Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums

Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 03:08:58 PM



Title: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 03:08:58 PM
Been meaning to create a thread like this for years.  Finally getting around to it.   :)  One example of the liberal media bias:

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals
By Scott Whitlock | November 03, 2011

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

This pattern continued on Wednesday night and into Thursday as the evening newscasts and morning shows highlighted the story 19 times. On Good Morning America, Brian Ross offered innuendo and slung gossip, recounting, "But behind the scenes, several of the campaigns are still urging reporters to continue to dig, George, saying, there's more to be found in the private life of Herman Cain." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

Without offering facts, Ross described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association: "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states. They were the new ones, the young ones. And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos trumpeted the latest: "Another woman. Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment."  "Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner," inquired the former Democratic operative turned journalist.

On the November 3 Today, Lisa Myers, with no sense of irony, declared the story "a feeding frenzy." She trumpeted, "For Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."

In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."

The nightly newscasts offered a similar tone. Both Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and Nightly News' Brian Williams led their shows by exclaiming, "Under pressure."

Williams added, "Herman Cain fights to stay on his game as reporters swarm and questions swirl about accusations of sexual harassment. Tonight, one of his accusers wants to talk, but can she go public?"

In a follow-up segment, Williams spun the story as a reminder of the seriousness of sexual harassment: "This, of course, is just the latest entry in a long list of similar situations, stories that have made headlines and come and gone over the years and a lot of people are wondering not only what really happened here but where the line is where the rules of the workplace are concerned."

The morning shows, Good Morning America, Today and Early Show, devoted 12 stories to the scandal on Thursday. Wednesday's evening newscasts, Nightly News, World News and Evening News, offered another six. ABC's Nightline also had one.


. . . .

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/03/networks-hit-cain-story-50-times-less-four-days-ignored-clinton-scan


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Emmortal on November 03, 2011, 03:11:17 PM
News flash: main stream media is biased on both sides.  What's the story here exactly?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 03:12:41 PM
News flash: main stream media is biased on both sides.  What's the story here exactly?

?  Not sure what you mean by "biased on both sides"? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 03:19:49 PM
if there's one thing we need, it's another thread where repubs whine about being the victim of something.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 03:43:29 PM
Beside the fact that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest corporate whore the White House has ever seen, please don't forget that the Cain case had been settled.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 03:52:02 PM
Beside the fact that Bill Clinton was perhaps the biggest corporate whore the White House has ever seen, please don't forget that the Cain case had been settled.

There was no Cain case.  Also, Cain isn't president.  You would think allegations against a sitting president are pretty newsworthy.  And, any "settlement" was between the woman and the NRA, not Cain. 

Still, the difference in media coverage is striking. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 03:54:37 PM
There was no Cain case.

There was.  It is what generated the settlement.

Also, Cain isn't president.

He is attempting to become president.

You would think allegations against a sitting president are pretty newsworthy.

There are always accusations against every president.  Probably thousands of them over a four year period.

  And, any "settlement" was between the woman and the NRA, not Cain.

It has been acknowledged that there WAS a settlement, and it was due to Cain's actions.

Still, the difference in media coverage is striking.

Given the above, how so?
 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 04:04:47 PM
It has been acknowledged that there WAS a settlement, and it was due to Cain's actions.

Given the above, how so?



Because Bill Clinton was president and Cain is a presidential candidate.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skip8282 on November 03, 2011, 04:09:16 PM
I think most have varying degrees of bias.

But in the article you posted, they really need to compare apples to apples.  That was a long time ago, different people in the media, etc.  Something more current, but maybe not exactly the same act might be a little better indicator.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 04:10:51 PM
Because Bill Clinton was president and Cain is a presidential candidate.

Over a four year term, there are probably thousands of individual accusations made against any president.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 04:12:23 PM
I think most have varying degrees of bias.

But in the article you posted, they really need to compare apples to apples.  That was a long time ago, different people in the media, etc.  Something more current, but maybe not exactly the same act might be a little better indicator.

Not sure there is a true apples to apples comparison, but it does involve somewhat similar allegations (although Clinton's were apparently far worse).  This is the part that stands out to me:  50 news stories about Cain and

In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.


This is after Paula Jones actually had a press conference.  


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 04:13:28 PM
Over a four year term, there are probably thousands of individual accusations made against any president.

Over an eight year term, there are no women holding press conferences to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 04:17:56 PM
Over an eight year term,

Yes, Clinton had eight years, but most presidents have four year terms.

there are no women holding press conferences to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.   

Then you could argue that the fact this woman was given a press conference shows a bias against Clinton. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 04:25:53 PM
Yes, Clinton had eight years, but most presidents have four year terms.

Then you could argue that the fact this woman was given a press conference shows a bias against Clinton. 

You're missing the point.  I expanded your reference of four years to eight years to show how rare it is for a woman to hold a press conference accusing a sitting president of misconduct.  It is extremely rare. 

The woman wasn't "given" a press conference.  She (like anyone) invites the press.  Whether they show up is another story. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 04:30:23 PM
You're missing the point.  I expanded your reference of four years to eight years to show how rare it is for a woman to hold a press conference accusing a sitting president of misconduct.  It is extremely rare.

Any person can make an accusation.  It really is that simple.

The woman wasn't "given" a press conference.  She (like anyone) invites the press.  Whether they show up is another story. 

The fact that they showed up to report on it did in fact "give" her the conference.  Why isn't this a bias against Clinton?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 04:44:14 PM
Any person can make an accusation.  It really is that simple.

The fact that they showed up to report on it did in fact "give" her the conference.  Why isn't this a bias against Clinton?

You said there are "thousands" of accusations against a sitting president.  That also misses the point.  We're talking about a woman holding a press conference to accuse the president of misconduct.  Point me to another example over the past 40 years where this has happened, and the media didn't really cover it. 

No, the fact some of the media showed up at her press conference isn't bias against Clinton.  The fact the media, by and large, failed to even talk about her press conference and allegations shows an attempt to protect Clinton. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 05:05:34 PM
this shit = good ratings.

they deliver what people want.  They SHOULD be talking about congressional budgets, but people turn that shit off.

Hey, why the hell did weiner's cawkshots get 24/7 coverage and nonstop breaking news?

how about comparing weiner vs cain, beach bum?  did you do that?  or was a 20 year span better to meet the agenda of your whiny thread?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 03, 2011, 05:07:04 PM
?  Not sure what you mean by "biased on both sides"? 

what's so hard to understand about that statement



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 05:13:52 PM
look at what 17 or 18 years has changed as far as tv viewing habits.


I can turn on any channel at any time and see cleavage, hear words like "ass, damn, boobs, butt"...

I can watch any sitcom and see WAY more sexual innuendo than I did 18 years ago on television.

And the flow of information is way greater today - back then, it would have taken weeks for this much info to come out - many sources, responses, etc - almost instant. 


So yes, compare Cain to Weiner, and if you can demonstrate the media devoted more time to Cain than Weiner, I will agree with your point.

Until then, eh...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 05:17:30 PM
You said there are "thousands" of accusations against a sitting president.  That also misses the point.

In a nation of our size, that seems like a fair estimate.  The point is that anyone can make an accusation.

We're talking about a woman holding a press conference to accuse the president of misconduct.  Point me to another example over the past 40 years where this has happened, and the media didn't really cover it.

Point me to one where the media DID really cover it.  I don't expect a lot of coverage for any accusation, because anyone can make one.  It really is that simple.

No, the fact some of the media showed up at her press conference isn't bias against Clinton.  The fact the media, by and large, failed to even talk about her press conference and allegations shows an attempt to protect Clinton.

Considering the accusation hadn't even been pursued legally, I'd say the fact that it got ANY coverage could be argued as a bias against Clinton.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 05:21:16 PM
Geez, I'd forgotten about Weiner.  How about Spitzer?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 05:23:04 PM
Clinton was amost 20 years ago.  

Viewing habits have changed.

beach bum, turn off the gilligan's repeats and military channel - turn on primetime tv and you'll discover people watch a bunch of slutty garbage these days.

also, ad revenues - compare them 90s to today... and tracking of viewer preferences... the know what people want today - it was a guessing game 20 years ago.

it's comparing apples and oranges.  Sex scandals, in general, sell like hell today.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 06:16:39 PM
In a nation of our size, that seems like a fair estimate.  The point is that anyone can make an accusation.

Point me to one where the media DID really cover it.  I don't expect a lot of coverage for any accusation, because anyone can make one.  It really is that simple.

Considering the accusation hadn't even been pursued legally, I'd say the fact that it got ANY coverage could be argued as a bias against Clinton.

Who cares if anyone can make an accusation?  We're talking about someone holding a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.  But I said that already . . . .

Go back and read the story in the first post of this thread, including this part:  "In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations."  The fact they failed to cover it shows they protected him. 

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 06:32:16 PM
BB, in your religious world, the things on tv are the same in 2011 as they were in 1992.

Sorry, but this isn't the case.

Sex sells, and they love some explicit shit these days.

Turn off PBS and turn on primetime sitcoms - this stuff is raunchy, with all sorts of innuendo of bending over, swallowing, 3-ways, and all sorts of other shit which would NEVER have made it onto the air in the 90s.

People love sex.   Well, democrats do at least.


Compare Weiner vs. Cain coverage.  BOOM!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 07:25:55 PM
Who cares if anyone can make an accusation?  We're talking about someone holding a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct.  But I said that already . . . .

Go back and read the story in the first post of this thread, including this part:  "In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations."  The fact they failed to cover it shows they protected him. 

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 



Bro, we're talking about a concluded legal action versus a simple statement.  They just aren't comparable.

By the way, I don't blame you for disliking Clinton.  He is a criminal shitbag who has damaged this country worse than almost any other politician.  Neocons should be worshipping this POS.  But you have to be real about what bias can be found.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2011, 07:27:49 PM
can someone compare the weiner coverage (24/7 and annoying as hell) with this cain coverage?

Weiner was just a lame congressman, one of 535.   Cain is 1 of 5 people who will be the next POTUS.

Why is it that someone can - after 3 days of this scandal - conclude poor wee-pubs are the victim... but sure can't do the math on Weiner coverage?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 07:51:35 PM
can someone compare the weiner coverage (24/7 and annoying as hell) with this cain coverage?

Weiner was just a lame congressman, one of 535.   Cain is 1 of 5 people who will be the next POTUS.

Why is it that someone can - after 3 days of this scandal - conclude poor wee-pubs are the victim... but sure can't do the math on Weiner coverage?

Yes.  I was on the verge of screaming every time that fucking weasel was mentioned.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2011, 07:56:40 PM
Bro, we're talking about a concluded legal action versus a simple statement.  They just aren't comparable.

By the way, I don't blame you for disliking Clinton.  He is a criminal shitbag who has damaged this country worse than almost any other politician.  Neocons should be worshipping this POS.  But you have to be real about what bias can be found.


There was no concluded "legal action."  The woman left her job and was paid some money.  But you're right that they are not comparable in one respect:  the Paula Jones allegations were far more newsworthy and received essentially no initial coverage.  Pretty clear evidence of bias. 

Never said I disliked Clinton.  Voted for him twice.   :)

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 03, 2011, 08:14:23 PM
There was no concluded "legal action."  The woman left her job and was paid some money.

There was a legal action.  It's what generated the settlement, and the settlement generated a conclusion.

But you're right that they are not comparable in one respect:  the Paula Jones allegations were far more newsworthy and received essentially no initial coverage.  Pretty clear evidence of bias.

How so? 

Never said I disliked Clinton.  Voted for him twice.   :)

Lots of good people did.

Cite me one example where a woman held a press conference to accuse a sitting president of misconduct during the past 40 years. 

What should this tell me?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 04, 2011, 06:26:44 AM
Compare Cain coverage to Weiner coverage.   Or stop whining about a 20-year spread in social preferences.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 09:52:44 AM
The lead story on CNN.com yesterday evening:

Herman Cain accuser may issue statement
By Tom Cohen and Alan Silverleib, CNN
updated 11:44 AM EST, Fri November 4, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- One of the women who reportedly accused Republican presidential contender Herman Cain of sexual harassment could issue her first statement on what happened as early as Friday. The controversy has dominated Cain's front-running campaign but a defiant Cain said he will not let it deter him.

An attorney representing the alleged harassment victim sent a draft statement by his client to the National Restaurant Association on Thursday to seek its approval.

"I will be asking the association to allow us to release the public statement without violating the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of the 1999 settlement agreement," said the attorney, Joel Bennett.

Bennett told CNN the statement will not include his client's identity because she is trying to "remain private." The statement would be a summary of "what she did and why she did it" but not include specifics about any incidents or any settlement, Bennett said.

The association said it would respond to the proposed statement on Friday.

. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/politics/cain-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Wanting to issue a statement without revealing her identity is laugh out loud funny.   :)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: bears on November 04, 2011, 11:42:08 AM
Clinton was amost 20 years ago.  

Viewing habits have changed.

beach bum, turn off the gilligan's repeats and military channel - turn on primetime tv and you'll discover people watch a bunch of slutty garbage these days.

also, ad revenues - compare them 90s to today... and tracking of viewer preferences... the know what people want today - it was a guessing game 20 years ago.

it's comparing apples and oranges.  Sex scandals, in general, sell like hell today.

true.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: MCWAY on November 04, 2011, 11:48:12 AM
The lead story on CNN.com yesterday evening:

Herman Cain accuser may issue statement
By Tom Cohen and Alan Silverleib, CNN
updated 11:44 AM EST, Fri November 4, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- One of the women who reportedly accused Republican presidential contender Herman Cain of sexual harassment could issue her first statement on what happened as early as Friday. The controversy has dominated Cain's front-running campaign but a defiant Cain said he will not let it deter him.

An attorney representing the alleged harassment victim sent a draft statement by his client to the National Restaurant Association on Thursday to seek its approval.

"I will be asking the association to allow us to release the public statement without violating the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of the 1999 settlement agreement," said the attorney, Joel Bennett.

Bennett told CNN the statement will not include his client's identity because she is trying to "remain private." The statement would be a summary of "what she did and why she did it" but not include specifics about any incidents or any settlement, Bennett said.

The association said it would respond to the proposed statement on Friday.

. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/04/politics/cain-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Wanting to issue a statement without revealing her identity is laugh out loud funny.   :)


In other words, the so-called confidentialty thing ain't stopping this woman from talking. Furthermore, his claim that Cain broke such is BOGUS, because Cain isn't even on the severance deal between this woman and NRA (as he said earlier).


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 12:21:23 PM
can someone compare the weiner coverage (24/7 and annoying as hell) with this cain coverage?


bump


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 12:35:13 PM
In other words, the so-called confidentialty thing ain't stopping this woman from talking. Furthermore, his claim that Cain broke such is BOGUS, because Cain isn't even on the severance deal between this woman and NRA (as he said earlier).

Agree. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 12:49:04 PM
bump

Wiener actually did something objectively wrong.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 12:51:42 PM
Wiener actually did something objectively wrong.   

Don't try and confuse people with the facts.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 12:58:45 PM
Wiener actually did something objectively wrong.   

True.

So did Cain, or his association would have destroyed this woman within 15 minutes.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 01:07:33 PM
True.

So did Cain, or his association would have destroyed this woman within 15 minutes.

What did he do wrong?   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 01:27:21 PM
What did he do wrong?   

Something that was worth between 10K and 99+K, that's all I know.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 01:29:03 PM
Clinton was amost 20 years ago.  

Viewing habits have changed.
beach bum, turn off the gilligan's repeats and military channel - turn on primetime tv and you'll discover people watch a bunch of slutty garbage these days.

also, ad revenues - compare them 90s to today... and tracking of viewer preferences... the know what people want today - it was a guessing game 20 years ago.

it's comparing apples and oranges.  Sex scandals, in general, sell like hell today.
the media itself has changed too

go back even farther and you'll see the actively ignored sex scandals


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 01:30:26 PM
Something that was worth between 10K and 99+K, that's all I know.

 ::)  ::)

Companies settle matters they believe have no merit at all daily to avoid litigation costs. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 01:37:09 PM
::)  ::)

Companies settle matters they believe have no merit at all daily to avoid litigation costs. 

A situation like this would have been fought, to avoid exactly what is happening now.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 01:39:09 PM
::)  ::)

Companies settle matters they believe have no merit at all daily to avoid litigation costs. 

they also settle stuff every day when they know they are fucked and are hoping to avoid an even larger settlement


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 01:39:13 PM
A situation like this would have been fought, to avoid exactly what is happening now.


Well, then if it was so bad - why did she not go to trial and get the jackpot?  


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 01:39:52 PM
they also settle stuff every day when they know they are fucked and are hoping to avoid an even larger settlement


Paul Jones and the 850k Clintigula paid her agree! 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 01:40:35 PM
A situation like this would have been fought, to avoid exactly what is happening now.

No it wouldn't.  The NRA had no idea Cain would be running for president twenty years later (or whatever it was).  Neither did Cain, who wasn't even a party to the agreement.  


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 01:42:04 PM
No it wouldn't.  The NRA had no idea Cain would be running for president twenty years later (or whatever it was).  Neither did Cain, who wasn't even a party to the agreement.  

The White House isn't the only place where sexual harassment is frowned upon.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 01:48:58 PM
The White House isn't the only place where sexual harassment is frowned upon.

Quote
A situation like this would have been fought, to avoid exactly what is happening now.

What "situation like this" are you talking about? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 01:50:47 PM
Wiener actually did something objectively wrong.   

Weiner exhibited profoundly bad judgement and then tried to cover it up

Other than that I'm not aware of anyone filing a complaint against or claiming sexual harassment


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2011, 01:52:43 PM
Weiner exhibited profoundly bad judgement and then tried to cover it up

Other than that I'm not aware of anyone filing a complaint against or claiming sexual harassment

He sent unsolicited unwanted pics of his wiener.  The women were not happy about it other than one of them from what I remember.   .


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 01:55:16 PM

What "situation like this" are you talking about?  

A situation whereby a person, presumably with further career goals, is accused of sexually harassing another person.

If it didn't have apparent merit, it would have been destroyed by staff lawyers in very short order.  Cain would have walked away to have never been bothered by it again.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 02:15:56 PM

Well, then if it was so bad - why did she not go to trial and get the jackpot?  

She wouldn't have hit a jackpot.  It would have been a long, drawn out situation that would have probably netted her something similar to what she got throught the settlement.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
A situation whereby a person, presumably with further career goals, is accused of sexually harassing another person.

If it didn't have apparent merit, it would have been destroyed by staff lawyers in very short order.  Cain would have walked away to have never been bothered by it again.

That is incredibly naive.  If there were no witnesses, it is "he said, she said."  You can't "destroy" something like that in short order.  That's just silly. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 02:50:23 PM
That is incredibly naive.  If there were no witnesses, it is "he said, she said."  You can't "destroy" something like that in short order.  That's just silly. 

actually there are witnesses

one person has said he witnessed this on multiple occassions and "everyone" knew about it


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 02:52:23 PM
That is incredibly naive.  If there were no witnesses, it is "he said, she said."  You can't "destroy" something like that in short order.  That's just silly. 

So you're saying it didn't have any apparent merit?  Because if so, it would have been destroyed.  Absolutely.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 02:56:12 PM
actually there are witnesses

one person has said he witnessed this on multiple occassions and "everyone" knew about it

I haven't followed the story too closely, but what you're saying sounds like it fits the bill.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 03:11:18 PM
I haven't followed the story too closely, but what you're saying sounds like it fits the bill.

I haven't followed it either but I heard this guy on the radio a couple of days ago

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-02/politics/30349341_1_herman-cain-victim-talks-perry-supporter


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 03:19:51 PM
So you're saying it didn't have any apparent merit?  Because if so, it would have been destroyed.  Absolutely.

What I'm saying is it is incredibly naive to say it could have been "destroyed" if it had no merit.  You can't determine if it had no merit if it is "he said, she said." 

If you want to know how dangerous allegations can be, when all you have are people making accusations, go read up on the McMartin preschool matter in California from about 20 or so years ago. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 04, 2011, 03:20:25 PM
Someone here needs to define what sexual harassment actually consisted of 20 + years ago. Every year corporations have to go through these ridiculous  revised classes and policies through Human Resources because of new sexual harassment laws and people are paid off all the time for them to just go away. If you work at a corporation, have your own business no matter how large or small, you or any employee you have tells tells someone as harmless as "you look nice today" or "I really like what you're waring" be prepared for a lawsuit. You can thank the politically correct liberals for helping to create this asinine litigious society we live in.  


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 03:30:13 PM
I haven't followed it either but I heard this guy on the radio a couple of days ago

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-02/politics/30349341_1_herman-cain-victim-talks-perry-supporter

I just read both stories. 

To be fair, it should be kept in mind that he works for Perry.  But he is also indicating that there are multiple witnesses, so...

I wonder where this thing will go.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 03:39:43 PM
What I'm saying is it is incredibly naive to say it could have been "destroyed" if it had no merit.

Without merit, the chances of it going anywhere would have been destroyed.

You can't determine if it had no merit if it is "he said, she said."

Exactly my point.  It needs evidence. 

If you want to know how dangerous allegations can be, when all you have are people making accusations, go read up on the McMartin preschool matter in California from about 20 or so years ago. 

I do recall the McMartin case.  Problem there was that the so-called "investigators" were offering their so-called "findings" as evidence.  That's how the case made it to court.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 03:43:01 PM
Someone here needs to define what sexual harassment actually consisted of 20 + years ago. Every year corporations have to go through these ridiculous  revised classes and policies through Human Resources because of new sexual harassment laws and people are paid off all the time for them to just go away. If you work at a corporation, have your own business no matter how large or small, you or any employee you have tells tells someone as harmless as "you look nice today" or "I really like what you're waring" be prepared for a lawsuit. You can thank the politically correct liberals for helping to create this asinine litigious society we live in.  

Good point.  Some women complain about some pretty harmless stuff.  Remember this one?

For example, Jerold Mackenzie was fired by the Miller Brewing Company after recounting a scene from the situation comedy Seinfeld. In the episode, Jerry Seinfeld knew only that his date’s name rhymed with a female body part; he remembers her name in the final scene, yelling “Dolores!” To explain the punch line, Mackenzie showed coworker Patricia Best a dictionary definition of the word clitoris. Best was offended and reported Mackenzie’s conduct, and the company concluded that his behavior violated its sexual harassment policy. However, a jury of ten women and two men in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, did not believe Mackenzie’s behavior violated the legal standard for hostile-environment sexual harassment and ordered the Miller Brewing Company, as well as the woman who filed the sexual harassment claim against Mackenzie, to pay him a total of $26 million.

http://www.enotes.com/sexual-harassment-article


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 04, 2011, 03:55:21 PM
Yes, I do remember something about that. There is also people who file suits who hate their jobs but know they can make money off of a settlement knowing they'll get paid just to go away.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 04:02:58 PM
Without merit, the chances of it going anywhere would have been destroyed.

Exactly my point.  It needs evidence. 

I do recall the McMartin case.  Problem there was that the so-called "investigators" were offering their so-called "findings" as evidence.  That's how the case made it to court.

Uh, no.  The problem was the kids were coached to lie about being molested.  There was no physical evidence or witnesses.  One of the worst miscarriages of justice in American history.  That case shows the danger of allegations that rely on solely "he said, she said." 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 04, 2011, 04:04:06 PM
Yes, I do remember something about that. There is also people who file suits who hate their jobs but know they can make money off of a settlement knowing they'll get paid just to go away.

Sad but true.  Happens all the time.  It's extortion.  One of the unfortunate costs of doing business. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 04, 2011, 04:26:09 PM
I just read both stories. 

To be fair, it should be kept in mind that he works for Perry.  But he is also indicating that there are multiple witnesses, so...

I wonder where this thing will go.

Yep.  He does work for Perry but only spoke out after the allegations were out there and the show I heard him on (I think it was NPR) he would give any more details than you see in that story.   
He did say (I think) that one of the women wanted to talk.   



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 04:27:11 PM
Uh, no.  The problem was the kids were coached to lie about being molested.

I know.  That's why I referred to the investigators with quotation marks, because they do not qualify as investigators.  Nonetheless, their "findings" were accepted as evidence.  It is that simple.

One of the worst miscarriages of justice in American history.

No.  If they'd been found guilty, that would have been one of the worst miscarriages of justice.  Other than that, I agree.  It was as stupid as the "satanic cult" hysteria that existed at that time.

 
That case shows the danger of allegations that rely on solely "he said, she said." 

In this case, no one was doing the "he said, she said" except for the prosecutors.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Coach is Back! on November 04, 2011, 04:33:11 PM
Obama and Bill Ayers, how come that was barly an issue. That's much worse than what Cain allegedly did. 240 wanted more recent, there it is!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Jack T. Cross on November 04, 2011, 04:55:51 PM
Yep.  He does work for Perry but only spoke out after the allegations were out there and the show I heard him on (I think it was NPR) he would give any more details than you see in that story.   
He did say (I think) that one of the women wanted to talk.   



The fact that he indicates there are perhaps many witnesses is something to think about.

Like I say, if this case was "nothing", it wouldn't be a topic here or anywhere else.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 05, 2011, 04:16:43 AM

November 4, 2011 1:55pm
408 Comments
Politico publishes 90 stories on Cain scandal byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer
Follow on Twitter:@charliespiering

Herman Cain (AP Photo)
How much is too much? Politico broke the Cain sexual harassment story last Sunday night, launching organization wide coverage filling up a full week of heavy coverage on their scoop.

Since the scandal broke, the political reporting juggernaut has published at least 90 online stories on further developments and public reaction to the story.

I've posted the entire list below since the story broke.

Update: 93. Herman Cain allegation: Accuser breaks silence

Update: 92. NRA confirms one harassment complaint

Update: 91. Cain: Attention stems from popularity

90. Accuser attorney: Settlement dated 9/99, Kilgore signed - Nov. 4, 2011 - Story

89. Block wants firings at POLITICO - Nov. 4, 2011 - Story

88. Cain may face more questions - Nov. 4, 2011 - StoryRove swats Cain for accusing Perry - Nov. 4, 2011 - Story

87. Cain accuser reportedly felt 'work hostility' - Nov. 4, 2011 - Story

86. Perry to Cain: No apology - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

85. King not buying reports on Cain - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

84. AFP investigating Cain-linked group - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

83. Cain accuser took complaint to National Restaurant Association board - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

82. Sources reveal new details about Cain allegation - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

81. No Gloria Cain tomorrow night, but eventually - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

80. Rush: 'Cain hasn't handled ... ambush very well' - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

79. Anderson wants 'transparency for everybody' - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

78. Restaurant association to decide Friday on accuser's request to make statement - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

77. Block backpedals on Anderson attack - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

76. Second Cain accuser got $45,000 - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

75. Cain accuser got $45,000 - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

74. Cain back attacking Perry camp - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

73. Baptist leader Land says 'complete transparency' needed from Cain - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

72. Rahm spokesman: WashTimes story 'absurd' - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

71. Santorum says accusations flap not Cain's biggest problem - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

70. Accuser's attorney asks Restaurant Association about issuing statement - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

69. Priebus on leaks: RNC isn't 'Sherlock Holmes' - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

68. Anderson says Cain 'floundering,' accusations a 'diversionary strategy' - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

67. Cain and Thomas, together at last - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

66. Herman Cain should start wising up - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

65. Cain flap exposes generation gap - Nov. 3, 2011 - Story

64. Furor follows Cain to Capitol Hill - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

63. Rahm! - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

62. Perry camp floats Mitt as culprit - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

61. Gingrich says Cain needs to regroup with his team - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

60. Cain lashes out at Perry campaign - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

59. Cain expected vindication - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

58. Bachmann drills harder on Cain allegations - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

57. Cain confronts more allegations - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

56. Cain accuses former adviser Curt Anderson of leaking - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

55. Iowa radio host accuses Cain of 'inappropriate' remarks - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

54. Third woman comes forward to AP - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

53. GOP pollster makes Cain accusation - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

52. Rove: Cain must let accusers speak - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

51.Attorney: Waiting for a callback from restaurant association - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

50. Cain brushes off harassment questions - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

49. Cain reaction: Not by the book - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

48. The sound of silence - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

47. Barbour tells Cain to 'get the facts out' - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

46. Still cautious on Cain - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

45. Iowa yawns at Cain flap - Nov. 2, 2011 - Story

44. A year's salary paid to one Cain accuser - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

43. Bachmann warns against candidates with 'surprises' - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

42. Lawyer: Lift gag on Cain's accuser - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

41. Cain won't say whether he will ask the Restaurant Association to let accuser speak - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

40. Santorum on Cain: 'Experience' a plus - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

39. Cain accuser's lawyer says she wants to tell her story - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

38. Gloria Cain may appear on Fox News on Friday - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

37. GOP senators to dine with Cain tonight - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

36. Cain now recalls 'couple of other' items in accuser's complaint - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

35. Cain says he remembered settlement Monday - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

34. Cain's damage control - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

32. National Restaurant Association closes ranks - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

31. The non-judgmental case against Cain - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

30. Restaurant group nixed backing Cain - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

29. Cain damage control adds fuel to fire - Nov. 1, 2011 - Story

28. Cain explains nationally - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

27. Cain's story shifts - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

26. Cain story divides conservatives - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

25. Cain's conflicting accounts - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

24. Experts: Quiet settlements not uncommon - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

23. Van Susteren husband at Cain event as 'friend' - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

22. Cain now acknowledges details of payout - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

21. VIDEO: Team Cain's responses - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

20. Cain contradicts former association HR chief on investigation - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

19. Cain sings - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

18. Cain claims 'enough said,' but story inconsistent - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

17. Cain Iowa chairman: 'Distraction' will help here - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

16. Cain acknowledges settlement details - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

15. Cain acknowledges harassment accusations - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

14. Cain-led restaurant group declines comment - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

13. Rove ratchets up pressure on Cain - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

12. Cain rebuffs question on NRA report - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

11. Rove to Cain: True or false? - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

10. Block denies harassment, hedges on settlement - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

9. Cain ducks press at AEI - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

8. Trump: Cain settled to dodge fees - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

7. Concerned Women for America wants answers from Cain - Oct. 31, 2011 – Story

6. Team Cain's 'recipe for disaster' - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

5. Cain to appear on Fox Monday - Oct. 31, 2011 - Story

4. Cain attacks, doesn't deny POLITICO report - Oct. 30, 2011 - Story

3. Cain attacks POLITICO report - Oct. 30, 2011 – Story

2. Paul camp responds to Cain story -- by hitting him on TARP - Oct. 30, 2011 – Story

1. Exclusive: 2 women accused Cain of inappropriate behavior - Oct. 30, 2011 - Story

All this information comes from the Politico search engine. I've removed any obvious duplicates, but It should be noted that some of these stories may be on the same topic. For example, their Campaign 2012 blog sometimes borrows extensively from their own political stories.

Follow Charlie Spiering on Twitter











How many have they done on F n F??? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2011, 09:55:12 AM
Media Onslaught Continues: 63 Stories on Herman Cain in Just Over Four Days
By Scott Whitlock | November 04, 2011

The unrelenting network coverage of the Herman Cain sexual harassment story continued on Thursday and Friday with an additional 13 stories. That brings the total number of reports to a staggering 63 stories in just four and a half days.

Good Morning America offered up three stories on Friday, including a Brian Ross report tinged with anonymous allegations and rumor-mongering. Ross speculated, "Former employees tell ABC News, Cain was a regular on Washington's after-work bar scene, often with young women who worked with him at the restaurant association." Ross hinted, "Some say it was just Cain being personable and gregarious."

The ABC reporter also talked to Ricki Seidman, who he simply identified as a "political operative." Ross left out the fact that Seidman has worked for Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis and other Democrats.

Of Cain's accusers, who are anonymous, the political operative sympathized, "They've been called by all kinds of names already by people who have no idea who they are." (Ross did explain that Seidman worked with Anita Hill when she testified against Clarence Thomas.)

On NBC's Today, guest news anchor Tamron Hall compared the scandal to the 1991 Thomas hearings, misrepresenting what the now-Supreme Court judge was accused of. She suggested Cain has compared "himself to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose confirmation was held up by a sexual assault allegation."

Thomas was not accused of sexual assault. He was accused of harassment. On Wednesday, CBS's Betty Nguyen made a similarly incorrect statement. Of Herman Cain, she erroneously claimed, "One of two women who accuse Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain of sexual assault wants to speak out."

No one has accused him of sexual assault.

Today host Ann Curry predicted bad things in store for Cain: "And as we both know, Herman Cain's been working pretty hard trying to steer the focus away from these sexual harassment allegations that have been dogging his campaign but, boy, it could get a lot worse before it gets better."

Reporter Lisa Myers did allow, "In the eyes of many conservatives, Cain, like Thomas, is a victim of the media." Today had a total of four stories.

On CBS's Early Show, Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer appeared to proclaim the Cain campaign is in "real trouble."

Early Show correspondent Jan Crawford explained, "And this morning, a pro-Cain political action committee is running a new Web ad attacking the left and the media, saying the controversy is motivated by race." Early Show offered three reports.

On Thurday's evening newscasts, all three programs offered one full report each. World News' Jon Karl observed, "Despite the confusing and conflicting accounts offered by Cain this week, his campaign has been raking in cash, claiming to raise $1.2 million since the story broke last Sunday
   
A transcript of the Brian Ross GMA segment, which aired on November 4,  can be found below:

7am tease

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Under pressure. New twists in the growing Herman Cain scandal. Did he invite a young woman back to his apartment. Is one of his accusers about to speak out? Cain fights back this morning. And our new poll shows he's holding strong so far.

7:05           

ROBIN ROBERTS: But now, George, we're going to move on to those fast-moving developments surrounding Republican front-runner Herman Cain this morning. There are new details surfacing about his alleged advances on women who worked for him at the National Restaurant Association. And one woman could be ready to tell her side of the story as early as today. Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, is in D.C. and has the latest on all this. Good morning, Brian.

BRIAN ROSS: Well, Good morning, Robin. Later today, we may get the first word from one of the women who made sexual harassment allegations against Cain and agreed to remain silent about it in return for a cash settlement, a reported $45,000. Now, she wants to issue a written statement to dispute with what Cain has said, his strong denial about the allegations during his tenure at the national restaurant association. Former employees tell ABC News, Cain was a regular on Washington's after-work bar scene, often with young women who worked with him at the restaurant association. Some say it was just Cain being personable and gregarious. But Thursday, Cain was pressed about new accounts. That he asked one female employee to return to his corporate apartment with him.

SEAN HANNITY: Do you even have a corporate apartment?

HERMAN CAIN: I had an apartment near the airport because I travel so much. That's true. Sean, this is absolutely fabrication, man.

ROSS: And Cain told Sean Hannity, he never even made flattering remarks to the woman.

CAIN: I didn't make those kinds of compliments. I didn't say that she looked hot or whatever, this sort of thing. I know I didn't do that kind of stuff.

ROSS: As ABC News has reported, two of the women who received settlements from the restaurant association are well-known in government circles. One, in her 50s, now, married and a spokesperson for a federal agency in Washington. The other, now in her 40s, single. Registered as a lobbyist in New Jersey. Both are said to fear the consequences of going public.

RICKI SEIDMAN (former Senate investigator): There's good reason for them to be afraid.

ROSS: Ricki Seidman is a political operative who persuaded Anita Hill to go public during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. She sees parallels with how the women who accused Cain are now being treated.

SEIDMAN: They've been called by all kinds of names already by people who have no idea who they are.

ROSS: That's just par for the course?

SEIDMAN: In a political campaign? You bet ya.

ROSS: And the Cain campaign is already trying to turn the tables with a new commercial that paints the allegations as fabrications from rivals and the liberal media, with pointed comparisons to Clarence Thomas.                           

CLARENCE THOMAS: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. It is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.

ROSS: In another part of their defense by going on the offense, Cain's new team of crisis managers say, they are including all of the options including possible lawsuits against Politico, who first reported the story, and others who are following up on it now, George.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/04/media-onslaught-continues-63-stories-cain-just-over-four-days


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2011, 10:03:05 AM
Cal Thomas gets it right:  "Many other Democrats in modern times have been caught with their pants down -- JFK, John Edwards. Some paid a political price. Most did not because their policies were favored by the liberal media, which gave them cover.

Now it is Herman Cain's turn and the rules have suddenly changed."


Herman Cain's Gauntlet
Cal Thomas
Nov 03, 2011

When it comes to sex, the media apply different standards to Republicans and Democrats.

Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton allegedly trolled for women, using state troopers as his procurers. As president, Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. He lied about it under oath and was impeached, though later acquitted by the U.S. Senate. Other sexual accusations tainted Clinton, including one that he raped one Juanita Broaddrick. That "everybody lies about sex" and "it was just sex" and didn't affect his public responsibilities, were just two of the exculpatory statements from Clinton's Democratic defenders. James Carville slimed Paula Jones, one of Clinton's accusers, by saying you never know what you'll find "when you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park."

Many other Democrats in modern times have been caught with their pants down -- JFK, John Edwards. Some paid a political price. Most did not because their policies were favored by the liberal media, which gave them cover.

Now it is Herman Cain's turn and the rules have suddenly changed.
Cain stands accused of sexually harassing two women more than a decade ago when he headed the National Restaurant Association. Many in the media wolf pack have already judged him guilty because he updated his initial statement denying the allegations. And yet The Washington Post, in association with Politico.com -- which broke the "story" -- routinely updates its online pages when new information comes to light.

Is Cain, a relative media novice, expected to have instant and total recall of events that may or may not have happened more than 10 years ago?

The way this works is, if you can't give the media immediate and detailed answers to their questions, they "raise new questions" and then when you do provide them additional information they say you should have provided it before and must be covering something up, prompting even more questions.

One cannot say what, if any, political motives the anonymous female accusers might have, or even if they helped bring these charges to Politico. So much of this is subjective. What is known is that a charge of sexual harassment is not proof that sexual harassment occurred.

This story also has a noxious odor of racism about it. Historically, perhaps the worst stereotype directed at African-American men is that they are oversexed and constantly on the prowl for female conquests.

Cain's candidacy has unnerved the Washington political establishment. I have just finished his book "This is Herman Cain!: My Journey to the White House." In it, I learned that Cain is a self-made man who achieved success without government and without self-loathing. He is the enemy of big government, and of Democrats' "can't do" condescending attitude toward minorities. Cain exudes a positive and optimistic spirit.

Were Cain to become president, this "CEO of self" would threaten the political and economic prison liberal Democrats have built to keep disenfranchised minorities down and voting for Democrats for fear their government programs will end. Cain has a better way and he writes about it in his inspiring personal story, which is the embodiment of the American Dream.

This is why Cain is being excoriated by the liberal left. Even some in the Republican establishment wish he would just go away. There will be more on this as reporters and tabloids throw money at Cain's accusers, seeking to get them to talk in violation of their termination agreements.

If you're wondering why more qualified people don't run for office, consider what is being done to Herman Cain. People don't want every mistake or bad decision they've made trumpeted from the rooftops and so they avoid politics to the nation's detriment.

Cain may ultimately triumph over these allegations. On Monday Cain recorded his biggest fundraising day ever, netting $400,000. Still, the best defense is a good offense and what would be best for Cain is for him to get all the facts out, immediately, before his enemies do it for him.

http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2011/11/03/herman_cains_gauntlet/page/full/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 08, 2011, 08:31:31 PM
CBS, NBC Ignore Embarrassing Gaffe: Obama Caught Mocking Israel's Prime Minister
By Scott Whitlock | November 08, 2011

The CBS and NBC morning shows on Tuesday both ignored an embarrassing gaffe committed by Barack Obama: Being caught on an open mic, mocking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Only ABC's Good Morning America covered it with a single news brief.

News anchor Josh Elliott explained, "At last week's G20 summit, the BBC reports that President Sarkozy was overheard calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar. In response, President Obama told Sarkozy, and I quote, 'You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day.'"

NBC's Today and CBS's Early Show found no time for this, but they did allow multiple segments on the conviction of Michael Jackson's doctor.

In contrast, George W. Bush in September of 2000 was caught on an open mic, making fun of New York Times journalist Adam Clymer a "major league a**hole." A September 5, 2000 Media Reality Check explained how the networks covered that gaffe:

ABC and NBC led off with the big news last night that an open microphone caught George W. Bush telling Dick Cheney that New York Times reporter Adam Clymer was a "major league a–hole." All three networks returned to the subject this morning. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman announced on NBC’s Today "there goes the newsroom vote." On CBS, Bryant Gumbel declared "Bush may have taken yet another step backwards by sticking his foot in his mouth with a vulgar comment." This from the man recently caught calling a conservative a "f–-ing idiot."

Perhaps the networks consider insulting a journalist with a profanity as worse than deriding the leader of one of America's closest allies?

A transcript of the November 08 GMA news brief can be found below:

JOSH ELLIOTT: Meanwhile, President Obama and the president of France have apparently fallen victim to an open microphone. At last week's G20 summit, the BBC reports that President Sarkozy was overheard calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar. In response, President Obama told Sarkozy, and I quote, "You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day." End quote.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/08/cbs-nbc-ignore-embarrassing-gaffe-obama-caught-mocking-israels-prime


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 08, 2011, 09:32:45 PM
CBS, NBC Ignore Embarrassing Gaffe: Obama Caught Mocking Israel's Prime Minister
By Scott Whitlock | November 08, 2011

The CBS and NBC morning shows on Tuesday both ignored an embarrassing gaffe committed by Barack Obama: Being caught on an open mic, mocking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Only ABC's Good Morning America covered it with a single news brief.

News anchor Josh Elliott explained, "At last week's G20 summit, the BBC reports that President Sarkozy was overheard calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar. In response, President Obama told Sarkozy, and I quote, 'You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day.'"
NBC's Today and CBS's Early Show found no time for this, but they did allow multiple segments on the conviction of Michael Jackson's doctor.

In contrast, George W. Bush in September of 2000 was caught on an open mic, making fun of New York Times journalist Adam Clymer a "major league a**hole." A September 5, 2000 Media Reality Check explained how the networks covered that gaffe:

ABC and NBC led off with the big news last night that an open microphone caught George W. Bush telling Dick Cheney that New York Times reporter Adam Clymer was a "major league a–hole." All three networks returned to the subject this morning. Newsweek’s Howard Fineman announced on NBC’s Today "there goes the newsroom vote." On CBS, Bryant Gumbel declared "Bush may have taken yet another step backwards by sticking his foot in his mouth with a vulgar comment." This from the man recently caught calling a conservative a "f–-ing idiot."

Perhaps the networks consider insulting a journalist with a profanity as worse than deriding the leader of one of America's closest allies?

A transcript of the November 08 GMA news brief can be found below:

JOSH ELLIOTT: Meanwhile, President Obama and the president of France have apparently fallen victim to an open microphone. At last week's G20 summit, the BBC reports that President Sarkozy was overheard calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar. In response, President Obama told Sarkozy, and I quote, "You may be sick of him, but I have to deal with him every day." End quote.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/08/cbs-nbc-ignore-embarrassing-gaffe-obama-caught-mocking-israels-prime

is this the embarrassing gaffe?

who cares?

also, who cares if Bush called some reporter an asshole

what's so shocking about either of those things


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 08, 2011, 11:16:42 PM
CBS, NBC Ignore Embarrassing Gaffe: Obama Caught Mocking Israel's Prime Minister
By Scott Whitlock | November 08, 2011


msnbc reported it all day.  over and over.  along with analysis.  it got annoying. all you have are a bunch of leaders (who are dicks) trashing other leaders.

I mean, if you want to watch a bunch of dicks all day, go to the GOP convention.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2011, 09:58:19 AM
He's right.

Newt Gingrich: MSNBC Essentially Acts As ‘The Obama Re-Election Team’
by Colby Hall | 4:27 pm, November 17th, 2011

Newly branded GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich appeared today at a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Florida, and was asked by a presumptive supporter how he intends to deal with the media bias he’ll face in his run for office. After openly talking about his recent surge in the polls, Gingrich gave a surprisingly candid assessment of the political media landscape, at least on cable news, calling MSNBC the “Obama re-election team,” and intimating that he gets a nicer reception on Fox News than does Obama.

Gingrich’s assessment was a pretty frank and honest view of how the cable news portrays a variety of candidates running for office, and he said as much without condescension or ire. In fact, most reasonable people will hear his comments and agree. A rough transcript of Gingrich’s comments (via TV Eyes):

I was dead in June and July as a candidate, not as a person. As a candidate. And now I’m apparently not dead. And according to Fox last night, I’m in first place. I think realistically I’m tied with Romney….we’re both somewhere in about the –
But here’s the key thing to remember. We all complained correctly when the news media failed to investigate Barack Obama. We complained when they refused to look at William Ayers. We complained when they didn’t actually explain Saul Alinsky and what it was all about and what community organizer meant. We were right to complain about that. Wo now they’re actually doing for us what they wouldn’t do for Obama. They’re doing it partly out of bias.

