversies surrounding content moderation, Facebook has experienced fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Some users have expressed dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, leading to calls for alternatives and contributing to a decline in trust. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have contributed to increased polarization among users. Supporters of former President Donald Trump and other critics argue that the platforms unfairly targeted conservative viewpoints.

The controversies surrounding social media’s role in the election have led to increased scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Discussions about potential regulations to address issues of censorship, misinformation, and the power of tech companies have gained momentum. As trust in traditional social media platforms has waned, some users have migrated to alternative platforms that promote themselves as free speech advocates. This shift reflects a broader trend of users.

The narrative surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop story has had a profound impact on public perception, influencing how voters viewed both Joe Biden and Donald Trump as presidential candidates. The narrative surrounding this story became a focal point for discussions about media bias and the role of social media in shaping political narratives.

Following the election, platforms like Facebook have seen fluctuations in user engagement and market share. Many users have voiced their dissatisfaction with perceived biases in content moderation, which has led to a decline in trust. This dissatisfaction has prompted some users to seek alternatives, contributing to a shift in the social media landscape. The actions taken by social media platforms during the election have exacerbated polarization among users. Supporters of Donald Trump and other critics argue that conservative viewpoints were unfairly targeted, leading to a perception of bias that further divides users along political lines.

In response to these controversies, lawmakers and regulators have increased their scrutiny of social media’s role in elections. There is a growing discussion about potential regulations aimed at addressing issues of censorship, misinformation, and the significant power held by tech companies. This scrutiny reflects a broader concern about the influence of social media on democratic processes. As trust in traditional social media platforms declines, many users are migrating to alternative platforms that advocate for free speech. This trend indicates a significant shift in user behavior, as individuals vote with their feet and seek spaces that align more closely with their contempt for content moderation and censorship which rapes Free Speech.

The Lame Stream Media concealment of the mental health of President Biden and the flavor of ice cream he likes soft ball questions has aroused a strong sense among the American people that the Corporate Government established monopolies have betrayed American Constitutional Rights.

Critics argue that the Lame-stream media often downplays or conceals information that could influence public perception. This has led to a growing sentiment among some Americans that the media is not fulfilling its role as an independent watchdog, but rather acting in alignment with corporate interests. The perception that corporate entities, including media organizations, have employed their lobbies to have the government to establish protected monopolies – far from limited to Obama-care corruption – raises concerns about the integrity of democratic processes. Many individuals feel that these government established & protected government monopolies prioritize profits over the public good, leading to a betrayal of American Constitutional Rights. This sentiment, particularly strong among those who believe that the media should provide unbiased information and hold public figures accountable.

As a result of these perceptions, there is a growing erosion of trust in both the media and government institutions e.g. corporate protected monopolies, first and foremost Wilson’s 1913 Federal Reserve. Many Americans feel that their rights to access truthful information and engage in open discourse are being compromised. This distrust results in increased polarization which rips the fabric of our society as a nation. A sense of disconnection from the political process, makes Americans distrust the bought and paid for political process that « styles » itself as a « Democracy ».

In light of these concerns, there are calls for greater accountability from both media organizations and government Corporate protected monopoly entities. Advocates argue for the need to ensure that media coverage is fair, transparent, and representative of diverse viewpoints. Rather than a propaganda vomit of emotional opinions and superficial over reactions.

Additionally, there is a push for regulations that address the influence of corporate interests on public discourse and democratic processes. The ongoing discussions about media representation, corporate influence, and the protection of constitutional rights will continue to shape the political landscape and public sentiment in the United States. Addressing these issues is crucial for restoring trust and ensuring a healthy Republic, wherein the State Legislatures determine what Federal Senators and Congress-persons present as bills before Congress.

J’aimeJ’aime

Réponse
- 24 août 2025 à 07:36, mosckerr a dit :
  
  Its now the month of Elul. The Jewish saying: The King is in the field. T’shuva requires remembering the sin of the Golden Calf and how HaShem threatened to break the sworn oath alliance cut with Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.
  
  Understanding Shotrim/police in the Context of Prophets: Prophets in ancient Israel, such as Samuel, were instrumental in anointing kings (e.g., Saul and David) and had the authority to remove them when they strayed from God’s commandments. This role underscores their significant influence in governance and leadership. While Shotrim typically refers to the enforcers of the Sanhedrin’s rulings, the term can also encompass a broader understanding of those who uphold the law and moral order, which includes the prophetic role. Prophets, as Shotrim, enforce divine law and moral standards, guiding the people and leaders in their adherence to God’s will. The connection between prophets and Shotrim highlights the integration of spiritual and legal authority in ancient Israel. Prophets not only provided spiritual guidance but also played a crucial role in the political landscape, influencing the leadership and direction of the nation.
  
  J’aimeJ’aime
  
  Réponse