Remember that time Sam Wilson made Steve look like a genocidal maniac because he wanted to uphold "freedom of the...

Remember that time Sam Wilson made Steve look like a genocidal maniac because he wanted to uphold "freedom of the press" as defined by an opportunistic sensationalist money-grubbing reporter?

Today's Captain America, everybody!

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=cbA5RE9eK08
youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw
thefederalist.com/2016/12/01/donald-trumps-carrier-deal-is-just-cronyism-as-usual/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

They're kind of writing him as a new character though aren't they?

What's the context of this, exactly?

Nuke was tricked into attacking a Eurasian city. Cap managed to talk him down. This journalist accidentally made her presence known, causing Nuke to freak out as he thought she was there to make American soldiers look bad (which she ultimately did).

Sam rescued her and then this happened.

1/2

Freedom of the press exists and is inportant whether or not you like what they have to say or why they say it.

2/2

Yup. Sam's a turd. Also, unlike Sally Floyd, she was never put to task for this warping of the facts.

>"freedom of the press"

They're working on that right now. Soon everybody will be able to just write everything and call it: "news".

"Freedom of the press"


Fucking bitch, why you fucking lying.

I don't see how Sam's wrong here. It's debateable whether what he did was right but he stuck to an American principle.

>Know Steve years
>See's photograph of him acting out of character
>Instead of asking him to explain go straight to thinking he's evil now.

The problem isn't with the press being free or people being able to speak their minds, that's how it should be, the problem is with blatant misreporting of the facts and interest-based journalism.
He shouldn't take her camera away, but he should sock her face for the bullshit.

I don't see the problem. Sam did the right thing.

She did it for the clicks! And the cash! But mostly the cash!

Like I said, he did I'd he right thing but he'd be right-er by punching her skull until it caves after the fact.

No. You don't get it. Sam was THERE for when Cap was trying to peacefully negotiate with Nuke. That handshake? Was Nuke helping Steve back on his feet because he realized he was wrong.

Sam didn't bother checking what was in the camera or properly ask the reporter how she was going to spin her story with what was inside it.

She just went FIRST AMENDMENT and he caved nigh-instantly.

>I don't see the problem. Sam did the right thing.

Sally Floyd should be spit on every time she shows up in a book. She's probably the second shittiest character in the entire Marvel Universe.

Another problem is that these days many people choose to believe news stories that favor their "side" and ignore any news that says otherwise, labeling it as "biased".

Sure, but Sam did the right thing.

Yup.

Sam did the rght thing in allowing for freedom of press, but the moment that article came out they should have all gone full Trump on the biased reporting.

>The media is SO corrupt... It's unbelievable folks.

>Sure, but Sam did the right thing.

He could have let her leave with the camera *and* a face full of spit.

>where were you when Nuke was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT?

Oh nooo...

youtube.com/watch?v=cbA5RE9eK08

In deep thought.

I'm pretty sure that Vietnam vets weren't treated THAT badly.

Thankfully now that Trump is in charge he'll be tightening up the libel laws and we won't have to worry about this treasonous 'freedom of the press' nonsense any more.

All Steve had to do was give a Press Conference explaining things and call the reporter out for her lies.

The biggest blame was put on the generals but the idea of the soldiers becoming monsters in there was prett widespread.

>It ain't me starts playing.

It was pretty bad, they were spat on, sworn at, called baby-killers, and generally reviled.

They were treated pretty badly.

Mhmm.

>Dat last panel
Is editorial really that lazy that they won;t notice a tattoo being on a gun?

That's why we have this little thing called libel, and soon we will be able to sue people and get lots of money from libel

Why I'm thinking about suing that Milo character for libel

It was, but unlike World War 2 which was clear and simple the Vietnam War was a giant mess with no clear goal.

Well Remender's run had no brakes and by the time Cap had time to do that, he had been turned into an old man and Zola was invading New York with his interdimensional monster army so the issue remained unaddressed by the time things were capped off by the ending of All-New Captain America.

Wew lad

youtube.com/watch?v=IdYRN8Clddw

Yes they are

How do you know that he doesn't have a tattoo on the gun?

He won't. Congress knows that if they open up that can of worms conservative media would be far more endangered. They're the ones that got rid of the Fairness Doctrine after all.

I think that was sarcasm, though Trump pretty much is trying to do away with the press.

The "spat on" thing is an urban legend, the rest is true, even if it wasn't to the extent many think.

>the Fairness Doctrine
The what now?

Seems to me like Sam did the right thing and shouldn't be held responsible for the reporter's misrepresentation of the facts.

>Yeah, I'm basically starving AND risking my life here unless I can deliver some shitty dude sitting in a nice chair somewhere far away from here something he can use to fabricate a scandal out of nothing

The facts are on the table right there, folks.