I understand that and i understand there are places like MSNBC that are essentially the Obama re-election team. But that’s fine. This is a free society. You can say that Fox tends to be nicer to (inaudible) than to Obama. In the next three weeks i predict to you we’ll have all sorts of questions about me. and it’s fine. You cannot ask the people of the united states to loan you the most powerful governmental job in the world, particularly on a campaign that is promising very drama change, and not have them vet you carefully and thoroughly.
In GOP quarters the company line has been that Barack Obama wasn’t properly vetted by the media. Anyone who watched Fox News opinion programs in 2008, however, and saw what seemed like an endless loop of Rev. Wright talking about chickens coming home to roost would likely disagree. But Gingrich’s comments that its all “fine” and that “this is a free society” appear to reflect a kinder and happier tone of someone who if likely happy to be at the top of the polls.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-msnbc-essentially-acts-as-the-obama-re-election-team/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 18, 2011, 09:59:31 AM
He's right.

Newt Gingrich: MSNBC Essentially Acts As ‘The Obama Re-Election Team’
by Colby Hall | 4:27 pm, November 17th, 2011

Newly branded GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich appeared today at a campaign rally in Jacksonville, Florida, and was asked by a presumptive supporter how he intends to deal with the media bias he’ll face in his run for office. After openly talking about his recent surge in the polls, Gingrich gave a surprisingly candid assessment of the political media landscape, at least on cable news, calling MSNBC the “Obama re-election team,” and intimating that he gets a nicer reception on Fox News than does Obama.

Gingrich’s assessment was a pretty frank and honest view of how the cable news portrays a variety of candidates running for office, and he said as much without condescension or ire. In fact, most reasonable people will hear his comments and agree. A rough transcript of Gingrich’s comments (via TV Eyes):

I was dead in June and July as a candidate, not as a person. As a candidate. And now I’m apparently not dead. And according to Fox last night, I’m in first place. I think realistically I’m tied with Romney….we’re both somewhere in about the –
But here’s the key thing to remember. We all complained correctly when the news media failed to investigate Barack Obama. We complained when they refused to look at William Ayers. We complained when they didn’t actually explain Saul Alinsky and what it was all about and what community organizer meant. We were right to complain about that. Wo now they’re actually doing for us what they wouldn’t do for Obama. They’re doing it partly out of bias.

I understand that and i understand there are places like MSNBC that are essentially the Obama re-election team. But that’s fine. This is a free society. You can say that Fox tends to be nicer to (inaudible) than to Obama. In the next three weeks i predict to you we’ll have all sorts of questions about me. and it’s fine. You cannot ask the people of the united states to loan you the most powerful governmental job in the world, particularly on a campaign that is promising very drama change, and not have them vet you carefully and thoroughly.
In GOP quarters the company line has been that Barack Obama wasn’t properly vetted by the media. Anyone who watched Fox News opinion programs in 2008, however, and saw what seemed like an endless loop of Rev. Wright talking about chickens coming home to roost would likely disagree. But Gingrich’s comments that its all “fine” and that “this is a free society” appear to reflect a kinder and happier tone of someone who if likely happy to be at the top of the polls.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-gingrich-msnbc-essentially-acts-as-the-obama-re-election-team/


Bingo - just look at 240's threads.   They mirror MSNBC nonsense by the hour.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2011, 10:09:17 AM
He's right.

Newt Gingrich: MSNBC Essentially Acts As ‘The Obama Re-Election Team’


He's correct.  And FOX provides a balance by acting as the "Obama loses in 2012" network team.

Is anyone still denying either FACT?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2011, 10:12:35 AM

Bingo - just look at 240's threads.   They mirror MSNBC nonsense by the hour.   

how do you know?  are you watching msnbc all day?  settle down, OWSer.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 18, 2011, 10:14:14 AM
how do you know?  are you watching msnbc all day?  settle down, OWSer.

I have a facebrook friend who sends me bs all the time off of msbc that miraculous shows up here at about thwe same time.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 18, 2011, 10:15:54 AM
I have a facebrook friend who sends me bs all the time off of msbc that miraculous shows up here at about thwe same time.   

what are you doing socializing with libs like that? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2011, 10:21:42 AM
Quote
Fast And Furious Watch: No Coverage From NBC Nightly News In All of 2011
Big Journalism ^ | 12-13-11 | Mary Chastain




It’s been a very busy week for Operation Fast and Furious. Last Friday, the Department of Justice dumped 1400 pages of documents on Congress. On Saturday we learned US undercover drug agents laundered money for Mexican drug cartels. Wednesday we learned they were using Fast and Furious to make a case for gun regulations. Thursday was a big day because Attorney General Eric Holder testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

Sharyl Attkisson, Matthew Boyle, Katie Pavlich, and Cam Edwards did a great job covering all of these stories. Other Old Media outlets covered them but buried them deep in their websites and newspapers. Two news organizations didn’t report on any of these. One of them is NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Cam Edwards appears to be right. NBC will do anything to avoid mentioning Operation Fast and Furious. Then again, they haven’t mentioned Fast and Furious ONCE all year, but this past week would have been the best time.





(Excerpt) Read more at bigjournalism.com ...



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2011, 01:31:18 PM
Quote
‘60 MINUTES’ EDITS OUT OBAMA‘S CLAIM THAT HE’S THE FOURTH BEST PRESIDENT

President Barack Obama sat for an extensive interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” last week, though it appears the portion of the interview actually broadcast on TV left out a statement where Obama essentially declared himself the fourth best president in terms of his accomplishments.

The statement was only made available online as part of the full interview on “60 Minutes Overtime.”

According to a transcript posted on the “60 Minutes” website, Obama said he would hold his accomplishments so far as president against those of Lyndon B. Johnson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

“I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history,” Obama told CBS’s Steve Kroft.

Watch the full interview below. The statement comes at the very end, around the 56:10 mark of the 56:53-minute video:

Or just hear the relevant clip here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxvSjDkF7HE

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/60-minutes-edits-out-obamas-claim-that-hes-the-fourth-best-president/



How unbelievably arrogant is this guy? $15 trillion in debt, U6 over 18%, our economy and standing in the world in shambles and this twat has the audacity to rank himself as the 4th best president?



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: tonymctones on December 18, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
LOL they should bring this up over and over again, this hack is so delusional it would be funny if he wasnt president.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 18, 2011, 03:34:40 PM
LOL they should bring this up over and over again, this hack is so delusional it would be funny if he wasnt president.

the best part is that he says it with a straight face.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 06, 2012, 10:25:25 AM
Name That Party: Local Media Largely Omit Democratic Affiliation of Criminal D.C. Councilman
By Ken Shepherd | January 06, 2012

A Democratic member of the Washington, D.C. City Council announced his resignation yesterday after he decided to plea guilty to federal charges of embezzlement and filing false tax returns.

The news of Harry Thomas Junior's resignation made the front page of today's Washington Post, which promptly noted the disgraced councilman's Democratic Party affiliation. Thomas's party affiliation, however, was ignored by the websites for WJLA and WRC, the ABC and NBC affiliates. WUSA, the CBS affiliate, mentioned deep in its coverage that Thomas "agreed to resign from the seat once held by his father representing residents of the heavy democratic voting Ward 5."

Relying on an Associated Press story, 24-hour radio news station WTOP failed to note Thomas's party affiliation in a story on his forthcoming guilty plea. National Public Radio-affiliated D.C. station WAMU failed to note Thomas's party affiliation on its website.

WAMU is owned and operated by -- and its FCC license is granted to -- American University, a private educational institution in the District of Columbia. The station "is not associated with other public radio or television stations in the area, nor is it an ancillary facility of National Public Radio," and its revenue is largely generated by listener contributions. That said, WAMU received $247,500 in its 2011 fiscal year in NPR licensing fees, $260,302 in a "national program acquisition grant from CPB [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting]," and $733,217 in a "community service grant from CPB."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/01/06/name-party-local-media-largely-omit-democratic-affiliation-criminal-dc


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2012, 12:53:32 PM
ABC's GOP Debate Questions 6 to 1 Liberal, 25% on Contraception, Gay Rights
By Scott Whitlock | January 09, 2012
 
ABC's GOP presidential debate on Saturday overflowed with liberal questions. Of the 48 queries by George Stephanopoulos, Diane Sawyer and others, 20 came from the left, three were from the right and 25 were neutral or horse race questions. A whopping 25 percent (12 questions) revolved around contraception-related subjects or gay rights.

Although birth control isn't exactly a pressing 2012 issue (especially in a tough economy) , George Stephanopoulos wasted seven questions on contraception. The former Democratic operative began by noting Rick Santorum's belief that there is no constitutional "right to privacy." He added, "And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception." The co-moderator repeated, "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"

When the ABC journalists weren't grilling the Republicans on birth control, the subject was gay marriage and homosexual issues in general (five questions). Josh McElveen, of New Hampshire's WMUR spun the candidates as unfeeling for not supporting the rights of gays to adopt.

To Santorum, he chided, "Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?"

Co-moderator Sawyer read a question e-mailed from "Phil in Virginia." She sympathetically quoted, "We simply want to have the right to...form loving, committed, long-term relationships." Sawyer added, "In human terms, what would you say to them?"

Only three questions came from the right. One of those was when McElveen hit Ron Paul for not being in sync with the party's stance of a strong national defense: "You have said that you wouldn’t have authorized the raid to get Osama bin Laden. You think that a nuclear Iran is really none of our business. How do you reconcile that, when part of your job as president would be" to defend America?

The bias grew so bad that Newt Gingrich, again, spoke out, slamming the moderators. In relation to the focus on gay rights, he ripped:

NEWT GINGRICH:  I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration? The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

Shouldn't the point of a Republican debate be to inform Republican voters who is the authentic conservative? All Stephanopoulos and Sawyer did was badger the candidates with liberal talking points.

NBC's debate on Sunday featured liberal questions by an eight-to-one margin.

Some of the questions from Saturday's debate:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Santorum has been very clear in his belief that the Supreme Court was wrong when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the right to ban contraception. Now I should add that he said he’s not recommending that states do that-

...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?
...

STEPHANOPOULOS: [I'm] asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?
...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hold on a second. Governor, you went to Harvard Law School. You know very well this is based on-

ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court -- has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I-

STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.

...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you’ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.

...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that. But you’ve given two answers to the question. Do you believe that the Supreme Court should overturn it or not?

DIANE SAWYER: I want to turn now, if I can, from the Constitutional and the elevated here, to something closer to home and to maybe families sitting in their living rooms all across this country.

Yahoo! sends us questions, as you know. We have them from real viewers. And I’d like to post one, because it is about gay marriage. But at the level -- and I would really love to be able to ask you what you would say personally, sitting in your living rooms, to the people who ask questions like this.

This is from Phil in Virginia. “Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?” And, Speaker Gingrich?

...

JOSH MCELVEEN: I’d like to go to Senator Santorum with a similar topic. We’re in a state where it is legal for same-sex couples to marry. Eighteen hundred, in fact, couples have married since it became law here in New Hampshire. The legislature passed it a couple of years ago. And they’re trying to start families, some of them. Your position on same-sex adoption, obviously, you are in favor of traditional families, but are you going to tell someone they belong in -- as a ward of the state or in foster care, rather than have two parents who want them?

...

MCELVEEN: Well, let me ask you to follow up on that, if you don’t mind, Senator. With those 1,800 -- if you -- we have a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, what happens to the 1,800 families who have married here? Are their marriages basically illegitimate at this point?

...

SAWYER: If I could come back to the living room question again, Governor Romney, would you weigh in on the Yahoo question about what you would say sitting down in your living room to a gay couple who say, “We simply want to have the right to,” as the -- as the person who wrote the e-mail said -- “we want gay people to form loving, committed, long-term relationships.” In human terms, what would you say to them?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/01/09/abcs-gop-debate-questions-6-1-liberal-25-contraception-gay-rights


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on January 09, 2012, 01:30:58 PM
"A whopping 25 percent (12 questions) revolved around contraception-related subjects or gay rights."

I'm mad that it was this much.

I don't think 1/4 of our nation's problems are related to men kissing men.



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 09, 2012, 08:16:26 PM
Media Buries Obama Selling Access at $45,000 Per Donor Closed-to Press $1.1 Million Fundraiser
Monday, January 9, 2011 | Kristinn
Posted on January 9, 2012 10:55:01 PM EST by kristinn

In their reports on tonight's two D.C. fundraising events by Barack Obama, the news media is burying the outrageous access-selling of the presidency for $45,000 by Obama to a select group of just 25 donors that brought in $1.125 million for his reelection campaign and Democratic party coffers.

The exclusive "roundtable discussion" fundraiser was closed to the press. The only report on what was said at the event is based on what Obama himself related at a later man-of-the-people fundraiser of 700 donors that cost $100 per person which was open to the press.

The AP report on Obama's fundraising buried the mention of the 25 person, $45,000 per person fundraiser in the last paragraph of the nine paragraph article:

At an earlier event Monday at the swanky Jefferson Hotel, Obama joined around 25 guests for a closed-press round table discussion with tickets $45,000 each and proceeds split between his campaign and the Swing State Victory Fund, which supports Democrats in battleground states.

ABC News also reported on Obama's night of fundraising, but like the AP, they buried the mention of Obama's 25 person, $45,000 per person fundraiser in the eleventh paragraph of a fourteen paragraph article:

Earlier in the evening, Obama attended an exclusive fundraiser with 25 supporters at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington. Each paid $45,000 to attend, according to a Democratic official. The event, which was closed to all press coverage, was dubbed a “roundtable discussion” by a White House spokesman.

Obama told the crowd at the Hilton that he spent time “reminiscing about the 2008 campaign” with those deep-pocket supporters, but had to give them a reality-check.

“I said, ‘You guys are engaging in some selective memory here,’” he said. “First of all, 2008 wasn’t easy at all. There were all kinds of setbacks and miscues. Times I screwed up. But just over three years later, just because of what you did … we’ve begun to see what change looks like.”

The funds raised at the private event benefited the Obama Victory Fund and Swing State Victory Fund, two joint fundraising accounts for the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee. The second event benefited only the Obama Victory Fund.

The previous maximum donation at Obama fundraisers in 2011 was $37,500. The new $45,000 maximum reflects a new fundraising venture called the Swing State Victory Fund.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 16, 2012, 11:47:20 AM
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=410080.0;attach=452852;image)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: bears on January 16, 2012, 12:15:26 PM
is this the embarrassing gaffe?

who cares?

also, who cares if Bush called some reporter an asshole

what's so shocking about either of those things

yeah i don't get it either.  i mean i guess it's rude.  but for ANY news station to comment on it all day?  doesn't make sense.  at least if he made an obscene gesture or called the guy an asshat or something.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 18, 2012, 05:37:51 PM
Inside Media Matters: Should group lose tax exempt status?
Published February 15, 2012 | Hannity | Sean Hannity

SEAN HANNITY, HOST: And finally tonight, the blatant bias of Media Matters has been exposed, thanks to shocking internal memos uncovered by the Daily Caller. And one of the main target of that left-leaning organization is none other than the Fox News Channel.

Now, one memo from 2009 written to the founder and president reads quote, "Simply put, the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don't have John McCain to kick around anymore. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole."

Now, the same memo also suggested that it would be a good idea to do opposition research on the people that work at this network. It reads, quote, "We should also hire a team of trackers to stake out private and public events with Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors and senior network corporate staff."

And now Congress is reportedly planning to question the group's tax exempt status.

. . . .

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/02/16/inside-media-matters-should-group-lose-tax-exempt-status


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 18, 2012, 03:33:02 PM
Flashback: Networks Severely Edited Rev. Wright Soundbites, Hailed Obama's 'Race Speech'
By Tim Graham | May 18, 2012
 
Since The New York Times decided to put Reverend Jeremiah Wright back on the nation's agenda, it's important to note that some voters (especially the youngest new voters) may not understand what happened in the last cycle. The most important part for them is this: Barack Obama said in a widely hailed speech on March 18, 2008 that "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." He then disowned him on April 29, and finally cut ties to the church entirely on May 31. None of his craven (if very delayed) moves were forced by the networks, which covered them like a sad family decision.

A 2008 Media Research Center Special Report studying ABC, CBS, and NBC news broadcasts  revealed that a viewer watching only broadcast TV news would have received a very limited (and even censored) version of Wright’s most outrageous sermons. Key findings:

The broadcast networks took an entire year to locate Reverend Wright. Despite a feisty interview on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes back on March 1, 2007 about Obama’s church’s controversial commitment to a "black value system," the name of Jeremiah Wright didn’t surface on the Big Three networks until CBS first broached it on February 28, 2008. The first story with Wright sermon soundbites aired two weeks later, on ABC on March 13. By then, 42 states and the District of Columbia had already voted.

The broadcast network evening news shows gave virtually no coverage to Wright soundbites in March. Snippets of Wright’s sermons drew only 72 seconds of evening news coverage in all of March, or an average of 24 seconds per network, less than one commercial.

The Big Three morning shows gave four times as much time to Wright soundbites as the evening shows in March. The morning shows carried almost five minutes of Wright clips (297 seconds), with ABC offering the most at 128 seconds. The other two networks each ran less than 90 seconds.

The networks completely ignored soundbites of Wright’s conspiracy theory about the U.S. government inventing AIDS to kill blacks, and mostly ignored his comments about the September 11 terrorist attacks being "America’s chickens coming home to roost." None of the network morning or evening shows found one opportunity to air Wright’s 2003 sermon accusing the federal government of hiding the truth about their "inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." His attack on America’s alleged record of terrorism and violence was ignored by all three evening shows, as well as by CBS’s The Early Show.

The broadcast networks gave clips of Obama’s "race speech" on March 18 more than twice as much air time in a few hours than they gave all of the Wright bites aired in the month of March. The evening news shows on March 18 carried almost six minutes (348 seconds) of highlights from the Obama speech, or roughly five times more than all the Wright bites in March. The morning shows carried roughly nine and a half minutes (572 seconds) of sound from the speech. The three morning shows gave almost twice as much time to the Obama speech clips as they devoted to Wright soundbites in March. Combined, Obama’s one speech drew about 15 minutes of clips, while Wright’s years of sermons drew about six minutes.

Broadcast network interview segments on the Wright remarks and Obama’s race speech in March were dominated by liberal guests. When the networks allowed Republican or conservative guests, they stayed neutral or praised Obama’s remarks. Overall, the network pundit count was 16 to 5. CBS especially loaded its reaction panels with nine liberals and just one right-leaning pundit, pollster Frank Luntz, who contained his remarks to grading Obama’s stagecraft. NBC allowed six liberals and three conservatives. ABC aired one liberal and one conservative.

Wright’s National Press Club vitriol repeating his opinions about an AIDS conspiracy and America deserving 9/11 went virtually unreported. The broadcast network morning and evening shows aired only two and a half minutes (155 seconds) of soundbites from Wright’s April 28 performance at the National Press Club, but there were no soundbites about AIDS and only 23 seconds about America deserving a terrorist attack. By contrast, these same Big Three shows aired almost six minutes (358 seconds) of clips of Wright’s softball interview with Bill Moyers on PBS, where he accused conservatives of smearing him as a hater.

In today’s rapid-fire political atmosphere of cable news, talk radio, and the Internet, media analysts can easily make the mistake of believing that the leading network news outlets were tough on a candidate because of the general perception of how the entire media – Old Media and New Media – brought a controversy to the public’s attention. But voters who sampled only a light menu of news from Big Three network TV could easily have missed the depths of Reverend Wright’s outrageous remarks. No one could find in these stories a scouring scrutiny of Obama’s decades of membership in his controversial church.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/05/18/flashback-networks-severely-edited-rev-wright-soundbites-hailed-obamas-r


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 22, 2012, 10:34:32 AM
Biggest Religious Lawsuit in U.S. History Launched, Liberal Evening News Shows Ignore It
By Brent Bozell | May 22, 2012
 
The evening news broadcasts all but spiked the largest legal action in history to defend our Constitutionally-protected religious freedom. The May 21 editions of ABC’s World News and NBC’s Nightly News refused to report the fact that 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday against the Obama administration. CBS Evening News gave this historic news a mere 19 seconds of air time.

This is the worst bias by omission I have seen in the quarter century history of the Media Research Center. Every American knows about the Chinese communists withholding for 20 years the news that the US had landed on the moon, because it reflected poorly on the government. Our US media today are no different. They are now withholding news from the American people if it is harmful to the re-election of Barack Obama.

This is not a mistake, nor is it an editorial oversight by the broadcast networks. This is a deliberate and insidious withholding of national news to protect the ‘Chosen One’ who ABC, CBS and NBC have worked so hard to elect and are now abusing their journalistic influence to reelect Obama. And when a network like CBS mentions the suit ever-so-briefly, they deliberately distort the issue by framing it as a contraception lawsuit instead of what they know it to be: a religious freedom issue. It’s bogus, dishonest – a flat out lie.

The fact is that the Catholic Church has unleashed legal Armageddon on the administration, promising ‘we will not comply’ with a health law that strips Catholics of their religious liberty. If this isn't 'news' then there's no such thing as news. This should be leading newscasts and the subject of special, in-depth reports. Instead, these networks are sending a clear message to all Americans that the networks will go to any lengths – even censoring from the public an event of this historic magnitude – to prevent the release of any information that will hurt Obama’s chances of re-election.

The so-called 'news' media have sunk to a new low. This is despicable.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2012/05/22/biggest-religious-lawsuit-us-history-launched-liberal-evening-news-sho


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 24, 2012, 11:50:55 AM
Outrage Over 72 Hours Of Network Silence On Catholic Lawsuit Spreads To Other Christian Leaders
By NB Staff | May 24, 2012

Fury over the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts’ continued refusal to report the lawsuits Catholic entities have filed against the Obama administration has spread beyond the Media Research Center watchdog group and Catholic leaders to nine additional Christian leaders equally concerned about this decision to deliberately not report national news. Below are statements released by FRC’s Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer of American Values and seven more leaders.

For the third night in a row the broadcast networks have refused to cover this correctly. This momentum is fueled by CBS Evening News’ outrageous decision not only to spike the Catholic lawsuits but instead to lead the news with yet another story about the Catholic sex abuse scandal. The broadcast devoted two minutes and 31 seconds to the accused abusers and allegations that occurred decades ago. That’s roughly eight times more coverage than CBS Evening News gave the historic lawsuit on Monday.

“Those fleeting 19 seconds remain the only evening news coverage of the damning anti-Obama lawsuit in 72 hours since the unprecedented suing by one of the largest institutions in the country,” stated Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “Make no mistake – CBS intentionally resurrected the decade-old scandal last night while ignoring the lawsuit to throw salt on the wound of America’s 60 million Catholics. The media are holding this historic news hostage from the American people. At least CBS has heard of the word 'Catholic.'  ABC and NBC are behaving like the Catholic Church -- and one out of every four Americans -- don’t exist.”

 

Statements


"This week Catholic leaders filed lawsuits responding to an unprecedented federal government intrusion into the church.  Several major netwrks have chosen to ignore the stand that these Catholic organizations have taken in defense of our most fundament freedom.  However, thousands of priests, pastors, and rabbis will continue to speak out and refuse to surrender their most fundamental right to live and exercise faith without compromise.  The church will not allow itself to be conscripted to advance anyone's liberal political agenda."

Tony Perkins
President, Family Research Council

 

"It is a shame (though hardly surprising) that the mainstream media have virtually ignored the lawsuit by the Catholic bishops and other Catholic institutions against the Obama administration’s unconstitutional assault on religious liberty. With its attempt to force Catholic institutions to purchase healthcare plans with contraceptives and abortifacients, the administration has revealed how willing it is to trample constitutional rights. By ignoring this story, the media’s liberal bias has never been clearer."

Gary L. Bauer
Former Presidential Candidate
President American Values
Chairman the Campaign for Working Families

 

"The media have been irresponsible in ignoring growing problems with President Obama's healthcare law. The violations of First Amendment Rights of Conscience has been an AUL concern throughout this process, and the lack of coverage of this unprecedented intrusion into the life of faith should not be ignored. If any Administration is permitted to force Americans to act against their consciences as a matter of policy, it will change the very fabric of the American way of life. The very real concerns expressed in the Catholic lawsuits should be a major media focus, particularly in this election season."

Dr. Charmaine Yoest
President and CEO of Americans United for Life

 

"Once again, the mainstream media ignore the news.  Now that the Catholic bishops have stood tall, it's the media that fell down and abased themselves before Obama's throne.  Obama has declared war on truth, conscience, and the religious liberties that have defined America.  If Judeo-Christian values ever had a Valley Forge, the legal action against the HHS mandate is that moment."

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition


Andrea Lafferty
President, Traditional Values Coalition

 

"The controversy over the HHS mandate is not just a Catholic issue, but one that affects people of all faiths, including our Christian schools, as it is a direct attack on the religious liberty that is a vital part of the foundation of our country. Despite the media’s deafening silence on the tremendous outcry over this issue, people of faith will not stand idly by while our religious freedoms are stripped away."

Dr. Keith Wiebe
President. American Association of Christian Schools

 

“The lack of media attention regarding the 12 law suits that over 40 organizations have filed against the Obama Administration’s HHS mandate is disappointing and yet predictable. The Obama Administration’s assault on religious liberty is not new, but the President has become more bold with every attack, likely because the main stream media has erected a shield of silence to protect him from public scrutiny. Undermining the conscience rights of individuals by requiring people of faith to directly pay for abortion-inducing drugs, despite their religious convictions, Obama has ignited a firestorm among millions of Americans who understand the threats Obama’s mandates pose to our freedom.”

Mathew Staver
Founder and Chairman, Liberty Counsel
Dean and Professor, Liberty University School of Law
Director, Liberty Center for Law and Policy

 

“The simultaneous filing of more than 40 lawsuits by Catholic institutions against Obama's mandate to suppress religious liberty is one of the biggest news stories of the year.   An even bigger news story is that the mainstream media tried to suppress it.”

Phylls Schlafly
Founder and President, Eagle Forum



“With the failure to properly address, or even address at all, the most astounding, massive lawsuit ever filed by religious institutions, the mainstream media has removed any doubt regarding their sold-out allegiance to the party of the Democrats. The mainstream media’s intentional and flagrant disregard of the most monumental legal defense in American history by a religious institution, the Catholic Church, against an overreaching, religious-freedom-usurpation by any U.S. administration shows two things. First, it shows a blind allegiance by the mainstream media to the party and causes of the Democrats that far exceeds adherence to anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity. Second, it shows a disdain, disregard and dismissive attitude of decision makers in the mainstream media toward organized Christian religion. It is indeed a sad time in America for those who admired true journalistic integrity.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01)

PS: Read more in Brent Bozell's column "Shameless Bias By Omission."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2012/05/24/outrage-over-72-hours-network-silence-catholic-lawsuit-spreads-other-chris


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 25, 2012, 02:16:38 PM
Obama exercised fiscal restraint?  Now I've heard everything.   ::)

Media Mostly Mum on Outrageous Obama Claim of Fiscal Restraint
By Scott Whitlock | May 25, 2012
 
White House spokesman Jay Carney on Wednesday lectured journalists to not believe the "BS" that Barack Obama is a reckless spender. Rather than investigate Carney's assertions, or the sketchy basis for them, reporters have either embraced the talking points or allowed them to go unchallenged.

Chris Matthews on Wednesday repeated the "fact" that federal spending "is rising at the slowest rate" in 60 years. The network evening and morning shows have failed to investigate this highly questionable assertion from MarketWatch's Rex Nutting. The Washington Post, however, gave this claim "three Pinocchios" and chided Carney, "The data in the article are flawed, and the analysis lacks context."

Fact checker Glenn Kessler instructed Carney to "do a better job of checking his facts before accusing reporters of failing to do so. The picture is not as rosy as he portrayed it when accurate numbers, taken in context, are used."

Kessler explained:

Nutting basically takes much of 2009 out of Obama’s column, saying it was the “the last [year] of George W. Bush’s presidency.” Of course, with the recession crashing down, that’s when federal spending ramped up. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct. 1, so the 2009 fiscal year accounts for about four months of Bush’s presidency and eight of Obama’s.

 In theory, one could claim that the budget was already locked in when Obama took office, but that’s not really the case. Most of the appropriations bills had not been passed, and certainly the stimulus bill was only signed into law after Obama took office.

He added:

Of course, it takes two to tangle — a president and a Congress. Obama’s numbers get even higher if you look at what he proposed to spend, using CBO’s estimates of his budgets:

2012: $3.71 trillion (versus $3.65 trillion enacted)

2011: $3.80 trillion (versus $3.60 trillion enacted)

2010: $3.67 trillion (versus $3.46 trillion enacted)

So in every case, the president wanted to spend more money than he ended up getting. Nutting suggests that federal spending flattened under Obama, but another way to look at it is that it flattened at a much higher, post-emergency level — thanks in part to the efforts of lawmakers, not Obama.

Yet, this was of no interest to Matthews. He simply parroted, "Every once and a while I come across a fact that just blows me away" and promoted the suspicious data. MSNBC as a whole did so on Wednesday as well, much of it coming after Carney's tirade about reporters not falling for conservative "BS."

Programs such as ABC's Good Morning America, NBC's Today and the CBS Morning Show simply avoided the topic and the messy work of investigating the White House's shaky claim.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/05/25/media-mostly-mum-outrageous-obama-claim-fiscal-restraint-wash-post-h


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 27, 2012, 09:55:54 AM
Radio silence.

Archbishop: Networks 'missed the boat' on coverage of church's ObamaCare lawsuits
Published May 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

The archbishop of Washington on Sunday accused the network news programs of having "missed the boat" by largely ignoring lawsuits filed this past week by Catholic institutions challenging the Obama administration's so-called contraception mandate.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," was responding to an analysis by the conservative Media Research Center of how the networks' evening newscasts treated coverage of the dozen federal lawsuits filed Monday.

According to the center, CBS spent 19 seconds on the story after it broke, while the other networks gave it no coverage.
"It is puzzling, particularly since they're focusing so much attention right now on the pope's butler," Wuerl said, in reference the scandal in which the pope's butler Paolo Gabriele was charged with stealing sensitive documents and is suspected of leaking them.

"It seems to me that somehow they've missed the boat. They've missed the story," Wuerl said.

The story, the archbishop said, is "religious liberty."

Wuerl adamantly defended the lawsuits, which were filed by dozens of Catholic-affiliated institutions including schools, charities and the Archdiocese of Washington.

Asked about speculation that the suits were just a vehicle for conservative members of the church to go after President Obama -- considering dozens of dioceses did not join the suit -- Wuerl said the Catholic community is unified.

"I have yet to see among the bishops any split at all," he said.

The contraception mandate was originally a requirement on religious-affiliated institutions to provide access to free contraceptive coverage, as part of the federal health care overhaul. After outcry from Catholic leaders, the administration tweaked the rule so that insurers would be responsible for providing that coverage directly.

The Obama administration argues in defense of the rule by noting that almost 99 percent of women have used contraception and many struggle with the cost, and that a majority of states already require insurance to cover birth control.

Wuerl, though, said this has never been applied at the federal level. "This whole lawsuit isn't about contraception. It's about religious freedom," he said.

He also challenged the administration's "accommodation" to religious groups, noting that many archdioceses are self-insured.

"We are the insurer," he said. "There's no accommodation."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/27/archbishop-washington-networks-missed-boat-on-lawsuit-coverage/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 25, 2012, 10:40:52 AM
Have MSNBC or Andrea Mitchell apologized for this yet?  Anyone been fired? 

MSNBC Romney Edit Draws Fire; Andrea Mitchell Briefly Addresses Controversy (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post  |  By Jack Mirkinson Posted: 06/19/2012 1:12 pm Updated: 06/19/2012 11:44 pm

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell briefly addressed a controversy on Tuesday about the way her show had edited a clip of Mitt Romney.

The network came under fire for the way it edited comments by Romney on Monday. The candidate was in Pennsylvania, where a local chain called Wawa is popular. Romney used the nifty touch-screens at Wawa (apparently, you can use them to custom-order a sandwich) to make a point about the innovative spirit that he thinks the private sector encourages. "It's amazing," he said of the screens. "People in the private sector have learned how to compete."

The clip Mitchell showed did not feature Romney's remarks about innovations in the private sector.

Watch the full comments:


"Maybe this was Mitt Romney's supermarket scanner moment," Mitchell said, referring to a moment in the 1992 presidential campaign where George H.W. Bush appeared fascinated by a supermarket scanner at a trade show. (Bush's defenders said he was merely reacting to a technologically advanced new scanner, not that he had never seen the product before.)

"I get the feeling that Mitt Romney has not been in too many Wawas along the roadside of Pennsylvania," she continued.

After the clip played, Mitchell kept going. "It's amazing," she repeated mockingly, as Chris Cillizza let out a barking laugh. "You know when these candidates get out of their comfort zones ... you've gotta be able to speak the language," she said.

The pushback was swift, as conservatives and media writers accused MSNBC of purposefully distorting Romney's comments to make him appear out of touch. (Others defended the edit, saying it was not taken out of context.)

Sources told the Washington Post's Erik Wemple that the Romney camp had made a formal complaint to the network.

At the top of her Tuesday show, Mitchell brought Cillizza back on.

"There's been a lot of discussion overnight about a conversation you and I had yesterday," Mitchell said. "The RNC and the campaign both reached out to us, saying that Romney had more to say on that visit about federal bureaucracy and innovation in the private sector. We didn't get a chance to play that, so here it is now."

She then moved on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/msnbc-romney-edit-andrea-mitchell_n_1609298.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2012, 12:03:31 PM
CNN's breaking news ticker:  "In a purely political gesture, House Republicans vote to repeal President Obama's signature health care reform law."
 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2012, 12:04:18 PM
The Fox News ticker:  "House Passes Repeal of ObamaCare."


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 20, 2012, 03:45:24 PM
Aurora Shooting: ABC's Brian Ross Incorrectly Suggests Tea Party Link (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post  |  By Jack Mirkinson Posted: 07/20/2012 10:08 am Updated: 07/20/2012 1:12 pm

ABC's Brian Ross got himself into trouble on Friday when he incorrectly suggested there may have been a link between the alleged shooter in the Colorado theater tragedy and the Tea Party. Both Ross and the network later apologized for making the claim.

Ross' comments came after federal officials informed news outlets that the suspect was named James Holmes. George Stephanopoulos threw to him on "Good Morning America" by saying, "You've been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant."

"There's a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year," Ross said. "Now, we don't know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it's Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado."

The page that Ross seems to have been looking at has no identifiable information about the person on it other than his name.

After President Obama's remarks on the shooting, Ross returned to air to give more information about Holmes' background and clarified his earlier report. "An earlier report that I had was incorrect that he was connected with the Tea Party in fact that’s a different Jim Holmes," he said. "He was not connected to the Tea Party and what we do know about him is he is a 24 year old white male who went to Colorado for a PHD."

The network also apologized for the incorrect report online. "ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted," an editor's note read.

No other network apparently made this link. Ross drew criticism from both the left and the right after the comments.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/brian-ross-tea-party-colorado-shooting_n_1689471.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 20, 2012, 04:04:44 PM
Bozell: ABC's Disgraceful Rush to Judgment on the Tea Party
NewsBusters.org ^ | July 20, 2012 | Brent Bozell
Posted on July 20, 2012 8:02:34 PM EDT by Kaslin

This morning, in the aftermath of the unspeakable Colorado massacre that claimed at least 12 innocent American lives and injured dozens more, ABC "news" investigative reporter Brian Ross appeared on ABC's Good Morning America and made the outrageous, irresponsible, and completely unfounded claim that the alleged gunman, 24-year-old Jim Holmes, is a member of the Tea Party. Apparently Ross has learned absolutely nothing from the media's disgraceful rush to judgment and dissemination of misinformation following the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011.
 
That's twice now that the "news" media have falsely implicated the Tea Party in murder.

In his brazen attempt to smear the Tea Party, Ross speculated on national television to millions of viewers that Holmes was a member of the Tea Party based on a social media webpage. When it became apparent that this accusation was false, ABC offered an apology, but they chose to release it online where only a fraction of Good Morning America's misinformed viewers would see it. In addition, Ross had the gall to appear on ABC News to correct himself without offering an on-air apology.
 
Ross slandered every American even loosely associated with the Tea Party, and he owes them an apology. He must also apologize to Good Morning America's audience, the James Holmes he falsely implicated of mass murder, and, most of all, to each and every person in Colorado directly or indirectly affected by this horrific tragedy.
 
In a moment that demanded clarity of thought and purpose, Ross rushed to slander those with whom he does not agree politically, exposing the depths and darkness of his political prejudices. Shame on Brian Ross, and shame on ABC News for not yet demanding he look directly into the camera and beg forgiveness for politicizing this terrible event. Ross' meek Twitter apology is a cynically insincere slap in the face to us all.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 26, 2012, 11:16:51 AM
ABC Praised Free Speech of 'Spirited' Dixie Chicks, Slams Chick-Fil-A for 'Firestorm'
By Scott Whitlock | July 26, 2012

Even as Democratic official like Rahm Emanuel promise to use their government power to punish Chick-fil-A, Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos and Ron Claiborne on Thursday derided the fast food chain's president for speaking out against gay marriage, chiding the "firestorm" and food fight" the company has created. [See video below. MP3 here.] In contrast, the same program in 2006 praised the "spirited" and "unbowed" Dixie Chicks for expressing their First Amendment rights by trashing then-President Bush.

Co-anchor George Stephanopoulos insisted that CEO Dan Cathy's comments in support of traditional marriage have "sparked a firestorm across the Internet." Reporter Ron Claiborne mocked, "This food fight, George, is very rapidly turning into a full scale culture war." Claiborne listed Roseanne Barr, as just another celebrity, along with Ed Helms, who has spoken out against Chick-fil-A. He failed to mention Barr's deranged rants, including tweeting that "anyone who eats S--t Fil-A deserves to get the cancer."


Claiborne's report included one clip of Cathy defending himself, but also played up Chicago's mayor, Rahm Emanuel, "vowing to block the opening of a new Chick-fil-A" and proclaiming that "Chick-fil-A's values are not our values." The journalist ignored the obvious First Amendment aspect of this story.

CNN, however, did not. On Starting Point, panelist Will Cain explained, "...This is a blatant, easy, open and shut case of a First Amendment violation in Chicago. You cannot deny permits to someone based on their political opinion. You just simply cannot."

CNN even allowed Cain to get in this shot: "Rahm Emanuel is also the one who is the little tyrant opposed to the First Amendment as well...Tyranny comes in the form of good intentions."

Lawyer Mark Geragos added, "All they are doing is trying to regulate this guy's speech."

In contrast, then-co-host Diane Sawyer fawned over the First Amendment struggles of the Dixie Chicks. On May 23, 2006, Sawyer spun their attacks on George W. Bush this way:

'Three years ago, as everyone knows, [Dixie Chicks] lead singer Natalie Maines said — about the impending war in Iraq — said she was ashamed that President Bush was from her home state, Texas. The reaction to her words was seismic and from some people even vicious....[Today] they are spirited, unbowed and they are back with a new single called 'Not Ready to Make Nice.''
— Sawyer introducing a taped interview with the Dixie Chicks on ABC's Good Morning America, May 23, 2006.

In the piece, Thursday, Claiborne featured Eric Bovim of Gibraltar Associates Public Relations. The PR exec lectured that if a company is going to speak out, they need to make sure that the "constituency that you're offending isn't active and isn't vocal and isn't going to come out against you." The journalist also compared the situation to when JC Penney was pressured to dump the gay Ellen Degeneres as a spokeswoman.
 
For that story, on May 12, 2012, Claiborne did a report on the controversy. He featured the same hectoring Bovim. The segment played up the "modern marketing."

NBC's Today only covered the Chick-fil-A story in a news brief. Hoda Kotb noted, "A Chicago official has joined the mayor of Boston in vowing to block Chick-Fil-A from opening restaurants in other cities." She added that "Activists on both sides plan demonstrations next week at Chick-Fil-A stores nationwide." CBS This Morning did not cover the story.

A transcript of the July 26 segment, which aired at 7:15, follows:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, one of the most popular fast food chains in the country is under fire this morning. The president of Chick-fil-A has taken a very public against same sex marriage. And that has sparked a firestorm across the internet. Politicians on both sides have weighed in. The Muppets, too. ABC's Ron Claiborne takes a closer look at the controversy and what it's going to mean for the company, Ron.

RON CLAIBORNE: That is right, George. Chick-fil-A did try and do some damage control later. But they're really embroiled in quite a disagreement with the public. A lot of people very upset about their statement that is by the CEO saying that he thinks same-sex marriage is- should not be allowed. Dan Cathy, the head of Chick-fil-A, is an outspoken Christian conservative and this time he is speaking out loudly against gay marriage.

DAN CATHY: I think we're inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, you know, we know better than you at what constitutes a marriage.

CLAIBORNE: His comments are provoking a powerful backlash. The city of Chicago vowing to block the opening of a new Chick-fil-A.

RAHM EMANUEL: Chick-fil-A's values are not our values.

CLAIBORNE: Boston's mayor and a Philadelphia councilman also condemning Chick-fil-A. And the Henson company announced it would end a marketing deal with the fast food chain to put Muppets toys in kids meals. And celebrities, from Miley Cyrus to Roseanne Barr, to Ed Helms of The Office, vowing to boycott. Tweeted Helms, "Chick-fil-A doesn't like gay people? Hate to think what they do to gay chickens. Lost a loyal fan."

ERIC BOVIM (Gibraltar Associates Public Relations): If you're going to wade into social issues, you've got to be sure that the constituency that you're offending isn't active and isn't vocal and isn't going to come out against you.

CLAIBORNE: The cultural clash is reminiscent of what happened when JC Penney hired Ellen DeGeneres as its celebrity endorser. Conservative groups called for a boycott of the retail giant.

ELLEN DEGENERES: Normally, I try not to pay attention to my haters, but this time I'd like to talk about it because my haters are my motivators.

CLAIBORNE: But even as Chick-fil-A is coming under siege from some quarters, some conservatives are rallying behind it. Two former Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum are calling for national show of support by eating at Chick fil-As on August 1st. And in that statement to ABC News, Chick-fil-A said it treats everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, with, quote, "honor, dignity and respect." But then, the company stoked things some more, saying that it dropped Henson as a partner, even before Henson cut its ties to them because of what Chick-fil-A claims were safety concerns about the toys in children's meals. This food fight, George, is very rapidly turning into a full scale culture war.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/07/26/abc-praised-free-speech-spirited-dixie-chicks-slams-chick-fil-firest


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 27, 2012, 06:55:38 PM
The video is pretty compelling.  No question there is an ongoing attempt by liberals and the media to smear the Tea Party. 

Video:  http://mrctv.org/videos/liberal-medias-history-falsely-blaming-conservatives-massacres


Media make Tea Party frequent suspect following shooting attacks
Published July 27, 2012
FoxNews.com

June 2, 2012: Spectators applaud at a rally held by the Racine Tea Party PAC in Gorney Park in Caledonia, Wis. (AP)

ABC News had to quickly apologize last week after star correspondent Brian Ross suggested on air that the Colorado massacre suspect was tied to the Tea Party.

He wasn't.

But it was hardly the first time a reporter or columnist has implicated the conservative grassroots network during the moments following a high-profile attack. The Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, has strung together a video chock-full of examples of this since the dawn of the Tea Party in 2009.

The Tea Party suspicion first started to pick up steam early the following year. After a white professor killed three colleagues in Alabama in a terrible shooting spree in February 2010, the Forbes-funded online site True/Slant published an article asking: "Does racism explain the 'tenure shooting' and Tea Party movement?"

The writer posited that the shooting, combined with the "success of the Tea Party movement," together proved that America was not yet in a post-racial period.

Then when Joseph Stack flew a plane into a Texas office building containing an IRS outpost, The New York Times ran a column asking: "The First Tea-Party Terrorist?"

After that, when a would-be bomber tried unsuccessfully to strike Times Square in May, an article in The Nation cast doubt on the idea that the Pakistani Taliban was involved -- pointing instead to disgruntled Tea Partiers.

"That's possible. But it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right," the article said.

Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad, who has no known Tea Party ties and was allegedly helped by the Pakistani Taliban, was ultimately convicted in that case.

Click here to see the MRC video.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/27/tea-party-frequent-suspect-for-media/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 30, 2012, 03:47:18 AM
 ;)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2012, 08:39:28 AM
Doh!  lol


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 30, 2012, 12:00:18 PM
CNN issues apology for 'Stupid Girls' song before Palin story
Published July 30, 2012
FoxNews.com

CNN has issued an apology for playing a song titled “Stupid Girls” before a segment about Sarah Palin.

“The music selection was a poor choice and was not intended to be linked to any news story. We regret any perception that they were planned together,” a CNN spokesperson told the blog site Mediate.

The song by Pink was the lead-in to a story about the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate supporting Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who is facing public backlash for opposing same-sex marriage.

Palin stopped by one of the fast-food restaurants with husband Todd on Sunday, then posted a picture of the visit on Twitter and her Facebook page.

She also posted the message: “Stopped by Chick-fil-A in the Woodlands to support a great business.”

CNN anchor Randi Kaye started the story by saying, “Sarah Palin is apparently hungry for chicken and controversy.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/30/cnn-issues-apology-for-tupid-girls-song-before-palin-story/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 31, 2012, 01:09:11 PM
NPR analyst describes Romney's Poland stop as appeal to 'ethnic white voters'
Published July 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

NPR analyst Cokie Roberts claimed on air that Mitt Romney's stop in Poland was meant to excite "ethnic white voters."

The comment Monday came as the Republican presidential candidate landed in Poland for the final leg of his three-country tour.

Roberts, also an analyst with ABC News, inferred that the visit is essentially a bid to attract former Reagan Democrats, especially "descendants" of Polish people.

"You remember well the Reagan Democrats, those ethnic white voters who had been Democrats for many years, turned out for Ronald Reagan and have been fairly predictable Republicans since then," Roberts said. "Now, it's a smaller percentage of the population, of the voting population than it used to be, but white voters are still much more Republican than any other group in the electorate.

"They went for McCain in 2008 by 55 percent, and I think that, you know, getting those ethnic voters excited is really what Romney has in mind here. It's more for the folks at home, the descendants of the people that he will be speaking to in Poland," she said.

Indeed, Poland has a strong Catholic population and the trip could be aimed in part at appealing to some of those voters in the U.S.

But Romney's visit has been typically portrayed as having more context to it than a bid for Polish-American support. While in Poland, Romney has stressed the alliance between Poland and the U.S., in an implicit dig at President Obama's allegedly accommodating policies toward Russia.

Plus Romney used an address in Warsaw to herald Poland's free-market policies that helped the country break from the doctrine of Communism, in turn promoting the economic policies he has made a centerpiece of his campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/npr-analyst-describes-romney-poland-stop-as-appeal-to-ethnic-white-voters/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2012, 08:13:22 AM
Ann Romney slammed for $990 Shirt, Michelle Obama praised for $6,800 jacket
By Hollie McKay
Pop Tarts
Published August 01, 2012
FoxNews.com
(http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/ann-romney-michelle-obama-clothes-660-reuters.jpg)

Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.

In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.

This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”

“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.”

Glenn Selig of The Publicity Agency concurred.

“The media will not stay quiet on the issue because wealth remains a big issue with the Romneys. It is not his fault that he's wealthy, but the media is portraying it as a liability,” Selig said.

Dan Gainor, VP of Business and Culture for Media Research Center in Washington DC, said it’s “just the latest example of a consistent media theme that somehow Romney is too wealthy and out of touch because he's a millionaire. Except of course that Obama is also a millionaire. “

Some also highlighted the apparent hypocrisy on Twitter. “And you thought the Romneys were out of touch?” tweeted one, while another wondered who had to pay for the almost $7,000 dress, and another balked that the “jacket would put a lot of food on the table of one of the 25M unemployed people in USA.”

Not everyone’s nose was out of joint, however. Media commentator Jenn Hoffman told FoxNews.com that “Americans need to face the fact that with our current system, politicians need to have money. That is how they get into the office in the first place. If you are near the White House, you have access to serious cash and much of that cash is spent on honing your image.”

Mark Joseph, producer of “Wild Card: The Promise & Peril of Sarah Palin,” added that “Mrs. Romney's wardrobe expenses are certainly fair game, but so are Mrs. Obama's, and political reporters have got to do a better job of being even-handed."

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/01/ann-romney-slammed-for-0-shirt-michelle-obama-praised-for-6800-jacket/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 03, 2012, 08:24:15 AM
Lead story on Fox News.com:  "Wrong-Way Growth:  Jobless Jumps in July as New Hiring Remains Slow."

Buried on CNN.com:  "July hiring up." 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 03, 2012, 10:50:09 AM
The big bash: 86 percent of Romney coverage negative
By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times

August 3, 2012, 01:24PM





Media bias has gone from bad to ridiculous.

During Mitt Romney's overseas visit earlier this week, 86 percent of the coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC "emphasized Romney's perceived gaffes," according to a content analysis of 21 major news stories by the Media Research Center, which also compared Mr. Romney's trip to a similar excursion made by President Obama in 2008.

The results: The broadcast networks committed 53 minutes of almost entirely negative coverage to Mr. Romney, and 92 minutes of "gushing" to Mr. Obama.

"The near unanimous negativity of their coverage is as outrageous as it is transparent," observes the center's founder Brent Bozell. "It's impossible to look at the fawning coverage of Obama's trip in 2008 compared to the sliming Romney has taken in 2012 and not see a clear agenda on the part of the liberal media."


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Hugo Chavez on August 03, 2012, 05:22:36 PM
is there a category for this kind of bias?  :D

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=433210.0
Quote
LOL, I guess it's only wrong if a lib does it... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOnHrAGKwJ4

Our resident mother hen was quite upset about it but maybe that's because it involved a fellow batshit crazy fundie

Owning?  That's friggin stupid.  Shouldn't be using the kid as a prop like that. 

Agree.  She did the right thing.  Shame on the mother for forcing her little kid to get involved with something like this. 

of course Joe Loco had a similar opinion

Really? Is she supposed to argue or debate an eight year old? Especially one who has been brainwashed? Seriously? Liberals lack of commonsense amazes me more and more every day.


Because SM, the kid doesn't know any better.

Let's not forget Bereft Fury

I've always found it amusing how leftists whore their children out for political gain. It's quite comical really considering some of the situations they put these kids in despite supposedly being all about protecting them or something.




Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 07, 2012, 11:07:50 AM
Chick-fil-A Controversy Exposes Media's Anti-Christian Bias and Free Speech Double Standard
Coalition of Citizens Against Religious Bigotry Outraged Over Media Smears
Published: 8/7/2012

ALEXANDRIA, VA – Through the coalition of Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB), more than 20 conservative leaders have joined Media Research Center (MRC) President Brent Bozell in raising their voices in support of religious freedom and our Constitutionally protected right to free speech. The controversy over Chick-fil-A exposed the rampant anti-Christian bias and First Amendment double standard characteristic of liberal media.

What began with Chick-fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy’s unremarkable comments affirming his family’s belief in the traditional definition of marriage swiftly and loudly escalated into a contrived culture war fueled by the liberal media:

1. On Wednesday, August 1, the night of Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, CBS Evening News ignored the story entirely while NBC Nightly News aired five different clips of anti-Chick-fil-A protesters to offset the hundreds of thousands who showed up in support of traditional marriage and freedom of speech.

2. On Thursday morning, the networks continued their smear campaign against Cathy as an anti-gay bigot and Chick-fil-A’s Christian principals as hate speech. CBS This Morning’s anchor Charlie Rose vilified patrons as anti-gay, stating that “thousands went there to eat and to make a statement - a statement against same sex marriage.” On Friday morning, Good Morning America’s Steve Osunsami similarly slandered Chick-fil-A and its leadership, mischaracterizing Chick-fil-A’s pro-traditional marriage stance as a “fight against gay Americans and gay marriage.”

3. The media underplayed gross government overreach by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Tom Menino when they pledged to ban Chick-fil-A from doing business in their cities. If a conservative mayor had tried blocking a pro-gay marriage business from opening through the threat of government reprisal, the media would be calling for his resignation.

4. When the media-hyped “Kiss-in” counter protest planned for Friday fizzled, the media omitted any substantial coverage of its embarrassing failure. If a large-scale Tea Party rally had been such a flop, the liberal media wouldn’t be able to talk about it enough.

“It’s a double standard as old as the liberal media itself,” stated Media Research Center President Brent Bozell. “If it’s part of the liberal agenda, it’s protected free speech. If it isn’t, it’s bigotry. The media smeared anyone who lined up for a chicken sandwich as an anti-gay bigot instead of a proud Christian or free speech patriot, and when the counter-protest flopped, they were predictably silent. Thanks to Chick-fil-A, the media’s liberal bias was stark naked for all to see.”

http://www.mrc.org/press-releases/chick-fil-controversy-exposes-medias-anti-christian-bias-and-free-speech-double-stand


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 07, 2012, 01:17:52 PM
Fisking Fiske’s Record

Virginia Politifact editor has history of voting in Democratic primaries

BY: Bill McMorris
August 7, 2012 2:41 pm




An influential Virginia fact-checker accused of anti-Republican bias has a history of tilting left, according to documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
 
Warren Fiske, editor of Politifact Virginia, has voted in Democratic primaries in all but one of the last 6 major election cycles. Virginia does not have party registration, allowing voters to select the ballot of their choice during the March primary. Fiske opted for a Republican primary ballot in 2005 when then-Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine ran unopposed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.
 
Fiske’s votes would have violated the ethics policies of the Roanoke Times.
 
“Staffers should … avoid active involvement in partisan political causes—including participation in primaries or meetings to choose political candidates—community affairs, social actions or demonstrations that could compromise or seem to compromise our ability to report, edit or photograph fairly,” the paper’s employee conduct guidelines state.
 
Former Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie held himself to similar standards when he first took control of the newsroom.
 
“I decided not to vote beginning in 1984 when I became managing editor. … I was the gatekeeper for what went into the paper, so it was important to not bring my own opinions [into the newsroom],” he said in a phone interview.
 
Downie, however, does not believe that newsrooms should bar reporters from voting.
 
“I made my decision, but everybody on staff was free to make theirs—we had plenty of ‘I Voted’ stickers on Election Day,” he said. “Any step an individual needs to take to not be biased, they should take that step. If they have a strong opinion about an issue, they should recuse their coverage.”
 
Ginger Stanley, director of the Virginia Press Association, echoed that sentiment, saying reporters “are voting as citizens in their jurisdiction, which in no way reflects their role as journalists.”
 
Politifact Virginia is one of 11 state branches of Politifact, a St. Petersburg-based news service that monitors statements made by lawmakers and candidates. Its reporters assign one of six “truth ratings,” ranging from Pants on Fire (ridiculous lie) to True (accurate, “nothing missing”).
 
As an editor, Fiske is in charge of selecting topics to cover, review each analysis, and approve the reporter’s recommended “Truth-O-Meter” rating.
 
Fiske declined to comment, directing the Washington Free Beacon to the communications team of  Politifact Virginia’s partner, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Neither Politifact nor its partner, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, returned calls for comment.
 
Under Fiske’s leadership, the site has faced mounting criticism from the state GOP for perceived bias against Republican Senate candidate George Allen and Gov. Bob McDonnell. In July, the party released a comprehensive study of Politifact VA’s rating system that found that the site targeted Republicans over Democrats by a wide margin and used subjective analysis to give the GOP more false ratings.
 
“PolitiFact Virginia purports to sit in objective judgment on the truthfulness of factual assertions by leading public figures, yet it fails to meet the very standard it claims to enforce,” the report said.
 
Fiske addressed those concerns on the Politifact site and in the pages of the site’s partner, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, soon after the GOP report.
 
“We are not obliged to assign a False rating to a Democrat just because we gave one to a Republican,” he wrote. “PolitiFact Virginia is not about mathematical balance between parties in our ratings. We’re about making calls on political statements that are in the news.”
 
Politifact’s coverage of the dead-heat Senate race between Allen and former governor and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine has drawn the most scrutiny from political insiders. About forty percent of Allen’s statements received some degree of false ratings compared to 18 percent for Kaine. Politifact has used different metrics in some of its ratings to skew the budgetary track record of the candidates, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.
 
The fact checkers ignored the impact inflation and skyrocketing federal spending on programs like Medicaid had on spending increases while Allen was governor, declaring the Republican’s claim of fiscal hawk “false.”
 
Fiske has not made the same mistake when analyzing Kaine’s record.
 
Politifact adjusted for inflation to downplay the dramatic spike in college tuition under Kaine’s watch, as well as to cast his spending record in a more positive light. When Kaine said that the “general fund budget shrank when he was governor,” fact checkers discounted federal spending, failed to mention that Kaine attempted to hike taxes rather than cut costs and left the state with a multi-billion dollar deficit at the end of his term.
 
The claim received a “True” rating.
 
Downie said that fact checkers are an important development on the landscape of journalism.
 
“I think they’re great because it’s difficult to go in depth in a 24/7 news environment. Fact checkers go much deeper and we need that,” he said. “It’s important not to have strong views about what you cover … that’s what is most important.”

This entry was posted in Media and tagged bias, liberal media, Politifact, Warren Fiske. Bookmark the permalink.

http://freebeacon.com/fisking-fiskes-record



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 09, 2012, 11:28:55 AM
Props to CNN for not plugging their ears on this one.

CNN Hammers Vicious Obama Super PAC Ad That Networks Ignored Entirely
By Matt Hadro | August 09, 2012

For the second straight day, CNN blew the whistle on a nasty and misleading Obama super PAC ad that ABC, CBS, and NBC entirely ignored as of Wednesday night. CNN hammered the ad, which links Mitt Romney to a woman's death from cancer, each hour from 6 p.m. through 10 p.m. and twice grilled the man responsible for the ad, Bill Burton of Priorities USA.

"I think it is deliberately mendacious," stated CNN's Piers Morgan on Wednesday. "It is a deliberate attempt to lie and smear about Mitt Romney. And I find it contemptible. I mean I'm really appalled." The three networks showed no such disdain for the ad which will air in battleground states, because they failed to even mention it on Tuesday and Wednesday. [Video coming soon.]

Bill Burton was President Obama's national press secretary during the 2008 campaign, a connection that CNN reported and which makes his super PAC's ad all the more relevant during an election season where the media should be policing false and misleading ads.

"The President cannot hide behind a Super PAC on an ad as nasty as this one when that Super PAC is run by a friend and longtime deputy," stated Erin Burnett. "Bill Burton knows the President's ethics very well and it is fair to hold him up to this standard."

"The facts on this ad don't even add up," reported Burnett. Anderson Cooper called it "a factually bogus ad from the leading pro-Obama super PAC." Correspondent Brianna Keilar, whose critical fact-checking first aired on Tuesday evening, stood by her reporting on Wednesday.

"So it just seemed like there was very much an incomplete picture in this ad," she said, adding "I think it's inaccurate" and "there are a number of factors that aren't mentioned in the ad."

"When you do an ad that seems to leave the impression that he [Romney] was at least indirectly responsible for a woman dying from cancer, that is so powerful, that is so tough, that goes beyond what you guys should be doing," host Wolf Blitzer lectured Burton.   

Overall, CNN devoted over a half-hour of coverage to criticizing the ad on Wednesday from 6 p.m. through 9 p.m, although some of that airtime went to scrutinizing the Romney campaign's campaign ad that CNN had whacked for dishonesty.

The Situation Room gave 17 minutes to the super PAC ad during the 6 p.m. hour.  Erin Burnett gave it over six minutes on her 7 p.m. show OutFront, and Anderson Cooper devoted over 11 minutes to the ad but focused some of that time to Romney's ad. Piers Morgan attacked both Obama and Romney during his 9 p.m. show Piers Morgan Tonight.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/08/09/cnn-hammers-vicious-obama-super-pac-ad-networks-ignored-entirely


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2012, 08:05:05 AM
Quote
Soledad O'Brien Caught Reading Liberal Blog During Heated Debate With Romney Adviser
Newsbusters ^


Posted on Tue Aug 14 2012 08:50:10 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by Sub-Driver

Soledad O'Brien Caught Reading Liberal Blog During Heated Debate With Romney Adviser By Noel Sheppard Created 08/13/2012 - 10:31pm

Can CNN's Soledad O'Brien make her sources any more apparent than she did Monday night?

While filling in for Anderson Cooper, O'Brien was actually caught on screen looking at an article from the far-left website Talking Points Memo to assist her in a heated debate with Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock (video follows with commentary):

Ali Akbar at Viral Read reported Monday:

During her interview with Virginia House of Delegates Republican member Barbara Comstock, O’Brien became visibly flustered and was actually caught doing finger stress exercises as she attempt [sic] to insert editorial commentary while her guest, a former skilled Republican operative, defended the House GOP budget, designed by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan.

Accidentally, a cameraman captured O’Brien furiously flipping through notes, only to cut out seconds later.

Indeed:

Once blown up, the picture told quite a story:

What she's reading from is a TPM article titled "The Myth Of Paul Ryan The Bipartisan Leader" published Monday at 6:08 PM only a few hours before this program started.

It began:

Mitt Romney has been talking up Rep. Paul Ryan’s bipartisan credentials since he unveiled the congressman as his running mate early Saturday. But the mild-mannered Wisconsinite’s record reveals a near-total absence of Democratic support for his many ambitious proposals, very few of which have won enough support to become law.

Inside the piece was the very quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) that O'Brien read to her guest:

“I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

So, a CNN anchor with her own daily program used a far-left website for her show prep before talking to a Republican guest.

Do you need any more evidence of just how far to the left the self-described "most trusted name in news" is or why its ratings continue to tank?

Bravo, Ali! Bravo!








No wonder CNN is tanking hard.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 14, 2012, 06:35:59 PM
lol at the picture.   :)


Cameras catch CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien reading liberal blog during debate with Romney adviser
Published August 14, 2012
FoxNews.com

(http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/Soledad.JPG)
Soledad O'Brien (REUTERS)

CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien was recently caught on screen looking at an article from a known left-wing website to assist her when debating Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock.

In screen grabs posted on Newsbusters.org, O’Brien, who was filling in Anderson Cooper, can be seen reading from a piece entitled “The Myth of Paul Ryan the Bipartisan Leader”  as Comstock offers her response.

The post, which was published just hours before the program began, appeared on the website Talking Points Memo.

While she does not directly cite the blog, she does a read a quote from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Or.) to Comstock that appears verbatim in the piece during the program.

Blogger Ali A. Akbar first posted about it on Viralread.com.

On Tuesday, O’Brien and Mitt Romney surrogate John Sununu engaged in a heated debate over Medicare on “Starting Point,” where he told her, “Soledad, stop this! All you’re doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blogs boards out there. Put an Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this.”

O’Brien said her figures were from unbiased information from Factcheck.org, the CBO and CNN analysis.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/08/14/cameras-catch-cnn-anchor-soledad-obrien-reading-liberal-blog-during-debate-with/?intcmp=features


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 18, 2012, 06:38:13 PM
On the Today Show this morning, Mark Halperin said the media basically does what the Obama campaign wants them to do: 



"The Obama folks clearly know they've found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney," said NBC's Lester Holt. "And then of course late in the week comes this challenge--'give us a little more and we won't complain anymore.' Has this issue come to the point it's jumped the shark?"

"I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this," said Halperin.




Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on August 18, 2012, 11:31:37 PM
the story is good for ratings.

seriously, if "economy sucks" was running better with viewers, that's what we'd hear.

it's what viewers respond to = $$$ and ratings.

I'm sure there were wars or other events more important than mixx lewinsky's dress... but people liked that story.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 22, 2012, 02:43:55 PM
This had me laughing out loud.   :)

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/leno-mocks-obama-controlling-media-jake-tapper-reads-question-cue-cards-presidents-holding


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: peruke on August 22, 2012, 06:25:33 PM
Been meaning to create a thread like this for years.  Finally getting around to it.   :)  One example of the liberal media bias:

Networks Hit Cain Story 50 Times in Less Than Four Days; Ignored Clinton Scandals
By Scott Whitlock | November 03, 2011

Over a period of just three and a half days, NBC, CBS and ABC have developed an insatiable hunger for the Herman Cain sexual harassment story, devoting an incredible 50 stories to the allegations since Monday morning. In contrast, over a similar period these networks mostly ignored far more substantial and serious scandals relating to Bill Clinton.

This pattern continued on Wednesday night and into Thursday as the evening newscasts and morning shows highlighted the story 19 times. On Good Morning America, Brian Ross offered innuendo and slung gossip, recounting, "But behind the scenes, several of the campaigns are still urging reporters to continue to dig, George, saying, there's more to be found in the private life of Herman Cain." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

Without offering facts, Ross described Cain's time as head of the National Restaurant Association: "It fits with the kind of culture we were told that existed there, with young women who had been, sort of, lobbyists for the restaurant association, working with various states. They were the new ones, the young ones. And they say that's where Cain often socialized."

GMA's George Stephanopoulos trumpeted the latest: "Another woman. Herman Cain facing new allegations that he was aggressive and inappropriate to a third employee, inviting her back to his corporate apartment."  "Is the pressure finally getting to the front-runner," inquired the former Democratic operative turned journalist.

On the November 3 Today, Lisa Myers, with no sense of irony, declared the story "a feeding frenzy." She trumpeted, "For Herman Cain, this story is quickly going from bad to worse."

In comparison, over a similar three-day period these same programs were far less interested in charges against Democrat Bill Clinton. After Paula Jones held a public press conference in February of 1994, there was only one report on her allegations.

Following Kathleen Willey's July 1997 claims of being groped by the President, there were a mere three reports. For Juanita Broaddrick, who came forward in February of 1999 to say Clinton raped her, only three stories followed charges appearing in the Wall Street Journal.

It should also be pointed out that all these women offered their names. They weren't anonymous. Additionally, the accusations of assault and rape go far beyond what's being mentioned with the Cain scandal.

Yet, on CBS's Early Show, Chris Wragge piled on, saying of a third possible Cain accuser, "That pretty much takes care of any hope he might have had to see this story fade any time soon."

The nightly newscasts offered a similar tone. Both Evening News anchor Scott Pelley and Nightly News' Brian Williams led their shows by exclaiming, "Under pressure."

Williams added, "Herman Cain fights to stay on his game as reporters swarm and questions swirl about accusations of sexual harassment. Tonight, one of his accusers wants to talk, but can she go public?"

In a follow-up segment, Williams spun the story as a reminder of the seriousness of sexual harassment: "This, of course, is just the latest entry in a long list of similar situations, stories that have made headlines and come and gone over the years and a lot of people are wondering not only what really happened here but where the line is where the rules of the workplace are concerned."

The morning shows, Good Morning America, Today and Early Show, devoted 12 stories to the scandal on Thursday. Wednesday's evening newscasts, Nightly News, World News and Evening News, offered another six. ABC's Nightline also had one.


. . . .

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/11/03/networks-hit-cain-story-50-times-less-four-days-ignored-clinton-scan




Both Parties suck................I have used this example before.   An apple pie is baked.    Dems. let you smell the pie.....Reps.  say what pie?.....Neither side give you pie.

Both parties expect us to tighten our belts, but they get raises every year, and have a gold card when it comes to health insurance....The congress & senators always say "Yes", when they vote for a pay raise....Very bipartisan....Dems. smile & say bullshit.....Reps. smirk and say bullshit...Both parties sling bullshit.... ::)    I wish my paycheck went us as fast as the gas prices..... :-\    Both parties love to make political issues out of tragedy.....  Just my two cents, or maybe in this time period.....   (-) 2 cents.... :'(


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: peruke on August 22, 2012, 06:30:21 PM
On the Today Show this morning, Mark Halperin said the media basically does what the Obama campaign wants them to do: 



"The Obama folks clearly know they've found some traction on this tax return issue with Romney," said NBC's Lester Holt. "And then of course late in the week comes this challenge--'give us a little more and we won't complain anymore.' Has this issue come to the point it's jumped the shark?"

"I think the press still likes this story a lot, the media is very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus on this," said Halperin.






Watch Fox....They are your network :-\


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2012, 10:53:40 AM

August 22, 2012
Donations by Media Companies Tilt Heavily to Obama
By AMY CHOZICK

Wall Street may lean Republican this presidential election cycle, but the New York media world is staunchly Democratic.

All the major media companies, driven largely by their Hollywood film and television businesses, have made larger contributions to President Obama than to his rival, former Gov. Mitt Romney, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit, nonpartisan Washington-based research group that publishes the Open Secrets Web site.

The center’s numbers represent donations by a company’s PAC and any employees who listed that company as their employer.

Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr. Romney. The conglomerate, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and the 20th Century Fox studios, gave roughly the same amount to Mr. Romney’s Republican primary competitors Rick Perry and Ron Paul as it did to Mr. Romney.

But the choice of Representative Paul Ryan, the conservative congressman from Wisconsin, to be Mr. Romney’s running mate, might help win News Corporation dollars. Shortly after Mr. Romney’s announcement, Mr. Murdoch took to Twitter: “Thank God! Now we might have a real election on the great issues of the day. Paul Ryan almost perfect choice.”

Mr. Murdoch has not been shy about expressing his criticism of Mr. Romney, including at a tense Journal editorial board meeting with the candidate that led the newspaper’s opinion pages to characterize Mr. Romney as Consultant in Chief. The announcement that Mr. Ryan would join the ticket came after The Journal’s editorial page published a column titled “Why Not Paul Ryan?”

News Corporation has donated $504,162 to individuals, Super PACs and candidates in 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’s OpenSecrets Web site. Eight of the 10 top recipients of that cash are Democrats. (Mr. Murdoch’s personal contributions largely favor Republicans, though his wife, Wendi Murdoch, has donated to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York.)
In 2008, News Corporation contributed $380,558 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $32,740 to the Republican nominee John McCain.

Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney. The Walt Disney Company, owner of ABC and ESPN, donated $125,856 to Mr. Obama and $9,950 to Mr. Romney.

Philadelphia-based Comcast Corporation, owner of NBCUniversal and one of the biggest spenders in lobbying money in Washington, has given $206,056 to Mr. Obama and $20,500 to Mr. Romney.

Each of these media companies were among the roughly 150 organizations listed by the Center for Responsive Politics as “heavy hitters” that have given the most money. The New York Times Company was not among the center’s “heavy hitters” and does not have a PAC; the newspaper discourages employees from contributing to political campaigns.

Despite the media money pouring in to his opponent, Mr. Romney and the Republican National Committee still have a significant cash advantage over Mr. Obama and the Democrats. According to a Federal Election Commission report released Monday, the GOP had $186 million on hand, compared with $124 million for Democrats.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;topic=401076.100;num_replies=122


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 06, 2012, 06:08:13 PM
Reporters Using ‘Fake Names’ to Buy Obama Campaign Merchandise at the DNC
By Hunter Walker 9/06 9:55pm

Twitter43
Facebook7
Reddit
LinkedIn
Email
Print

The Obama campaign merchandise table inside one of the media areas at the DNC. The press stand is visible on the left side of the photo.
CHARLOTTE, NC — Members of the media have apparently been using “fake names’ to buy official Obama gear and contribute to the Obama campaign inside the Time Warner Cable Arena where the President is due to speak in a few minutes. During our travels around the arena, Politicker spotted a souvenir stand in one of the press stands selling T-shirts and buttons supporting President Barack Obama, “Democrats Are Hot” bumper stickers and other official Obama merchandise.

The souvenir stand was in a secure area only accessible to those with a media credential and buying campaign gear means contributing to the campaign, so we asked the woman working the cash register whether anyone at the press stand had been making purchases. Her answers were quite surprising. 

The woman working at the souvenir stand told us she hadn’t been “too busy” during the day, but had seen business pick up in the past half hour or so. She then asked us whether we wanted to buy anything. When we informed her that our status as a reporter means we don’t buy campaign gear, she suggested a strategy other members of the media have apparently used to pick up their Obama swag.

“Have you ever thought of making up a fake name? That’s what the other guys do,” she said.

Buying official merchandise at the DNC means making a donation the Obama campaign, an activity that is generally frowned upon for members of the media. The Obama campaign website specifically informs shoppers that purchases amount to donations in its “Frequently Asked Questions” section where one of the queries is, “Can I receive merchandise without making a donation?”

“The only way to receive items from the 2012 store is by contributing through the official store site at store.barackobama.com,” the site says.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 14, 2012, 10:58:10 AM
Pathetic.  And typical. 

Video: CBS and NPR Reporter Plot to Insure Romney's Asked If He Regrets Obama Critique
By Tim Graham | September 12, 2012


The Right Scoop has posted video with an open microphone that shows the Romney press corps “coordinating questions to ask Romney," with CBS reporter Jan Crawford saying, “no matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.” They wanted to make Romney take credit or walk back his statement condemning Obama weakness after the embassy attacks: “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?” NPR’s Ari Shapiro – the one who won’t say the Pledge of Allegiance –  is one of the reporters planning their agenda on the clip.

As one who worked in the White House, it should be said that reporters do sometimes coordinate to get a sense of what they want out of a press conference. But when has the public gotten a sense these journalists have done this to hold Obama accountable? (He didn't take questions this morning, so there could be no plotting today.)

Off camera, you can hear CBS’s Crawford strategizing:

JAN CRAWFORD: That’s the question....Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

ARI SHAPIRO, NPR: Your question? Your statement?

CRAWFORD:  I mean your statement. Not even your tone, because then he can go off on –
 
SHAPIRO:  And then if he does, I think we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound' –

Then the feed is cut off. Crawford later added, “No matter who he calls on, we’re covered on the one question.” A man who is not Shapiro states, “Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?”

There’s nothing undemocratic or "corrupt" about journalists working together to decide what a story line is. But that story line can turn out to be a very biased line – as in expressing disbelief that Romney is “doubling down” on his Obama critique. Reporters sometimes mock the idea of a media "conspiracy," but chats like these are certainly collaboration.

People often expect that reporters are competitive in gaining a scoop -- but time in the press corps can convince you that reporters seem more nervous about straying from the journalism of the pack. They may be competitive in booking guests, but they're often not competitive in establishing the theme of the day. They tend to unite on that.

What matters is the end product -- were the reporters fair in their choice of questions? Clearly, conservatives felt this story line sounded more like an attack on Romney than an investigation of the sad events in Benghazi. Jim Geraghty of National Review was tweeting: "Third damn stupid question about the TIMING of Romney's statement. How about some substance?... is no one going to ask about WHAT OUR POLICY MOVES SHOULD BE IN RESPONSE?"

One can cite other, darker examples of coordination, including coordinated censorship – as in Mickey Kaus describing how the press tried to walk away from the Paula Jones sexual harassment charges against Bill Clinton, or the absolute failure of the press corps to coordinate to pressure  Clinton repeatedly (if necessary) to answer whether he had raped Juanita Broaddrick

PS: Crawford also says at the very end of the clip, “I shouldn’t have my notebook visible, should I? It says ABC News on it!”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/12/video-cbs-and-npr-reporter-plot-insure-romneys-asked-if-he-regrets-obama


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 17, 2012, 08:28:34 AM
Propaganda Update: TV Networks Will Be Asked to Boost ObamaCare In Plots of Their Top Shows






By Tim Graham | September 15, 2012 | 10:29
 
 949 535Reddit11 135

A  A

 



Abby Goodnough of The New York Times is reporting as the California state government is setting up its ObamaCare exchange, the exchange has hired a PR firm (with federal government money).
 
"Realizing that much of the battle will be in the public relations realm, the exchange has poured significant resources into a detailed marketing plan — developed not by state health bureaucrats but by the global marketing powerhouse Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide, which has an initial $900,000 contract with the exchange," she wrote. Ogilvy's plan is to tap major network TV shows like "Grey's Anatomy" and "Modern Family" to sell Americans on the health care law:
 
Hollywood, an industry whose major players have been supportive of President Obama and his agenda, will be tapped. Plans are being discussed to pitch a reality television show about “the trials and tribulations of families living without medical coverage,” according to the Ogilvy plan. The exchange will also seek to have prime-time television shows, like “Modern Family,” “Grey’s Anatomy” and Univision telenovelas, weave the health care law into their plots.

“I’d like to see 10 of the major TV shows, or telenovelas, have people talking about ‘that health insurance thing,’ ” said Peter V. Lee, the exchange’s executive director. “There are good story lines here.”
 
Although the exchange will not start advertising until next year, the California Endowment, a foundation that has spent $15 million promoting the law, is running newspaper and television ads, including one in which the television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz exhorts viewers to “get educated, get engaged, get enrolled.” That campaign has targeted Hispanics, who make up more than half of the state’s uninsured population.
 
Goodnough added "The exchange itself has so far been financed by three grants, worth $237 million, from the federal government. Most of the money is committed to consultants, including Accenture, which has a $327 million contract to build and support the initial operation of the enrollment portal."
 
Remember that the liberal media was furious that the federal government would promote the war in Iraq inside Iraq, and furious that the Department of Education would hire PR flacks like Armstrong Williams to talk up Bush education programs on cable news. So where is their outrage at the idea that federal grants would promote ObamaCare advertising inside network TV entertainment programs?
 






About the Author
Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow Tim Graham on Twitter.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/09/15/propaganda-update-tv-networks-will-be-asked-boost-obamacare-plots-their-#ixzz26kGL0U8l


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 20, 2012, 11:35:11 AM
Obama Admin Now Admits Deadly Benghazi Attack Linked to Al Qaeda; WashPost Buries Item on Page A8
By Ken Shepherd | September 20, 2012

In a hearing yesterday before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, an Obama administration official admitted what all of us already knew through credible reports in foreign media: Amb. Chris Stevens died on September 11 "in the course of a terrorist attack." As Karen DeYoung reported in today's Washington Post, National Counterterrorism Center director Matthew Olsen told the committee that "the people involved in the violent assault" on the consulate in Benghazi hailed from "several militant groups, including localized extremists in eastern Libya as well as affiliates of al Qaeda."

An al Qaeda connection to a deadly attack that killed four Americans at a consulate on the anniversary of 9/11 should be front-page news, but it was buried on page A8 of the Post with the bland headline "Intelligence official cites 'terrorist attack' in Libya."*

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
DeYoung also noted that at least one senator is skeptical of Olsen's claim that the attack was spontaneous and exploitative of a demonstration against an anti-Islam film (emphasis mine):

The hearing came amid mounting questions about security at the consulate and whether the State Department was insufficiently responsive to previous attacks in Benghazi and the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacks on the United States.

“I’m just stunned and appalled that there wasn’t better security for all of the American personnel at that consulate, given the high-threat environment,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told Olsen, Associate Deputy FBI Director Kevin Perkins and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano at the hearing.

Collins also sharply disagreed with Olsen’s statement that the attack did not appear to be planned. “Based on the briefings I have had, I’ve come to the opposite conclusion,” she said. “I just don’t think that people come to protests equipped with RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] and other heavy weapons. And the reports of complicity — and they are many — with Libyan guards who were assigned to guard the consulate also suggest to me that this was premeditated.”

Collins is not alone in expressing skepticism about the Obama administration's official line. On Sunday, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), a former FBI agent, expressed skepticism that the murder of Stevens and three other Americans was a spur-of-the-moment attack engendered by outrage at an obscure YouTube video.

It's difficult to imagine the Post and other media outlets treating such a hearing cavalierly if this had happened under George W. Bush's watch and the Republican president had peddled the official story that the Obama White House is now.

Embassy and consulate security in Libya and other volatile countries in the Middle East is a vital issue that should be given front-page attention by the media. Doing so, however, casts the Obama administration in a potentially negative light, something the Obama-friendly media do not want to risk in a close reelection year.

*The online headline reads "Benghazi attack called 'terrorist'"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2012/09/20/obama-admin-now-admits-deadly-benghazi-attack-linked-al-qaeda-washpost


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 21, 2012, 04:51:09 AM
Media cover for Obama’s failures

BY STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com September 20, 2012 5:52PM



President Barack Obama participates in a town hall hosted by Univision and Univision news anchors Jorge Ramos (left) and Maria Elena Salinas (center) at the University of Miami, Thursday in Coral Gables, Fla. | CAROLYN KASTER~AP


Updated: September 21, 2012 2:32AM



Each new day seems to bring further evidence of the unremitting failure of President Barack Obama’s economic and foreign policies. Yet the presidential contest remains even, due in large part to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s failure to articulate a specific economic reform agenda and to the mainstream media’s obsession with what Obama-friendly commentators see as Romney’s gaffes.
 
The media narrative is Romney has had a bad couple of weeks with less-than-artful or ill-timed remarks about the growth of government dependency and Obama’s failed foreign policy. Still, Obama has had his own bad couple of weeks, on the economic front as well as abroad — though the media haven’t spotlighted it as they have with Romney.
 


Ads by Google

ClearOne Advantage™Plans Designed to Settle Your Debt. No Upfront Fees. Get Free Analysis! TryClearOne.com/Debt-Settlement


New Census Bureau figures show median household income fell or was flat last year in 37 states — mirroring data released a week ago showing national median household income is down to mid-1990s levels. This drop came amid the Obama recovery, the weakest rebound from a recession in modern history.
 
Another report filled in details behind the nation’s persistently high unemployment, 43 months above 8 percent. Small businesses are a prime generator of jobs, yet fewer new firms are being established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of startups peaked at 667,000 in 2006 and has declined ever since, reaching 548,000 in 2009 and dropping again to 505,000 in 2010, the first full year of the recovery.
 
“The state of entrepreneurship in the United States is, sadly, weaker than ever,” observes Tim Kane of the Hudson Institute who analyzed the numbers. He cites “anecdotal evidence that the U.S. policy environment has become inadvertently hostile to entrepreneurial employment.” That includes uncertainty over taxes and regulations, among them the looming new taxes and rules from ObamaCare.
 
Further fallout from ObamaCare: It will raise taxes on 6 million Americans for failing to meet its insurance mandate, reports the Congressional Budget Office. That’s 50 percent higher than the previous estimate. Most of that tax hike will fall on the middle class.
 
More evidence of the failure of Obama’s economic policies was the Federal Reserve’s announcement of a third round of “quantitative easing” — Fedspeak for printing money to boost Wall Street trading in hopes that will trickle down to more jobs. How effective it will be remains to be seen, but it will keep interest rates at near zero, a disheartening blow to seniors trying to live off their life savings. The Fed policy also will likely fuel commodity prices, meaning higher food and energy costs further eroding household budgets. That is, unless a possibly looming global downturn — meaning more unemployment — depresses oil prices.

The news is no better on foreign policy. Even the administration is backing away from U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s farcical claim that the wave of anti-American riots were a spontaneous reaction to an obscure Internet video. And Obama’s “reset” with Russia is faring no better than his outreach to the Muslim world. Moscow kicked out the U.S. Agency for International Development, which promotes democracy and human rights, claiming it meddles in Russian politics.
 
From the American kitchen table to the U.S. business environment to the unemployment line to the Arab street to Russian diplomacy, Obama’s policies have been a failure. Who wants four more years of that?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: BayGBM on September 23, 2012, 06:49:35 AM
...Over at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, columnist and former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan wrote, “It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one.”

Then she revised her estimation: “This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite,” she wrote. “I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’"


http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-advice-mitt-romney-rogue-210258156.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on September 23, 2012, 06:51:41 AM
...Over at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, columnist and former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan wrote, “It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one.”

Then she revised her estimation: “This week I called it incompetent, but only because I was being polite,” she wrote. “I really meant ‘rolling calamity.’"


http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-advice-mitt-romney-rogue-210258156.html

 :D :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Coach is Back! on September 23, 2012, 07:53:18 AM
 :)



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 23, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
CNN's Blitzer: Letterman Better for Obama Than Israel
 Breitbart ^ | 9/23/12 | Warner Todd Huston

Posted on Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:42:18 PM by Nachum

As the Middle East erupts in flames and as his foreign policy scheme is burned up with it, President Obama refused a meeting with Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu and instead went on the David Letterman show. One might think the President's neglect of his duty was a bad thing, but apparently it was perfectly fine with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

On Sept. 19, during an America's Choice 2012 segment on CNN's Newsroom, Wolf Blitzer was full of words of understanding for Obama's choice of Letterman over Israel's Prime Minister. It just made good sense, Blitzer imagined, for Obama to ignore his duties as America's director of foreign policy in order to go on a late-night comedy show.

Apparently Blitzer understood perfectly that getting votes should take precedence over foreign policy.


(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 24, 2012, 04:10:02 AM

CBS Doesn't Air Obama Admitting Mistakes in Campaign Ads


10:39 PM, Sep 23, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER




Single PagePrintLarger TextSmaller TextAlerts

   

 







http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbs-doesnt-air-obama-admitting-mistakes-campaign-ads_652973.html


Tonight, CBS aired a 60 Minutes interview with President Obama. But curiously enough, the news magazine show did not air a clip of Obama admitting to interviewer Steve Kroft that some of his campaign ads contain mistakes and that some even "go overboard."
 
60 Minutes did, however, post the clip online:
 


CBS describes the clip this way: "President Obama says some of his campaign ads might 'go overboard' or contain mistakes, but most of them simply highlight the differences between him and Gov. Romney."
 
"Look, the fact-checkers have had problems with the ads on both sides," Kroft says to Obama in the unaired clip, "and say they've been misleading and in some cases just not true. Does that disturb you? I mean, some of them are your ads."
 
Obama responds: "Do we see sometimes us going overboard in our campaign, are there mistakes that are made, areas where there is no doubt somebody could dispute how we are presenting things? You know, that happens in politics."
 
Kroft responds: "Aren't the American entitled to the truth? Or a better version of it?"


"The truth of the matter is, most of the time we're having a vigorous debate about a vision for the country," Obama says. "And, you know, there's a lot at stake in this election. So is it going to be sharp sometimes? Absolutely. But will the American people ultimately have a good sense of where I want to take the country and where Gov. Romney takes the country? I think they will."
 
Indeed, it's a newsworthy admission, but one that didn't make it into the news magazine's final cut.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: whork on September 24, 2012, 05:00:39 AM
Do any of you 33.. and BB watch FOX ???

They pionered this shit!!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: dario73 on September 26, 2012, 08:18:21 AM

Conservative leaders claim unprecedented media bias this election cycle
Published September 26, 2012
FoxNews.com

Two-dozen conservative activists and media personalities on Tuesday urged members of their respective groups to switch off the "biased news media," claiming in an open letter that establishment media are "out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda."

Though these groups frequently complain about a left-leaning media bias, they claimed in the letter that the political slant this cycle is unprecedented.

"In the quarter century since the Media Research Center was established to document liberal media bias, there has never been a more brazen and complete attempt by the liberal so-called 'news' media to decide the outcome of an election," wrote Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, and other conservative leaders.

They ticked off a litany of grievances against the news media, saying they've been "shamefully smearing" Mitt Romney over the course of the election.

Among their charges were that the media have painted conservative ideas as "extreme;" downplayed the "horrendous economic conditions" in the country; focused more on shortcomings in Romney's business background than in Obama's record as president; been "pouncing" on missteps by conservatives while "suppressing" gaffes by Vice President Biden; and been "deliberately covering up embarrassing government failures and scandals, including the Solyndra debacle, Fast & Furious, and national security leaks."

According to NewsBusters, part of MRC, the letter was directed at the heads of ABC News, NBC News, CBS News and CNN.

"We the undersigned -- representing millions of Americans from our respective organizations -- are now publicly urging our members to seek out alternative sources of political news in order to make an intelligent, well-informed decision on November 6," they wrote.

Network representatives have not yet responded to a request for comment.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/26/conservative-leaders-claim-unprecedented-media-bias-this-election-cycle/#ixzz27apzuMfj


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: dario73 on September 26, 2012, 08:19:34 AM
An Open Letter to the Biased News Media:

This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts, and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda.  To put it bluntly: you are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome.  In the quarter century since the Media Research Center was established to document liberal media bias, there has never been a more brazen and complete attempt by the liberal so-called “news” media to decide the outcome of an election.

A free and balanced media are crucial to the health of this country. It is your duty as journalists – as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics – to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” while simultaneously “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

There is a reason why the media are viewed with such disdain by the American public, as evidenced by every recent poll on the issue.

You have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government’s public policy failures, both domestic and foreign, while openly and shamefully smearing Gov. Mitt Romney. You are:

•    Painting conservative ideas as extreme, while refusing to report the disastrous consequences of liberal programs enacted since 2008.

•    Submerging the truly horrendous economic conditions America is facing and focusing only on minor political issues.

•     Characterizing conservatives as cruel budget “slashers” instead of responsible officials trying to avoid a debt catastrophe.

•    Focusing on alleged shortcomings in Romney’s business record instead of Obama’s record as the chief executive, whose policies contributed to a failed economy.

•    Deliberately covering up embarrassing government failures and scandals, including the Solyndra debacle, Fast & Furious, and national security leaks which have put American lives in jeopardy.

•    Pouncing on real and perceived missteps by conservatives, portraying them as bumbling incompetents, while suppressing embarrassing and incendiary remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden to prevent him from becoming a liability.

•    Portraying conservative opposition to tax hikes as an impediment to deficit reduction while failing to highlight how liberal tax increase policies will cause massive damage to the economy and cause the deficit to explode.

•    “Fact-checking” conservatives in order to discredit their arguments while regularly refusing to "fact-check" liberals who are distorting the truth.

We the undersigned – representing millions of Americans from our respective organizations – are now publicly urging our members to seek out alternative sources of political news in order to make an intelligent, well-informed decision on November 6.

It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell, III                                                 
President                                                 
Media Research Center

Co-Signed:
Gary Bauer
President
Campaign for American Values

Kenneth Blackwell
Hon.J. Kenneth Blackwell
Former, U.S. ambassador
U.N. Human Rights Commission

Morton Blackwell,
Chairman
The Weyrich Lunch

David Bozell
Executive Director
For America

Brian Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Al Cardenas
Chairman
American Conservative Union

Colin Hanna
President
Let Freedom Ring

Laura Ingraham
National Radio Host

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks

Amy Kremer
Chairman
Tea Party Express

Curt Levey
Committee for Justice

Mark Levin
Author and National Radio Host

Rush Limbaugh
National Radio Host

Jenny Beth Martin
Co-Founder
Tea Party Patriots

Ed Meese III
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy,
Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Heritage Foundation

Mike Needham
Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action

Karl Otteson
U. S. Federation of Small Businesses Inc

William Pascoe
Executive Vice President
Citizens for the Republic

Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council

Alfred S. Regnery
Paul Revere Project

Mathew D. Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Richard Viguerie
Chairman
Conservative HQ.com



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on September 26, 2012, 08:51:15 AM
Where is it written that the media is supposed to be fair and unbiased?

What news organization out there is not biased toward either party?

When are yall going to realize they're just private companies dedicated to selling ad space, and keep viewers, and will do that by playing whatever viewers love/hate - cause that is what people watch? 