In fucking 1987.

More like he is shitting on the press that backed his opponent.
As a foreign observer and a latino, I have to say it's pretty clear that american media is heavily biased both to the right and to the left.
If you want an unbiased view you're better off shitposting here, at least if you go to enough boards you'll get a pretty broad range of opinions.

The one that required the media to report all sides of major issues and present things in a an actually fair and balanced way.

I, don't think so. Remember, it was CNN and NBC who were lying to everyone for the last year and a half.

>they were spat on
Reminder that the only documented instance of that was a Republican spitting on a veteran protesting more kids being forced to participate in a really pointless war that was unwinnable by design.

All other instances happened in movies and the right-wing press only.

You know that explains a lot

Seriously, the amount of shilling I saw in media for Hillary and making Trump out to be the worst fate possible for America was ridiculous. And I don't even think he's gonna be a good president.

It got so bad there was that big deal the news station made about retracting the shit they had been saying about him after he actually surprised everyone and won.

I'd say that the media on the left's bias manifests itself on what stories they focus on and which they ignore, often distorting the truth. Even then, the media on the left will still try and act balanced, hence why even they focused a lot on the Hillary e-mails.
The media on the right's bias comes from spreading lies, even blatant ones.

It is important. You know what else is important? Reporting facts and not reporting your bullshit story.

Not saying you're wrong, but which ones are you talking about?
And can you honestly tell me that Fox News and Breitbart don't lie?

>called baby-killers

Seems pretty mild for people who engaged in chemical warfare against civilians...

Remember the repeal in 2013 on the Propaganda ban?

>hence why even they focused a lot on the Hillary e-mails.
Even that was a problem, because the e-mails got more coverage then poverty, global warming, foreign policy and budget. Combined

Your media is fucking awful at their job

>More like he is shitting on the press that backed his opponent.

How does that even make sense? No news channel didn't go out on its way to remind people of E-Mails every other day in the name of fair coverage.

And now they are spinning with a ratings of 16% of the news share.

user, the entire point of Sam's decision is that he doesn't "get" to do that. Its not his place. If she wants to use it that way, its entirely her right, and taking the camera is still theft.

The right seems to think that because the media reported Donald Trump's own words and actions that means they're biased.

but he didn't MEAN them!

Could he confiscate the camera, delete the pictures, and then give it back?
Keep in mind, they're in Eastern Europe in the middle of a warzone, not in America.

Its just proving the point that laws are wrong, and things go bad when vigilantes start following them instead of actually doing the right thing.

>Donald Trump tells it like it is!
>He didn't mean that!

He can do it and get away with it, but it wouldn't be living up to his ideals.

I don't know, probably not. Its still destruction of property.

I completely agree.

look, all politicians are liars. they dishonestly lie. but Trump honestly lies! he says things that are obviously not true, without even caring if he's caught!

That's authenticity.

Not really, what was that about?

But when he says he'll bring back jobs, repeal Obamacare, lock Hillary up, get rid of all illegals, build a wall paid by Mexico and Make America Great Again, he really means it!

>More like he is shitting on the press that backed his opponent.
Hardly. CNN is a big part of why Trump got so big, since they covered every single one of his rallies in full and made it a spectacle.

No news channel talked about policy, none of them talked about Trump's conflicts of interests or his big money donors. It was just pussygate and emails and free advertising for trump.

However, there is a very big difference between the 24/7 news channels and the *actual* press. Trump is disavowing both, and that is awful for transparency. We should not have found out about Ivanka sitting in with the Japanese Prime Minister or her joining a call with Argentina's President from THEIR press. That is insanity.

Did you not bother to read or watch the actual statements or compare some of the out-of-context misrepresentation?
Just because you saw it on the news it doesn't make it true, and if you didn't bother to actually check it out then you shouldn't pretend it is and that your sources are accurate.

Now this is just circlejerking.

>Look how smart and right we are, haha! We don't even need to back our claim

But even pussygate is a legit thing to cover, because he brags about getting away with sexual harassment.

Not that guy, but, Trump/GOP have dialed back on all those claims, or they're outright impossible.

They're not even sure how to tackle Obamacare.

>That's the joke

I did, the context usually didn't help or only made things worse.
There were countless times when I saw a headline and thought "this can't possibly be true", then listened to the statement/read the tweet and lo and behold it was.
And then of course there's the debates, which I watched with no spin. Just pure unfiltered Donald.

Of course, there are news unrelated to things that Trump said, such as all the rumors about his taxes, business deals, mafia connections, etc. Those I'm usually more skeptical about, but Trump does very little to dissuade me that they're not true.

I like how the artist was super lazy and just shopped nuke's tattoo

To be fair, Sam Wilson as Cap contantly complains about how much the media sucks.