You don't get mad at Sears because they favor ugly housewares, or Foot Locker becaus they favor Reebok over Nike in their presentation. You accept they're private companies, and you can peruse their products, or not, as a consumer.

we are CONSUMERS of the news media.  It's a product we can choose to view, or ignore.  Foot locker doesn't have a "duty" to give nike and reebok equal shelf space,and any push for that would violate capitalism.  If you're demanding the private media companies espouse a view in a certain way to be more fair... aren't you telling them how to present their product, and thus violating the rules of capitalism?

I don't expect anyone to debate this.  It's a fact.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 03, 2012, 03:35:26 PM
Stephanopoulos has history of calling presidential debates for Democrats
Published October 03, 2012
FoxNews.com

Ideally, journalists who cover presidential debates should be fair, objective truth-seekers, but tonight’s showdown between President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney may have the deck stacked in favor of the sitting president -- at least when it comes to ABC News’ coverage.

ABC News anchor and chief political correspondent George Stephanopoulos will be one of the journalists analyzing Wednesday’s debate for his network, and the former communications director for Bill Clinton has never been shy about his leftist leanings.

According to analysis from the Media Research Center's Newsbusters blog, Stephanopoulos declared victory for the Democratic candidate in eight out of the past nine general election presidential debates -- including Al Gore’s infamous eye-rolling-and-deep-sighing performance in his 2000 debate with George Bush, disagreeing with the majority of pundits who ceded victory to the soon-to-be president.

“Gore dominated,” Stephanopoulos declared after the debate. “It was even the way that he would interrupt Jim Lehrer and say, 'Listen, I want one more word.' He looked like he was dominating, and then again, the issues that the time was spent on, prescription drugs, education, Social Security, even the RU-486 and abortion issue, all of those favor Gore.”

Just last Sunday, during an appearance on "Good Morning America," Stephanopoulos argued that Romney is under “huge, huge” pressure. "He is behind right now. He is behind nationally, he’s behind in all of the battleground states. This is the last big audience that Mitt Romney is going to have with about four and a half weeks left to go.”

Should a journalist who is covering the presidential debates -- one who is ostensibly supposed to be neutral -- be offering such a negative opinion of one of the candidate’s chances in what could be a game-changing night?

Former New York Times executive editor Max Frankel criticized Stephanopoulos’ ascension from politics to punditry.

“The overnight transformation of George Stephanopoulos from partisan pitchman to television journalist highlights a disturbing phenomenon: the progressive collapse of the walls that traditionally separated news from propaganda,” warned Frankel way back in 1997. “Self-respecting news organizations used to pride themselves on the sturdy barriers they maintained to guard against all kinds of partisan contamination.”

For the past 15 years, there are numerous examples of Stephanopoulos championing Democrats with his purportedly “objective” analysis.

“(Obama) comes in at a significant disadvantage on commander in chief,” Stephanopoulos said after the 2008 debates between Obama and John McCain, a former prisoner of war. “People wonder whether he has this experience to be president, to handle national security, and I think on answer after answer after answer, he showed confidence, he showed toughness and he showed he belonged on that stage. ... Bottom line, the winner is Barack Obama.”

Stephanopoulos even gave the edge in 2004 to John Kerry, who went on to lose the election to George Bush. “I think the most important thing that Senator Kerry did stylistically last night is he showed strength in his demeanor,” Stephanopoulos opined post-debate. “I guarantee you that if you didn’t speak English, you walked in and watched the debate last night without the sound on, you would believe that John Kerry was the incumbent, was the president.”

Just last week, Stephanopoulos posted a video on his blog in response to one of his Twitter followers who asked if the momentum of the presidential race could change with the debates.

“(Here’s) the predicament that Mitt Romney faces right now,” explained Stephanopoulos. “You go back to the last 19 elections, in 18 of them the person who was ahead at this point, late September, 40 days out, has won the race,” adding that the former Massachusetts governor's “back is certainly up against the wall right now.”

So, who will win the debate tonight? If you ask Stephanopoulos, history says the odds are 88 percent that he’ll say Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/03/stephanopoulos-debate-obama-democrats/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on October 03, 2012, 04:35:11 PM
An Open Letter to the Biased News Media:

This election year, so much of the broadcast networks, their cable counterparts, and the major establishment print media are out of control with a deliberate and unmistakable leftist agenda.  To put it bluntly: you are rigging this election and taking sides in order to pre-determine the outcome.  In the quarter century since the Media Research Center was established to document liberal media bias, there has never been a more brazen and complete attempt by the liberal so-called “news” media to decide the outcome of an election.

A free and balanced media are crucial to the health of this country. It is your duty as journalists – as outlined in the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics – to “distinguish between advocacy and news reporting,” while simultaneously “seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”

There is a reason why the media are viewed with such disdain by the American public, as evidenced by every recent poll on the issue.

You have breached the public trust by willfully turning a blind eye to the government’s public policy failures, both domestic and foreign, while openly and shamefully smearing Gov. Mitt Romney. You are:

•    Painting conservative ideas as extreme, while refusing to report the disastrous consequences of liberal programs enacted since 2008.

•    Submerging the truly horrendous economic conditions America is facing and focusing only on minor political issues.

•     Characterizing conservatives as cruel budget “slashers” instead of responsible officials trying to avoid a debt catastrophe.

•    Focusing on alleged shortcomings in Romney’s business record instead of Obama’s record as the chief executive, whose policies contributed to a failed economy.

•    Deliberately covering up embarrassing government failures and scandals, including the Solyndra debacle, Fast & Furious, and national security leaks which have put American lives in jeopardy.

•    Pouncing on real and perceived missteps by conservatives, portraying them as bumbling incompetents, while suppressing embarrassing and incendiary remarks made by Vice President Joe Biden to prevent him from becoming a liability.

•    Portraying conservative opposition to tax hikes as an impediment to deficit reduction while failing to highlight how liberal tax increase policies will cause massive damage to the economy and cause the deficit to explode.

•    “Fact-checking” conservatives in order to discredit their arguments while regularly refusing to "fact-check" liberals who are distorting the truth.

We the undersigned – representing millions of Americans from our respective organizations – are now publicly urging our members to seek out alternative sources of political news in order to make an intelligent, well-informed decision on November 6.

It is time the American people turn you who are offending off, once and for all. You have betrayed their trust.

Sincerely,

L. Brent Bozell, III                                                 
President                                                 
Media Research Center

Co-Signed:
Gary Bauer
President
Campaign for American Values

Kenneth Blackwell
Hon.J. Kenneth Blackwell
Former, U.S. ambassador
U.N. Human Rights Commission

Morton Blackwell,
Chairman
The Weyrich Lunch

David Bozell
Executive Director
For America

Brian Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage

Al Cardenas
Chairman
American Conservative Union

Colin Hanna
President
Let Freedom Ring

Laura Ingraham
National Radio Host

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO
FreedomWorks

Amy Kremer
Chairman
Tea Party Express

Curt Levey
Committee for Justice

Mark Levin
Author and National Radio Host

Rush Limbaugh
National Radio Host

Jenny Beth Martin
Co-Founder
Tea Party Patriots

Ed Meese III
Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy,
Chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Heritage Foundation

Mike Needham
Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action

Karl Otteson
U. S. Federation of Small Businesses Inc

William Pascoe
Executive Vice President
Citizens for the Republic

Tony Perkins
President
Family Research Council

Alfred S. Regnery
Paul Revere Project

Mathew D. Staver
Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel

Richard Viguerie
Chairman
Conservative HQ.com



It's f'ng HILARIOUS that Rush is part of this letter

his show is the epitome of bias for Repubs yet he's going to bellyache about a perceived bias by the media for Dems

Are we supposed to believe that Rush wants "the media" to be fair and balanced including his fat fucking self?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 31, 2012, 04:38:47 PM
Romney slammed by MSNBC's Mitchell for collecting storm supplies
By Tim Graham, Matt Vespa
Published October 31, 2012
FoxNews.com

Even when Mitt Romney cancels campaigning and works to provide Hurricane Sandy relief, the media elites are still dropping bombs on him. The hurricane has given Obama "invaluable imagery and opportunity to be seen in command,“ said CNN’s Dana Bash. Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen cracked that Romney is “finding that, unlike franks and beans, charity and politics can be a tricky mix.”

The “tricky” part of the mix is the media. Their opportunistic bashing of Romney’s food drive shows it doesn’t matter what the Republicans will do, the media will stick to anti-Romney talking points.

In Tuesday afternoon’s broadcast of "Andrea Mitchell Reports" on MSNBC, Mitchell accused Romney of surreptitious campaigning, and asked what are the true intentions of Governor Romney collecting storm supplies after a hurricane. Mitchell reported, “We checked with the Red Cross.  The Red Cross said while they’re always grateful for donations – that this is not what they need or want,” she insisted. “And to now get these canned good from the Romney event in Ohio – and have to first package it – used clothes they have to clean.”

She turned to Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza and sneered,  "It does seem like a thinly veiled [campaign event] – why Ohio?”

If there’s something Andrea Mitchell is not is “thinly veiled” when it comes to sending a political message.

Mitchell revealed herself, yet again, as a liberal partisan, and someone who borders on absent minded when it comes to common sense.  There are 7.5 million people without power, and how dare Mitt Romney try to help those in need?

Mitchell’s MSNBC colleague Martin Bashir added to this anti-charity narrative, going so far as to imply Romney was disobeying the Red Cross. After a clip of Obama speaking at the Red Cross, Bashir asked his guests: “Did you detect perhaps a subtle dig there on Mr. Romney who spent today going against the guidelines established by the Red Cross and holding a campaign rally in Ohio that was dressed up like a charity drive collecting food and other supplies when the Red Cross expressly asked people not to do that?”

As Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters aptly said, “Imagine that. A presidential candidate, who gives millions of dollars a year to charity, does a storm relief event in Ohio, and an MSNBC anchor is disgusted by it because the Red Cross would prefer people donating cash.”

Then on MSNBC's “The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell,” there was another less-than-charming episode of Romney Can’t Win.

Joy-Ann Reid, the former Obama campaign staffer who now runs the NBC-owned site TheGrio.com, insisted “anything he [Romney] does looks almost by nature too political. And he can’t actually do anything. He can’t do anything certainly for Chris Christie. Going around with Mitt Romney and his Secret Service detail through the affected areas of New Jersey would actually cause more problems and wouldn’t help at all.”

But doesn’t Obama have a Secret Service detail, too?

That doesn’t matter to Reid. Obama has power: “whereas going around with the president helps him look at the damage, really view it for himself. He can get something out of doing that with the president. So, I think Romney unfortunately is the odd man out.”

Liberals never really mean it’s “unfortunate” when they argue Republicans just can’t possibly be portrayed as compassionate conservatives.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/31/romney-slammed-by-msnbc-mitchell-for-collecting-storm-supplies/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 15, 2012, 11:37:38 AM
If this were a Republican senator the media would be all over it.

Did We Forget About Sen. Bob Menendez's (Alleged) Solicitation of Prostitutes in the Dominican Republic?
By Matt Vespa | November 14, 2012

As the discussions about sex and sex scandals dominate the media due to the Petraeus affair, one affair the media are strangely silent about is that of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, who was handily reelected last week despite shocking allegations that his idea of an Easter vacation was flying to the Dominican Republican to soliciting sex from prostitutes. Oh, and, like Secret Service agents in Colombia before him, the hookers are saying that he stiffed them on the tab.

The latest development in the Menendez saga, according to Scott Wong at Politico is that:

Middlesex County Republicans alleged that Menendez did not seek permission from the Senate or report several trips he took to Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic since 2010. According to the complaint, Menendez took at least four trips on a corporate jet owned by Salomon Melgen, who has donated more than $200,000 to Democrats since the early 1990s, including nearly $13,000 to Menendez.

However, a Department of Homeland Security passenger manifest showed that Menendez was not on the Melgen plane for one of those trips, an April flight to the Dominican Republic.

'It does not appear that Senator Menendez’s apparent acceptance of private jet travel and luxury lodging was permitted by Senate gift rules,' Samuel D. Thompson, chairman of the Middlesex County Republican Organization and a New Jersey state senator, wrote in the complaint. 'Nor does it appear that Senator Menendez disclosed acceptance of this travel and lodging on his financial disclosure form—as he would be required to do even if the gifts were otherwise permissible.

Further, if Senator Menendez solicited prostitution while a Member of the United States Senate, this conduct would be reprehensible.

Yes, it would be, although the broadcast networks have ignored the charges, according to a search of Nexis.

Yet, the Petraeus scandal is a greater one given the CIA director's position of trust and access to classified information. That being said, the media's attention to one sex scandal cannot be a legitimate excuse to completely ignore another one that has been brewing since before the election.

The media shouldn’t go light on Petraeus, but outright omitting the Menendez charges seems to show the media will do their level best to ignore embarrassing congressional Democrats.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2012/11/14/did-we-forget-about-sen-bob-menendezs-alleged-solicitation-prostitutes-d


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 19, 2012, 06:50:56 PM
Slanting facts to support a terrorist organization.  Brilliant.   

Not to Worry, Hamas, Maddow's Got Your Back
By Jack Coleman | November 19, 2012 | 21:03
 
MSNBC's insipid slogan -- "Lean Forward." MSNBC strategy when reporting on hostilities in the Middle East -- "Lean Toward Blaming Israel."

The network's Rachel Maddow provided an example of this on her show Friday while describing the escalating conflict between Israel and Hamas (video and audio clips after page break) --

MADDOW (after referring to President Obama's visit to Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar):  And of course the whole trip to Asia comes in the midst of a very scary flareup between Israel and Gaza. Now, we do not know exactly what started this most recent round of fighting, but we do know that an Israeli air strike killed the top commander of Hamas in Gaza on Wednesday. And we know then that that was followed by rocket attacks aimed at southern Israel and then Tel Aviv and then today, Jerusalem. Israel has been pounding Gaza with air strikes. The attacks appeared today to be rapidly escalating, including signs that Israel is preparing for a ground incursion into Gaza. The New York Times tonight citing reports of Israeli tanks massing on the border with Gaza.

Gee, if only Israel hadn't inexplicably killed that poor misunderstood Hamas commander. Conspicuously absent from Maddow's narrative is any mention of Israel's rationale for the attack -- Hamas targeting Israel with hundreds of rocket attacks from Gaza, as they've been doing every year for the last decade. Indiscriminate savagery that does not distinguish between military and civilian targets, in marked contrast to Israel's response, which was to kill one of Hamas's leading terrorists.

Maddow rearranges the chronology more to her liking, claiming that Israel killed Hamas's top commander, "followed" by Hamas rocket attacks on Israel, instead of the actual sequence which was the other way around.

Seeing how this elephant-in-the-room omission about Hamas bellicosity isn't a problem for Maddow, it is too much to expect she'll ever mention another inconvenient fact --  Hamas targeting Israeli civilians with rockets from the same territory Israel reliquished to Palestinian control in 2005. Land for peace, indeed.

Maddow's remarks reminded me of a previous example of her bias against Israel, in December 2008 during an earlier flareup with Hamas -- and for the same reason. Here's what Maddow said (audio) --

But while we're on the wild wide world of scary tour, of course, Israel has started another war. A third straight day of airstrikes on Gaza, the death toll now more than 300 people. Israel says that they are doing this to prevent Palestinians from firing rockets into southern Israel. First of all, there's the question of proportionality as to how many people those rockets have killed versus how many people the Israeli bombing has now killed. There's also the issue of effectiveness. In the midst of this massive air assault killing hundreds of civilians in Gaza, a rocket fired from Gaza today killed a man and wounded seven in the Israeli town of Ashkelon. Effectiveness. Three Israelis were also stabbed by a Palestinian in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank today. Is there a military solution to this problem?

Notice how Maddow did mention the context -- Israel launching air strikes in Gaza in response to rockets being fired at Israelis. This was back when Maddow was on the fringe-left, now-defunct Air America Radio. In other words, she was more balanced in her coverage then, at least when it came to Israel and Hamas, than she is now with a much larger audience on MCNBC.

True to form, however,  Maddow grossly exaggerated the number of civilian casualties from Israeli air strikes, as I described at the time.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-coleman/2012/11/19/not-worry-hamas-maddows-got-your-back


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 30, 2013, 11:20:57 AM
Jay Leno One of Few Media Members to Report Menendez Prostitute Story
By Noel Sheppard | January 30, 2013

Jay Leno did something Tuesday most media members up to that point hadn't done.

On NBC's Tonight Show, the host actually reported - albeit with jokes, of course - the FBI's investigation of Sen. Robert Menendez's (D-N.J.) alleged involvement with Dominican prostitutes (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JAY LENO: Well, in more serious news, the FBI investigating New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez for allegedly soliciting Dominican prostitutes. So, once again, foreign workers doing the jobs Americans don't want to do, right? [Laughter and applause]

Well, the FBI says Menendez agreed to pay the prostitutes $500 but then only gave them $100. So, he had sex like a Democrat but is a fiscal conservative like Republicans. That's what we need in Washington! We need more men like that! Yeah. A little different when they're spending their own money, huh?

Irrespective of the levity, it appears from a LexisNexis analysis that through Tuesday, Leno was the first person on NBC to mention these allegations.

Pretty sad when a late night comedy talk show host is in front of his network's entire news division.

But NBC isn't alone.

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, ABC's This Week did a six minute interview with the Senator and never brought the issue up. According to LexisNexis, the network has still ignored this matter through Tuesday.

Ditto CBS, CNN, and MSNBC.

It appears the only network interested in this story up to this point has been Fox News.

In print, outside of Florida, only Investor's Business Daily and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review had reported the investigation through Tuesday.

As for wire services, Agence France-Presse, the Associated Press, and Reuters have yet to publish a word about this. Only UPI has.

Now in fairness, the Miami Herald on Wednesday broke the news that FBI officials late Tuesday night raided the office of a West Palm Beach doctor alleged to have provided these prostitutes to Menendez. As a result, other news organizations are beginning to report this story.

However, where have they been till now? Would they have been as slow on the uptake if Menendez were a Republican?

Somehow I doubt it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/01/30/jay-leno-one-few-media-members-report-menendez-prostitute-story


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 14, 2013, 11:49:59 AM
CNN teases Rubio segment by asking if water-swig is 'career ender'
Published February 14, 2013
FoxNews.com
(http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Politics/0/371/rubio_cnnbottle.jpg)
Shown here is a screen grab from CNN on Feb. 13, 2013, teasing a segment on Sen. Marco Rubio.

It was awkward. It was a little funny.

But a "career-ender?"

That's the question CNN posed regarding Sen. Marco Rubio's water-swig during his response to the State of the Union Tuesday night.

While Twitter had its fun, and Rubio himself even joined in on the teasing, CNN's Wolf Blitzer devoted a segment to examining whether the moment could squelch his seemingly rising career.

"Can a drink of water make or break a political career?" Blitzer asked. "A U.S. senator, possible presidential candidate. We're going to find out, whether he likes it or not."

As a clip of the swig aired, the graphic on the screen then said: "Career-Ender?"

Conservatives ripped the network. Media watchdog Newsbusters called it absurd.

CNN later defended the graphic, saying it was just a joke.

"It was simply a tease (posing a question) leading up to a segment with our political contributors -- when Wolf  specifically said no one thinks this will be a career-ender," a CNN spokeswoman told FoxNews.com.

During a panel discussion, Blitzer asserted Rubio's got a "huge future ahead of him." CNN analyst Cornell Belcher, though, claimed the night would haunt him through his career.

"He goes in stylistically, he's sweating like Nixon. He goes for the water in a really awkward way which will, quite frankly, be what's most remembered from this," Belcher said. "Style matters. And he fumbled."

CNN wasn't the only outlet to find the drink of water exceedingly newsworthy.

According to a tally by The Daily Caller, MSNBC replayed the clip roughly 155 times.

The play was indicative of how some outlets tried to turn the awkward moment into something more significant.

"The Rachel Maddow Show" played a loop of the swig over and over again Wednesday night.

Host Al Sharpton even took a drink from a gigantic Poland Spring jug, just to hammer home the mocking.

CNN played the clip 34 times. Fox News played it roughly a dozen times.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/cnn-teases-rubio-segment-by-asking-if-water-swig-is-career-ender/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 21, 2013, 10:56:47 AM
Big Three Network Double Standard on Labeling Scandalous Politicians
By Geoffrey Dickens | February 21, 2013
 
All too often when reporters are discussing Democrats caught in scandals, they develop a peculiar speech impediment that prevents them from uttering the "D" word. However, when members of the GOP stumble, the word "Republican" cascades out of the mouths of reporters.

When news broke on February 15 that former Democratic Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. was charged with improperly spending campaign funds on (among other items) Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee memorabilia, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network anchors and reporters struggled to get their lips to form the word "Democrat." In 15 total stories on Jackson, reporters failed to utter the "D" word in 11 of them (73 percent). On the February 21 CBS This Morning Jackson was labeled a Democrat, but only in an on-screen graphic.

When word got out that the FBI was investigating New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez's jaunts (that may have included solicitation of prostitutes) with a campaign contributor to the Dominican Republic, the Big Three networks whistled past the scandal by airing a total of just eight stories since the story broke on January 24.

The reluctance to attach the "D" label to Jackson and give limited coverage to Menendez are typical examples of the liberal media's reluctance to tarnish the Democratic Party with its more ethically- challenged members. It's a courtesy that they have not extended to scandalized members of the GOP.

Over the years, the MRC has chronicled the vast disparity in how GOP politicians embroiled in scandals are covered compared to how sullied Democrats are covered, or in some cases, not covered.

The Following Scandal is Rated R (for Republican)

A prime example of network reporters withholding the "D" label came in October 2011. On Halloween of that year, MF Global Holdings filed for bankruptcy with a shady mystery: some $1.6 billion was missing from their customers' accounts. Financial analysts blamed the company's CEO, Jon Corzine, a former Democratic U.S. Senator and Governor of New Jersey, who became the center of an FBI investigation. In 22 total stories and briefs following the news that Corzine's brokerage firm filed for bankruptcy, and his subsequent testimony before the Senate only once was Corzine's party affiliation mentioned, when Kelly O'Donnell noted it, in her December 8, 2011 NBC Nightly News report.

When former Democratic New York Governor Eliot Spitzer found himself mired in a prostitution scandal in 2008 an MRC study found that within the first week of news coverage Spitzer was only identified as a Democrat 20 percent of the time.

This is in sharp contrast to the coverage former South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford received when he admitted, in 2009, to having flown to Argentina to carry on an extramarital affair. Within the first 24 hours of Sanford's confession he was identified as a Republican 100 percent of the time, during coverage on all the networks. In just the first week since Sanford admitted the tryst there were 49 stories on the Big Three network morning and evening shows. 

In 2008 former Democratic Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick was sent to jail for violating the terms of his bond after he had been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his affair with his chief of staff, as well as their roles in the firing of two police officers. In 40 total Big Three network stories and briefs on Kilpatrick's troubles in the entire year of 2008 he was called a Democrat on just two occasions, both times on CBS.

In 2008 Kilpatrick, and the aforementioned Spitzer, weren't the only pols caught in sex scandals. A look at the ABC, CBS, NBC morning and evening shows in the days after scandals for Senators David Vitter (for prostitution) and Larry Craig (for bathroom stall toe-tapping) their party affiliation was included on every show. The key difference separating Vitter and Craig from Spitzer and Kilpatrick being that they were Republicans.

When an intern to former Democratic Congressman Gary Condit went missing back in 2001 the networks flooded their programs with stories on the search for Chandra Levy and speculated on Condit's involvement. Curiously, most of these stories did not include the Congressman's party affiliation. An MRC study done at the time looked at the ABC, NBC and CBS's morning and evening news programs from May 14 through July 12 of that year and found that in a total of 179 stories the Democratic label was applied only 14 times or less than 8% of the stories.  Six of those labels came paired with adjectives such as "conservative" or "right-wing," so as to distance Condit from other party members.

Even further back from the Condit scandal, the networks, for the most part, covered up the party label of disgraced Democratic Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards. On May 9, 2000, the former four-term governor was convicted on 17 counts of fraud and racketeering. CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News passed on the news with no Democratic label. The late ABC World News Tonight's Peter Jennings avoided the D-word around his conviction, but later arrived at the party identification indirectly: "He got support from old line white Democrats, blacks and Cajuns. He was one of them."       

Democratic Scandal? What Democratic Scandal?

It's bad enough that the Big Three networks forget to label Democrats in scandal stories, sometimes they don't bother to mention the scandals at all. In 2009 a number of Democrats were faced with various scandals that went completely unreported on ABC, CBS and NBC.

Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, the then Chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, was forced to pay $75,000 in unpaid taxes and the House ethics committee launched an investigation into whether a Carribean trip he and four other Democrats took was improper.

Network coverage of the Rangel scandals: 0 stories.

In addition to Rangel, Democratic Congressmen John Murtha, Pete Visclosky and Jim Moran were linked to a scandal involving the PMA Group, a lobbying group that was forced to close in 2009 after being raided by the FBI. According to the New York Times Its top lobbyist was suspected of funneling "bogus" campaign contributions to the aforementioned Democrats in exchange for directing more than $100 million to PMA clients.

Network coverage: Just three stories on Murtha. Visclosky and Moran were never mentioned in any network story.

In 2008 ex-Democratic Congressman William Jefferson lost a run-off election late that year after investigators found $90,000 in cash stuffed in the congressman's freezer. In January 2009 NBC made brief references to the charges against Jefferson in a profile of his successor, Republican Joseph Cao. However, Jefferson's bribery trial that began on June 9, 2009 in which prosecutors said he received $400,000 in bribes to help orchestrate business deals in Africa — was never mentioned on the networks.

The lesson seems clear. While members of both parties have had falls from grace, in the eyes of the Big Three network reporters and anchors, the GOP is the only party that deserves to be punished for the sins of a few.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/02/21/big-three-network-double-standard-labeling-scandalous-politicians


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on February 21, 2013, 12:04:11 PM
Just look at the posters on this site.

They care more about Rubio drinking water than obama killing innocent people. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on March 28, 2013, 10:32:20 AM
Will be interesting to see how she justifies what will likely be an Obama-like epiphany.

Politico Misses Kagan '09 Statement on DOMA Story: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage'
By Matt Vespa | March 28, 2013

 
So, Politico jumped the shark on gay marriage yesterday in reporting that Justice Elena Kagan that she had a ‘gotcha’ moment during yesterday’s hearings on the Defense of Marriage Act.

But a real ‘gotcha’ moment would have been if Politico did their homework and resurrected Kagan’s past comments about gay marriage from 2009, when she was awaiting confirmation to the post of solicitor general and she insisted in the answer to a questionnaire that “there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

In Elena Kagan's DOMA 'Gotcha' Moment, Jennifer Epstein and Josh Gerstein gushed that:

…in a rare “gotcha” moment — in the eyes of many in the audience — at the high court on Wednesday.

In discussing the origins of the law, Paul Clement, who represents the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, said that Congress’s key interest in passing DOMA was preserving the uniform treatment of couples in various states at a time when there where indications that some states might allow same-sex marriages.

But Kagan fired back in her questioning, telling Clement that Congress wasn’t preserving tradition, but departing from it when it jumped into the marriage issue. “The only niformity that the federal government has pursued is that it’s uniformly recognized the marriages that are recognized by the state,” she said. Congress’ foray into the issue in 1996 was so unusual that it “sen[t] up a pretty good red flag,” she said.

A short time later, Kagan read aloud from the House Judiciary Committee report on DOMA. “Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality,” she said, quoting the report.

This apparently drew gasps and laughter from the crowd. 

Yet, let’s do a flashback to 2009. Kagan was nominated to be the United States Solicitor General -- the officer of the executive branch who represents the United States in controversies and cases which go before the U.S. Supreme Court -- and was specifically asked about DOMA and same sex marriage (emphasis mine):

1. As Solicitor General, you would be charged with defending the Defense of Marriage Act. That law, as you may know, was enacted by overwhelming majorities of both houses of Congress (85-14 in the Senate and 342-67 in the House) in 1996 and signed into law by President Clinton.

a. Given your rhetoric about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy—you called it “a profound wrong—a moral injustice of the first order”—let me ask this basic question: Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to samesex marriage?

Answer: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.


b. Have you ever expressed your opinion whether the federal Constitution should be read to confer a right to same-sex marriage? If so, please provide details.

Answer: I do not recall ever expressing an opinion on this question.

William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection noted this piece of history on March 25, but wrote about this development as far back as May of 2010 – when he posted that Kagan meant what she said.

In a March 18, 2009 letter (embedded below, at pp. 11-12), which is not publicly available but which [National Review's Ed] Whelan kindly provided to me, Kagan supplemented her written answers at the request of Arlen Specter. Here is the language in the letter seized upon by my critics to show that Kagan really didn’t mean what she said, and really just was opining as to the current state of the law:

Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives. By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
These sentences do make it seem as if Kagan walked away from her prior written statement that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

But these sentences are not the full supplemental response. Immediately preceding these sentences was the following language:

I previously answered this question briefly, but (I had hoped) clearly, saying that “[t]here is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.” I meant for this statement to bear its natural meaning.

When the full supplemental statement by Kagan is read in context, there is nothing to suggest that Kagan was walking away from her written statement that there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

Of additional interest is that when the Massachusetts Supreme Court found a state constitutional right to same-sex marriage, 18 Harvard Law School professors signed onto an amicus [i.e., friend of the court] brief supporting that ruling. But not Kagan.

So, it seems that when it comes to finding ‘gotcha’ moments that benefit the liberal political agenda, Politico just really isn’t that good. Either that or it isn't interested in challenging the liberal narrative by, you know, actually reporting Kagan's apparently convenient evolution on the question of whether the Constitution provides for a federal right to same-sex marriage.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/03/28/politico-misses-kagan-09-statement-doma-story-there-no-federal-constitut


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: quadzilla456 on March 28, 2013, 12:45:22 PM
Where is it written that the media is supposed to be fair and unbiased?

What news organization out there is not biased toward either party?


It is irrelevant if they are supposed to be fair and unbiased. Facts are they are unfair and biased and politicians and citizens are free to point this out, seek alternative news sources and entertainment. Their own bias will kill and make them irrelevant.

Most news organizations are biased towards one party - the Democrats.

But really the Democrats and Republicans are part of one system - the system that makes you think you have a choice. You don't.

Fox News is on a leash. They have already been threatened by the administration and will only go so far.

There is no official media source in the USA that really represents the traditional European / American portion of the population anymore.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on April 04, 2013, 10:57:31 AM
Conservative Leaders Demand Media Stop Censoring Gosnell Trial and Planned Parenthood's Defense of 'Post-Birth' Abortion
By NB Staff | April 04, 2013

Today twenty prominent leaders of the conservative movement have joined NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell in demanding the broadcast networks stop censoring coverage of the trial of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell and the testimony of the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates in favor of murdering children who survive botched abortions. [see related video here]

Although abortion has re-entered the news cycle following the passage of pro-life measures in North Dakota and Arkansas, the MRC’s Culture and Media Institute finds that ABC, CBS, and NBC have completely censored both of these outrageous stories:

Since the Gosnell trial began three weeks ago, ABC, CBS, and NBC have given the story ZERO seconds of coverage on either their morning or evening news shows. They have not covered Gosnell once since his arrest in January 2011, and even then, only CBS did so.

After the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates’ testimony in favor of post-birth abortions surfaced on March 29, ABC, CBS, and NBC have committed ZERO seconds of coverage on either of their morning or evening news shows.

ABC, CBS, and NBC have each covered the new abortion laws in North Dakota and Arkansas, ominously describing them as the “most restrictive” in the nation.
In response to the broadcast networks’ total and inexcusable blackout of the Gosnell and Planned Parenthood stories, the conservative leaders react:

"The Kermit Gosnell case, in which his abortion clinic has been described as a ‘House of Horrors,’ could have been plucked from the fever dream of Hollywood’s most depraved slasher film writer, and yet ABC, CBS, and NBC have completely censored it out of the news. The Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates’ on-the-record position in support of murdering living children is staggering in its radicalism, and yet ABC, CBS, and NBC have completely censored it out of the news.

"But the new pro-life laws in North Dakota and Arkansas? They draw a critical eye from the broadcast networks.

"The horrific excesses of the abortion industry – exemplified by Gosnell and Planned Parenthood – are major, national news stories any way you look at them. But the pro-abortion liberal media are determined to hide them from the public. The media have a solemn duty to the American people to report the news, not just news that helps the positions they support. It’s unprofessional, it’s disgusting, and it’s inhuman.

"If the pro-life movement were involved in this type of insanity, there would be wall-to-wall coverage from every major news outlet. This cover-up is a national disgrace."

L. Brent Bozell, III, President and Founder, Media Research Center

Diana Banister, Vice President, Shirley & Bannister Public Affairs

Gary Bauer, President, American Values

David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United

David Bozell, Executive Director, ForAmerica

Brian Burch, President, Catholic Vote

Susan Carleson, Chairman/CEO, American Civil Rights Union

Kellyanne Conway, President, The Polling Company, Inc./Woman Trend

Marjorie Dannenfelser, President, Susan B. Anthony List

Mark Fitzgibbons, President of Corporate Affairs, American Target Advertising

Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition

Mario Lopez, President, Hispanic Leadership Fund

Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association

Gary Marx, Executive Director, Faith and Freedom Coalition

Jeanne Monahan, President of March for Life Education and Defense Fund

Penny Nance, President, Concerned Women for America

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life; President, National Pro-life Religious Council

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Patrick Reilly, President, Cardinal Newman Society

Austin Ruse, President, Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute

Craig Shirley, Chairman, Citizens for the Republic

Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2013/04/04/conservative-leaders-demand-media-stop-censoring-gosnell-trial-and-planned


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on April 30, 2013, 04:20:49 PM
CNN Covers Gay NBA Player Nine Times More In a Day Than It Did Gosnell In One Week
By Matt Hadro | April 30, 2013

In just 24 hours, CNN spent over 76 minutes of air time on NBA player Jason Collins's announcement that he was gay. That was over nine times more coverage the network gave the Gosnell trial in one week.

CNN's media critic Howard Kurtz admitted on Sunday that the media champion some stories more than others that also merit attention, and this was painfully evident in the amount of time network gave the two stories. Once Collins announced he was gay, the network breathlessly touted the news as "historic," "a big moment for our country," and "courageous." CNN's jubilation over Collins is no surprise given its support for same-sex marriage, but it couldn't muster even half of that air time to report the alleged horrors of Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic. [Video below the break. Audio here.]

CNN gave the trial a pittance of coverage, just over eight minutes in one week. Ironically, CNN anchors like Chris Cuomo admitted to the seriousness of the story even as the network barely covered it.

"And remember, this is one of those cases that will raise a larger question about when does life begin? And there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Important case to watch," Cuomo reported on Monday morning.

However, CNN was much more enthralled with the coming out tale of Jason Collins. "But the fact is that this is the moment where we are in our country, and it is a big moment for our country," hyped correspondent Lisa Sylvester on Monday's The Situation Room.

"A lot of people using the words 'courageous.' I think that probably sums it up," Sylvester noted. Host Wolf Blitzer agreed: "In the four major sports, he's the first one, the first one as an active player. Not after retirement but as an active player to acknowledge he's gay. So it is a courageous step."

Host Piers Morgan, speaking to former tennis champion Martina Navratilova who came out as a lesbian in 1981, praised both her and Collins: "And that, just as you were, Martina, in 1981, is an act of real courage. Because it takes guts to do that."

Openly-gay host Anderson Cooper touted, "Pro center Jason Collins becoming a true pioneer, the first big league male athlete to say he's gay." He called it a "historic decision."

Early Start co-host Zoraida Sambolin called it "A huge barrier broken in big league sports," on Tuesday morning.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/04/30/cnn-covers-gay-nba-player-nine-times-more-day-it-did-gosnell-one-week


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on April 30, 2013, 04:24:44 PM
who gives a shit if CNN chose to cover this story more than the Gosnell trial

they chose to cover what they thought would most interest their audience

that's what all media outlets do


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 30, 2013, 04:39:38 PM
who gives a shit if CNN chose to cover this story more than the Gosnell trial

they chose to cover what they thought would most interest their audience

that's what all media outlets do


That is why CNN is in the toilet.  Twinks are a tiny number of viewers overall.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on April 30, 2013, 04:41:20 PM

That is why CNN is in the toilet.  Twinks are a tiny number of viewers overall.

yet you can't stop talking about them
 
I wonder how much time Fox spent on the Jason Collins's story

My guess would be just about the same time as all the other stations



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 06, 2013, 11:33:42 AM
'Face the Nation' Spends 30 Minutes on Gay NBA Player, Still No Mention of Gosnell
By Noel Sheppard | May 05, 2013

Does the outing of a previously almost unknown basketball player really deserve a half hour's coverage on a broadcast television Sunday political talk show?

The folks at CBS certainly felt it does as Face the Nation actually devoted the entire second half of its program Sunday to Jason Collins and gay issues.

As the second half of the show began, host Bob Schieffer introduced former tennis greats Billie Jean King and Martina Navratilova to discuss the significance of Collins' annoucement via satellite.

After that, NFL player and gay rights activist Brendon Ayanbadejo and former NFL player Esera Tuaolo (who outed himself after he retired) joined Schieffer also via satellite.

Following a commercial break, Schieffer was joined by Domonique Foxworth, the president of the NFL Players Association, Ted Leonsis, the owner of three Washington sports franchises, Chris Stone, the managing editor of Sports Illustrated, and New York Times sportswriter Bill Rhoden.

The discussion of course was again about Collins and the significance of his announcement.

One half hour - including commercials - on this issue.

What made this even odder is that Schieffer concluded his first half hour with a 90-second commentary on the Collins issue saying, "The news about this story is that it didn't cause all that much news, at least not all that much controversy. Most Americans accepted it and went on about their business. My grandchildren wouldn't even know why it made the news."

If that's the case, why spend 30 minutes on something that your grandchilden "wouldn't even know why it made the news?"

But something that REALLY hasn't made news on Face the Nation is the Kermit Gosnell murder trial. Schieffer has yet to discuss the subject. His network has also still not mentioned it on its Evening News broadcasts.

With air time so precious, news outlets must have their priorities.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/05/05/face-nation-spends-30-minutes-gay-nba-player-still-no-mention-gosnell


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 09, 2013, 03:43:52 PM
30 Times More Coverage! CNN Trumps Up Tabloid Stories But Buries Benghazi
By Matt Hadro | May 09, 2013

On Wednesday evening, CNN barely covered the congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack from earlier that afternoon. Instead, the network provided wall-to-wall coverage of the Jodi Arias trial verdict and the Cleveland kidnappings.

From the hours of 5 p.m. until 11 p.m. ET, CNN gave a whopping 4 hours, 9 minutes of coverage to the two crime stories, but a measly eight minutes to Benghazi -- over 30 times more coverage. And three of CNN's prime-time shows didn't even mention Benghazi.

The 8 p.m. and 10 p.m. ET hours of Anderson Cooper 360 featured over one hour and twenty minutes of material on Arias and the Cleveland abduction, but not a second on the hearing. The 9 p.m. ET hour of Piers Morgan Live aired over 40 minutes on the two stories, but completely ignored the Benghazi hearing.

Ironically, CNN's Wolf Blitzer admitted that the hearing was dwarfed by the tabloid crime stories: "It's been nearly lost amid in a lot of the glare today, the breaking news coming out of Cleveland and Phoenix, but September's deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was the subject of a very important all-day hearing on Capitol Hill."

Unfortunately, Blitzer's colleagues didn't get the memo about this "very important" hearing. Most of the prime time Benghazi coverage clustered at the end of Blitzer's 6 p.m. ET hour of The Situation Room, in a 7 minute, 13 second-long story. Host Erin Burnett only spent 39 seconds on the hearing in a news brief during the 7 p.m. ET hour. That was all the coverage from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET.

Earlier in the day, CNN provided over 17 minutes of live audio of the Benghazi hearing before cutting away from it for the rest of the afternoon. The network reported on the hearing but never again went live. In contrast, Fox News provided viewers with 108 minutes of live coverage of the hearing.

CNN's Burnett even admitted that the Arias trial had become a "soap opera" full of "salacious entertainment" that CNN was feeding a hungry audience. "The fact of the matter is, this actually stopped being a trial a long time ago. As BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins told us today, I'll quote him, 'The Arias trial had every hallmark of a classic tabloid story or a soap opera. A four-month long soap opera,'" Burnett acknowledged. 

"So, if you're one of the people who enjoyed the salacious entertainment of the past four months, make sure you thank the good people of Arizona for paying for it," she quipped.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/05/09/30-times-more-coverage-cnn-trumps-tabloid-stories-buries-benghazi


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on May 09, 2013, 03:50:32 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
maybe it's because there is no Benghazi story no matter how much Repubs try to make something out of it


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: tonymctones on May 09, 2013, 04:16:44 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
maybe it's because there is no Benghazi story no matter how much Repubs try to make something out of it
lol this coming from a person who bought the it was about a video deflection hook line and sinker


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2013, 07:34:43 PM
 :o

Chris Matthews: Media Are 'Pro-Obama'; If President Disagrees, He's 'Crazy'
By Scott Whitlock | May 15, 2013

Even Chris Matthews admits it. Talking to the liberal Alex Wagner on Wednesday's Hardball about the IRS scandal, the cable host came clean on the press and their love for Barack Obama. After Wagner insisted that the President was tired of an "unfair media," Matthews scoffed, "Let me tell you something. The press has generally been pro-Obama. That's a fact." If the President disagrees, "he's crazy." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]

The MSNBC anchor summed up the state of journalism: "I look at the major newspapers. I look at the major networks, broadcast nets. I look at us...CNN. Where's all this antipathy towards Obama?" According to Matthews, if the staff of the White House are unhappy with how they've been covered, they "are very uninformed about the history of presidencies."

Wagner set Matthews's truthful rant up by suggesting that the media makes Obama "want to flip the off switch sometimes and sort of just turn the lights out for the room and say, You know what? 'I've done so much for this country. Why do I need to get involved in the mud pit?'"

A partial transcript of the May 15 segment is below:

ALEX WAGNER: I think his own personal distaste for Washington and his sense that the media, the right, the, sort of, chattering class has been unfair about his legislative record and his accomplishments sort of makes him want to flip the off switch sometimes and sort of just turn the lights out for the room and say, "You know what? I've done so much for this country. Why do I need to get involved in the mud pit?"

 CHRIS MATTHEWS [With a bit of contempt in his tone]: Let me tell you something. The press has generally been pro-Obama. That's a fact. If he doesn't think he has gotten– If he hasn't gotten good press, he is crazy.

WAGNER: I'm analyzing what I think may be happening at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

MATTHEWS: He has gotten– Yes– Alex, they, over there, are very uninformed about the history of presidencies. This guy has probably gotten the best press since Reagan. Dana, don't you think? You don't have to watch Fox if you don't want to. It's there. But, if you don't watch Fox, you don't watch Limbaugh, there's a lot of other opinion out there. I look at the major newspapers. I look at the major networks, broadcast nets. I look at us. I don't see a lot of– CNN. Where's all this antipathy towards Obama?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2013/05/15/chris-matthews-admits-press-pro-obama-if-president-disagrees-hes-cra


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 19, 2013, 11:15:12 AM
Shocker.

New York Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has Liberal Bias
By Noel Sheppard | August 18, 2013

NewsBusters readers certainly don't have to be told that the New York Times has a liberal bias, but when the paper's public editor admits it on national television, one has to take notice.

With that in mind, grab some peanuts, popcorn, or Cracker Jacks and take a gander at Margaret Sullivan on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday marvelously telling us what we already know (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.

But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.

MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/18/new-york-times-public-editor-admits-paper-has-liberal-bias#ixzz2cRatWYCR


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2013, 10:27:23 AM
IRS Documents Reveal Agency Flagged Groups for 'Anti-Obama Rhetoric,' Big Three Refuse to Report
By Geoffrey Dickens | September 19, 2013
 
ABC, CBS and NBC have so far refused to report the latest bombshell in the IRS scandal - a newly released list from the agency that showed it flagged political groups for “anti-Obama rhetoric.” On September 18 the USA Today, in a front page story, reported the following: “Newly uncovered IRS documents show the agency flagged political groups based on the content of their literature, raising concerns specifically about ‘anti-Obama rhetoric,’ inflammatory language and ‘emotional’ statements made by non-profits seeking tax-exempt status.”

Not only have ABC, CBS and NBC not reported this story they’ve flat out stopped covering the IRS scandal on their evening and morning shows. It’s been 85 days since ABC last touched the story on June 26. NBC hasn’t done a report for 84 days and CBS last mentioned the IRS scandal 56 days ago on July 24.

The article by Gregory Korte went on to report: “The internal 2011 documents, obtained by USA TODAY, list 162 groups by name, with comments by Internal Revenue Service lawyers in Washington raising issues about their political, lobbying and advocacy activities. In 21 cases, those activities were characterized as ‘propaganda.’ The list provides the most specific public accounting to date of which groups were targeted for extra scrutiny and why. The IRS has not publicly identified the groups, repeatedly citing a provision of the tax code prohibiting it from releasing tax return information.”

The American Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit legal institute that represents 33 of the groups appearing on the IRS list, said it appears to be ‘the most powerful evidence yet of a coordinated effort’ by the IRS to target Tea Party groups. ‘The political motivations of this are so patently obvious, but then to have a document that spells it out like this is very damaging to the IRS,’ said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the ACLJ. ‘I hope the FBI has seen these documents.’”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/09/19/irs-documents-reveal-agency-flagged-groups-anti-obama-rhetoric-big#ixzz2fMex4bZE


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 25, 2013, 09:07:56 AM
Of course there's a liberal bias.  Any time any person tries to help another or ask government to improve the lives of the least of us we have to get the other side of the story. 

Any time you see a well written, thoughtful article, you have to balance it out with the other side.  You know, the thoughtless, irrational, selfish point of view.  Which brings me to FOX News. 

Watch FOX News.  It is Fair and Balanced.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: headhuntersix on September 25, 2013, 09:50:44 AM
At some point the other smart guys on the board will figure who's gimmick you are.....but you're a gimmick. I expect Fury will have you nailed sometime today.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 26, 2013, 08:54:06 AM
At some point the other smart guys on the board will figure who's gimmick you are.....but you're a gimmick. I expect Fury will have you nailed sometime today.
I do share my account with another.  But that's my business.

Who is Fury?  Your boyfriend?  I don't cheat with guy's named 'Fury' or 'The Pumper' or whomever else you spend  your time.

We get a kick out of pointing out what shallow, spineless, coreless people right wingers are.  How they unwittingly undercut their own well being while stabbing their neighbors in the back willingly b/c their political misunderstandings demand such fealty...useful idio.....

It's sad but you people really have to be stopped and ridiculed.  You do real harm.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: headhuntersix on September 26, 2013, 10:54:35 AM
Oh really douchbag... I find all left wing libs traitors to the United States. My neighbor should be able to stand on his own two feet. His success  or failure is neither dependent on me or my tax dollars to subsidize it. I want nothing more from the Feds except what they're mandated to provide in the Constitution.

 You idiots would waste more money on failed projects, hand outs and all the other left wing pet projects that so consume your time. You people are the ones most closely alligned with communists, socialists and the wastes of society. You are the ones with no core beliefs beyond what feels good. You are the ones who really stick your noses into everybodies business. You regulate regardless of the will of the people. You lie to the masses, you upsurp the Constitution at every turn. You are the ones who demean the christian religion while bowing to the murderous Islamic pseudo political mysticism that is the cause for so much misery in the world. You quake in fear at those who serve, whether in the military or in any body that gives itself to a cause in defense of freedom. You mock patriotism and flag waving, yet pray to a failed half black political hack who's crushing the county under a mountain of debt...yet we're the idiots.

Your other massive mistake is considering the failed elements of the Republican party and the Conservative movement one and the same...they are not. McCain is as big a dem as that piece of shit in the Whitehouse. Guys like Cruz scare you. Regardless of the outcome, he provides a choice between you bastards and another way...not more of the same.

I thought you enlightened libs liked man love.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Gonuclear on September 26, 2013, 11:37:12 AM
Oh really douchbag... I find all left wing libs traitors to the United States. My neighbor should be able to stand on his own two feet. His success  or failure is neither dependent on me or my tax dollars to subsidize it. I want nothing more from the Feds except what they're mandated to provide in the Constitution.

 You idiots would waste more money on failed projects, hand outs and all the other left wing pet projects that so consume your time. You people are the ones most closely alligned with communists, socialists and the wastes of society. You are the ones with no core beliefs beyond what feels good. You are the ones who really stick your noses into everybodies business. You regulate regardless of the will of the people. You lie to the masses, you upsurp the Constitution at every turn. You are the ones who demean the christian religion while bowing to the murderous Islamic pseudo political mysticism that is the cause for so much misery in the world. You quake in fear at those who serve, whether in the military or in any body that gives itself to a cause in defense of freedom. You mock patriotism and flag waving, yet pray to a failed half black political hack who's crushing the county under a mountain of debt...yet we're the idiots.

Your other massive mistake is considering the failed elements of the Republican party and the Conservative movement one and the same...they are not. McCain is as big a dem as that piece of shit in the Whitehouse. Guys like Cruz scare you. Regardless of the outcome, he provides a choice between you bastards and another way...not more of the same.

I thought you enlightened libs liked man love.

Man, this is part of the problem, if not the core of it.   The Dems and GOP have both been hijacked by extremists.   And they hate each other.  No respect for the other side, just venom.  That's why Washington is gridlocked and nothing gets done.  

A very sad state of affairs that threatens the country more than any specific policy of either side.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: bears on September 26, 2013, 11:41:52 AM
I do share my account with another.  But that's my business.

Who is Fury?  Your boyfriend?  I don't cheat with guy's named 'Fury' or 'The Pumper' or whomever else you spend  your time.

We get a kick out of pointing out what shallow, spineless, coreless people right wingers are.  How they unwittingly undercut their own well being while stabbing their neighbors in the back willingly b/c their political misunderstandings demand such fealty...useful idio.....

It's sad but you people really have to be stopped and ridiculed.  You do real harm.

you sound just like any other mindless lib who recieves their education on the political process of our country from MTV and Comedy Central.  truly sad that you actually believe all this shit you're spewing.  i'm not on the Obama hate wagon.  I'm a small business owner running a tax accounting firm.  I just got off the phone a couple of weeks ago with my blue cross blue shield guy.  in order for me to provide health care for myself and my empoyees i will have to pay premiums that just went up by 46%.  so i was paying about $900 a month before Obama, now it's going to be about $1,300 a month.  All of whats happening now was told to me by OBAMA that this wouldn't happen after the mandates.  We were all lied to.  This is real world shit for me.  Not some ideological debate based upon a bunch of hypotheticals.  This is objective proof that the Obama administration was full of shit when they signed OBAMACARE into existence.

So please stop spewing your infantile rhetoric about Democrats being the good guys and the Republicans being the bad guys.  The Republicans lost the election.  I was one of those who wanted to wait and see what happened before i made my decision on Obamacare because I had a very objective benchmark with which to judge him upon.  And there's no argument about it anymore.  HE DID REAL HARM TO MY BUSINESS, MY FAMILY, AND MY CLIENTS.    and i have the proof to show you he did.

sad fact is you only like obamacare because of your ideological beliefs and you'll overlook everything as long as your president allows you to have abortions and supports gay marriage.  neither of which i disagree with but am not so narrowminded and childish that I would base my entire decision on who i vote for president based upon those opinions.  YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOES REAL HARM.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 26, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
lol this coming from a person who bought the it was about a video deflection hook line and sinker

feel free to post the quote where I said that


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 26, 2013, 12:19:25 PM
Shocker.

New York Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has Liberal Bias
By Noel Sheppard | August 18, 2013

NewsBusters readers certainly don't have to be told that the New York Times has a liberal bias, but when the paper's public editor admits it on national television, one has to take notice.

With that in mind, grab some peanuts, popcorn, or Cracker Jacks and take a gander at Margaret Sullivan on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday marvelously telling us what we already know (video follows with transcript and commentary):

JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.

But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.

MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.


LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/08/18/new-york-times-public-editor-admits-paper-has-liberal-bias#ixzz2cRatWYCR

yes, it's shocking that you would take "It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it" and just throw out the parts you don't like and just see the YES

I'm sure you'll also take this as some sort of evidence that all media has a liberal bias


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 27, 2013, 06:42:32 AM
Oh really douchbag... I find all left wing libs traitors to the United States. My neighbor should be able to stand on his own two feet. His success  or failure is neither dependent on me or my tax dollars to subsidize it. I want nothing more from the Feds except what they're mandated to provide in the Constitution.

 You idiots would waste more money on failed projects, hand outs and all the other left wing pet projects that so consume your time. You people are the ones most closely alligned with communists, socialists and the wastes of society. You are the ones with no core beliefs beyond what feels good. You are the ones who really stick your noses into everybodies business. You regulate regardless of the will of the people. You lie to the masses, you upsurp the Constitution at every turn. You are the ones who demean the christian religion while bowing to the murderous Islamic pseudo political mysticism that is the cause for so much misery in the world. You quake in fear at those who serve, whether in the military or in any body that gives itself to a cause in defense of freedom. You mock patriotism and flag waving, yet pray to a failed half black political hack who's crushing the county under a mountain of debt...yet we're the idiots.

Your other massive mistake is considering the failed elements of the Republican party and the Conservative movement one and the same...they are not. McCain is as big a dem as that piece of shit in the Whitehouse. Guys like Cruz scare you. Regardless of the outcome, he provides a choice between you bastards and another way...not more of the same.

I thought you enlightened libs liked man love.
Guys like you scare me. 

You look at a waste of space like Cruz and see a man of ideas.  But as I pointed out before, you care nothing for ideas b/c you pride yourself in being a herd animal.  You're told what to think,  how to think, whom to hate and how to live  your life.   If any of that is inaccurate, I'll take it down.

You speak of freedom and education but those things require responsible thoughtful people.  I might as well be talking to a cat.  It would understand more of free  will than you.

Your federal tax dollars fund nothing.  The federal government funds itself.  So don't gild your hatred and ignorance with economic tones as if that is some determinative factor in allocatiing national resources amongst the people.  You know less about national economics than you do of what it means to be a free person.

Believe me, you are exactly the type of person that put dictators in power.  You are ruled by fear and long for the iron hand of a a vengeful leader. 

Hardly a free man patriot


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 27, 2013, 06:43:14 AM
LOL from an Obama 2x over  - priceless.

Guys like you scare me. 

You look at a waste of space like Cruz and see a man of ideas.  But as I pointed out before, you care nothing for ideas b/c you pride yourself in being a herd animal.  You're told what to think,  how to think, whom to hate and how to live  your life.   If any of that is inaccurate, I'll take it down.

You speak of freedom and education but those things require responsible thoughtful people.  I might as well be talking to a cat.  It would understand more of free  will than you.

Your federal tax dollars fund nothing.  The federal government funds itself.  So don't gild your hatred and ignorance with economic tones as if that is some determinative factor in allocatiing national resources amongst the people.  You know less about national economics than you do of what it means to be a free person.

Believe me, you are exactly the type of person that put dictators in power.  You are ruled by fear and long for the iron hand of a a vengeful leader. 

Hardly a free man patriot


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 27, 2013, 06:45:21 AM
you sound just like any other mindless lib who recieves their education on the political process of our country from MTV and Comedy Central.  truly sad that you actually believe all this shit you're spewing.  i'm not on the Obama hate wagon.  I'm a small business owner running a tax accounting firm.  I just got off the phone a couple of weeks ago with my blue cross blue shield guy.  in order for me to provide health care for myself and my empoyees i will have to pay premiums that just went up by 46%.  so i was paying about $900 a month before Obama, now it's going to be about $1,300 a month.  All of whats happening now was told to me by OBAMA that this wouldn't happen after the mandates.  We were all lied to.  This is real world shit for me.  Not some ideological debate based upon a bunch of hypotheticals.  This is objective proof that the Obama administration was full of shit when they signed OBAMACARE into existence.

So please stop spewing your infantile rhetoric about Democrats being the good guys and the Republicans being the bad guys.  The Republicans lost the election.  I was one of those who wanted to wait and see what happened before i made my decision on Obamacare because I had a very objective benchmark with which to judge him upon.  And there's no argument about it anymore.  HE DID REAL HARM TO MY BUSINESS, MY FAMILY, AND MY CLIENTS.    and i have the proof to show you he did.

sad fact is you only like obamacare because of your ideological beliefs and you'll overlook everything as long as your president allows you to have abortions and supports gay marriage.  neither of which i disagree with but am not so narrowminded and childish that I would base my entire decision on who i vote for president based upon those opinions.  YOU ARE THE ONE WHO DOES REAL HARM.
Your anecdotal evidence is very unimpressive.  No shut your cack hole and pay your taxes like a good american.  Real people  need federal spending.  Including you.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 27, 2013, 06:48:54 AM
LOL from an Obama 2x over  - priceless.

Sure thing Slim Jim.  You always bring it. 

How many souls have you crushed today?  I mean besides mine.

'LOL, priceless, liar, scum'...I think I've just exhausted your vocabulary and ideas. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 27, 2013, 06:50:13 AM
Sure thing Slim Jim.  You always bring it. 

How many souls have you crushed today?  I mean besides mine.

'LOL, priceless, liar, scum'...I think I've just exhausted your vocabulary and ideas. 

You wrote to HH6:  You are ruled by fear and long for the iron hand of a a vengeful leader



That is exactly what the dictator wannabe O-THUG is all about - divisive rhetoric against everyone daily unless he gets his way. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 27, 2013, 06:55:16 AM
You wrote to HH6:  You are ruled by fear and long for the iron hand of a a vengeful leader



That is exactly what the dictator wannabe O-THUG is all about - divisive rhetoric against everyone daily unless he gets his way. 
Quality point.  Game, set, and match!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: bears on September 27, 2013, 07:27:29 AM
Your anecdotal evidence is very unimpressive.  No shut your cack hole and pay your taxes like a good american.  Real people  need federal spending.  Including you.

right you have no interest in how obamacare actually affects people.  you just like to sit back and fingerbang yourself to his rhetoric on how obamacare "in theory" is meant to help the less fortunate.  because you think like a child. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AndreaRyc on September 27, 2013, 11:13:00 AM
right you have no interest in how obamacare actually affects people.  you just like to sit back and fingerbang yourself to his rhetoric on how obamacare "in theory" is meant to help the less fortunate.  because you think like a child. 
Your anecdotes mean nothing to me.  I don't care for ACA.  We should have universal healthcare.  But the people that own you and me won't let that happen.  The ACA is better than anything currently proffered by our political parties.

And b/c you perceive some sort of personal negative connotation to ACA, you should be what?  Excused?  Or are you merely another rightwing blowhard VICTIM of these effete leftist pantywaists?

Suck it up pal.  there's no room for constant whiners.

You want real change?  go after the people that own you, me and Obama.  Otherwise pipedown Sonny.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 09, 2013, 10:39:35 AM
The Top 8 Nastiest Liberal Media Quotes Blaming the GOP for the Shutdown
By Geoffrey Dickens | October 9, 2013 

The liberal media have taken sides in the government shutdown debate and not surprisingly holds only one party to blame - the GOP.  In the last week liberal anchors, reporters and writers have depicted fiscal conservatives in terms usually reserved for terrorists as they’ve hyperbolically charged that Republicans were being run by a “suicide caucus” that is holding America “hostage.”

The following is the Top 8 list of the Nastiest Liberal Media Quotes Blaming the GOP for the Shutdown: (Videos after the jump)

8. MSNBC’s Ball: GOP Taking Government ‘Hostage’ and Threatening ‘Constitutional Balance’
 




Al Sharpton, host: “Tropical Storm Karen, which is forming near the Gulf of Mexico, may make landfall this weekend. FEMA and the National Hurricane Center have both been affected by the shutdown. This is just another reminder of where government is important.”
Krystal Ball, MSNBC co-host: “That’s exactly right. And the longer that the shutdown goes on, the more examples that we’re going to have like that. And I think, as E.J. [Dionne] was pointing out, people already realize and were already very much against shutting the government down. And let’s not forget what this is over. It’s over the Affordable Care Act. It’s over ObamaCare. It’s over providing health insurance to millions of Americans who desperately need it. That is what they’re trying to prevent. And to do so they’re willing to take the whole government hostage and threaten the very constitutional balance on which our democracy rests.”
— Exchange on MSNBC’s PoliticsNation, October 3.

 

7. CNBC’s Harwood to Barack Obama: Will You Use Shutdown to ‘Break the Fever’ of the GOP?
 



“Before the election last year, you said you thought there was a possibility your re-election would break the fever within the Republican Party. Didn’t happen. Do you see this moment as a chance, through this political confrontation, to break the fever now?”
— Question from CNBC’s chief White House correspondent John Harwood to President Barack Obama aired on Closing Bell, October 2.

 

6. Carl Bernstein’s Complaint: Media Too Fair To ‘Hateful’ Republicans!
 



“This is about the Republican party and what it’s going to be. Is it going to conduct a fact-based, philosophical argument in our political system or is it going to be a nihilistic, hateful, asymmetrical in terms of facts and the truth part of the party, as in Joe McCarthy? This is about media as well....We need to start covering this story -- not 50/50, this much on this side, that on the other -- we need to cover it factually. Because there are facts here that will show what this event is about, and where, in fact, is this anger, hatred of Obama coming from? What is the root of this?”
— The Washington Post’s Carl Bernstein on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, October 8.

 

5. On CNN: Republicans Driven by Belief that Government Must Be ‘Destroyed’
 



“It seems like the game has changed down there. It used to be that the two sides went at it, but at the end of the day, they all believed in government. It seems now that what’s motivating the Republican Party is a belief that government has to be destroyed. You know, that it’s just bad in and of itself.”
— CNN’s Chris Cuomo on New Day, October 7.

 

4. Washington Post’s Colby King: The Tea Party ‘Must Be Making Jefferson Davis Proud Today’
 




“The New Confederacy, as churlish toward President Obama as the Old Confederacy was to Lincoln, has accomplished what its predecessor could not: It has shut down the federal government, and without even firing a weapon or taking 620,000 lives, as did the Old Confederacy’s instigated Civil War....But don’t go looking for a group by the name of New Confederacy. They earned that handle from me because of their visceral animosity toward the federal government and their aversion to compassion for those unlike themselves. They respond, however, to the label ‘tea party.’ By thought, word and deed, they must be making Jefferson Davis proud today.”
— Washington Post columnist Colby King in his October 5 column headlined: “The Rise of the New Confederacy.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
3. Politico’s Roger Simon: ‘Extreme Right-Wing’ Is Taking the GOP ‘Hostage’
 



Roger Simon, Politico: “I was here for the last shutdown and I’m more pessimistic this time. I think there’s sort of a meanness of spirit that has crept into our politics and into our daily lives that’s become the new normal. And people are going to say, well, 800,000 people are out of work. That’s okay. I‘ve got my job. Let’s just keep it this way.”
Carol Costello, host: “Really, you’ve become that cynical?”
Simon: “Well, you know, I don’t think it’s cynical this time. I really think it’s realistic. I mean look at one of the few things this House has actually done. A week before last, they passed a bill to cut $40 billion from food stamps. Food stamps! I mean, do we really need to use food as a political weapon? That makes me pessimistic about who we’re dealing with....The extreme right-wing of the Republican Party has taken that party hostage, at least in the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a decent man. He’s not an extremist. But he’s a weak man. The old phrase comes to mind, I could carve a better man out of a banana. He is not going to challenge the extremists in his own party because he wants to hang on to his job....We are a system when both houses of Congress have to agree to pass things, including a budget. And this isn’t the dilemma we are in. The Republicans are saying, ‘give in to us because we don’t want – we would rather shut down the government than extend health care to 11 million people. That’s our position.’”
— Exchange on CNN Newsroom, October 1.

 

2. Tina Brown: GOP Donning ‘Suicide Vests,’ Boehner a ‘Rallier of These Crazy People’
 



“Maybe Vladimir Putin can break the logjam here. We need a mediator like him. It is just incredible to me to watch these Republicans putting on their suicide vests and thinking this is going to have some kind of outcome for America. It is just absolutely preposterous. And what is the most depressing thing really, is to see how John Boehner's job insecurity, his terror of losing his Speakership means that he’s just become this rallier of these crazy people, when only a few months back he said after the election, right after the re-election of Obama, he said Obamacare is the law of the land, he said at that time. He later on said that he didn’t believe in the government shutdown.’”
— Tina Brown, co-founder, TheDailyBeast.com on CNN’s AC360 Later, October 1.

 

1. Brian Williams Tells David Letterman GOP ‘Suicide Caucus’ ‘Cabal’ to Blame for Shutdown
 



Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor: “Yeah, I think this is not a profile in courage for our country right now. I think it’s a very, very dark time.”
David Letterman, host: “Now we’ve been through this in the past. Everybody invokes the Tip O’Neill, the Ronald Reagan, there were shutdowns. People say, ‘Oh, those were just procedural.’ I don’t know what this means.”
Williams: “Well, this one is pretty targeted, this one is over health care. It’s about the results of the last election. It’s about a standing law for three years. It’s about a small – they’ve been called the suicide caucus in the U.S. House, about 80 members. They come from districts where Obama lost by an average of 23 points. They come from districts where they won by an average of 34 points. Very safe seats. They tend to be more white, more conservative districts than other congressional districts. And right now they have a hold on the House of Representatives. Certainly on the Speaker, John Boehner. And that is what is doing this right now.”
Letterman: “Is this – a friend of mine was saying today that this is classic obstructionism, is that correct?”
Williams: “You can label it that. It’s been called a political hostage taking, it’s been called political extortion. You've heard the vitriol and the rhetoric this week. But right now, because of this caucus, this cabal, nothing moves.”
— Exchange on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman, October 3.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/10/09/top-8-nastiest-liberal-media-quotes-blaming-gop-shutdown#ixzz2hFeKeUI1


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 10, 2013, 11:41:08 AM
AP Buries Its Own 37 Percent Approval Number for Obama; When It Found 37 Percent Low for Bush, NBC Led With It
By Tim Graham | October 10, 2013

The big talk in conservative radio on Thursday is Barack Obama’s 37 percent approval rating in the latest AP poll. Hosts are also making fun of how AP announced this number: buried in paragraph eight of a story headlined “Poll: No Heroes In Shutdown, GOP Gets Most Blame.”

Guess what? Brent Baker reported when an AP poll found President Bush's approval rating hit a new low of 37 percent on March 10, 2006, NBC's Brian Williams led the newscast with it. When an NBC News poll found the same number on March 15, Williams led the program with it again, turning to Tim Russert to say, "let's start with that all-important benchmark for presidents, the approval rating." Now, the networks are trying to avoid this Obama number.

On MSNBC Thursday, Joe Scarborough said AP found Obama was in the “high thirties” and it “appears to be an outlier.” On Wednesday night, Ed "Big Edit" Schultz told “Dirty Jobs” host Mike Rowe only that AP found that the approval number for Congress was “now down to five percent, in case you missed that most recent poll!”

In the fourth paragraph, AP's Calvin Woodward and Jen Agiesta reported “Overall, 62 percent mainly blamed Republicans for the shutdown. About half said Obama or the Democrats in Congress bear much responsibility.” The eighth paragraph with Obama’s 37 percent  also highlighted the “ghastly” approval rating of Congress:

Most Americans disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job, the poll suggests, with 53 percent unhappy with his performance and 37 percent approving of it. Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent.\

It appears the last AP-GfK poll result the wire service reported came in mid-April. That story’s headline was more direct: “Poll: Trust in government, Obama approval slip.” Obama’s approval had fallen to 50 percent (and 47 percent disapproval). It was down from a 54-42 split in January 2013.

The story began: “President Barack Obama's re-election glow is gone. Congress' reputation remains dismal. And only about one in five Americans say they trust the government to do what's right most of the time, an Associated Press-GfK poll finds.” The actual 50-percent number also came in paragraph eight.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/10/10/ap-buries-its-own-37-percent-approval-number-obama-when-it-found-37-perc#ixzz2hLkc9jBZ


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2013, 02:32:17 PM
TVNewser: NBC's 'Silence Has Been Deafening' Over Bashir's Vile Attack on Palin
By Kyle Drennen | November 25, 2013

In an article for MediaBistro's TVNewser blog on Monday, Gail Shister ripped into NBC News for the lack of punishment of MSNBC host Martin Bashir after his vicious and disgusting attack on Sarah Palin: "It's no surprise that NBC tries to distance itself publicly from its corporate sibling. In this case, however, its silence has been deafening. How low does the bar have to go before Tom Brokaw speaks up, as he has in the past? More to the point, why haven't any NBC women taken a stand?"

Earlier in the piece, Shister looked at "MSNBC's long history of Foot in Mouth disease" involving its hosts making offensive remarks about public figures and observed: "In every case, the commentator was either suspended or fired. In every case, the perps have been men, and in every case but one, the broadcast slurs have been aimed at women."

With that history in mind, Shister cited other media critics calling for Bashir's suspension – and joined them:

 MSNBC "has to decide what its standard is," says Alex S. Jones, director of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. "This comment was vulgar and offensive in all sorts of ways. I would have suspended him [Bashir], at the very least.

"It's not in any network's interest to tolerate this kind of coarsening. It cheapens and mocks the whole idea of serious discourse on a news program." MSNBC's stance on Bashir "says, at the very least, that it tolerates this escalation of vulgarity."

To Amy Mitchell, director of the Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, MSNBC's inaction is "surprising, in light of other suspensions it has made in recent years, but it may not be over yet. If the network doesn't take any action, what precedent is being set?"

Free speech has its limitations, even on cable. Sometimes "sorry" is not enough, and l'affaire Bashir is one of those times. Bashir must be suspended.

Shister concluded:

What makes his remarks particularly heinous is that they were scripted, not spontaneous, meaning, presumably, they were seen by multiple editors before air. That it didn't occur to anyone – including Bashir himself – that he was about to step on a landmine speaks volumes about MSNBC's production process....If Bashir gets a pass, imagine what the next incident will be. Personally, I hope it's spoken by a woman, and about a man. Then we'll see what kind of Pandora's box Phil Griffin has opened.

Shister echoed Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, who on FNC's MediaBuzz on Sunday demanded: "Where are people like Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd who claim to speak for NBC News and the brand? Why haven't they called Bashir out and the lack of punishment for him?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2013/11/25/tvnewser-nbcs-silence-has-been-deafening-over-bashirs-vile-attack-pali#ixzz2lhPqGTRR


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Archer77 on November 25, 2013, 03:09:40 PM
Alec Baldwin was kicked off MSNBC for his comments, Ed Schultz was suspended and David Schuster was forced out but not Bashir.   Hmmm, very fascinating. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 25, 2013, 03:23:53 PM
Alec Baldwin was kicked off MSNBC for his comments, Ed Schultz was suspended and David Schuster was forced out but not Bashir.   Hmmm, very fascinating. 

They're just going to ignore it.  The mainstream media will not hold them accountable.  Their viewers probably liked the comments. 

Some stone cold hypocrites. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Archer77 on November 25, 2013, 03:31:19 PM
They're just going to ignore it.  The mainstream media will not hold them accountable.  Their viewers probably liked the comments. 

Some stone cold hypocrites. 

Yep!  There is nothing I despise more than a hypocrite.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 26, 2013, 10:20:07 AM
The Numbers: Media Have Mostly Ignored Martin Bashir’s Sick Attack on Sarah Palin
By Matthew Sheffield | November 26, 2013

Much has been said in recent days about the obvious double-standard employed by the left-wing MSNBC cable news channel after host Martin Bashir said that Sarah Palin deserved to be defecated and urinated upon. While he was forced to apologize on the air for his remarks, Bashir has been neither suspended nor fired, unlike actor Alec Baldwin who was suspended for two weeks for allegedly using anti-gay language in a confrontation with a paparazzo.

Perhaps the reason for that disparity is that in terms of media coverage, Bashir’s disgusting comment has received very little attention in the broader journalistic world. While media industry websites and conservative-leaning outlets have been talking about the controversy quite a bit, the self-described “mainstream” media has actually shown little interest in the story, far less attention than they gave to much tamer comments made by conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh about a previously obscure Georgetown University law school student named Sandra Fluke in 2012.

It isn’t a perfect comparison considering that Limbaugh has been on the national scene for decades and his audience dwarfs that of Bashir’s. But it’s also true that Palin is a very well-known figure, one with a proven ability to get both critics and fans to follow her statements and actions. Then there’s the actual content of Bashir’s insult; arguably it is one of the most offensive things ever said on television about any person. And rather than it being simply a botched attempt at humor, when you watch the original segment (embedded below), it is quite obvious that the MSNBC host spent quite a bit of time trying to come up with something he knew would be outrageous.

In short, regardless of what one thinks of Palin, this is a story that deserves some coverage, if only because websites need hits and broadcasts need viewers. Certainly it’s not deserving of wall-to-wall attention but then again, Limbaugh’s remarks weren’t either.

According to the Nexis news database, left-leaning journalists clearly thought the attack on Sandra Fluke was worth almost obsessive coverage. By contrast, outside of Fox News Channel, Martin Bashir’s wish for Sarah Palin to engage in forced coprophagia has not earned him much coverage at all.

From the 10 days after Limbaugh made his insult (February 29, 2012 through March 9, 2012), major newspapers mentioned the controversy in 260 separate stories. By contrast, Bashir’s Palin-bashing was mentioned just 8 times in the ten days following his insult (November 15 through November 24).

On television, only FNC was consistent in its coverage. Ten days after Bashir attacked Palin, Fox covered it in 14 separate instances. One year previously, Fox News mentioned the Fluke controversy in 16 different stories. According to Nexis, CNN mentioned Bashir’s insult just twice in the ten days after he bashed Palin. Unsurprisingly, MSNBC and NBC have not mentioned the incident at all.

By contrast, television news was obsessed with going after Limbaugh. CNN mentioned the story on 54 separate occasions. MSNBC covered it 23 times, NBC 13 times, ABC 10 times, and CBS focused on it 8 times. Even the PBS NewsHour, supposed bastion of serious news, decided to mention the controversy twice.

Based on the data, it seems very likely that the primary reason MSNBC hasn’t suspended or fired Bashir is that the rest of the press hasn’t been nearly as interested in forcing the issue the way they were just one year ago with Limbaugh.

It’s a fair question to ask whether or not America has become too sensitive to one-off remarks. But that conversation hasn’t even really begun in the case of Martin Bashir. Journalists who were so quick to attack Limbaugh need to ask themselves why they aren’t willing to hold Bashir accountable for his consistent pattern of using deliberately inflammatory language in a pitiful attempt to save his low-rated show from cancellation.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/11/26/numbers-media-have-mostly-ignored-martin-bashir-s-sick-attack-sar#ixzz2lmF3Leju


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 26, 2013, 12:34:29 PM
I doubt we see this happen to Bashir.

NBC cancels Alec Baldwin's show 'Up Late' following actor's homophobic outbursts
Published November 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

NBC's Alec Baldwin experiment is over 46 days after it began.

“We are jointly confirming that UP LATE will not continue on MSNBC,” the network and actor's reps said in a joint statement to FOX411.

MSNBC had already suspended Alec Baldwin’s low-rated news program last week following an alleged gay slur directed toward a photographer outside his New York City apartment earlier this month.

Despite the actor's apologies, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had also had enough.

“Mr. Baldwin can’t fight for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice,” a GLAAD rep told FOX411.

Capital One, which employs Baldwin in its “What’s in your wallet?” TV campaign, has so far done nothing to distance themselves from the hot-headed thespian. The credit card giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment from FOX411 last week regarding his status with the company.

Baldwin’s last episode of "Up Late" hit a demo low, pulling in only 101,000 viewers 25-54 against 395,000 total viewers. The demo number represented a 41 percent drop from the 172,000 adults aged 25-54 who watched the one-hour program's October 11 debut.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/11/26/nbc-cancels-alec-baldwin-show-up-late-following-actor-homophobic-outbursts/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: RRKore on November 26, 2013, 01:13:08 PM
I doubt we see this happen to Bashir.

NBC cancels Alec Baldwin's show 'Up Late' following actor's homophobic outbursts
Published November 26, 2013
FoxNews.com

NBC's Alec Baldwin experiment is over 46 days after it began.

“We are jointly confirming that UP LATE will not continue on MSNBC,” the network and actor's reps said in a joint statement to FOX411.

MSNBC had already suspended Alec Baldwin’s low-rated news program last week following an alleged gay slur directed toward a photographer outside his New York City apartment earlier this month.

Despite the actor's apologies, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) had also had enough.

“Mr. Baldwin can’t fight for equality on paper, while degrading gay people in practice,” a GLAAD rep told FOX411.

Capital One, which employs Baldwin in its “What’s in your wallet?” TV campaign, has so far done nothing to distance themselves from the hot-headed thespian. The credit card giant did not respond to multiple requests for comment from FOX411 last week regarding his status with the company.

Baldwin’s last episode of "Up Late" hit a demo low, pulling in only 101,000 viewers 25-54 against 395,000 total viewers. The demo number represented a 41 percent drop from the 172,000 adults aged 25-54 who watched the one-hour program's October 11 debut.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/11/26/nbc-cancels-alec-baldwin-show-up-late-following-actor-homophobic-outbursts/

Of course it won't happen to Bashir.  It's a matter of who is offended.  Obviously there are more gays in power at NBC than there are Palin fans or shit eaters.  (Probably more shit eaters than Palin fans, though.) ;D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 26, 2013, 01:54:44 PM
Of course it won't happen to Bashir.  It's a matter of who is offended.  Obviously there are more gays in power at NBC than there are Palin fans or shit eaters.  (Probably more shit eaters than Palin fans, though.) ;D

Definitely depends on the recipient of the comments. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 26, 2013, 02:40:41 PM
Baldwin gets fired for anti gay comments

Bashir stays despite what he says against Palin


Says all you need to know about the vile putrid left


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 26, 2013, 02:46:36 PM
Baldwin gets fired for anti gay comments

Bashir stays despite what he says against Palin


Says all you need to know about the vile putrid left

crybaby much ?

since when do you give a shit about vile language


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: RRKore on November 26, 2013, 05:24:40 PM
Baldwin gets fired for anti gay comments

Bashir stays despite what he says against Palin

Says all you need to know about the vile putrid left

Eat shit, fag.   ;D (That was a joke.  Get it?)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 27, 2013, 09:45:49 AM
Bozell Column: Martin Bashir's Crude Emissions on Palin
By Brent Bozell | November 27, 2013

Like most MSNBC hosts, Martin Bashir has been hypersensitive to slights aimed at President Obama, real or imagined. He was shocked at a picture in January 2012 that showed Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer pointing a finger at Obama on the tarmac in Phoenix. He somehow imagined the disrespect was "unprecedented!"

When then-Rep. Joe Walsh decided to skip an Obama jobs speech before Congress in the fall of 2011, Bashir was shocked. "Are you able to be as disrespectful to the office of President by simply walking away from something that every member of the Congress is going to attend? Is that also" -- here it comes -- "because he's black?" 

These demands on Obama's behalf make Bashir's astonishing disrespect of Sarah Palin all the more glaring. Even liberals are still lamenting how Bashir lectured on Friday, November 15 that Sarah Palin's face should be urinated and defecated on.

Rush Limbaugh was right. Just imagine the liberal fury had Bill O'Reilly proposed this be done to Barack Obama. 
Outraged that Palin in her "long-deceased mind" would dare suggest our national debt to China is going to feel like slavery when the note comes due, Bashir read from some slave owner's diary dating to 1756. "A slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-*-* in his mouth." In another incident, the cruel master "flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth." Bashir concluded Palin would be an "outstanding candidate" for these excretory punishments.

Bashir is no stranger to crazed historical analogies for conservatives. He has compared Rick Santorum to Stalin, and the National Rifle Association to Hitler. But he's never suggested a politician deserved to be someone's outhouse. 

On the next Monday, Bashir apologized on the air. "My words were wholly unacceptable....And they have brought shame upon my friends and colleagues at this network."     

But there was no punishment from the allegedly shamed network.

MSNBC suspended Ed Schultz for a week for calling Laura Ingraham a "talk slut." The network suspended David Shuster until he quit for suggesting Hillary Clinton "pimped out" her daughter Chelsea on the campaign trail. Years ago, mere political donations took Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann off the air. So why no mandatory time off?

Because this is MSNBC and having someone defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth is just not a big deal.

While the liberal networks all blew gaskets over Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a "slut," not a one of them have covered Bashir's remarks. How's that for hypocrisy? AP media reporter David Bauder filed at least three stories, but there was mostly silence outside Fox News. The Washington Post and USA Today published nothing, and it only came up in The New York Times in a clause of a TV listing about the subjects of "Fox News Sunday." There was nothing on ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS. CNN only touched on it once on its "New Day" morning show and once on its "Reliable Sources" journalism show.

One obvious answer for this blackout is that Limbaugh is far more popular in America than Martin Bashir, who few watch. But another obvious answer is media liberals despise Limbaugh and Palin, and sympathize with Bashir and the audience that loves this kind of hate speech toward conservatives.

Other MSNBC hosts wouldn't condemn Bashir. When Washington Post media blogger Erik Wemple tried to pin down Chris Matthews, he refused to comment (perhaps for the first time in his life). When asked by radio host Steve Malzberg, Joe Scarborough claimed he was on a book tour and didn't hear about Bashir's rant until after the apology on November 18. But "touring" Scarborough sat in his MSNBC studio that Monday morning before the apology and said nothing. Cash the check and keep the mouth shut.

Not all liberals have been so callous. Alex Jones at Harvard's Shorenstein Center told the TV Newser blog that Bashir "cheapens and mocks the whole idea of serious discourse on a news program." He can't believe MSNBC is tolerating this "escalation of vulgarity."

On November 25, suddenly MSNBC publicists acknowledged that Bashir was taking a "pre-planned vacation," which was not pre-announced. A guest host would handle Thanksgiving week. They're still trying to keep the whole sordid Bashir Outhouse Address out of the media "mainstream."

There's a concept with which the folks at MSNBC are manifestly unfamiliar. Honor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2013/11/27/bozell-column-martin-bashirs-crude-emissions-palin#ixzz2lrwvIAsh


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2013, 08:52:40 AM
Networks That Skipped Bashir's Gross Attack on Palin Were Outraged By Limbaugh Fluke Joke
By Geoffrey Dickens | December 4, 2013

When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks went ballistic, making the conservative talk show host a centerpiece in their campaign to tarnish Mitt Romney and the GOP as engaging in a “war on women.” However when MSNBC’s Martin Bashir launched his own war on women against Sarah Palin, not a single anchor or reporter from the Big Three said a word about his vile attack.

In the two weeks (February 29, 2012 - March 14, 2012) after Limbaugh made his crude Fluke joke, that he apologized for, the Big Three networks aired a total of 32 stories or interview segments that were full of calls for Limbaugh to apologize to the liberal activist Fluke, to get advertisers to abandon the show and demand that Republicans condemn the talk show host. NBC, who employs Bashir, aired the most Limbaugh stories with 13. ABC and CBS each aired 9 stories a piece. The number of Big Three network stories in the two weeks (November 15, 2013 - November 29, 2013) after Bashir suggested that Palin would be an “outstanding candidate”  for excretory punishments? Zero. The hypocrisy from the supposed civility cops in the liberal media is stunning.

Back in 2012 the same journalists who are now suspiciously silent about Bashir’s gross and hateful attack on the once-Vice Presidential candidate were apoplectic about Limbaugh. On March 5 ABC World News anchor Diane sawyer pronounced: “It was turbulent today as conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh tried to steer through the whirlwind he unleashed after calling a law school student speaking out about contraception, quote, a ‘slut’ and a ‘prostitute.’ One radio station canceled his show. More big sponsors withdrew. And, as Limbaugh apologized again, the Republican presidential candidates still tried to dodge having to make tough comments about the power broker.”

On the March 5 CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose pressed John McCain if he was “satisfied” that “Republican officials have gone far enough in condemning” Limbaugh. NBC invited Fluke on to the March 2 Today show for a Limbaugh-bashing exchange with co-host Matt Lauer:

MATT LAUER: You didn’t start this debate but you lent your voice to it as you spoke publically about this issue. Before I get to the specifics of what's happened in the last day or so, do you feel you've gotten more than you bargained for?

SANDRA FLUKE: Well, it’s – yeah. It's certainly been a good bit, yes.

LAUER: These comments that were made by Rush Limbaugh about you, certainly derogatory. What was your first reaction when you heard the comments?

FLUKE: Well, I think my reaction was the reaction that a lot of women have had when historically they've been called these types of names – and that really I think a lot of women across America have had to this – and that was initially to be – to be stunned by it, but then to quickly feel outraged and very upset that, again, on, you know, the first day of women's history month, on that day, a woman is being called these names in an attempt to silence me, to silence all of us from speaking about the health care that we need.

LAUER: He made the first comments about you a couple days ago. And when given an opportunity, I guess, to backtrack or apologize for them yesterday, instead he doubled down. Having said this, this is Rush Limbaugh, and this is what he does for a living. He makes comments, in my opinion, that he hopes will get more people to talk about him, more people to listen to his radio show or buy his books. This is kind of his business model. But having said that, are you surprised at what seems to be a deafening silence coming from the right in standing up for you?”

To date Palin has yet to be invited on the Today show or any of NBC’s programs to defend herself against Bashir, who still hasn’t been publicly reprimanded by MSNBC, from his abominable attack.

While Bashir did offer an on-air apology to Palin, no actual punishment has been announced. In the past, MSNBC suspended Ed Schultz for a week for metaphorically calling Laura Ingraham a “talk slut,” on his own radio show, not on MSNBC’s airwaves. The network suspended David Shuster until he quit for suggesting Hillary Clinton metaphorically “pimped out” her daughter Chelsea on the campaign trail. Years ago, mere political donations took Joe Scarborough and Keith Olbermann off the air. And most recently actor Alec Baldwin received a two-week suspension for using anti-gay language, not on his MSNBC show, but in a personal dispute with a paparazzo.

The questions have to be asked: Why no mandatory time-off for Bashir and why no outrage from the Big Three networks?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2013/12/04/networks-skipped-bashirs-gross-attack-palin-were-outraged-limbaugh#ixzz2mWf8p4Q9


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2013, 01:16:32 PM
lol @ the "war on women" topic tag.  They are such hacks. 

Reporting Bob Filner's Sentencing, ABC, CNN, MSNBC Websites All Omit Fact He's a Democrat
By Ken Shepherd | December 9, 2013

This morning, Bob Filner (D) was sentenced to "90 days home confinement as punishment for three criminal charges connected to the sexual harassment scandal that ended his term as San Diego mayor," according to NBCSanDiego.com staffers Monica Garske and R. Stickney, who failed to mention Filner's Democratic Party affiliation in their story.

But Garske and Stickney are not alone among their peers in omitting Filner's party affiliation. Besides NBCNews.com -- which linked to the aforementioned NBC San Diego story -- ABCNews.com, and CNN.com all similarly omitting reference to the California Democrat's party allegiance. CBSNews.com and FoxNews.com ran an Associated Press story which mentioned Filner's political persuasion in the final paragraph. MSNBC.com also omitted the Democratic label from their story, although, curiously, the story was filed under a "Democrats" topic tag (see screen capture below):

(http://newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/2013/filnerdemocraticlabel.jpg)

You might think that Filner's repeated, egregious, offensive, and unwanted episodes of harassment of female staffers would warrant placement under the topic tag "war on women" -- yes, there is one at MSNBC.com -- but as you can see, that's not the case.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2013/12/09/while-reporting-filners-sentencing-network-websites-ignore-ex-mayors-d#ixzz2n0y8O3tT


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 17, 2013, 10:21:27 AM
The media still giving this man cover.  Shameful.

ABC's Latest Bad Poll for Obama Gets Spun: 'Opposition to Obamacare Declines'
By Tim Graham | December 17, 2013

The new ABC News-Washington Post poll shows Obama’s approval rating stuck at 43 percent approve, 55 percent disapprove, very close to their last result. The Post headline was “Obama’s approval ratings plummet” – over the year. A year ago, it was 52 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove. Online, it was merely a "year of turmoil." But ABC put a happy spin on it.

The headline on ABCNews.com was “OPPOSITION TO OBAMACARE DECLINES.” Click on it, and the headline on pollster Gary Langer’s report? “A Drop in Opposition to Obamacare Helps Stabilize a Struggling Presidency.” So if you're just grazing on the Web, you might think Obama's poll ratings are on the mend. But that's not in the fine print.

Langer wasn't so rosy if you kept reading. He began:

Public opposition to the new health care law has eased in the past month, enough to help level off Barack Obama’s falling popularity – but not to turn it around.

Fifty-five percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll disapprove of the president’s job performance overall, unchanged from last month’s reading as the worst of his career. Forty-three percent approve, a scant percentage point from 42 percent in November.

Better for the president is an easing of opposition to the Affordable Care Act, with attitudes back to a close division on the law; 46 percent of Americans support it, with 49 percent opposed. Opposition is down from a record 57 percent last month amid the new system’s troubled rollout.

The Obamacare numbers are dreadful for the president:

Sixty-four percent say that from what they’ve heard the federal government’s sign-up website still is not working as it should. Sixty-two percent disapprove of Obama’s handling of the law’s implementation, essentially unchanged from last month. Fifty-five percent still call the website’s failure “a sign of broader problems in implementing the health care law.” And 60 percent say the law’s individual mandate should be delayed, although, in one of the poll’s single biggest one-month changes, that’s down from 71 percent in November.

So what about Good Morning America? ABC gave no clue of bad Obama news at the program's beginning. The top story was the lottery -- "Mega-Mania!" Their show opening also hyped snow in the Northeast, a boyfriend being sought in his girlfriend's death ("Trouble in Paradise"), and a live appearance by singers John Mayer and Katy Perry. After they said hello, ABC also promoted a story on "brazen thievery" by baggage handlers, and an appearance by Will Ferrell.

It took seven minutes into Tuesday morning's program for George Stephanopoulos to suggest to White House reporter Jon Karl that  the president's approval rating is "still stuck," and they spent just 30 seconds noting his polling advantages over Republicans have vanished. It came at the end of a story on a judge disapproving of NSA phone monitoring.

A few minutes later, they spent more than two minutes on a court-ordered limit to paparazzi stalking teenage boy-band singer Harry Styles of One Direction in Britain.