Based presidet Loki

At a certain point, it becomes a deluge of "wow he said that!!?" without really meaning anything. Here's a very good example, there's a story of a Trump voter being shocked and disappointed in Trump picking Steven Mnuchin for Treasury Secretary. Mnuchin was on Trump's campaign team, but no one ever reported on that, or the actual contrast of who Trump surrounded himself while championing himself as being the one to take on Wall Street.

How many people know Trump's infrastructure proposal will create a lot more toll roads? How many people know the Carrier "deal" was just a huge handout to keep less than half of the jobs in the US?

The *media* is not Anti Trump. They are *for* ratings, and Trump's campaign was good for business so they covered his every waking moment. Just because they covered his entirety, warts and all, does not mean they were against him. At the end of the day, he got a lot more coverage than Clinton did.

>huge handout
That was a tax break
And how is saving half when they were planning to move to a site that was already under construction a bad thing?

This. The mainstream media priritzes ratings over any agenda.
The right-wing media pushes their agenda because that's how they get ratings.

Still mad Spencer had to make Sokovia a thing in 616 when Nrosvekistan could've been perfect for his story

>it becomes a deluge of "wow he said that!!?" without really meaning anything
And I delude to my previous point
>Your media is fucking awful at their job

>How many people know the Carrier "deal" was just a huge handout to keep less than half of the jobs in the US?
Nobody, I doubt people even knows that plans to keep jobs in the US by lowering cooperate tax to 15%

Unless he goes with the bill that Sanders gave, which makes it so that American cooperation's has to pay as much tax outside the US and they would inside the US. Making it as expensive to have outside the US

Stupid bitch should've used USM lens that don't make a sound. Or telephoto from much further away.

I know about the Carrier deal. I tried explaining it to my conservative friend but he wouldn't listen and insisted that Trump had done more for America before getting inaugurated than Obama did in 8 years.

A 7 million dollar tax break IS a hand out. It's a bad thing because they are still moving more than half their jobs out of the country, and the jobs they are keeping are low wage, high turnover jobs, so they aren't going to be sticking around for long either.

It was a PR stunt for Trump, plain and simple, he gets to say "I kept jobs in the US!" and people see that because that's all the media reports. Who cares that he's already backing down on his promise of punitive actions against outsourcing and is actively doing the opposite? Who cares about the precedent he's setting that promising to oursource now gets you big bonuses from the US? The media doesn't, because "president elect saves jobs before being sworn in!" is a nice headline.

>Your media is fucking awful at their job
Yeah, US media is really bad. There's a few gems, like the NYT, but for the most part, it's all really bad fluff garbage.

I'm still confused by the Carrier deal, from the looks of it 2000 were planned on being moved. Then Trump threatened them with taxes if they left, and offered a tax break if they stay and saved 1000 that wouldn't exist otherwise. So what exactly was the problem?

The worst part was that a lot of them were already either nervous wrecks, or coke addicts.

So instead of keeping a 1000 jobs and all the taxes you would get, you would rather lose all that?

honestly there's nothing really wrong with it, but it's such a small deal and it's getting such huge attention.

conversely, Obama oversaw the saving of the U.S. auto industry at the start of his term and the Republicans bashed him for it even though millions of jobs ended up being saved.

>Implying Carrier won't get rid of those jobs a year from now while nobody is paying attention

Unironically, Sam dindu nuffin.

Ultimately, he ended up having had made the wrong call, but for the right reasons. It's not his fault the bitch took advantage.

All-New Captain America was good, but CASW is atrocious. It's known that Spencer is a petty cunt though and dislikes Memender.

>implying you Trump wouldn't screw them if they made him look bad

That's why I said when nobody is paying attention. By then the media will have moved on to something else and nobody will care what Carrier does. And since nobody will care, Trump won't either.

This. Carrier is part of United Technologies and they could lose huge defense contracts if Trump decided to punish them.

If Obama did this, the right would be going nuts. And some of the more honest conservatives aren't thrilled with Trump doing it, either.

>And some of the more honest conservatives aren't thrilled with Trump doing it, either.
Yeah, I may disagree with most of these people on many issues, but I respect when they stick to their principles instead of going all "It's OK if you're a Republican"

>thefederalist.com/2016/12/01/donald-trumps-carrier-deal-is-just-cronyism-as-usual/

It's 800 jobs being kept. An entire factory is being shut down, and even the main factory in Indianpolis is losing some of its jobs too.

The actual jobs being kept, again, are low wage, high turn over jobs that won't be around in a year or two anyway, and certainly won't make up for the 7 million dollars in taxes we are losing out on.

It's a bad deal, and it's the exact opposite of what Trump promised he'd do, but it's a nice headline, so that's why he did it.

Could I get source?