Twenty minutes later, they awarded two minutes to a custody battle -- over an Andy Warhol painting of Farrah Fawcett.

Compare to two months ago: GOP Taking 'Biggest Hit' in Poll, Downplays Bad News for Obama

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2013/12/17/abcs-latest-bad-poll-obama-gets-spun-opposition-obamacare-declines#ixzz2nl29xYQj


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: temple_of_dis on December 18, 2013, 04:26:38 AM
Does anyone even doubt TV media save fox is 100% democrat?

I don't understand why republicans don't make dems debate with a republican moderator, esp after candy crawly gaffs last time....

wow

wheels coming off the truck at 120


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 08, 2014, 10:52:03 AM
Giant headline about Chris Christie on CNN's front page: 

E-mail: 'Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee':  Christie aides tied to traffic gridlock
E-mails bolster the case that lanes were closed on a heavily traveled bridge as a vendetta against opponents of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/08/politics/christie-bridge/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Typical response by the liberal media.  Jump on anything that might resemble a scandal involving any political figure they consider a threat. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: temple_of_dis on January 08, 2014, 10:54:35 AM
right you have no interest in how obamacare actually affects people.  you just like to sit back and fingerbang yourself to his rhetoric on how obamacare "in theory" is meant to help the less fortunate.  because you think like a child. 

I love how dems seems to think that since they say the program helps the poor its ok to screw the poor and the taxpayer, for decades, unchecked, and they never admit it.

Milton friedman said judge a policy by its results, not its intent


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 09, 2014, 11:33:28 AM
There's Already 17 Times More Coverage on Christie Scandal Than in Last Six Months of IRS
By Scott Whitlock | January 9, 2014

In less than 24 hours, the big three networks have devoted 17 times more coverage to a traffic scandal involving Chris Christie than they've allowed in the last six months to Barack Obama's Internal Revenue Service controversy. Since the story broke on Wednesday that aides to the New Jersey governor punished a local mayor's lack of endorsement with a massive traffic jam, ABC, CBS and NBC have responded with 34 minutes and 28 seconds of coverage. Since July 1, these same networks managed a scant two minutes and eight seconds for the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups.

In contrast, journalists such as Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos pounced on the developing Christie story. The GMA host opened the program on Thursday by announcing, "Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails." [See a video montage below. MP3 audio here.]


Stephanopoulos later wondered, "One of the big questions right now, how much has it hampered his White House prospects?" Guest Matt Dowd insisted that, on a scale from one to ten, the controversy was already at a "four or five."

On the CBS Evening News, anchor Scott Pelley sounded a similar alarm: "Tonight, a potential presidential candidate caught up in scandal. E-mails show massive New Jersey traffic jams were engineered by aides to Governor Chris Christie as political payback."

NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams immediately spun the story as a political pitfall for the possible presidential contender: "In a jam. A big problem for a man with big ambitions. Tonight, how a traffic nightmare on the world's busiest bridge has spilled into a full blown scandal with the power to damage Chris Christie's political future."

Since Wednesday night, NBC included six reports over 14 minutes and 14 seconds. CBS devoted five reports over 12 minutes and 27 seconds. ABC managed 4 stories over seven minutes and 47 seconds.

As a comparison over the last six months, NBC featured a scant five seconds on updating the IRS story. CBS responded with a minute and 41 seconds. ABC produced a meager 22 seconds.

Although the media downplayed the IRS controversy from July through December (it first broke in May), it's not as though there wasn't much happening. As the Media Research Center documented, many potential story leads developed.

In December, House investigator Darrell Issa announced that the FBI and IRS chief counsel is stonewalling the investigation. In October, newly obtained e-mails showed that the scandal-plagued Lois Lerner, the woman at the center of the controversy, illegally gave Tea Party tax info to the FEC. That same month, it came out that an IRS official may have given confidential information to the White House.

These stories were buried by ABC, CBS and NBC, the same networks that have immediately deluged Republican Chris Christie, a 2016 contender, with coverage for his scandal.

[Thanks to the MRC's Jeff Meyer for the video montage.]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/01/09/there-s-already-17-times-more-coverage-christie-scandal-last-six-mon#ixzz2pvodf626


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on January 09, 2014, 11:36:28 AM
Bum - how can you still flog this nonsense when we see all these stories that Fox news gets all the viewers and right wing radio owns the airwaves?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 09, 2014, 12:04:58 PM
Bum - how can you still flog this nonsense when we see all these stories that Fox news gets all the viewers and right wing radio owns the airwaves?

Twink please - Christie mess is nothing compared to the Obama admin scandals


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on January 09, 2014, 03:06:30 PM
Twink please - Christie mess is nothing compared to the Obama admin scandals

hey dipshit - when did I mention Christie ?

I'm just pointing out that it's repeatedly mentioned how Fox News gets all the ratings and that MSNBC has no ratings and that all the liberal radios shows are going off the air yet somehow your side still wants to pretend that their is a liberal medial that is influencing the electorate

You can't have it both ways


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 09, 2014, 03:07:48 PM
hey dipshit - when did I mention Christie ?

I'm just pointing out that it's repeatedly mentioned how Fox News gets all the ratings and that MSNBC has no ratings and that all the liberal radios shows are going off the air yet somehow your side still wants to pretend that their is a liberal medial that is influencing the electorate

You can't have it both ways

so you didn't deny being a twink? 




Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on January 09, 2014, 03:08:40 PM
so you didn't deny being a twink? 

I was trying to ignore your obvious gay pass you fucking queer

come out of the closet already and maybe you wont' be so angry all the time


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: temple_of_dis on January 09, 2014, 03:30:53 PM
everyone except fox is hard core democrat

it always amazes me how dems assume non fox is normal

whattt?

fox is not even really pro capitalism

a real tv channel would be advocating ending all welfare, ending public school, end ing wars, and end all pensions, ending unemplyment, and removing all restriction on house production, and allowing private trains and allwoing atomic power!

thats real freedom tv

jeesh

cut gov spending 50% today, lower taxes 50% today!

that kinda stuff see on real tv

everything poor kids hear is whiny commy crap save fox and maybe some am radio if they are too out there

amazing capitalism isnt a banned word by now

maybe the TV hides how pro freedom most people are


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Archer77 on January 09, 2014, 03:44:55 PM
I was trying to ignore your obvious gay pass you fucking queer

come out of the closet already and maybe you wont' be so angry all the time

No need to be homophobic.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on January 09, 2014, 04:47:18 PM
No need to be homophobic.

I've encouraged our resident self hating twink lover to come out of the closet many times

I think it's the source of a lot of his anger issues (not all of them though as I think there is also some other mental and emotional problems going on there too)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 17, 2014, 10:05:54 AM
MSNBC Host O'Donnell Slams Christie in Personal Attack Ad
Thursday, 16 Jan 2014
By Cynthia Fagen

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell aired a hard-hitting attack ad he penned about Chris Christie that takes aim at the New Jersey Governor's possible GOP presidential run, Politico reported Thursday.

"I wrote that ad in a few minutes," O'Donnell told viewers on Wednesday. "I was just sitting there listening to him, just grabbed those quotes and wrote it," he said, referring to Christie's mea culpa press conference a week ago regarding bridge-gate.

"I wrote this commercial while Chris Christie was actually still doing his press conference. You can do this at home, it’s easy."

The narrator of the O'Donnell commercial questions whether Christie could be trusted if he were to be elected president: "Chris Christie embarrassed and humiliated New Jersey, don't let Chris Christie embarrass and humiliate America."

Story continues below video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNJvpBF44O8

In May 2012, five months before the presidential election, Fox News came under fire for producing a four-minute TV commercial attacking President Obama. Fox then issued a statement the video "was not authorized at the senior executive level."

MSNBC could not be reached for comment, Politico said.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/attack-ad-MSNBC-ODonnell/2014/01/16/id/547579#ixzz2qgEfSZsq


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on January 17, 2014, 10:38:21 AM
Don't worry Bum, no one actually watches the liberal media.....remember?

The public will just have to depend Fox New bashing Christie so they will know what to think about him


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: RRKore on January 17, 2014, 02:30:56 PM
everyone except fox is hard core democrat

it always amazes me how dems assume non fox is normal

whattt?

fox is not even really pro capitalism

a real tv channel would be advocating ending all welfare, ending public school, end ing wars, and end all pensions, ending unemplyment, and removing all restriction on house production, and allowing private trains and allwoing atomic power!

thats real freedom tv

jeesh

cut gov spending 50% today, lower taxes 50% today!

that kinda stuff see on real tv

everything poor kids hear is whiny commy crap save fox and maybe some am radio if they are too out there

amazing capitalism isnt a banned word by now

maybe the TV hides how pro freedom most people are

"Most" people?  Most people where? 

It may be that you speak for the folks that don't use punctuation, but that's not most people anywhere, as far as I know.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on April 01, 2014, 11:11:38 AM
Report: Univision, Telemundo skew liberal
By HADAS GOLD | 3/31/14

The main U.S. Spanish-language nightly news programs skew liberal on domestic issues and spent most of their air times in the last few months covering the new health care law, immigration reform, and immigration law enforcement, the conservative-leaning media watchdog group Media Research Center found in a new study.

Ken Oliver-Méndez, Director of MRC’s new Spanish-language watchdog group MRC Latino, said in an interview that of the newscasts of Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo from November through February, 45 percent of stories on U.S. domestic policy issues tilted liberal, 49 percent were balanced or neutral and 6 percent skewed conservative.

According to the study, Univision’s stories tilted left 50 percent of the time, were balanced 43 percent and were perceived as conservative 7 percent of the time, while Telemundo’s stories tilted left 54 percent of the time, were balanced 40 percent of the time and tilted conservative 5 percent of the time.

The study also found that Democratic surrogates and liberal-leaning groups were featured on both networks more frequently than Republicans or conservative groups, but the group also faulted conservatives for not reaching out more to Latino media.

“The main thing is on domestic U.S. policy, the administration and their allies …are really dominating the narrative on major U.S. political stories,” Oliver-Méndez said. “So that points to a real need for conservatives to do a better job and for networks to do a better job including conservatives.”

MRC Latino took particular issue with both Univision and Telemundo’s participation in encouraging Obamacare signups, especially a joint a town hall the networks held last month featuring President Barack Obama.

“Self-respecting media outlets and journalists are careful to avoid being used as pawns of public relations or publicity campaigns, by either public or private-sector entities,” the study said. “Yet this is what largely appears to have happened at Univision and Telemundo in their coverage of ObamaCare.”

The study found that Univision and Telemundo featured liberal advocates of Obamacare in 116 stories versus the law’s conservative opponents in 24 stories.

On the topic of immigration reform, the study found Democratic politicians and “spokespeople aligned with left-leaning pro-reform organizations” appeared more than twice as often as Republicans and conservatives.   

On international issues however, such as the recent protests in Venezuela or the Catholic Church and Pope Francis, the study found both networks “maintained a more critical or balanced stance.”

(Also on POLITICO: CNN reviewing attempted WTC breach)

The study is part of the launch of MRC’s new Spanish-language media watch group MRC Latino, which is officially launching on Tuesday. Oliver-Méndez and MRC President Brent Bozell said they hope the study and MRC Latino will lead to more conservative voices in Spanish-language media and that they plan to meet with executives at the two networks to discuss the study.

“It’s going to be outreach that we’re going to do to hopefully sit down with some of the major players in the Latino media, go through these findings and try to see if we can have a constructive dialogue,” Bozell said. “I don’t believe in any suggestion that liberals shouldn’t have their world view presented, but a, conservatives need to have equal footing. And b, you can’t use your network to actively promote a political agenda.”

The study was a content analysis of 989 stories on of Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014. The conservative or liberal orientation of politicians, advocates and organizations cited were counted, and the prevailing “tilt” of a story was determined “by tallying all statements from journalists and quoted sources that articulated either a recognizably liberal or conservative point of view on a given subject."

Update April 1, 10:15a.m.:

Univision spokesperson Jose Zamora defended the network's Obamcare coverage in an email Monday night, saying that part of Univision's responsibility as one of the most widely watched networks in Hispanic households is to ensure viewers have all the information necessary to "make informed decisions, regardless of their political views and affiliations."

"Hispanics are one of the largest uninsured demographics in the U.S. It is for that same reason, that Hispanics are one of the segments of the U.S. population that can benefit the most from the ACA," Zamora said. "When we report and inform on the ACA, as with any of the other issues that matter most to our audience, we are only focused on providing a public service to the Hispanic community, not a service to the Administration, conservatives, liberals or moderates."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/03/report-univision-telemundo-skew-liberal-186084.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 11, 2014, 09:57:32 AM
http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/sharyl-attkisson-when-id-begin-getting-under-surface-obama-scandal-cbs-would-pull-me


 :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 08, 2014, 09:17:20 AM
Quote
Exactly. We constantly see the following, in the mainstream media, to describe the Right, but NEVER the Left. The double standard is sickening:
'Hard line conservatives'
'Hard-right politician'
'Radicals'
'Radical elements in the republican party'
'Extremists'
'Extremist elements in the republican party'
'Controvertial right wing politician'

When is the last time you saw the exact same terms used to descibe the other side of the aisle?
'Hard line liberals'
'Hard left politician'
'Radicals'
'Radical elements in the democratic party'
'Extremists'
'Extremist elements in the democratic party'
'Controvertial left wing politician'

The double standards are staggering, and it is done on purpose


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 02, 2014, 04:26:28 PM
MSNBC Downplays Poll Showing Obama Worst Modern Prez; Hyped Same Poll When Bush Was Worst
By Jeffrey Meyer | July 2, 2014

A Quinnipiac University poll published on July 2 found that 33 percent of Americans view President Obama as America’s worst modern president compared to 28 percent who picked George W. Bush.

Following the release of the poll, Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent, Political Director and host of “The Daily Rundown” dismissed the findings and argued “these great and worst lists, they’re terrible...because they always reflect the moment in time.” In contrast, MSNBC struck a much different tone in 2006 when Quinnipiac found that President Bush was rated America’s worst modern president. [See video below.] 

Appearing on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports Wednesday afternoon, Todd argued that “these great and worst lists, they are terrible whenever you poll them, they’re terrible poll questions because they always reflect the moment in time. The public isn't having, taking this historical -- you know, if you sat there and then said, here are the accomplishments and failures of each of these presidents, Nixon would come out on top, okay?” 

While Todd was certainly willing to downplay the significance of the 2014 poll, on June 2, 2006 NBC’s Norah O’Donnell called a similar Quinnipiac poll that ranked President Bush America’s worst modern president and a “devastatingly stark message to the president.”

Filling in as host on Hardball, O’Donnell proclaimed “a new poll shows that Americans now consider President Bush an even worse president than Nixon, who resigned from office of course in the wake of the Watergate scandal. President Bush has been badly hurt by Iraq and perceptions that he is too detached from the problems there or within his own administration.”

Later in the program O’Donnell asked MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough “Can he [President Bush] get anything done that he could have done without Iraq hanging over him? Joe, worse than Nixon?” Scarborough did not dismiss the polls findings and instead argued “if you have worse ratings from the American people than Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter, you`ve earned them.”

See relevant transcripts below.

CHRIS CILLIZZA: A new poll out today finds that President Barack Obama is viewed as the worst president we've had since World War II. These numbers come as Obama is ramping up his rhetorical fight with Republicans in Congress. Joining me now for our “Daily Fix” is Bloomberg News political reporter Gene Cummings and Chuck Todd, who has many titles, including NBC News Chief White House Correspondent, Political Director and host of “The Daily Rundown” here on MSNBC.

Okay, the poll is granted a snapshot in time but I do want to run through this. Quinnipiac University from the great state of Connecticut conducted this poll, they asked, who is the worst president since World War II? 33 percent Obama, 28 percent George W. Bush, 13 percent, Richard Nixon and 8 percent Jimmy Carter. Chuck what do you make of this? This is not in a vacuum, the president’s poll numbers more broadly, approval rating have been bad.

CHUCK TODD: These great and worst lists, they are terrible whenever you poll them, they’re terrible poll questions because they always reflect the moment in time. The public isn't having, taking this historical -- you know, if you sat there and then said, here are the accomplishments and failures of each of these presidents, Nixon would come out on top, okay? At the end of the day--

CILLIZZA: There’s a recency effect essentially.

TODD: Right there is some of that. So people just think of where it is in the moment in time. And by the way, when you look inside the numbers, it's a bunch of Republicans are saying this about Obama--

GENE CUMMINGS: Oh yeah. It’s so partisan.

TODD: And a bunch of Democrats saying are that about Bush.

CILLIZZA: And they did this is ‘06 and guess what George W. Bush was the president.

CUMMINGS: The scale of partisanship in this thing is 90 percent.

CILLIZZA: That may be the takeaway, which we know. There’s more partisanship than ever.
 
MSNBC
Hardball with Chris Matthews
June 2, 2006

Fill-in host NORAH O'DONNELL: But first, a new poll shows that Americans now consider President Bush an even worse president than Nixon, who resigned from office of course in the wake of the Watergate scandal. President Bush has been badly hurt by Iraq and perceptions that he is too detached from the problems there or within his own administration
...
O'DONNELL: Welcome back to "HARDBALL Hotshots" with Joe Scarborough, Margaret Carlson and Craig Crawford. Next up, ouch. A new Quinnipiac poll sends a devastatingly stark message to the president. Thirty-four percent say that he`s the worst president in history. Richard Nixon takes second place, followed by Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Can anything short of a major, unforeseen event save the Bush presidency? Can he get anything done that he could have done without Iraq hanging over him? Joe, worse than Nixon?

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, first of all, I've just got to say, if you have worse ratings from the American people than Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter, you`ve earned them.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/07/02/msnbc-downplays-poll-showing-obama-worst-modern-prez-hyped-same-poll-#ixzz36MPgspJX


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 28, 2014, 08:14:06 AM
Does not surprise me.

Leading liberal website falls for fake story about Michele Bachmann
The Daily Caller
By Chuck Ross
Published July 28, 2014

Think Progress, a website operated by the liberal Center for American Progress, failed to vet a phony story which claimed that Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann proposed “Americanization” labor camps for Central American unaccompanied children.

“I’m calling on all of us, Obama and Congress and everyone, to chip in and build special new facilities…‘Americanization facilities,’ if you will,” Bachmann said, according to Think Progress, which has since corrected its embarrassing flub.

“And we’d send these kids to these facilities, in Arizona and Texas and wherever else. And we’d get private sector business leaders to locate to those facilities and give these children low-risk jobs to do. And they’d learn about the American way of life, earn their keep, and everyone wins in the end,” Bachmann continued, in Think Progress’ fantasy land.

Think Progress’ owner, the Center for American Progress, is populated with numerous veterans of the Clinton and Obama administrations.

Think Progress was snookered by a post at a website called KCTV 7, which presents itself as a news outlet based in Kansas City. A quick internet search reveals a number of online posts pointing out that KCTV 7 is a fake news site. It also shows no affiliation to major news networks. According to TV guide listings for the Kansas City area, channel 7 is not in use.

In its parody article, KCTV 7 claimed that Bachmann called for the work camps in an interview with Minnesota’s Twin Cities News talk radio host Jason Lewis. But the fake site merely linked to Twin Cities News’ website, not to an actual article or radio interview featuring Bachmann.

Think Progress published the erroneous story on Sunday but corrected it and issued an apology after another liberal website, the Raw Story, pointed out the massive hoax.

“The news site KCTV7 News is a parody. Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) never made the statement. We sincerely regret the error,” reads Think Progress’ correction.

But the Raw Story seemed to provide cover for Think Progress’ error in its headline, which read “Crazy racist Bachmann story so believable liberal websites fall for parody.”

The websites Crooks and Liars and Daily Kos are two other liberal outlets that fell for the fake story.

Bachmann, who ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, is a big target for liberals, largely because of her religious conservatism.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/27/leading-liberal-website-falls-for-fake-story-about-michele-bachmann/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 08, 2014, 09:15:03 AM
Networks Avoid Scandal-Plagued Democratic Senator Exiting the Race
By Scott Whitlock | August 8, 2014

Despite a combined eight available hours of programming on Friday, all three networks avoided the news that a scandal-plagued Democratic senator from Montana dropped a reelection bid on Thursday. This move leaves the seat as a likely Republican takeover in the 2014 midterms. But viewers wouldn't know that on ABC's Good Morning America, NBC's Today and CBS This Morning. 

John Walsh left the race two weeks after the New York Times reported that the Democrat plagiarized extensive sections of his master's degree from the Army War College.  With the networks avoiding the story, it was left to CNN's New Day to offer a brief amount of coverage. John King wondered if the seat will "most likely" go to the GOP. Maggie Haberman of Politico retorted, "Oh, yeah...I mean, most Democrats that I talked to believe Montana is not winnable anymore." [See video below. MP3 audio here.]


What did the networks cover instead? GMA offered two minutes to the viral video of a bear walking upright. Today spent four minutes on how to be "50 and fabulous." This Morning devoted almost a minute to tourists in Britain retracing Abby Road, a street made famous by the Beatles 45 years ago.

The New York Times, despite breaking the story, relegated Thursday's revelation to page A12. Writer Jonathan Martin explained:

Monday is the deadline for Montana candidates to withdraw from the general election. The convention to replace Mr. Walsh on the ballot is expected to take place in Helena on Aug. 16.

Mr. Walsh, who had been set to face Representative Steve Daines, a Republican, was considered one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats, and Republicans were quick to suggest that his move would not affect the race.

The Washington Post also opted not to feature the story on the front page. On A2, Sean Sullivan noted:

The New York Times reported last month that Walsh pulled a sizable part of a paper he submitted at the Army War College titled “The Case for Democracy as a Long Term National Strategy" from a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace document without attribution. The material was mostly used verbatim. Another chunk was pulled from a 1998 essay written by a Harvard scholar.

Thursday's evening newscasts also avoided the story.

Considering the media's obsession with flawed Republican candidates, such as Todd Akin, it seems only fair that journalists devote a little coverage to damaged Democrats.

A partial transcript of New Day's August 8 segment: 

JOHN KING: And out in Montana the appointed senator John Walsh has decided he will not run. He was appointed to the seat. He's involved in a plagiarism scandal right now and he's decided he will not to run. I think, does that add to the, most likely, a Republican seat there?

MAGGIE HABERMAN: Oh, yeah. I think it was already leaning that way. But there was a sense that Walsh was beginning to get a little bit of wind beneath his wings and was coming back a bit. This essentially takes that out unless Democrats can nominate somebody who is really very right for the state, who is the right fit. They are having a hard time getting anybody who actually wants to be the person who is the place holder because you're sort of running for a lost cause. I mean, most Democrats that I talked to believe Montana is not winnable anymore.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/08/08/all-three-networks-avoid-scandal-plagued-democratic-senator-exiting#ixzz39p0YSZqn


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on August 08, 2014, 09:29:03 AM
BFD if the morning shows didn't cover the story about John Walsh.  Maybe they know their viewers would rather would rather see a video of a bear walking on it's hind legs.  A simple internet search shows that ABC, CBC, MSNBC all covered it yesterday in one way or another.  Also, the guy is stepping down so it's not like Todd Akin who made himself a story by not dropping out.   Just more conservative crybabies.   Shit I thought Fox News got all the viewers and I'm sure they covered it


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on August 08, 2014, 11:08:29 AM
BFD if the morning shows didn't cover the story about John Walsh.  Maybe they know their viewers would rather would rather see a video of a bear walking on it's hind legs.  A simple internet search shows that ABC, CBC, MSNBC all covered it yesterday in one way or another.  Also, the guy is stepping down so it's not like Todd Akin who made himself a story by not dropping out.   Just more conservative crybabies.   Shit I thought Fox News got all the viewers and I'm sure they covered it

exactly.  Networks can cover anything they want.  VH1 can snub GN'R and just play Robert Palmer videos all day.  Its their choice, based upon their audience tastes.  People that watch FOX don't want to hear "Benghazi report clears obama!" just as people that watch MSNBC don't want to hear "Obama dips to 41% in gallup!"

There are different networks, with diff styles, covering different things.  it's how TV works.  Some naive people think otherwise, but that's cool.  the myth of journalistic integrity, well, it's cute but it's not real.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 13, 2014, 10:05:18 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385185/hide-d-showcase-r-l-brent-bozell-iii

It is such common sense as to be undeniable that basic journalism requires a party label to be affixed to a story about an elected public official, the president excepted. It is the DNA of the “who” in a news report. “Senator Robert Byrd, the Democratic senator from West Virginia, died today.” Take out “Democratic” and try that sentence. It doesn’t work. “Mike Lee, GOP senator from Utah and God’s gift to mankind, coasted to reelection last night.” Ditto.

It follows that the rule applies to stories about political scandal, precisely because it’s just that — politics. But what happens when that cardinal rule is applied to one party but ignored for the other? Favoritism? Bias? No, it’s far worse than just that. It is a commitment to abide by the rules of journalism with one party and then a deliberate attempt to protect the other, even if it means violating the most basic rules of news reporting.

Now wait a minute, Bozell. What about another possibility? Why can’t it be an honest mistake? Cannot we believe that even if such an egregious violation is committed it might not just be an accident, a reckless, sloppy oversight? If it happened once, fine. Stunning but fine. Twice? I don’t believe in coincidences. The record, however, shows it is much worse than that.

On Friday, September 29, 2006, Representative Mark Foley of Florida resigned after ABC News exposed him for having sent explicit e-mails to male House pages. That evening and on the next day’s morning news shows, ABC, CBS, and NBC all tied Foley to the GOP. “This is more than just one man’s downfall,” Today co-host Matt Lauer solemnly declared on NBC. “It could be a major blow to the Republican party.”

On March 10, 2008, news broke that New York governor Eliot Spitzer had been linked to a prostitution ring. It took NBC News four nights to acknowledge Spitzer’s party affiliation. In its first two days of coverage, Matt Lauer’s Today show ran 18 segments on the scandal and never once identified him as a Democrat.

But what happens when a Republican elected official is linked to a prostitute? In July 2007, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana was revealed as a client in the phone records of the so-called D.C. Madam. Every broadcast network ran stories on the scandal and every story underscored that Vitter was a Republican.

The previous month, Senator Larry Craig of Idaho had been arrested at the airport in Minneapolis for the infamous toe-tapping men’s-room solicitation. When the news became public in August, the networks jumped on the story. Every morning and evening news show pointed out he was a Republican. On NBC’s Today, Lauer drilled further, tying him ideologically to conservatives. “Can the right wing withstand yet another scandal involving one of its own?”

On June 16, 2009, Senator John Ensign of Nevada admitted to an extramarital affair. In the following day’s reports, all three broadcast networks covered the scandal and all three reported that he was a member of the GOP. One week later they were back in action, this time giving major attention to the story that South Carolina governor Mark Sanford also had admitted to cheating on his wife. Again the perfunctory declaration that he was a Republican.

Four years later, after weeks of tumultuous scandal involving allegations of multiple cases of sexual harassment involving numerous women, on August 22, 2013, San Diego’s Democratic mayor (and former congressman), Bob Filner, finally resigned. All three networks covered the story in both their morning and evening broadcasts, but only CBS mentioned his party affiliation.

Still not convinced? Okay, so we’ll continue.





Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: JOHN MATRIX on August 13, 2014, 11:39:36 AM
240's complete denial and ceaseless efforts to spin the obvious is really something else ;D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 04, 2014, 12:11:58 PM
Media Mum? DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz Implies GOP Gov. Scott Walker Beats Women
By Tim Graham | September 3, 2014

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz ramped up “War on Women” rhetoric to an accusatory new level. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports the Florida congresswoman said the Governor of Wisconsin is a domestic abuser: "Scott Walker has given women the back of his hand. I know that is stark. I know that is direct. But that is reality."

Wasserman Schultz added: "What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back. It is not going to happen on our watch." The Democratic candidate for governor there, Mary Burke, was backtracking:

Stephanie Wilson, Burke's press secretary, suggested in a statement that Wasserman Schultz's comments went too far.

"That's not the type of language that Mary Burke would use, or has used, to point out the clear differences in this contest," Wilson said.

Wilson added, "There is plenty that she and Gov. Walker disagree on — but those disagreements can and should be pointed out respectfully."

....Republican Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch said she was "shocked" that Wasserman Schultz used domestic violence language to discuss political disagreements.

"I think the remarks were absolutely hideous and the motive behind them was despicable," Kleefisch said Wednesday.

But in Washington, DNC flack Lila Adams was trying to come to the leader’s defense in Politico:

When asked about the chairwoman’s comments, a spokesperson for the DNC said Wasserman Schultz was not “belittling” the issue of domestic violence.

“Domestic violence is an incredibly serious issue and the Congresswoman was by no means belittling the very real pain survivors experience,” Lily Adams, deputy communications director for the DNC, said in an email. “That’s why Democrats have consistently supported the Violence Against Women Act and won’t take a lesson from the party that blocked and opposed its reauthorization. The fact of the matter is that Scott Walker’s policies have been bad for Wisconsin’s women.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/09/03/media-mum-dnc-chair-wasserman-schultz-implies-gov-walker-beats-women#ixzz3CNbL4Uj0


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 10, 2014, 08:19:16 AM
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2014/09/09/bill-maher-charges-msnbc-has-just-too-much-cheering-your-own-team?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_campaign=maher-msnbc


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 29, 2014, 02:30:43 PM
Networks Cover Liberal Bestsellers 2-1 Over Conservative
By Tianna DiMartino | September 24, 2014

In a fishy and yet unsurprising move the liberal newspapers bestsellers list banished David Limbaugh’s new book, “Jesus on Trial,” from it’s well-earned place on their list. The book should sit at this week’s number four spot, having sold “9,660 in its first week out … Instead, Henry Kissinger’s World Order, praised by Hillary Clinton in the Washington Post, is No. 4 despite weekly sales of 6,607.” In direct correlation, you haven’t seen David Limbaugh interviewed about his book on any major network either.

But a berth on the New York Time’s bestsellers list doesn’t guarantee conservative authors and books the attention of the wider media. CMI addressed this issue of imbalanced favoritism towards liberal bestsellers by the media networks in a 2009 special report titled Unmentionable: Best-Selling Conservative Books and the Networks that Ignore Them. The report found that, “Since the 1940s, authors whose works make the list have been assured of even more books sales and a shower of publicity.  But not when those authors or their books are conservative. In such cases, the three broadcast networks greeted them with silence at worst and skepticism at best.” The networks covered liberal books three times as often as conservative works. Spoiler alert: Not much has changed.

In 2014, between January and September there have been twenty conservative authors, a few with more than one title, making the bestseller list compared to just eight liberal authors who have made the list. The conservative authors have also enjoyed the spotlight for three times longer than the liberals. On average a book penned by a conservative has remained in the Top 15 for twelve weeks; a liberal title for an average of just four weeks. The numbers clearly show that public attention and interest favors the conservative although you would never know it based on who the major news networks gives attention to and whose books they choose to promote or ignore.

NBC, CBS and ABC have hosted five out of the eight liberal authors a respectable 62.5 percent, who have appeared on the New York Time’s bestselling list; majority of which only held a spot in the Top 15 for just one week- a combined total of just 26 weeks.

In comparison those same networks interviewed just six out of the twenty conservative authors, a pathetic 30 percent. Their books remained on the list for an average of nine weeks – a combined total of 55 weeks. Based on media attention one would think the numbers were reversed. And yet liberal media would have you believe they’re not biased.


Most people probably don’t have the New York Time’s Best Sellers list saved to favorites to be accessed weekly, at least not compared to the number of people who watch ABC’s “Good Morning America,” NBC’s “Today” and/or CBS’ “This Morning” –shows that interview the bestselling authors most frequently. But the shows act as gatekeepers, rarely allowing conservative books – and the ideas and perspectives they contain – broad public exposure.

 

Books Studied:

 Things That Matter- Charles Krauthammer

America- Dinesh D’Souza

One Nation- Ben Carson

UnPHILtered- Phil Robertson

The Way Forward- Paul Ryan

Blood Feud- Edward Klein

Killing Jesus- Bill O’Reilly

Clinton, Inc.- Daniel Halper

Special Heart- Bret Baier

Good Call- Jase Robertson

10% Happier- Dan Harris

Big Tent- Mallory Factor

The Women of Duck Commander- Kay Robertson

Not Cool- Greg Gutfeld

Duty- Robert M. Gates

My Age of Anxiety- Scott Stossel

The Loudest Voice in the Room- Gabriel Sherman

Miracles & Massacres- Glenn Beck

Happy, Happy, Happy- Phil Robertson

Si-Cology- Si Robertson

Killing Kennedy- Bill O’Reilly

Jesus on Trial- David Limbaugh

Off the Sidelines- Kirsten Gillibrand

Waking Up- Sam Harris

Diary of a Mad Diva- Joan Rivers

The Teacher Wars- Dana Goldstein

Hard Choices- Hillary Rodham Clinton

A Fighting Chance- Elizabeth Warren

Six Amendments- John Paul Stevens

HRC- Jonathan Allen & Amie Parnes

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tianna-dimartino/2014/09/24/networks-cover-liberal-bestsellers-2-1-over-conservative#sthash.0uQgnCTN.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 27, 2014, 09:09:22 AM
Unreal.

Stonewalled No More: Ex-CBS Reporter’s Tell-All Exposes Liberal Bias
By Melissa Mullins | October 26, 2014

Sharyl Attkisson used to be an investigative journalist for CBS News, but now finds herself making headlines as the whistleblower who blew the lid off CBS's blatant bias toward the president and his administration.

From a recent book review by the New York Post’s Kyle Smith, we learn that in her new book Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama’s Washington, Attkisson exposes outright political corruption, and the media circus surrounding the Obama Administration; the constant praise and fawning over the president, the political bent on stories, and the decision to air “softer” news versus hard-hitting investigative reports that could potentially show the Obama Administration in bad light.

Attkisson cites many examples of liberal media bias in Stonewalled. When asking follow-up questions on scandals such as Benghazi or Fast and Furious, Attkisson has been viewed by many in the White House as being an “unreasonable” reporter. White House national security spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, “I give up, Sharyl . . . I’ll work with more reasonable folks that follow up, I guess.”

When she pressed Eric Schultz, White House Deputy Press Secretary, on Fast and Furious, Schultz screamed, “Goddammit, Sharyl!...The Washington Post is reasonable, The LA Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable. You’re the only one who’s not reasonable!” Fast and Furious, though still unanswered, led to the resignation of a U.S. Attorney, and led President Obama to utilize “executive privilege” (for the first time), to minimize the amount of damaging information released.

For those in the White House who didn’t care for Attkisson’s reporting, they would oftentimes send her boss, CBS News President, David Rhodes, an inflammatory email, and to Ben Rhodes, who happens to be brother to David, a top national security advisor to President Obama. Attkisson writes that she has always focused her reporting on “getting the story in its entirety," not because of political party affiliation. Her 20 years at CBS provided just as many stories attacking Republicans as she did Democrats.  She describes herself as “politically agnostic.”

In her book, Attkisson describes how reporters are often turned into “casting agents.” “We need to find someone who will say . . .that a given policy is good or bad. We’re asked to create a reality that fits their New York image of what they believe.” She also gives this little tidbit of information: “One of her bosses had a rule that conservative analysts must always be labeled conservatives, but liberal analysts were simply “analysts"…And if a conservative analyst’s opinion really rubbed the supervisor the wrong way,” says Attkisson, “she might rewrite the script to label him a ‘right-wing’ analyst.”

Reporting on the total number of people who signed up for ObamaCare on the first day (six), Attkisson found it even more difficult to get her stories to air on CBS, mainly because of media bias. She writes, “Many in the media…are wrestling with their own souls: They know that ObamaCare is in serious trouble, but they’re conflicted about reporting that. Some worry that the news coverage will hurt a cause that they personally believe in. They’re all too eager to dismiss damaging documentary evidence while embracing, sometimes unquestioningly, the Obama administration’s ever-evolving and unproven explanations.”

Attkisson also discussed how CBS “suddenly” lost interest in her stories on the 2012 attacks on Benghazi. Unsurprisingly, the lack of enthusiasm from CBS on Benghazi coincided with the upcoming presidential election.  Her stories went from being televised on national air – to being buried on the website. At one time, “Benghazi” meant a city in Libya, but now, “the administration, with the full cooperation of the media, has successfully turned 'Benghazi' into a word associated with nutters, like 'Roswell' or 'grassy knoll'….the truth is that most of the damaging information came from Obama administration insiders. From government documents. From sources who were outraged by their own government’s behavior and what they viewed as a coverup.”

In 2004, a senior producer came to Attkisson asking her to do a piece on so-called documents that supposedly  showed President George W. Bush ducking his duties during the Vietnam War.  She looked at the documents and said, “They looked like they were typed by my daughter on a computer yesterday.”  No one bothered her after she refused another solicitation to do the same article, citing an ethics clause in her contract.  CBS  went with the story…and the rest is history. It was CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey who introduced us to “Rathergate” by uncovering the truth and controversy of the fake documents CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather reported on.

With her countless stories and personal experiences over the span of 20 years at CBS, Sharyl Attkisson’s book Stonewalled gives the public a glimpse on how the media operate, and their liberal biased reporting and the treatment of others. Attkisson is a modern-day whistleblower in the media world, but instead of reporting the news, she’s making it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/melissa-mullins/2014/10/26/stonewalled-no-more-ex-cbs-reporters-tell-all-exposes-liberal-bias#sthash.Swmtns6z.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 27, 2014, 09:16:30 AM
180 falls in to this hook line ans sinker


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 28, 2014, 06:24:08 AM
http://nypost.com/2014/10/27/cbs-ignores-ex-reporters-claims-it-killed-anti-obama-stories/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on October 28, 2014, 06:28:01 AM
180 falls in to this hook line ans sinker

WTF are you talking about?  The "liberal media" are tv stations that play what they want to play, just like "the conservative media" is allowed to talk about anything they wish.

it's entertainment TV, who use ratings to sell commercials.  Just like AMC, or BET, or Comedy Central. 

You assign some random, compeltely unrealistic "moral standard & obligation to the art of journalism..."  LOL they're companies, they're tv stations.  More liberals in uSA = more people want to watch liberal news.

Both stations do this shit, don't deny it. they're all just companies being shady as fck to appease their base.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 28, 2014, 10:14:36 AM
Press Was All Over GOP Gov. Candidate's 'Sweetheart' Comment in Sept., Ignores Dem's Nikki Haley 'Whore' Comment
By Tom Blumer | October 27, 2014

In late September, Charlie Baker, the Republican who is the party's gubernatorial candidate in Massachusetts, told female reporter Sharman Sacchetti, who had already asked him a series of questions: "OK, this is going to be the last one, sweetheart."

That was enough to send the press into a tizzy. Jack Coleman at NewsBusters noted how Rachel Maddow at MSNBC turned Baker's statement into proof that the GOP is engaged in a "war on women," even though Baker quickly apologized directly to the reporter and indicated that, as paraphrased by the Associated Press, "the comment was a mistake and doesn't represent his work attitudes." This would be the same Associated Press which has, based on searches, not had a single national or local story on South Carolina Democratic gubernatorial candidate Vincent Sheheen calling incumbent Republicn Nikki Haley a "whore" — even though Sheheen waited four days to (insincerely, in my view) apologize.

Though it might be justified based on the significant lead Haley has in the polls, it isn't like the AP has been totally ignoring the South Carolina governor's race.

On Wednesday, the day before Sheheen's offensive remark, the wire service's Jeffrey Collins filed a 13-paragraph story bemoaning how Sheheen, who lost to Haley in 2010, is "finding (his) second go at S.C. governor tougher":

... Sheheen is struggling to get traction from voters who already know him. While Haley has weathered several small scandals, there is no big issue to hang on her as she runs for a second term.

Sheheen also faces independent candidate in Tom Ervin. Their campaign war chests are similar – each has about $3.5 million – although Ervin is using his own money, while Sheheen had to raise his. Both offer a lighter brand of conservative than the governor, and both want South Carolina to take money for Medicaid expansion, want to increase teacher pay and think Haley is a poor manager who only reacts when there is a crisis.

... A survey of likely voters by Winthrop University at the end of September had Haley at 44 percent with Sheheen about 10 percentage points behind. Recent polls have looked worse.

And Haley has managed to get through her first term avoiding any big problems that stick in the minds of voters.

I've got news for you, Mr. Collins. If you are advocating Medicaid expansion, you're not conservative — "light" or otherwise — even though certain Medicaid-expanding Republicans like John Kasich are still pretending that they are.

On Thursday, apparently shortly before Sheheen's "whore" speech, Collins filed a brief story carried nationally covering former Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaigning on behalf of Haley.

On Friday, the day after Sheheen's shenanigans, the AP's Meg Kinnard filed a 13-paragraph story carried regionally on third-party challenger Tom Ervin. At least she was more forthright about where Haley's opponents are on the ideological spectrum:

Even with low polling numbers, Ervin still having effect on SC governor's race

... Ervin, a former judge and legislator, entered the gubernatorial race this year as Gov. Nikki Haley's primary challenger. But he withdrew from the Republican contest days after filing to run, saying he needed more time to introduce himself to voters.

In July, Ervin secured a spot on the November ballot after collecting twice the required 10,000 signatures. He has spent millions of his own money to stay relevant, crisscrossing the state for events and showcasing his ideas in television ads.

On some issues, though, Ervin has seemed at times aligned with Democratic state Sen. Vincent Sheheen, who has in at least one instance echoed Ervin's message. Earlier this month, Ervin held a Statehouse news conference saying Haley shouldn't have taken campaign contributions from companies she was recruiting to do business with South Carolina. Days later, Sheheen critiqued the governor for the same thing.

Ervin also has criticized Haley for refusing to accept federal money to expand Medicaid, another issue on which Sheheen has seized. Both Ervin and Sheheen also have said teacher pay should be increased.

Ervin was a Democrat when he served two House terms representing Anderson County, starting in 1979, when Democrats ruled the state. Other Democrats he served with in the Legislature now lead the Senate's GOP majority, and Ervin says he's changed parties but not his views.

That messaging aside, political experts say Ervin could potentially carve votes away from Haley if voters see him as the "independent Republican" he's claimed to be, tipping the scales in favor of Sheheen.

Closer observers of Palmetto State politics would have to confirm this, but it would appear that Ervin might be a stalking-horse candidate whose mission is to take enough votes away from Haley to let Sheheen slip into the governor's mansion with a plurality of the vote. That kind of cynical strategy depends heavily on your favored guy not screwing up. Calling your female opponent a "whore," and then enjoying it as the crowd whoops it up, qualifies as a definite screw-up.

So the AP and the national press took an interest in and made an issue out of a Republican gubernatorial candidate calling a reporter "sweetheart," but has been almost completely uninterested in covering how a Democrat has called his Republican opponent a "whore," even though in the AP's case stories on the race are appearing on a regular basis.

What a mind-boggling double standard.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/10/27/press-was-all-over-gop-gov-candidates-sweetheart-comment-sept-ignores#sthash.WTnlETSl.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2014, 11:52:39 AM
Pervasive bias. 

Brent Bozell: ‘Big Three’ Ignoring Midterms Is ‘Journalistic Malpractice’
By Jeffrey Meyer | November 3, 2014
 
On Monday morning, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell appeared on FBN’s Varney & Company to discuss the 2014 midterm elections including a recent MRC study expsoing how the network evening newscasts have provided minimal election coverage compared to the 2006 midterms.

During the segment, Bozell argued that “the ideology of the far left that controls the networks has now gone into the arena of journalistic malpractice…I think it’s a direct threat to democracy itself. If you have a public that is not informed, or misinformed by the national news media, it really is hurtful to the democratic process."

The interview began with Bozell and Stuart Varney discussing MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s failed attempt at mocking FBN over its analysis of falling gas prices. Maddow falsely claimed that “Fox has now decided low gas prices are a threat to America” when in fact Stuart Varney was merely asking if low gas prices would hurt the economy.

The segment then turned to the MRC’s midterm election coverage study which found that from September 1-October 27, the “big three” (ABC, CBS, and NBC) networks had 209 midterm stories in 2006 compared to just 35 during the same period this year. Bozell insisted that the lack of midterm coverage “is a preposterous performance by the national news media. They simply do not want to report.” 

The interview concluded with Bozell and Varney criticizing the media for ignoring retiring-Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) recent sexist comments directed at Republican Senate candidate Joni Earnst:

There’s sort of this sense that, ‘Well, I hear so much about Joni Ernst. She is really attractive, and she sounds nice. Well I gotta to thinking about that. I don’t care if she’s as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rogers, but if she votes like Michele Bachmann, she’s wrong for the state of Iowa.

Bozell insisted that “if the national news media--if you looked at what the left says about her, about Sarah Palin about Michelle Bachmann. If a conservative said that about a liberal, it’d be front-page news everywhere."

While the “big three” have so far ignored Tom Harkin’s offensive comments, in 2012 the networks pounced on Mitt Romney’s “binders full of women” comments during a presidential debate. In total, the networks gave Romney’s statement a whopping 22 mentions during a three day period have remained silent following a veteran Democrat's offensive attack directed at Republican Joni Earnst.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/11/03/brent-bozell-big-three-ignoring-midterms-journalistic-malpractice#sthash.oXHBbrYY.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 04, 2014, 11:56:15 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/liberal-bias-in-media-chart-2014-11


boom


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 12, 2014, 12:04:21 PM
Mika Admits: If Gruber Were Republican, MSM 'Would Be Exploding'
By Mark Finkelstein | November 12, 2014

Kudos to Mika Brzezinski for admitting the truth: if Jonathan Gruber were a Republican, the MSM "would be exploding."  Instead, noted Mika on today's Morning Joe, the MSM has been silent on the Gruber story, with only conservative sites [ed.: notably including Newsbusters] covering it.

Mika contrasted the current quietness on the MSM-Gruber front with the media "firestorm" that erupted when David Stockman made his infamous allegations about Reagonomics.

Howard Dean claimed the story "isn't a big deal," sniffing off Gruber as a mere "consultant."  Jon Meacham airily asserted that "you could spend a whole academic career studying why certain moments go viral." But then he gave away the game, admitting that the Stockman story fit "what the left-of-center press wanted to believe." Precisely.  And since the MSM ardently doesn't want to believe the Gruber story, or let the American people learn, about it, they've done their best to bury the story.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI:  This Obamacare story, which I saw yesterday and I'm surprised it didn't emerge . . . It's an interesting dynamic. This broke yesterday [ed. NewsBusters was reporting it four days ago], we kind of, were trying to get to it. Nobody covered it except for some right-wing outlets. Had this been a Republican, what do you think would have happened?

MIKE BARNICLE: Well, he is, this century's version of David Stockman, who was Ronald Reagan's original budget director. In 1981, in an extensive magazine piece in the old Atlantic magazine by Bill Greider, former Washington Post editor, David Stockman sat down with him. He was Reagan's budget director, sat down with Bill Greider for many, many times, to explain the budget. And he said, basically, none of us really understands what any of these numbers are all about, the federal budget.

BRZEZINSKI: [facetiously] So let me guess, nobody dealt with it, right?

BARNICLE: President Reagan had no idea what those numbers were all about.

BRZEZINSKI: Just a few left-wing bloggers brought it up, right? It wasn't covered? I think there was a huge firestorm, I believe.

HOWARD DEAN:  There was.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly, that's my point!
 
HOWARD DEAN: David Stockman was the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This guy is a consultant. So it's a slightly different --

BRZEZINSKI: Well, he's one of the architects, is he not?

DEAN: Ehhh, it's not entirely clear.

BRZEZINSKI: You can't define him as an architect of Obamacare?

DEAN: He likes to think he was one of the architects. He did play a significant role as a consultant.  But he's a consultant, not the architect.
 
. . .

BRZEZINSKI: First of all, I was wondering why nobody jumped all over this, although we did at MSNBC--Ronan interviewed him. Meacham, is it fair to make a parallel to the huge firestorm after Stockman--we talked about this first hour--David Stockman, during the Reagan era, undermining Reagan's policies, and that we're just sort of not, except here, I don't know, I don't see it in the papers.

JON MEACHAM: You can spend a whole academic career studying why certain moments, we would now say went viral, and some don't. What often happens, I think the conventional explanation is, if something affirms a prevailing narrative, it tends to stick. So Stockman back in '81, '82 was saying the emperor has no clothes in terms of Reaganomics. That was what the left-of-center press wanted to believe. And so I think it probably made more of a difference.

. . .

BRZEZINSKI: That was a huge gaffe, right? We can all agree on that. I do think had it been a Republican, the media would be exploding.

DEAN: I think there's a big stature gaffe between the office, the Director of the OMB and a consultant for the -- that's why it's not a big deal.

BRZEZINSKI: Okay, that's fair.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2014/11/12/mika-admits-if-gruber-were-republican-msm-would-be-exploding#sthash.swLAfPc6.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 12, 2014, 12:27:16 PM
Oh no - according to 180, option FAT, Straw, etc - there is no bias. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 12, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
Oh no - according to 180, option FAT, Straw, etc - there is no bias. 

dont be a dick - FOX/oreilly are proud to be the right-leaning bias that evens out the left-wing slant of msn and cnn.

remember?   seriously, you make up quotes like this.   of course theres a bias - and these companies are welcome to do so!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 13, 2014, 09:21:00 AM
ABC-NBC-PBS-NPR-NYT-LAT-AP Censor Gruber 'Stupid' Americans Video
By Geoffrey Dickens | November 13, 2014

 Just imagine the reaction of the liberal media if a video had surfaced of a George W. Bush administration official admitting that “lack of transparency” was “a huge political advantage” in selling the Iraq war and that they relied on the “stupidity of the American voter” to launch an attack on Iraq? That video would be everywhere.

However, the clip of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber using those exact phrases in talking about the passage of the Affordable Care Act has yet to be reported on ABC or NBC’s evening or morning shows. The sum total of Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network coverage was a 2 minute, 50 second segment on Thursday’s CBS This Morning - six days after the tape was first discovered. On the print side the Washington Post offered a front page story on Gruber on Thursday. But the Gruber comment has yet to show up in the pages of The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times or even the Associated Press.

Public broadcasting has been a no-show as well, with no Gruber mentions on PBS or NPR.

The media have been too busy bemoaning new Republican attempts to repeal ObamaCare. On the November 6 Today show, NBC’s Chris Jansing whined: “Well, what looked to be at least a temporary truce between President Obama and Congress lasted less than 24 hours. Republican leaders now say the focus of the new Congress will be to repeal the President’s signature accomplishment, ObamaCare.” On the November 6 Nightly News Brian Williams complained: “Digging in, how’s that cooperation going that everybody promised after the election results? Tonight, we have a reality check.” He then threw it to Jansing who reported “Republican leaders doubled down on getting rid of the President’s signature accomplishment, making a commitment to repeal ObamaCare.”

Since AmericanCommitment uploaded the video on November 7, the clip has gone viral thanks to major news outlets like the Drudge Report and Fox News picking up on it. FNC’s Megyn Kelly, on Tuesday night announced: “Breaking tonight, a scandal over what looks like an intentional effort to mislead voters explodes, with new video of a key White House advisor underscoring just how stupid he thinks Americans are...In the last 24 hours, a scandal involving a key White House advisor has blown up. And now we are waiting for some sort of on the record explanation from the administration. It started when video surfaced yesterday of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the key architects of ObamaCare. Speaking at a healthcare forum last year, describing on camera the effort to hoodwink what he called ‘stupid American voters.’”

Kelly noted that while Gruber ducked an invitation to appear on The Kelly File, he did show up on MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow to defend himself:

KELLY: And today, Mr. Gruber, who declined our invitation to explain his remarks here on The Kelly File, went on a little watched daytime broadcast on MSNBC to say his remarks were “spontaneous” and, “careless?”

GRUBER (earlier today on MSNBC): The comments in the video were made at an academic conference. I was speaking, speaking off-the-cuff, and I basically spoke inappropriately, and uh, I regret having made those comments.

KELLY: It was off the cuff. He didn’t mean it. But now tonight, more video has surfaced, showing that this was not the first time Mr. Gruber called the American people “stupid” in an off-the-cuff remark. In this next clip, from, also last year, Mr. Gruber explains how Democrats played with the language of the Obama care law, so that it achieved their goals by, again, fooling the stupid public.

Even the liberal Mika Bzezinski, on Wednesday’s edition of MSNBC’s Morning Joe, was astounded by the double-standard: “This ObamaCare story, which I saw yesterday and I’m surprised it didn’t emerge...Nobody covered it except for some right-wing outlets. Had this been a Republican, what do you think would have happened?...That was a huge gaffe, right? We can all agree on that. I do think had it been a Republican, the media would be exploding.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2014/11/13/abc-and-nbc-censor-obamacare-architect-calling-american-voters#sthash.8yfSzEid.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 09:39:27 AM
FNC’s Special Report Highlights MRC Study on Liberal Media’s Censorship of Gruber Video
By NB Staff | November 13, 2014

On Thursday night, the Fox News Channel’s (FNC) Special Report with Bret Baier spotlighted the latest study from the Media Research Center (MRC) and Newsbusters, which exposed the almost no coverage of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber telling an audience in a 2013 video that “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” were critical in the law’s passage. 

During the show’s “Grapevine” segment, host Bret Baier noted that, while FNC and his program “feel this is something our viewers deserve to know,” the networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC “apparently, disagree.”

Baier then cited the findings of Newsbusters:

Despite this story growing throughout the week, as more and more clips of Gruber surfaced, showing him essentially bragging about fooling Americans, CBS did not cover the story until this morning. Neither ABC nor NBC have mentioned it, at all. The conservative website NewsBusters notes The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press have also avoided the story.

He concluded by reading a portion of a statement from Newsbusters Executive Editor Tim Graham: “The national media...have largely reacted to the Gruber story like it is a virus that should be carefully quarantined.”

Since the study was initially published by the MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens, it was updated to include the fact that The New York Times did publish a single story on Gruber on Wednesday, but was instead published on one of its blog sites (known as The Upshot).

Following Baier’s on-air mention of the study, the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley aired a report on Gruber’s comments that lasted for one minute and 49 seconds which, in addition to a 6-second tease earlier in the program, increased CBS’s total airtime on Gruber to four minutes and 45 seconds.


AD FEEDBACK
The relevant portion of the transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on November 13 can be found below.

FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier
November 13, 2014
6:29 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: Stupidity Reigns]

BRET BAIER: As we first reported in the Grapevine Monday and have covered extensively ever since, ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber does not think too highly of American voters, saying, repeatedly your stupidity is the only reason the law he helped craft was able to pass.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: Newsworthy]

We feel this is something our viewers deserve to know. The three broadcast networks, apparently, disagree.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: Slow on the Uptake]

Despite this story growing throughout the week, as more and more clips of Gruber surfaced, showing him essentially bragging about fooling Americans, CBS did not cover the story until this morning. Neither ABC nor NBC have mentioned it, at all.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: Blackout]

The conservative website NewsBusters notes The New York Times, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press have also avoided the story. Quote – “The national media...have largely reacted to the Gruber story like it is a virus that should be carefully quarantined.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2014/11/13/fncs-special-report-highlights-mrc-study-liberal-medias-censorship-gruber#sthash.Qhm2l03B.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 14, 2014, 09:54:58 AM
(http://newsbusters7.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/featured_image/s3/images/2014-11-14-CBS-TM-Gruber.jpg?itok=RY_Hz70I)

ABC, NBC Again Skip Gruber; CBS Allows a Scant 13 Seconds

http://newsbusters.org/#sthash.cd2PuzQM.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 18, 2014, 12:30:05 PM
Author Sharyl Attkisson: Gruber Coverage Proves My Point
Tuesday, 18 Nov 2014
By David A. Patten

The failure of major networks to cover Obamacare consultant Jonathan Gruber's statement that healthcare reform involved systematic deception appears to reflect strong ideological bias on the part of media gatekeepers, former CBS investigative reporter and best-selling author Sharyl Attkisson says.

Several videos have emerged of Gruber, an MIT economist whom the administration paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to help design and sell the Affordable Care Act, saying "the stupidity of the American voter" played a role in the act's passage.

In the videos, Gruber stated that the law's labyrinthine complexity was used to hide the fact that the individual-mandate penalty was actually a tax.

Gruber also said "lack of transparency" about the law's funding provisions helped win it public support and congressional approval.

Attkisson, the author of the new best-seller "Stonewalled: My Fight for Truth Against the Forces of Obstruction, Intimidation, and Harassment in Obama's Washington," spoke with Newsmax in an exclusive interview Tuesday.

The mainstream media's ho-hum reaction to Gruber's remarks, she says, just validates the message in her book.

"I wasn't surprised," Attkisson said of the networks' decision to largely ignore the story.
"I feel it proved the 'Stonewalled' point, what I discussed in the book: [Media gatekeepers are] shooting themselves in the foot and actually alienating their chance to get viewers, when they claim that's what they're all about.

"Some of the decisions they make are so counterintuitive to what's good journalism and what's good for the viewers," she adds, "you have to wonder why they're doing something that's such a bad business decision."

None of the network nightly news broadcasts reported on Gruber's remarks when they first emerged. According to the conservative Newsbusters.org watchdog, as of Tuesday evening Gruber had not received a single mention on the nightly news broadcasts of ABC or NBC. Instead, those networks relegated the story to their Sunday morning political talk shows.

Attkisson says some editors have allowed their news judgment to become tainted by other considerations.

"I can only conclude that they are so sometimes ideologically entrenched, whoever's making the decision, that they'd rather shoot themselves in the foot from a business standpoint.

"They're insuring the demise of the very platform that they're trying to protect by doing this. But they're so entrenched that they either don't realize it or they don't care, because they can't bring themselves to put something on television that they don't agree with."

According to Attkisson, federal officials who spin breaking news in an effort to receive favorable coverage are no longer satisfied to get their side of the story presented to the public. Instead, they try to altogether censor the reporting of genuine news stories they see as politically unfavorable.

In "Stonewalled," Attkisson gives myriad examples of this "soft censorship," and relates stories of her first-hand experience covering the BP oil spill, scandals related to green energy, and the deadly attacks in Benghazi that the administration initially suggested was an angry reaction to an anti-Muslim video.

Attkisson says powerful gatekeepers who control what news is aired appear to be evaluating whether a story will have a desirable effect on the public, based on their own political worldview, before they decide to run it. In some cases, she says, rather than spin the story they simply refuse to run it at all.
Special: US Intelligence Adviser Exposes Covert Plan to Destroy the US Economy
"We've decided you don't need to hear this story about green energy because you might draw the wrong conclusion," says Attkisson, channeling the attitude of some media elites. "You don't need to hear about the Gruber story because we disagree with what it might make you think.

"So we're not going to report on it fairly. It doesn't exist. That's shocking.

"How crazy is that, for the press to be bringing up the rear on a story that's on the tip of everyone's tongues? Congress is talking about it, it's about a major policy initiative — and they won't even mention it on the news as if it doesn't exist."

http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Gruber-Obamacare-architect-stupidity/2014/11/18/id/608064/#ixzz3JSDHpXnK


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 20, 2014, 04:12:14 PM
The discovery of the Gruber videos by an amateur is almost as much an indictment of the media as the videos themselves are of Obamacare. Even when forced to acknowledge Gruber’s remarks, the media have focused not on their substance, but on the GOP’s opposition to Obamacare. “ ‘Stupidity’ comments renew GOP vitriol on Obamacare,” was the actual headline on the Washington Post’s website. Obamacare’s architect calls voters stupid, and somehow it’s Republicans who are accused of vitriol. You’d think the media might be less inclined to defend Gruber after the New York Times appended a correction to a 2012 op-ed he wrote, noting that they might not have published his article had he disclosed that he was being paid nearly $400,000 by the White House to promote Obamacare.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/obamacare-s-throne-lies_819019.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 03, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
Bozell & Graham Column: The Hypocrisy Over Presidential Kids
By Brent Bozell and Tim Graham
December 2, 2014

It’s an obvious rule: Never pick on a president’s family.

Elizabeth Lauten, the formerly unknown “communications director” for two-term GOP congressman Stephen Fincher resigned after a national-media feeding frenzy over some stupid words about the president’s daughters on her personal Facebook page.

No one came to her defense for this idiocy, and correctly so. Republican Party spokesman Sean Spicer decried her remarks, and then attacked the media for its hypocrisy, for launching into an obscure Republican staffer’s social-media statements, something it has never done for Democrats. Again, he was absolutely correct.

Political decorum demands that presidential children should be left out of political commentary. The same courtesy should be shown toward presidential spouses – unless the subject is their policy initiatives. You can evaluate or criticize Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign or Michelle Obama’s school-lunch program. It is never, ever fair to attack their children, and anyone doing so deserves the Lauten treatment and fate.

Liberals would agree – making them hypocrites. Wouldn’t it be nice if the liberal media observed this notion for all presidents and presidential contenders and their families? But they have failed repeatedly to be consistent on this principle. They have refused, time and again, to denounce liberal partisans who have verbally assaulted children of Republicans. Usually they don’t even cover it!

Take, for example, the radioactive crud that “comedians” have dropped on Sarah Palin’s daughter Bristol. This is what Bill Maher had to say in 2011:

“In Bristol’s new memoir ‘Not Afraid of Life’ -- working title, ‘Whoops, There's a Dick in Me’ -- Bristol claims that the night she lost her virginity she had accidentally gotten drunk on wine coolers that she didn't know contained alcohol and then blacked out and didn't remember a thing,” Maher declared. “Oh, the Palins. I tell you, the s--t doesn't fall far from the bat.”

Or consider the Washington Post-owned website Slate.com in 2012 holding a caption contest for a picture of presidential candidate Rick Santorum's daughters Elizabeth (age 21) and Sarah (age 14). Sadly, liberal commenters predictably started mocking how these conservative Catholic daughters -- yes, including the middle-schooler -- were on contraceptives, or wearing chastity belts, or touching themselves sexually.

Denouncement? Coverage? Please find them for us.

The media mocked the Bush twins in the middle of 2001 when they were cited for underage drinking in Austin at age 19. The New York tabloids loved it. It was headlined ''Double Trouble'' by the New York Daily News and ''Jenna and Tonic'' by the New York Post. The networks jumped all over it, insisting all along that this was the public’s business because the twins had entered the police blotter, and because their father was a recovered alcoholic.

That might be defended as newsworthy (while the tone can be denounced as offensive) because they were young adults in public breaking the law.

But after the 2000 Democratic convention, 17-year-old Al Gore III was cited for driving 97 mph in a 55 mph zone and reckless driving. Network coverage? Zero.

What’s the difference?

The national media love to argue that politics in Washington is “broken,” that politicians don’t cross the aisle to socialize and recognize each other’s humanity and good intentions. But their willingness to stay silent when the children of Republicans are verbally eviscerated demonstrates they are every bit a part of the problem they describe.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2014/12/02/bozell-graham-column-hypocrisy-over-presidential-kids#sthash.4l7rdWXB.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 03, 2014, 10:42:51 AM
Networks Obsessed Over GOP Staffer, Ignore Dem Sex Assault
By Scott Whitlock | December 3, 2014

The same networks that hyped a Republican staffer's comments about Barack Obama's daughters are now ignoring the sexual assault conviction of a Democratic congressional aide. According to the Washington Post, Donny Ray Williams "pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and one count of misdemeanor threats."

Williams was a staff director for the Senate majority and previously worked for panels run by Democrats as Mary Landrieu and Elijah Cummings. The conviction on Tuesday has, so far, received no coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC. In contrast, the same networks devoted 14 minutes (over two days) to GOP staffer Elizabeth Lauten's Facebook complaints about how the Obama daughters dressed.

While the Washington Post placed the story about the Republican aide on A-1, giving it 1,161 words, the paper buried Williams's sex assault conviction on A-5 and only allowed 281 words. (Political journals Roll Call and The Hill, often used as show prep for journalists, noticed the story.)

In the brief story, the Post's Keith L. Alexander explained:

Donny Ray Williams Jr., 37, who served as a staff director for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee, pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, two misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and one count of misdemeanor threats.

Prosecutors say that on July 22, 2010, Williams invited a female congressional colleague to his Capitol Hill apartment and promised to introduce her to Senate employees. At the house, prosecutors said, Williams spiked a drink with Ambien. The woman, according to court documents, fell into a “deep sleep,” at which point Williams raped her.

A month later, prosecutors said, Williams invited another woman to his home and gave her alcoholic beverages. They said he had sexual contact with her when she was too intoxicated to give her consent.

Apparently, not all congressional staffer scandals are created equal. 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/12/03/networks-obsessed-over-gop-staffer-ignore-dem-sex-assault#sthash.WnWZcWcE.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AbrahamG on December 03, 2014, 10:07:57 PM
What are the differences between liberal media biases, Santa Claus and God?  NONE!  They are all but figments of your imagination.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 04, 2014, 11:22:43 AM
Glad we settled that. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 09, 2014, 11:29:04 AM
Nets Obsessed Over Christie Charges, Allow 48 Seconds to Clearing
By Scott Whitlock | December 9, 2014

Last Friday, a Democrat-led investigation failed to find evidence linking Chris Christie to the 2013 traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge. After initially ignoring the report, ABC allowed 16 seconds on Friday's World News. Anchor David Muir briefly deemed this "welcome news" for the New Jersey Governor and possible 2016 contender. [MP3 audio here.]

On day one of the report, NBC offered 17 seconds and CBS managed 15 seconds on Christie's clearing. The grand total amounts to a scant 48 seconds. In comparison, the first day of the Bridgegate investigation back in January netted 34 and a half minutes, a 43-to-1 disparity. (In just two days, these same networks produced 88 minutes on Bridgegate.)

In the first 24 hours of coverage, from January 8 through January 9, 2014, NBC included six reports over 14 minutes and 14 seconds. CBS devoted five reports over 12 minutes and 27 seconds. ABC managed 4 stories over seven minutes and 47 seconds.

On January 9, Good Morning America co-anchor George Stephanopoulos hyped the claims about the governor's role in a 2013 traffic jam: "Chris Christie in crisis. Calls at this hour for the feds to step in, investigate the explosive e-mails." 

In contrast, Muir on Friday night offered no such hyperbolic language. He blandly noted:

DAVID MUIR: The report about the controversial closing of the George Washington bridge in January, finding, quote "no conclusive evidence " that Christie was aware of the plan blamed on two of his former aides.

NBC also used similar apocalyptic language for the original charges. The Today show in January grimly declared that "the crisis grows." CBS's Elaine Quijano saw it as "the biggest test yet of Christie's political career."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2014/12/09/nets-obsessed-over-christie-charges-allow-48-seconds-exoneration#sthash.5V5myvE3.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 09, 2014, 08:00:04 PM
Love how the leftist incompetent media has been glossing over Lena Dunham scandal


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 29, 2015, 11:14:21 AM
Pretty dishonest. 

Politico Invents Mike Huckabee Quote on 'Trashy' Fox News Women
By Tim Graham | January 28, 2015

Noah Rothman at Hot Air called out Politico for badly mangling remarks by potential presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. In his new book, Huckabee devoted a chapter to "The Culture of Crude." On Wednesday morning, they tweeted out this attention-grabbing headline:

But after clicking through to the article by reporter Adam Lerner, the reader discovered that Huckabee never mentioned Fox, just being in a "professional setting":

“In the South, or in the Midwest, there in Iowa, you would not have people who would just throw the F-bomb or use gratuitous profanity in a professional setting,” Huckabee told host Jan Mickelson in a Friday appearance on Des Moines’ “Mickelson in the Morning.”

“In New York, not only do the men do it, but the women do it,” he said.

“My gosh, this is worse than locker-room talk,” Huckabee continued. “As we would say in the South, that’s just trashy.”

Rothman added: "Really, that’s it. No mention of Fox News at all, nor did he even dwell on the distinctions between men and women using profanity. He said that using profane words in a professional setting was generally obscene no matter who does it." The use of the adjective "trashy" is the only fraction of the tweet that's accurate.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/01/28/politico-invents-mike-huckabee-quote-trashy-fox-news-women#sthash.wXaOeqCN.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: whork on January 29, 2015, 12:29:37 PM
What are the differences between liberal media biases, Santa Claus and God?  NONE!  They are all but figments of your imagination.

Its funny cause conservatives have a network that is not only biased but lies through its teeth 24/7, yet all you hear from these people is liberal media bias.





Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AbrahamG on January 29, 2015, 03:59:26 PM
Its funny cause conservatives have a network that is not only biased but lies through its teeth 24/7, yet all you hear from these people is liberal media bias.





Fox News is the right wing "Onion" of cable news.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: whork on January 29, 2015, 05:08:59 PM
Fox News is the right wing "Onion" of cable news.

Dont tell me tell Coach and the others.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 30, 2015, 03:49:28 AM
Its funny cause conservatives have a network that is not only biased but lies through its teeth 24/7, yet all you hear from these people is liberal media bias.





One station vs how many outlets by the communist left?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: whork on January 30, 2015, 11:34:39 AM
One station vs how many outlets by the communist left?

The biggest network station vs some outlets that people, by your own account, doesnt have any viewers.

Besides most of those you label as communist is actually factual.

Many years with lying media has brainwashed you friend.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 04, 2015, 10:51:18 AM
Nets Hype GOP Vaccine Comments, Ignored Similar Obama & Hillary Remarks in 2008
By Kyle Drennen | February 3, 2015

While the ABC, NBC, and CBS morning shows on Tuesday all jumped on potential Republican 2016 contenders Chris Christie and Rand Paul being sympathetic toward parents skeptical of child vaccinations, all three broadcast networks ignored Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton holding the same positions in 2008.

On ABC's Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos declared: "...this has become a bit of a minefield for some of these Republican candidates." Meanwhile, on NBC's Today, correspondent Hallie Jackson noted how "Christie's office quickly clarified" his comments following political "blowback" and that Paul was "also making waves" on the topic.  Finally, on CBS This Morning, correspondent Nancy Cordes similarly touted Paul being "at odds with most of the medical community" and Christie walking back his remarks.

The three morning programs all made sure to promote Hillary Clinton tweeting: "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest" and President Obama calling on all parents to vaccinate their children during a Sunday NBC interview.

GMA mentioned that Obama once thought differently, as correspondent Jon Karl explained: "In fact, even Barack Obama when he was a candidate back in 2008 said that, you know, there was a lot of questions about the connection here. He said directly 'the science right now is inconclusive but we have to research it.' That was Obama back in 2008."

On Today, Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd referenced how both Democrats had once entertained anti-vaccine sentiment: "...the thought that there might be a connection between vaccines and autism and how that spread like wildfire in social media after – you know, and politicians, you go back to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when they ran in '07 and '08, they were talking about it."

This Morning made no mention of the past statements from Clinton and Obama on the subject.

In 2008, none of the networks provided any coverage of the anti-vaccine rhetoric coming from the then-presidential candidates. At a campaign event, Obama labeled the link between vaccines and autism "inconclusive." Answering a candidate questionnaire, Clinton proclaimed: "I am committed to make investments to find the causes of autism, including possible environmental causes like vaccines."

On Tuesday's GMA, prior to Karl noting Obama's 2008 comments, Stephanopoulos observed: "...the thing has been cross-cutting politics too, You've seen pockets of this anti-vaccination sentiment on both the right and the left." 

Today went further, with co-host Matt Lauer actually going after the New York Times for asserting that anti-vaccine attitudes were an exclusively GOP problem:

The New York Times, the liberal New York Times, puts it this way in an article this morning, "The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: How to approach matters that have been largely settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives." And even as I read that, Chuck, let's make it clear, this does not break down neatly between the right and the left. There are pockets of liberal affluent America where parents don't want their kids vaccinated.

Todd agreed: "No, that's right. And I think that the pockets in California, some of this, is more, I think, of a liberal point of view."

Again, CBS didn't bother to examine anti-vaccine forces on the left.



AD FEEDBACK
Here are transcripts of the February 3 coverage on the ABC, NBC, and CBS morning shows:

Good Morning America
7:00 AM ET TEASE:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Outbreak battle. Now more than 100 cases of measles across the country and a new alert warning parents to vaccinate their kids. And the battle breaking out among 2016 presidential hopefuls.

7:04 AM ET SEGMENT:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We're going to get the latest now on that measles outbreak. We have new numbers from the CDC this morning. Now reporting more than 100 cases and health experts are sounding the alarm, making an urgent plea for parents to get their kids vaccinated. Our Dr. Richard Besser is one of them. He joins us now. Good morning, Rich.

RICHARD BESSER: Good morning. You know George this outbreak is showing no signs of letting up. There already are more cases this year than there were the entire year of 2012. This has a lot of doctors and parents very concerned. This morning, that telltale rash is spreading. The CDC now saying 102 individuals infected with measles across 14 states. Officials in Toronto now racing to investigate four cases discovered in just the last week. The American Academy of Pediatrics urging parents to vaccinate their children against the disease. If only for the sake of babies too young to get the shots. Saying Monday, it is heartbreaking to know that these vulnerable children may be at risk if parents refuse or delay getting their children vaccinated. A day-care center at this Santa Monica high school closing its doors Monday after a 1-year-old tested positive for the virus. Officials quarantining 14 infants from the center for 21 days.

GAIL PINSKER: The Department of Public Health will determine the exposure to either students on that campus, staff and other babies and toddlers in that program.

BESSER: The highly contagious disease even infecting politics. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie saying Monday, "parents need to have some measure of choice." His office later clarifying his remarks saying "there is no question, kids should be vaccinated." Senator Rand Paul arguing Monday that vaccines should be a parent's choice.

RAND PAUL: I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing but I think the parents should have some input.

BESSER: Hillary Clinton tweeting overnight, "the science is clear: The Earth is round, the sky is blue and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest." The CDC recommends that children get their first dose of measles vaccine when they're 12 to 15 months old. This provides great protection from measles and it also helps protect other children who are either too young or are unable to get vaccinated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Herd immunity. Okay, Rich thanks very much. I know you're going to be taking questions again on Twitter this morning. I want to get more on the politics now on this from Jon Karl in Washington. Jon, We just saw in Rich's piece right there this has become a bit of a minefield for some of these Republican candidates.

JONATHAN KARL: It sure has, George and the difference at least in tone among the top Republicans is stark. On one hand you have people like Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who say absolutely no question about it, everybody should be vaccinated. On the other hand as you heard Dr. Besser report, you have Chris Christie and Rand Paul just yesterday both talking about how parents should have a choice, although both say the measles vaccine is important. Both talking about choice and Rand Paul went even further yesterday saying that he's heard of many cases where, quote, "children wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." As Dr. Besser will tell you there's just absolutely no scientific evidence to back that up.

STEPHANOPOULOS: No, but, you know, the thing has been cross-cutting politics too, You've seen pockets of this anti-vaccination sentiment on both the right and the left.

KARL: That's right. In fact, even Barack Obama when he was a candidate back in 2008 said that, you know, there was a lot of questions about the connection here. He said directly "the science right now is inconclusive but we have to research it." That was Obama back in 2008. Although now what the president says is that he has no question, everybody should be vaccinated. There is no danger. The only danger is not getting vaccinated.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He was very clear on that-on Sunday. Okay, Jon Karl, thanks very much.


Today
7:00 AM ET TEASE:

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Controversy spreading. Six more states now tied to the measles outbreak, fourteen in all, as politicians take sides on whether parents should get their kids vaccinated.

7:08 AM ET SEGMENT:

GUTHRIE: Meanwhile, that alarming outbreak of measles is still spreading. More than a hundred people now infected in fourteen states. And as it grows, so does the debate over childhood vaccinations. NBC's Hallie Jackson is following all of it. Hallie, good morning to you.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Great Vaccination Debate; Obama, Christie, Hillary Weigh In As Cases Spread] 

HALLIE JACKSON: Good morning, Savannah. And this morning we're keeping an eye on a couple of suspected measles cases in Nevada, which would become the fifteenth state seeing the virus, if those are confirmed. The outbreak making national headlines now a hot topic for the nation's top politicians.

With medical experts overwhelmingly in agreement vaccines are safe, Democrats and Republicans are sparking a debate that's become as much about politics as public health. Hillary Clinton weighing in late last night, tweeting, "The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork," adding the "#GrandmothersKnowBest." Hours after her potential 2016 rival New Jersey Governor Chris Christie talked about parents who choose not to vaccinate.

CHRIS CHRISTIE [R-NJ]: Parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well. So that's the balance that the government has to decide.

JACKSON: After blowback, Christie's office quickly clarified, "With a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated."

And Senator Rand Paul is also making waves after comments he made about the choice to vaccinate. 

RAND PAUL [R-KY]: The state doesn't own your children, parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom.

JACKSON: President Obama reignited the conversation around vaccinations in his interview with Savannah.

GUTHRIE: Are you telling parents, "You should get your kids vaccinated"?

BARACK OBAMA: You should get your kids vaccinated.

JACKSON: Most doctors say vaccines are the only way to stop the measles outbreak that's grown to 102 people in fourteen states. But many parents still have passionate reactions, like Marcella Piper Terry, who blames the measles vaccine for triggering serious seizures in her daughter.

MARCELLA PIPER TERRY: And they say "vaccines are safe, vaccines are safe" – not for my child.

JACKSON: The CDC says severe reactions to the vaccine are very rare, but for Piper Terry there's still a question about vaccinations and its one she feels attacked for even asking.

PIPER TERRY: It's discriminating, it's hate speech and it is – I can't believe I'm living in America.

JACKSON: Ninety percent of unvaccinated people will catch measles if they come into contact with the virus. That includes those too young for the shot, like the fourteen babies at a California daycare that are being isolated for three weeks, Matt, because they may have been exposed to that contagious virus.

MATT LAUER: Alright, Hallie, thank you very much. Hallie Jackson.


CBS This Morning
7:00 AM ET TEASE:

CHARLIE ROSE: The measles vaccination debate gets political. And this morning a new quarantine shuts down a daycare.

7:02 AM ET SEGMENT:

CHARLIE ROSE: Politicians this morning are jumping into the controversy over the measles vaccine. There are at least 102 measles cases in 14 states. Most of those are in California and can be traced back to Disney Land. More cases are expected.

NORAH O’DONNELL: And this morning potential presidential candidates are now joining the debate. A number of contenders are offering their opinions about the safety of vaccines and parents’ choice. Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill with the politics of measles you could call it. Nancy good morning.

NANCY CORDES: Good morning. And one who is getting a lot of attention is Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul. As a medical doctor he says he is a fan of vaccines but that they should be voluntary and in some cases can harm children, an assertion that puts him at odds with most of the medical community. Senator Paul, an opthamologist, made the comment in a live interview on CNBC.

RAND PAUL: I’ve heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.

CORDES: The CDC says there's no evidence vaccines cause such disorders.

TOM FRIEDEN: The vaccine is safe and effective.

CORDES: Government officials from the president on down have been on a public campaign to boost vaccinations in the wake of the measles outbreak.

BARACK OBAMA: The science is pretty indisputable. We've looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, there aren’t reasons to not.

CORDES: All 50 states require that children get their shots but 48 of them allow exemptions for religious or philosophical reasons. In a recent Pew poll 68 percent of Americans said vaccines should be required. 30 percent agreed with Senator Paul that the decision should be left to parents. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tried to split the difference, telling he had his kids vaccinated because "it's an important part of making sure we protect their health and the public health." But he added "parents need to have some measure of choice in things." He office later clarified his comments saying "there is no question kids should be vaccinated."

FRANK LUNTZ: Republicans tend to believe a little more in the rights of parents to make decisions over their children. They tend to be a little bit more concerned about Washington mandates than Democrats. But in the end it is overwhelming among both political parties that vaccinations are important, if not essential to keeping their children safe and healthy.

CORDES: And the possible Democratic contender Hillary Clinton weighed in last night as well in a tweet. She said "the science is clear: the Earth is round, the sky is blue and vaccines work. Let's protect all our kids #GrandmothersKnowBest." Charlie.

ROSE: Nancy thanks.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2015/02/03/nets-hype-gop-vaccine-comments-ignored-similar-obama-hillary-remarks#sthash.33xfl0vM.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on April 28, 2015, 10:50:43 AM
The MSM giving liberals cover again.  Typical.

CNN Tries to Distance Hillary From Blaming Benghazi Attack on Anti-Muslim Video
By P.J. Gladnick | April 28, 2015

Despite what you probably think, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not really blame an anti-Muslim video for the American consulate attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. What? You're sure you heard her make that claim? Well, according the proposition of CNN Correspondent Elise Labott, quoting a Clinton aide, Hillary is absolved from blaming the video for the attack because she did not use the word "spontaneous." I kid you not.

See, it was UN ambassador Susan Rice making her rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows who used the somehow taboo S-word, not Hillary. Therefore the latter didn't really blame the attack on the video because of the lack of that one word:

The emails relating to Benghazi are a fraction of all those Clinton has handed over to the State Department since leaving office. In December, she released 30,000 emails -- about 55,000 pages -- to the agency, which State Department officials say are still being reviewed.​ The State Department has the emails Clinton voluntarily handed over. But she kept private the server that housed them and has since wiped it clean.

...Then-ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's appearances on Sunday morning talk shows became a lightning rod for Republicans, who criticized Clinton at the time for avoiding public statements on the controversy. Administration officials had said at the time that Clinton was exhausted after a grueling week.

On the talk shows, Rice described the attack as a protest over an anti-Muslim video, which erupted spontaneously into violence. Clinton never made that characterization, and after intense Republican charges of downplaying the attack, administration officials began to call it a "terrorist attack."

Emails between Clinton and her aides in the days following Rice's appearances and first reported by The New York Times expressed relief that she had not gone as far as Rice did in her language describing the attacks.

In an email to Clinton two weeks after the attack, Jake Sullivan, Clinton's director of policy planning and chief foreign aide at the State Department, said he had reviewed her public remarks since the attack and found she never used the language Rice did.

"You never said 'spontaneous' or characterized their motivations," he wrote to Clinton.

Although Hillary did not actually use the word "spontaneous," her speech on the Benghazi attack which was carried by CNN on September 13, 2012 clearly shows she blamed the attack on the anti-Muslim video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dqPQblKGHY

The video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries...

But, hey, she didn't use the word "spontaneous" so in Elise Labott's world, Hillary is home free.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2015/04/28/cnn-tries-distance-hillary-blaming-benghazi-attack-anti-muslim-video#sthash.uFaq4jc3.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 10:01:28 AM
Networks Downplay 2016 Presidential Announcements of Republicans Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina
By Curtis Houck | May 4, 2015

Following the announcements from Republicans Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina that they will each be running for president, the “big three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC showed no interest in giving extensive time to either candidate during their Monday evening newscasts with a combined one minute and 10 seconds of news briefs devoted to the new 2016 candidates.

Clocking in with the least amount of time was the CBS Evening News with a scant 20 seconds on the entrance of Carson and Fiorina into the GOP field. Anchor Scott Pelley reported that “[t]wo non-politicians joined the growing field of Republican presidential candidates today” with Carson doing so “in Detroit, where he was raised.”

Citing his background as a neurosurgeon, Pelley capped off the eight seconds of coverage on Carson by touting him as “fierce opponent of ObamaCare.” Pelley then used the remaining seven seconds to highlight Fiorina as “a former CEO Hewlett-Packard and a harsh critic of Democrat Hillary Clinton.”

After Fiorina announced her candidacy on ABC’s Good Morning America, ABC’s World News Tonight made no mention of Fiorina’s appearance there and instead played a clip from one of her campaign videos. All told, World News Tonight offered the most time of the three networks at 29 seconds. Broken down for each candidate, 16 seconds went to Fiorina with 10 seconds for Carson (after a five-second introduction).

Anchor David Muir began by informing viewers of “the new faces joining the race for 2016” with Fiorina having “never held elected office.” In introducing the clip from Fiorina’s campaign, Muir noted that she “came out swinging at Hillary Clinton.”

On Carson, Muir correctly mentioned that he’s “the first African-American candidate for 2016” and is known as being both “a well-known neurosurgeon” and someone who’s “critical of President Obama's health care reform.”

Meanwhile, NBC Nightly News clocked in with a measly 21 seconds of airtime on the new candidates. Of those short seconds, 11 of those were devoted to Fiorina’s announcement as Holt brought up the fact that she previously ran for one of California’s seats in the U.S. Senate in 2010 and her being “the first official female GOP candidate for 2016.”

With only five seconds left, Holt transitioned to Carson by stating that “retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson also announced that he is joining the Republican field.”

In contrast, when Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy on April 12, ABC’s World News Tonight and NBC Nightly News combined for a whopping eight minutes and 47 seconds of coverage gushing over the former First Lady’s decision to run for the White House (with the CBS Evening News not airing on the East Coast that evening).


The transcript of the brief that aired on the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley on May 4 can be found below.

CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley
May 4, 2015
6:39 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: Campaign 2016]

SCOTT PELLEY: Two non-politicians joined the growing field of Republican presidential candidates today. Ben Carson announced in Detroit, where he was raised. Carson is a retired neurosurgeon and fierce opponent of ObamaCare. Carly Fiorina is a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and a harsh critic of Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The relevant portion of the transcript from ABC’s World News Tonight with David Muir on May 4 is transcribed below.

ABC’s World News Tonight with David Muir
May 4, 2015
6:41 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: In the Race]

DAVID MUIR: And now to the new faces joining the race for 2016, starting with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Vying for the Republican nomination, she’s never held elected office and came out swinging at Hillary Clinton.

CARLY FIORINA [in campaign video]: She doesn't have a track record of leadership or trustworthiness. She's not the woman for the White House.

MUIR: Another Republican contender making it official now, Ben Carson. The first African-American candidate for 2016. A well-known neurosurgeon, he has been critical of President Obama's health care reform.


AD FEEDBACK
The news brief from May 4's NBC Nightly News is transcribed below.

NBC Nightly News
May 4, 2015
7:09 p.m. Eastern


[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE CAPTION: In the Running]

LESTER HOLT: The Republican side of the race for president got more crowded today with two more candidates jumping in. Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, who ran a race for Senate in California in 2010, became the first official female GOP candidate for 2016 today and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson also announced that he is joining the Republican field.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/05/04/networks-downplay-2016-presidential-announcements-republicans-ben#sthash.0IrysB1g.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: avxo on May 05, 2015, 11:11:35 AM
To be fair, what's there to say about Carly Fiorina's announcement? "In other news, Carly Fiorina, who was fired from HP and has been consistently ranked among the top 10 worst tech CEOs ever, has decided she will run for the Republican nomination. This isn't Mrs. Fiorina's first foray into politics, having previously failed in her bid to replace Senator Barbara Boxer."


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 11:49:56 AM
To be fair, what's there to say about Carly Fiorina's announcement? "In other news, Carly Fiorina, who was fired from HP and has been consistently ranked among the top 10 worst tech CEOs ever, has decided she will run for the Republican nomination. This isn't Mrs. Fiorina's first foray into politics, having previously failed in her bid to replace Senator Barbara Boxer."

I guess if we're talking about fairness, then maybe they give a somewhat equal amount of coverage? 

We could make similar comments about what a lousy job Hillary did as Secretary of State, but she got substantially more coverage.  It's a pattern. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: avxo on May 05, 2015, 11:59:38 AM
I guess if we're talking about fairness, then maybe they give a somewhat equal amount of coverage?

Why should the media be fair?

We could make similar comments about what a lousy job Hillary did as Secretary of State, but she got substantially more coverage.  It's a pattern. 

Yes, such comments could be made. And they have, actually, been made. You make it sound as if every media outlet is treating Hillary's pursuit of the nomination as a fairy-tale.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 12:03:19 PM
Why should the media be fair?

Yes, such comments could be made. And they have, actually, been made. You make it sound as if every media outlet is treating Hillary's pursuit of the nomination as a fairy-tale.

You mentioned fairness.  I was just providing the other side of the coin.

I'm making it sound like exactly what is happening.  She has been skating and will likely continue to do so until the election.  The media's liberal bias is really obvious.  A plethora of examples.  It's sort of like the 12th man on the field for Democrats. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on May 05, 2015, 12:57:09 PM
lol the same people on here brag that fox news gets the highest ratings and nobody watches cnn or msnbc and everyone listens to repub radio and no one listens to left wing radio.but in the end they seem to influence the people to vote for a democratic president. sounds like your no better than the left for blaming bush for everything  :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: avxo on May 05, 2015, 01:23:16 PM
You mentioned fairness.  I was just providing the other side of the coin.

I used the figure of speech "to be fair" not to suggest that we be fair, but in a more colloquial sense. And forgive me, but the other side of the Hillary Clinton coin isn't Carly Fiorina.


I'm making it sound like exactly what is happening.  She has been skating and will likely continue to do so until the election.  The media's liberal bias is really obvious.  A plethora of examples.  It's sort of like the 12th man on the field for Democrats.

Remind me, what is the problem with the media having a bias?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 01:34:03 PM
I used the figure of speech "to be fair" not to suggest that we be fair, but in a more colloquial sense. And forgive me, but the other side of the Hillary Clinton coin isn't Carly Fiorina.


Remind me, what is the problem with the media having a bias?

The other side of the coin is showing how a deeply flawed candidate received substantially more air time when she made her presidential announcement.

Media bias impacts what people think and ultimately how they choose to vote, especially those who don't follow politics closely, which unfortunately is a sizable part of the voting public.  Those biased stories, reports, emphasis, lack of emphasis, etc. allows, for example, good people like Romney to be portrayed as a tax cheat.  I talked to more than one voter who refused to vote for him because of those tax stories.  Democrat candidates do not get the same scrutiny.  Remember Christi's bridgegate scandal?  Wall-to-wall coverage.  That creates an uneven playing field for GOP candidates. 

Happens all the time.  Numerous stories in this thread that show just how pervasive it is.   


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on May 05, 2015, 01:41:24 PM
or maybe the repubs just run shitty presidential candidates ;D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 01:44:44 PM
or maybe the repubs just run shitty presidential candidates ;D

Both parties do, but that really has nothing to do with how the MSM covers them.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on May 05, 2015, 01:51:12 PM
Both parties do, but that really has nothing to do with how the MSM covers them.

so the number one in news fox sides with the dems too ;D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 02:03:48 PM
so the number one in news fox sides with the dems too ;D

Nah.  They just try and level the playing field a bit. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on May 05, 2015, 05:17:05 PM
Huckabee on the kelly file,talk about playing softball :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on May 05, 2015, 05:33:22 PM
Nets Hype GOP Vaccine Comments, Ignored Similar Obama & Hillary Remarks in 2008
By Kyle Drennen | February 3, 2015

Here you can see a 2008 NBC article which shits all over the claim networks "ignored" obama saying it in 2008.
http://www.today.com/news/president-obama-measles-you-should-get-your-kids-vaccinated-2D80467430

ANd look, 2008 NY Daily talking about hilary's positions. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-hillary-questioned-vaccines-2008-elections-article-1.2102004



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 05:37:06 PM
Here you can see a 2008 NBC article which shits all over the claim networks "ignored" obama saying it in 2008.
http://www.today.com/news/president-obama-measles-you-should-get-your-kids-vaccinated-2D80467430

ANd look, 2008 NY Daily talking about hilary's positions. 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/obama-hillary-questioned-vaccines-2008-elections-article-1.2102004



Quote
The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals.  It's a full-time job. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on May 05, 2015, 05:38:40 PM


lol @ resorting to personal attacks when I facefvck your argument.  Ah, getbig gets fun on political board as elections arrive!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: blacken700 on May 05, 2015, 05:52:36 PM
lol @ resorting to personal attacks when I facefvck your argument.  Ah, getbig gets fun on political board as elections arrive!

it all bush's fault i mean the msm fault :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 05, 2015, 06:30:38 PM
lol @ resorting to personal attacks when I facefvck your argument.  Ah, getbig gets fun on political board as elections arrive!

What I'm trying to say is that every time something unflattering or negative is said about a liberal, you pipe in to try and deflect attention away from liberals.  The DNC should put you on their payroll. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on May 06, 2015, 12:49:34 PM
Nah.  They just try and level the playing field a bit. 

LOL 

I'll bet you actually believe that horse shit


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 14, 2015, 09:23:07 AM
And this dude was a presidential debate moderator?  Good grief. 

Clinton Foundation without disclosing it, apologizes
Published May 14, 2015
FoxNews.com

ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos never disclosed to his network -- or viewers -- $50,000 in contributions he made to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, even as he waded into covering Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and foundation controversies.

Stephanopoulos apologized Thursday, Fox News has learned, and said he should have revealed the contributions.

The anchor is a former Bill Clinton spokesman and aide, and his ties to the former first family are well-known. However, as first reported by Politico, he made a $25,000 donation to the foundation in 2013 and 2014 -- and while the donations can be found in the organization's records, Stephanopoulos did not disclose them to viewers as he covered the Clintons.

Even when he interviewed the author of "Clinton Cash" -- the high-profile book examining potential conflicts of interest behind Clinton Foundation funding -- on ABC's "This Week," Stephanopoulos did not disclose his own contributions.

Stephanopoulos said in a statement on Thursday: "I made charitable donations to the Foundation in support of the work they're doing on global AIDS prevention and deforestation, causes I care about deeply. I thought that my contributions were a matter of public record. However, in hindsight, I should have taken the extra step of personally disclosing my donations to my employer and to the viewers on air during the recent news stories about the Foundation. I apologize."

The Washington Free Beacon said Thursday that Stephanopoulos confirmed the donations to Politico only after the Free Beacon asked ABC News for comment.

Meanwhile, ABC News said they stand behind their star anchor.

A statement from the network said: "As George has said, he made charitable donations to the Foundation to support a cause he cares about deeply and believed his contributions were a matter of public record. He should have taken the extra step to notify us and our viewers during the recent news reports about the Foundation. He's admitted to an honest mistake and apologized for that omission. We stand behind him."

As of noon ET on Thursday, however, the ABC News website included no acknowledgement of the apology or the network's statement on the ethics issue.

Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative Media Research Center, said the contributions also weren't discussed when Stephanopoulos interviewed former President Bill Clinton in recent years -- but at least should have been disclosed when he interviewed "Clinton Cash" author Peter Schweizer.

"It's especially egregious that he did not talk about this [then] ... That was the time he needed to come clean," he said.   

In that interview, the host of "This Week" posed tough questions to Schweizer, pressing him on whether he really had any "smoking gun" showing wrongdoing by the Clintons in their dealings with foundation donors and in Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state.

Noyes said such tough questions would be expected, but viewers might see them differently had the host disclosed his donations. Noyes said he hopes ABC News addresses the issue on air.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/14/abcs-stephanopoulos-gave-50g-to-clinton-foundation-without-disclosing-it/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on May 14, 2015, 02:40:27 PM
And this dude was a presidential debate moderator?  Good grief. 

donations are tricky like that, when it comes to presidential candidates.

some would argue that Bill-O donated to an idiot Dem candidate because he wanted to undermine the other dems in the race.

O'Reilly gave $25K to Al Sharpton's charity
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/oreilly-gave-k-to-al-sharptons-charity-170663.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 14, 2015, 03:06:10 PM
donations are tricky like that, when it comes to presidential candidates.

some would argue that Bill-O donated to an idiot Dem candidate because he wanted to undermine the other dems in the race.

O'Reilly gave $25K to Al Sharpton's charity
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/08/oreilly-gave-k-to-al-sharptons-charity-170663.html

The board's biggest liberal here to provide cover for liberals.  It's a full-time job. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 29, 2015, 10:13:02 AM
Gotta push the narrative.  Two Hispanic guys, a black guy, and a female don't fit the narrative.

New Yorker June 1 Cover Shows Excludes Black, Female GOP Candidates
By Tom Blumer | May 28, 2015

Old stereotypes die hard — especially the ones which have long been false.

The June 1 cover of The New Yorker Magazine depicts the Republican Party's current crop of declared and undeclared 2016 presidential candidates as pretty much a white-boys affair (only Rubio looks a little ethnic), showing seven of them in different locker-room postures, with Hillary Clinton peeping in through a window. How is this possible, you ask? Where are Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina? Obviously, presenting a segregated, chauvinistic image of the GOP is more important than dealing with reality (HT Patterico):

(http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/NewYorkerMagGOPcover060115.jpg)
NewYorkerMagGOPcover0601 15

As Dana at Patterico's place noted, Carson and Fiorina are declared candidates, while "Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have not even officially announced."

The narrative explaining the cover drawing is also predictable (two paragraph breaks added by me; bolds are mine):

How many Republicans are running for President? It’s a trick question. (No it's not. — Ed.) Some of those who are clearly running—Jeb Bush, for example—are still pretending that they aren’t, mostly because declaring would change the fund-raising rules. And if you counted everyone who, against all evidence, takes himself (or herself) seriously as a candidate, the locker room depicted in Mark Ulriksen’s “Suiting Up,” this week’s cover, would look as crowded as the departures hall at Penn Station, and almost as disconcerting. (If Penn Station is "disconcerting," that sounds like a problem far-left Mayro De Blasio should be, but isn't handling. — Ed.)

As it is, Ulriksen presents seven contenders with seven varieties of preening. Maybe it’s hard to tell a vision for America from a delusion of grandeur, at least until the debates and primaries get under way. Until then, Marco Rubio’s got his phone, Rand Paul his comb, and Huckabee his Bible. Ted Cruz’s eyes flit between his copy of the Constitution and his mirror, while Scott Walker seems on the lookout for unionized gym attendants. Bush is wearing his dynasty-logo boxers and Chris Christie his put-me-in-now pout.

And yet, somehow, one of these seven men is almost certainly right about his chances for the nomination. The primary campaign may look like a pickup game about to descend into a brawl, but there’s a national candidate somewhere in the lineup.

Behind these Republicans, there is a face in the locker-room door’s window: Hillary Clinton, peeking in. Once they’re done with their intramural shoving match, they’ll mostly likely have to play against her. Some other Democratic candidates might emerge, ones tougher to beat than Bernie Sanders, but at the moment Clinton doesn’t really have to share. She may be the real subject of the picture—she is the big game.

Never mind utter unimportance of their perceived chances over seven months before the first meaningful primary contest — but if one insists on knowing, Ben Carson is currently polling in fifth place and Fiorina is in 13th. Carson's polling would justify his inclusion over Christie, while Fiorina's feistiness with media hacks like Andrea Mitchell merit her inclusion.

In fact Fiorina should be at the window, telling Hillary to get her jollies some other way or she'll call the cops — who might then come into Mrs. Clinton's home and retrieve her server for forensic analysis.

Oh, and if readers want to see what a virtually all-white club looks like, they can always go to this historical roster of New Yorker cartoonists. As best I can tell, the compilation identifies one African-American in its many hundreds of listings — and that gentleman last worked there in 1942.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/05/28/new-yorker-june-1-cover-presents-whites-only-2016-gop-presidential


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 05, 2015, 11:43:36 AM
Seriously? 

NYT's Big Scoop: Rubio Has 4 Minor Traffic Violations in 18 Years
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=04ca67f9-6919-4b52-b44f-fc9a2dbbce4a&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: NYT's Big Scoop: Rubio Has 4 Minor Traffic Violations in 18 Years  Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and his wife, Jeanette. (Joe Readle/Getty Images) 
Friday, 05 Jun 2015
By Sandy Fitzgerald

The New York Times is being ridiculed by pundits and the Twitter-verse alike for publishing a lengthy story Friday detailing how Sen. Marco Rubio was cited four times in 18 years for minor traffic violations, while his wife received 13, as a conservative site reveals the paper's information may have come from a liberal research firm.

"This NYT story may have been meant to be light-hearted, but that’s not really an excuse for it," The National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru said. "Troubles behind the wheel? The man has gotten four traffic citations in 18 years, based on the Times' exhaustive reporting."

The story, a detailed examination of the Rubios' past as revealed in the Miami-Dade and Duval County court records, dating back to 1997, show the couple has a combined 17 citations, reports the Times. But, Rubio, who is a top hopeful for the 2016 GOP nomination, only had four citations during those 18 years.

On Friday, just after the Times' "scoop" came out, The Washington Free Beacon reported the information for it was obtained by the liberal firm American Bridge, and not the reporters, Alan Rappeport and Steve Eder, whose bylines were on the article, or an additional researcher, Kitty Bennett.

Instead, the Miami-Dade County court records were pulled in person by American Bridge representatives on May 26, photos of the docket entries on the county's website and reported by The Free Beacon show.

The Times reporters did not reply to The Free Beacon for comment on the information from the county's dockets about Rubio or his wife, Jeanette Dousdebes.

"Senator Rubio's license has always been in good standing," his attorney, Alex Hanna, said in a statement provided by the Rubio campaign to the Times. "This matter was resolved by the court system and at no point was the license suspended by the D.M.V."

Twitter revved up quickly to ridicule the story as well, and a new hashtag, #RubioCrimeSpree, is gaining traction:

"13 tickets were wife's though. Why do you hate women?" asked a tweet from Instapundit.com.

Jeff Dunetz tweeted: "BREAKING SCANDAL FROM NY TIMES: In Kindergarten Marco Rubio Stole a green crayon from a kid named Tommy."

From Emily Zanotti, who posted several examples of Rubio's "crimes": ‏ "Once put the toilet paper roll on backwards so the paper came off under the roll."

"Sure, my wife & I drive a lot & get tickets. Now if I'd a chauffeured limo for 30 years like the Clintons," wrote David Jack Smith.

And a tweet identified as coming from Tennessee state Sen. Frank Niceley read: "The same media so breathlessly taken aback by taking a swig of water on TV. Does he #hydrate while driving?"

The Times report notes that the Rubios received tickets for violations that include speeding, driving through red lights, and careless driving. Rubio in 1997 was charged with careless driving by a Florida Highway Patrol officer and took voluntary driving classes.

He returned to traffic school in 2009 after he was pulled over for speeding in Duval County, and in 2011 was alerted that his license was facing suspension when a traffic camera caught him running a red light. Hanna paid a $16 fee to delay the suspension, and that case was dismissed.

His last violation, in 2012, was a ticket for failing to obey a stop sign that was dismissed.

Dousdebes faced suspension three times for speeding and careless operations charges, and sat in traffic school several times. She was charged with lacking insurance documentations once.

After Rubio was elected to the Senate in 2010, the couple started handling their tickets differently, hiring Hanna, a Miami lawyer to handle traffic violations. Hanna has helped get the senator's last two citations dismissed and seven of his wife's last eight cleared.

His wife, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was also involved in a fender bender this year after sideswiping a Porsche while driving Rubio's Ford F-150 truck to a donor event in Miami Beach. The Miami Herald reports the police did not make a report, calling the incident "minor."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-wife-traffic-citations/2015/06/05/id/648983/#ixzz3cDbPuFQm


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on June 05, 2015, 09:37:13 PM
13 tickets?   LOL, in FL, where everyone drives like an idiot and seems to get away with it.  You'd have to be a super-obnoxious idiot to get 13 tickets.  that's pretty bad.

I have had maybe 4 tickets and I"m 38 years old.  it happens when you're young.  WHen you get older, you learn to follow the fcking law.  

13 tickets lol... that certainly doesn't disqualify rubio from office, it's silliness.  I do have to wonder how you can sideswipe someone in FL and there's no police report lol - shady as fck there..

"His wife, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was also involved in a fender bender this year after sideswiping a Porsche while driving Rubio's Ford F-150 truck to a donor event in Miami Beach. The Miami Herald reports the police did not make a report, calling the incident "minor.""

unless something shady happened to avoid a ticket, it's a non-issue.  If rubio's position kept this person from getting a ticket for hitting a vehicle, well...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2015, 08:51:24 AM
^^^^ This is exactly why the NYT would post an absolutely ridiculous story like this.  One of the dumbest stories I've read in a while.  But there are low information liberal lackeys who will eat this stuff up. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2015, 09:10:36 AM
^^^^ This is exactly why the NYT would post an absolutely ridiculous story like this.  One of the dumbest stories I've read in a while.  But there are low information liberal lackeys who will eat this stuff up.  

I live in FL.   If a person sideswipes a vehicle, a report is made.  Police don't just "skip it".  

The fact it's a rich cheerleader with politically connected hubby has nothing to do with it, huh?  LMAO


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2015, 09:20:25 AM
I live in FL.   If a person sideswipes a vehicle, a report is made.  Police don't just "skip it".  

The fact it's a rich cheerleader with politically connected hubby has nothing to do with it, huh?  LMAO

LOL!  Nobody cares about traffic tickets.  Except for low information voters who aren't going to support the candidate anyway.  This is hilarious.   :)



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2015, 10:10:14 AM
LOL!  Nobody cares about traffic tickets.  Except for low information voters who aren't going to support the candidate anyway.  This is hilarious.   :)

I'm pretty sure the dude getting sideswiped cares ;)

And you can bet if Michelle obama was hitting cars, and had 15 tickets fixed, and police reports magically didn't get filed for her accidents when they did for everyone else...

it'd kinda be an issue ;) lol


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 08, 2015, 11:32:23 AM
I'm pretty sure the dude getting sideswiped cares ;)

And you can bet if Michelle obama was hitting cars, and had 15 tickets fixed, and police reports magically didn't get filed for her accidents when they did for everyone else...

it'd kinda be an issue ;) lol

Who was sideswiping cars and getting tickets fixed? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on June 08, 2015, 07:33:42 PM
Who was sideswiping cars and getting tickets fixed? 

Rubio's wife.

"His wife, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was also involved in a fender bender this year after sideswiping a Porsche while driving Rubio's Ford F-150 truck to a donor event in Miami Beach. The Miami Herald reports the police did not make a report, calling the incident "minor.""

She sideswiped a car.  She wasn't cited, and having lived in FL for a long time, I can tell you, they certainly cite the shit out of a person for sideswiping another vehicle.  So yes, not being given the ticket deserved = getting special treatment. 

You, of course, defend her automatically because you love rubio.  You want o hug and kiss him and have his babies.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 09, 2015, 02:46:41 PM
Rubio's wife.

"His wife, a former Miami Dolphins cheerleader, was also involved in a fender bender this year after sideswiping a Porsche while driving Rubio's Ford F-150 truck to a donor event in Miami Beach. The Miami Herald reports the police did not make a report, calling the incident "minor.""

She sideswiped a car.  She wasn't cited, and having lived in FL for a long time, I can tell you, they certainly cite the shit out of a person for sideswiping another vehicle.  So yes, not being given the ticket deserved = getting special treatment. 

You, of course, defend her automatically because you love rubio.  You want o hug and kiss him and have his babies.

Before I simply call you a congenital liar, let me ask where is the proof that Rubio and/or his wife "had 15 tickets fixed"?  The NYT story doesn't say that. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 22, 2015, 09:52:47 AM
Does not surprise me one bit.

CNN graphic leaves unsuspecting sane people dumbfounded!
June 20, 2015
by Tom Tillison

With the expected hysteria in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Charleston, S.C., the liberal media is orchestrating its prerequisite rush to judgement, as seen in a stunning graphic displayed on CNN.

According to the graphic, a study by the New America Foundation shows there have been more deaths by “right-wing extremism” since 9/11 than by “Muslim extremism.”

E! News’ John Ekdahl posted an image of the CNN graphic on social media:

As Mark Twain once said, “There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”

One catch to the statistics shown is that they referemce deaths in the United States. But of more interest is that the nine deaths in Charleston are included in the numbers — attributed to right-wing extremism, of course.

A closer look at the report, according to one social media user, shows the New America Foundation study reflected deaths by “jihadists” and “nonjihadists,” with CNN changing the latter to “right-wing extremism.”

As for worldwide deaths attributed to “Muslim extremism,” the numbers are staggering.

A Global Terrorism Index study showed there were 17,958 deaths in just 2013, with most of them occurring at the hands of militant groups Islamic State, al-Qaida, Boko Haram and the Taliban.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/06/20/cnn-graphic-leaves-unsuspecting-sane-people-dumbfounded-215843#ixzz3doZ0TKRI


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 06, 2015, 09:34:09 AM
Gotcha! Chris Matthews Pictured Marching for Hillary In July 4 Parade
By Tim Graham
July 4, 2015

Jamie Dupree sent this fascinating tweet on Saturday, a picture of MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews marching in a suburban DC parade next to a Hillary Clinton for President banner.

(http://newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-80/s3/images/ChrisM-tweet.jpg?itok=BT3QfBC7)

Those MSNBC folks have a natural talent for appearing to be all wrapped up in partisan Democratic politics. Could this just be Chris talking to a suburban friend? Even if so, he doesn't seem troubled by the possibility of a photo like this.

Matthews has also been quite friendly toward Hillary on MSNBC, naturally. On Wednesday's Hardball, he touted her e-mail shredding scandal might help: "the unintended consequences, maybe the e-mails will end up helping her but I can't believe anybody will vote against her because of the e-mail issues. There are larger issues in the world."

New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt was also on that wavelength: "Did it take a mistake of e-mails to learn more about her and to have an insight into who she is? Because if you read them, I find her fairly compelling."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2015/07/04/gotcha-chris-matthews-pictured-marching-hillary-july-4-parade#sthash.fbTQlR6t.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on July 06, 2015, 10:21:56 AM
WOW!!!!

A lifelong Democrat who worked for four different Democratic members of Congress showing support for a Democratic candidate for POTUS

SHOCKING !!!!!

Next thing you're going to tell me is that Roger Ailes is a Republican

Great Job Bum


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on July 07, 2015, 05:43:12 AM
WOW!!!!

A lifelong Democrat who worked for four different Democratic members of Congress showing support for a Democratic candidate for POTUS

SHOCKING !!!!!

Next thing you're going to tell me is that Roger Ailes is a Republican

Great Job Bum

lmao.   breaking news here.

we all thought Mathews would back Cruz in 2016.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 13, 2015, 08:32:58 AM
Amazon: No Evidence of Unusual Bulk Sales of Ted Cruz's Book
(http://www.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=9ec613ff-11bf-430e-bc9e-b273d92a69a7&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Amazon: No Evidence of Unusual Bulk Sales of Ted Cruz's Book  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
By Melissa Clyne 
Monday, 13 Jul 2015

Amazon is bolstering assertions by publishing house HarperCollins that bulk sales are not responsible for the popularity of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s memoir, a charge waged by The New York Times to keep the book off its best-seller list, Politico media blogger Dylan Byers reports.

The New York Times has come under fire for its refusal to include Cruz's book, "A Time for Truth," on its best-seller list, first by saying that it did not meet the newspaper’s "uniform standards" — which includes "an analysis of book sales that goes beyond simply the number of books sold"— that are applied to its best-seller list, followed by an explanation that "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases."

But a spokeswoman for Amazon, the country’s largest Internet retailer, tells Politico that a review of company sales data showed no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity.

"As of yesterday, 'A Time for Truth' was the No. 13 best-selling book, and there is no evidence of unusual bulk purchase activity in our sales data," said Sarah Gelman, Amazon's director of press relations.

HarperCollins own investigation turned up similar findings.

On Friday, the Cruz campaign issued a statement blasting the Times and demanding it release its "evidence" of bulk sales or issue a public apology.

"The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response — alleging 'strategic bulk purchases' — is a blatant falsehood," Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler said in the statement. "The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher HarperCollins."

He continued: "We call on the Times, release your so-called 'evidence.' Demonstrate that your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own partisan agenda. And, if you cannot do so, then issue a public apology to Senator Cruz and HarperCollins editor Adam Bellow for making false charges against them."

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/New-York-Times-Ted-Cruz-book-best-seller/2015/07/13/id/654701/#ixzz3fn29Oz8V


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 16, 2015, 12:42:41 PM
Cruz finally lands on bestseller list, easing feud with New York Times
Published July 16, 2015
FoxNews.com

Presidential candidate Ted Cruz’ memoir will finally make it to the New York Times’ bestseller list after Cruz accused the paper of wrongfully omitting him last week.

The book, “A Time for Truth,” will be seventh on the Times’ nonfiction list that comes out on Friday, newspaper spokeswoman Eileen Murphy confirmed.

Cruz’ book was published on June 30 and sold 11,854 copies in its first week, according to Nielsen book sales data. To the surprise of many, though, the book was not recognized by the Times list -- despite it selling more copies than 18 of the 20 titles on the list that week. Comedian Aziz Ansari’s book, “Modern Romance,” came in second that week and sold fewer than 10,000 copies.

The Times, though, defended the omission, claiming they saw evidence of "bulk purchases" and suggesting the system was being manipulated. The Cruz campaign blasted the explanation.

With the book now set to appear on the list, Cruz told Fox News he thinks public pressure led to the decision.

“They don’t want people to read the book, ‘A Time for Truth;’ they left it off and then an amazing thing happened. Number one, they accused me of bulk sales. I said that is a lie. ... Then my publisher Harper-Collins came out and said that is a lie. We have all the sales data. There are no bulk purchases,” the Republican senator told Fox News' Megyn Kelly on Wednesday.

Barnes & Noble and Amazon also said they found no evidence of bulk sales.

Cruz said he's glad the book is being listed but added, “It seems to me there are a lot of conservative authors the New York Times discriminates against.”

Cruz called for the paper to conduct an internal investigation on bias “against authors that they may have different political views from.”

The Times, though, has said the notion they would "manipulate" the list to "exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous." Last week’s list did feature conservative authors like Ann Coulter, for “Adios America!”

As for why the book is now appearing on the list and did not before, the Times insists nothing has changed in their criteria.

“This week’s best seller list was arrived at using the same process as last week’s – and the week before that,” said Murphy. “That process involves a careful analysis of data, and is not influenced in any way by the content of a book, or by pressure from publishers or book sellers.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/16/cruz-finally-lands-bestseller-list-eases-feud-with-new-york-times/?intcmp=latestnews


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 03, 2015, 11:26:38 AM
Washington Post's Weigel: Liberal Media Bias a Reality 'Not Worth Disputing'
By Joe Schaeffer 
Monday, 02 Nov 2015

Liberal media bias is a fact that "is not worth disputing," Washington Post national political reporter David Weigel admits.

Asked during an appearance on "The Hard Line" on Newsmax TV about the growing perception among Americans that there is rampant liberal bias in the media in the wake of the heavily-criticized Oct. 28 Republican presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Weigel acknowledged to host Ed Berliner that "I think there's a cultural bias on social issues, definitely. A bias [that determines] who gets into the media. That's not worth disputing in my view."

"The idea that the media is just an amorphous ideology-free organism that has no bias whatsoever, that's not worth pretending about. There are reporters who work to be that way but the climate we come from, the education we have, etc. leans people in a certain direction. "

National Review senior editor Jay guy, also appearing on the program, sees the bias as self-evident and says GOP candidates must be able to deal with it as part of the campaign process.

"It's a fact of life. Republicans are long used to it," he said.

"I quote my [National Review] colleague Kate O'Beirne, who said some years ago 'it's like we' – meaning Republicans – 'run every race with a weight tied to our ankle.'

"We just have to be better.

"This bias needs to be assumed and an adept candidate such as Chris Christie can turn media hostility to his advantage. Certainly in the primary, the general election, that's a little dicier."

As for the struggling campaign of Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, guy says that with the financial backing he has and the fact that he has been campaigning for months already, it makes no sense for Bush to drop out of the race before Iowa and New Hampshire have even held their primaries.

"He's been campaigning for president for months now, maybe more, and it's probably too early to give up,"  guy says. "I myself, if I were running, would want to give voters a chance to vote against me before dropping out.

"These early dropouts such as Tim Pawlenty four years ago and Scott Walker and Rick Perry this year, I don't fully understand. I myself would want to make Iowans and New Hampshirites and others vote against me if the money were there. And for Jeb I assume it is. "

Weigel said he is not surprised to see Bush struggling since he never expected much from his campaign anyway.

When asked if Bush has absorbed too much damage at this point to mount a winning campaign, Weigel said:

"I don't know that he's in a good position to even damage in the first place. I've always been very bearish on Jeb Bush as a nominee. I just don't see the logic if you're a Republican voter who just watched your party win a landslide in 2014 – I don't see the logic in settling for someone like Jeb Bush.

"If you look at his approval numbers, he's always been very low. He's been behind [Donald] Trump for most of the year, he's been in the 40s, and this is after months of campaign advertising and about nine months of campaigning personally.

"There's just no evidence that voters really will even want to give the guy a chance, especially when they got a field of really impressive candidates."

http://www.guy-liberal-media-bias/2015/11/02/id/700225/#ixzz3qSSmqRzI


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on November 03, 2015, 12:52:35 PM
12 page cryfest over "liberal" media bias from the same person says that "conservative media" has all the viewers and no one even watches or listens to the liberal media sources


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: whork on November 03, 2015, 02:00:19 PM
12 page cryfest over "liberal" media bias from the same person says that "conservative media" has all the viewers and no one even watches or listens to the liberal media sources

Its a Paradox.

But a Paradox is science. And Bum, as the good republican he is, doesnt believe in science and therefore doesnt believe in paradoxes.

So maybe he is just a hypocrite.





Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on November 03, 2015, 03:23:55 PM
fox rules all media.
except the mainstream media is evil.

how can you be #1 in a field yet your rallying cry is how you will defeat this field?

it's like McDonalds' entire ad campaign being "fast food is poison!"


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2015, 04:38:27 PM
The MSM still giving the president cover.  Shameful.

NYT Flushes Obama’s Damning ‘Cable TV’ Admission From Defensive San Bernardino Story
By Clay Waters
December 18, 2015

President Obama spoke off the record to news columnists, in a defensive response to Republican criticism that he has seemed passive and uninterested in the face of Islamic terrorist attacks and threats against the United States. In a news story about the meeting New York Times reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, who weren’t present, revealed this damning admission from the president:

In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments.

But that sentence was deleted from the updated version that appeared in Friday’s print edition. Mediaite’s Alex Griswold took us through the affair:

The President of the United States failed to understand that Americans were anxious after two major terrorist attacks in Western cities because he doesn’t watch TV? It’s an admission that opponents are sure to use to make the president seem out-of-touch at best, and unconcerned about a serious threat at worst.

Many politicos and journalists immediately saw the newsworthiness of the statement, especially after CNN’s Brian Stelter drew attention to it.

But just as the quote was beginning to make the rounds, it disappeared entirely from the the Times piece, without a correction or any indication that the piece had been updated.

Sean Davis at The Federalist added:

The unexplained deletion of that major passage wasn’t the only significant change made to the story since it was first published. New York Times editors also changed the story’s headline four separate times, according to Newsdiffs.org. Each headline revision either put Obama in a better light or put the GOP in a worse one.

The original headline when the story was first published was “Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center.” Less than two hours later, the headline was “Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety.” Then the headline was changed to “Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.” Two hours later, the headline was once again revised to “Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks.” The most recent headline revision, which accompanied the deletion of the passage where Obama admitted he didn’t understand the American public’s anxiety about terrorism, now reads, “Assailed by G.O.P., Obama Defends His Response To Terror Attacks.”

The current version of Baker and Harris’s story now has this paraphrase in paragraph four, with Obama in apologetic mode but without the damning bit about not watching “cable television”:

But Mr. Obama said he now realizes that he was slow to respond to public fears after terrorist attacks in Paris and California, acknowledging that his low-key approach led Americans to worry that he was not doing enough to keep the country safe. He has engaged in a blitz of public events lately to try to convince them otherwise, including a visit on Thursday to the National Counterterrorism Center.

The session with columnists was off the record, but the president’s remarks were recounted on Thursday by several people in the room after one of the writers, David Ignatius of The Washington Post, described some of the president’s thinking in a column without attributing it directly to Mr. Obama.

Ignatius’s column in the Post also referenced Obama’s cable admission, though in a rather snobby fashion: “Obama seems to have realized that he was slow to respond to public fear after the jihadist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif . His low-decibel approach led the public to worry he wasn’t doing enough to keep the country safe. Obama, not a cable television fan, apparently didn’t realize the state of anxiety.”

Back to the New York Times’ story, now cleansed of any reference to “cable television”:

Mr. Obama made his comments during a nearly two-hour meeting with the columnists and other opinion writers on Tuesday afternoon, about 10 in all, just hours before the debate and when his frustration with Republican criticism was evident. He appeared especially exasperated with Mr. Trump, who has called for a temporary ban on Muslims’ entering the United States. Mr. Obama said that Mr. Trump’s comments on Muslims did not make him an outlier in the presidential field, but instead represented the culmination of many years of a Republican strategy of division and fear mongering.

The people in the room who described the president’s comments asked for anonymity because of the ground rules of the meeting. Among those attending the session in the Roosevelt Room of the White House were an opinion columnist and an editorial writer for The New York Times, but they were not sources for this article.

Mr. Obama is struggling to fashion a message that reassures Americans that he is serious about battling the threat of the Islamic State while also avoiding what he considers the alarmism voiced by some Republican presidential candidates. Polls suggest that many Americans believe he is not taking the threat from the Islamic State seriously enough.

NYT reporter Baker (who in 2012 portrayed Obama on the front page as a passive, luckless victim of world events) and Harris concluded by turning the issue of Islamic terror into just the latest scurrilous attacks by Republicans against Obama:

He also expressed pique at Republicans. For all of the attention paid to Mr. Trump, he said, the ideas that the Republican candidates are promoting have been part of a longer-term strategy of the party. And they have been successful to a point, Mr. Obama added, noting that many Americans believe he is a Muslim who was not born in the United States.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2015/12/18/nyt-flushes-obamas-damning-cable-television-admission-defensive-san#sthash.XJdho0PG.dpuf


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 24, 2015, 11:09:53 AM
Vastly different approach to the depiction of the Cruz little girls as monkeys.  I wonder if the Washington Post will fire the columnist?  Here is what happened when a Hill columnist directed comments to the Obama girls.  

Hill staffer Elizabeth Lauten resigns after remarks about Obama daughters
By Jose A. DelReal and Ed O'Keefe
December 1, 2014   

Embattled Hill staffer Elizabeth Lauten has resigned amid a backlash over critical remarks she posted on Facebook Friday about President Obama’s daughters.

Lauten, communications director for Rep. Stephen Lee Fincher (R-Tenn.), came under fire over the weekend after posting derogatory remarks about Sasha and Malia Obama regarding their appearance at the president’s annual Turkey pardoning.

“Dear Sasha and Malia, I get you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re a part of the First Family, try showing a little class,” Lauten wrote. “Rise to the occasion. Act like being in the White House matters to you. Dress like you deserve respect, not a spot at a bar.”

Lauten confirmed her resignation to The Washington Post on Monday morning.

Several media outlets pointed out that the two girls, ages 16 and 13, appeared bored while their father spoke during Wednesday’s event. The exasperated looks on the pair’s faces were used to gently mock the annual turkey pardon on social media Wednesday and Thursday and drew wry headlines from publications such as USA Today and Gawker.

But Lauten’s comments struck a nerve among critics who accused her of going too far and turning the two girls into political targets. Her original post quickly went viral, inspiring blog posts and tweets condemning her choice of words. She issued an apology on Facebook hours after her initial post.

"When I first posted on Facebook I reacted to an article and I quickly judged the two young ladies in a way that I would never have wanted to be judged myself as a teenager," Lauten wrote Friday. "After many hours of prayer, talking to my parents, and re-reading my words online I can see more clearly just how hurtful my words were."

The president and first lady Michelle Obama have aggressively tried to shield the first daughters from the media spotlight during the family’s six years in the White House. The episode has sparked fresh conversation about the sensitive position the two girls are in as teenagers living in the White House.

While the tenor of Lauten’s comments have been widely condemned, top Republican operatives have also criticized the media’s response, suggesting the coverage has been motivated by political bias.

“Children, especially the first daughters, are off limits. While the comments were inappropriate and insensitive, the mainstream media's coverage of this story is appalling,” said Republican National Committee communications director Sean Spicer in a series of tweets Monday. “In over 20 years in politics I have never seen 1 of the countless inappropriate comments by Democrats ever covered to a faction [sic] of this.”

Baffling as the rant was, particularly coming from a communications director, this wasn't Lauten's first social media blunder. In August Lauten inadvertently posted a highly personal message on Fincher's official twitter account.

“God I love this song. And beach music. AND shagging #pandora,” said the tweet, which was deleted hours later. Lauten explained afterward that she had intended to post the message on her personal Facebook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/12/01/embattled-hill-staffer-elizabeth-lauten-reportedly-resigns-after-controversial-remarks/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: avxo on December 24, 2015, 11:43:58 AM
The cartoon was in poor taste... everyone says that the children of candidates should be off-limits (and they should be - moreso if they're young) but everyone tries to get a barb in.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 12, 2016, 09:15:23 AM
Blatant. 

This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants
J.K. Trotter
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--klpgJ6cF--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/nn3uclazztpjd9jpkpmk.png)

Hillary Clinton’s supporters often argue that mainstream political reporters are incapable of covering her positively—or even fairly. While it may be true that the political press doesn’t always write exactly what Clinton would like, emails recently obtained by Gawker offer a case study in how her prodigious and sophisticated press operation manipulates reporters into amplifying her desired message—in this case, down to the very word that The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder used to describe an important policy speech.

The emails in question, which were exchanged by Ambinder, then serving as The Atlantic’s politics editor, and Philippe Reines, Clinton’s notoriously combative spokesman and consigliere, turned up thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request we filed in 2012 (and which we are currently suing the State Department over). The same request previously revealed that Politico’s chief White House correspondent, Mike Allen, promised to deliver positive coverage of Chelsea Clinton, and, in a separate exchange, permitted Reines to ghost-write an item about the State Department for Politico’s Playbook newsletter. Ambinder’s emails with Reines demonstrate the same kind of transactional reporting, albeit to a much more legible degree: In them, you can see Reines “blackmailing” Ambinder into describing a Clinton speech as “muscular” in exchange for early access to the transcript. In other words, Ambinder outsourced his editorial judgment about the speech to a member of Clinton’s own staff.

On the morning of July 15, 2009, Ambinder sent Reines a blank email with the subject line, “Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?” His question concerned a speech Clinton planned to give later that day at the Washington, D.C. office of the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential think tank. Three minutes after Ambinder’s initial email, Reines replied with three words: “on two conditions.” After Ambinder responded with “ok,” Reines sent him a list of those conditions:

From: [Philippe Reines]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
To: Ambinder, Marc
Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

3 [conditions] actually

1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”

2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something

3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
One minute later, Ambinder responded:

From: Ambinder, Marc
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:07 AM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: RE: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?

got it
Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote later that day, under the headline “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Smart Power’ Breaks Through,” precisely followed Reines’ instructions:

When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.
Based on other emails released in the same batch we received, Ambinder’s warm feelings toward Clinton may have made him uniquely susceptible to Reines’ editing suggestions. On July 26, 2009, he wrote to Reines to congratulate his boss about her appearance on Meet the Press:

From: Ambinder, Marc
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:05 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: she kicked A

on MTP
On November 29, 2010, he sent along another congratulatory note, apparently in regard to a press conference Clinton had held that day to address the publication of thousands of State Department cables by WikiLeaks:

From: Ambinder, Marc
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 12:05 PM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: This is an awesome presser...

She is PITCH f#$*& PERFECT on this stuff.
The emails quoted above are particularly remarkable given Ambinder’s understanding of Clinton’s press strategy, as he articulated in a column for The Week last year. Predicting how Clinton’s widely documented aversion to reporters would play out in the 2016 presidential race, Ambinder wrote, “The Clinton campaign will use the press instrumentally. ... Good news for us, though: The reporters covering Clinton are going to find ways to draw her out anyway, because they’re really good, they’ll give her no quarter, and they’ll provide a good source of accountability tension [sic] until Walker (or whomever) emerges from the maelstrom.”

When asked for comment about his correspondence with Reines, Ambinder wrote in an email to Gawker, “I don’t remember much about anything, but I do remember once writing about how powerful FOIA is, especially as a mechanism to hold everyone in power, even journalists, accountable.” When asked to elaborate, he followed up with a longer message:

Philippe and I generally spoke on the phone and followed up by email. The exchange is probably at best an incomplete record of what went down. That said, the transactional nature of such interactions always gave me the willies.... Since I can’t remember the exact exchange I can’t really muster up a defense of the art, and frankly, I don’t really want to. I will say this: whatever happened here reflects my own decisions, and no one else’s.
In a subsequent phone exchange, Ambinder added:

It made me uncomfortable then, and it makes me uncomfortable today. And when I look at that email record, it is a reminder to me of why I moved away from all that. The Atlantic, to their credit, never pushed me to do that, to turn into a scoop factory. In the fullness of time, any journalist or writer who is confronted by the prospect, or gets in the situation where their journalism begins to feel transactional, should listen to their gut feeling and push away from that.

Being scrupulous at all times will not help you get all the scoops, but it will help you sleep at night. At no point at The Atlantic did I ever feel the pressure to make transactional journalism the norm.

Ambinder emphasized that the emails did not capture the totality of his communication with Reines, and said they were not indicative of his normal reporting techniques. When asked if the exchange was typical of the magazine’s reporting and editing process, a spokesperson for The Atlantic told Gawker: “No, this is not typical, and it goes against our standards.”

Reines didn’t respond when we asked if he engaged in similar transactions with other reporters covering the State Department. But on the day of his trade with Ambinder, at least one other journalist used Reines’ preferred adjective—“muscular”—to describe the speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. That reporter was none other than Mike Allen of Politico:

(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--X6n9qQbG--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/qrqkl9u4wyhlidcwq5an.png)
This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants

Allen even took note of the seating arrangement, just as Reines had requested of Ambinder:

A look at the CFR’s guest seating chart shows that arrayed in the front row will be top members of her team — the envoys she has called her “force multipliers”: Richard Holbrooke, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross, Philip Goldberg and Stephen Bosworth.

We can’t say for sure that Reines implored Allen to describe Clinton’s speech as “muscular” and emphasize where particular audience members were seated, but that kind of request would hardly be out of the ordinary. As we noted above, Allen allowed Reines to ghost-write an item for his Playbook newsletter; and, in the course of attempting to secure an interview with Chelsea Clinton, told Reines he was prepared to submit interview questions to Clinton’s team in advance for their approval.

Allen referred our questions to Politico’s spokesperson, who told Gawker via email: “Mike’s preview of this speech includes multiple ‘aides say’ qualifiers and is transparent in that it’s based on ‘prepared remarks’ and a ‘seating chart.’” (If Allen and Reines did indeed email about Clinton’s speech, however, we expect to receive a copy of their correspondence in a subsequent batch as the State Department continues to process our request.)

In any case, Reines’ strategy worked out nicely. For an article aggregating Allen’s piece, New York magazine quoted his use of “muscular” in the headline, and even commissioned an illustration of Clinton wearing the arms of a body builder.

The most recent batch of emails revealed another notable sausage-making exchange between Reines and a prominent reporter. In several emails sent in early September 2009, Mark Halperin—then at Time, now at Bloomberg News—appears to have arranged for a computer pre-configured with Microsoft’s Outlook calendaring software to be delivered to Reines’ house in Washington, D.C., so that Reines would be able to open particular documents in his possession, including Hillary Clinton’s travel schedules during the 2008 presidential campaign, and relay their contents to Halperin. In one email, the reporter writes to Reines:

the computer is ready to be delivered. I could have it there in 20-25 minutes

It has a newly downloaded version of Outlook, which has not been installed, because it has to be done linked to an email. I am hoping/assuming you can do that.

Is now a good time to have it brought over? Should it be left with a doorman or left upstairs?

It’s unclear from the exchange whether Reines actually provided any documents to Halperin or simply relayed the information therein. But perhaps the more interesting aspect of Reines and Halperin’s correspondence is that, the day after Halperin had the computer delivered, Reines began asking Halperin whether he and his co-author John Heilemann would include him in Game Change, the book-turned-movie they were writing about the 2008 campaign: “Do I have a big enough role to warrant a role in the movie, a la Jeremy Bash in Recount?” To which Halperin responds: “Well, the first response is, do you want that?” The thread continued:

Reines: “Yes, I want to be an amalgam like he was!”

Halperin: “ok then. the book doesn’t do amalgams. but the movie just might. let me puzzle on that.”

Reines: “There’s gotta be a scene where I hand the phone to CVC: That’s good TV.”

Halperin: “agreed, although hard to get your name in the film in said scene.”

Reines: “True”

Halperin: “we could make you the kennedy character or the mills character. going all postal on the wednesday call.”
In the end, Reines rated only two mentions in the finished book—on pages 46-47 and page 52 in the paperback—and none in the movie. (Neither Reines nor Halperin responded to a request for comment.)

Below, you’ll find highlights from the last two rounds of Reines emails we received from the State Department’s FOIA office. (The release from December 31 consisted of only 211 pages, so we consolidated it with the January release.) You can read and search through the rest of the emails on DocumentCloud.

Page 58 — Reines emails Andy Alexander, then the ombudsman of The Washington Post, to complain about sexism in Howard Kurtz’s profile of Chuck Todd “What does it say when a paper’s ombudsman takes a paper to task for sexist writing and then only days later features a piece laced with so much blatant sexism that it’s laughable (profile of Chuck Todd)?”

Page 75 — After asking, on page 72, for quotes about Politico’s newsroom culture, Jeremy Peters of The New York Times praises Reines’ response (“If a lightbulb is out that’s a story”): “That’s brilliant. You should totally let me use that on the record. … That’s great. Anything else you can recall like that—their greatest hits of non-news—would be great.”

Page 79 — Reines appears to flirt with a Miami-based media personality named Tara Gilani: “How did I look in HD?” To which Gilani responds: “You look/are the same: cocky, smart ass. Don’t take it as a compliment—it’s not.” To which Reines responds: “Oh yeah it is.”

Pages 110 through 111 — Greta van Susteren emails Reines a photo of Reines laughing with the subject line: “what is so funny?”

Page 151 — Van Susteren complains to Reines about a grudge she perceives Bill Clinton to be holding against her:

I think it weird — if bill clinton is holding a grudge against me that is really weird I think I may be the only one in media who has never been smarmy towards him or repeated stuff that I have heard from him or hugh or dorothy etc which I know was said off the record because they feel comfortable talking in front of me. I have always carefully drawn the line with the clintons (and others) because I hate the media trying to destroy. I admire people in public service and never do anything rotten to people in govt so it is stunning that bill clinton would hold a grudge against me. I will still be one hundred percent fair with him (bill richardson did something really dirty to me and I have never retaliated — I have continued to do my job fair) but I am curious if it is clinton or matt [Bill Clinton spokesperson Matt McKenna] thinking he is clinton and creating problems.

Pages 227 and 250 — New York Times reporter David Kirkpatrick appears to engage in—or deny engaging in—some sort of quote approval protocol with Philippe Reines: “I can’t imagine I imagined a quote approval since I cleared them all, so as I said, I’m puzzled.”

Page 518 through 519 — These pages contain an unusually large redaction, apparently based upon a personal privacy exemption, that appears to concern something Reines ate while aboard a State Department aircraft.

Page 551 — Reines asks ABC News reporter Dana Hughes to “add a line taking a small poke at ‘BuzzFeed and others’ for getting this wrong” to a story Hughes was writing about reports that a swarm of bees had attacked Hillary Clinton and her State Department entourage on a diplomatic trip to Malawi. Reines adds that he would be “very appreciative” of the favor. According to the finished story, Hughes appears to have complied with Reines’ request.

Page 667 — Kimberly Dozier, then at the Associated Press (and now at The Daily Beast), appears to allude an interaction she had with Michael Hastings in an email to Reines: “I just read the exchange you had with another member of the press, who shall remain nameless in this email. I’ll tell you my run-in with the same person, over a drink sometime, if I run into you at State Dept. event.”

Page 740 — Tina Brown emails Reines about an upcoming forum called “The Hero Summit,” scheduled for November 14-15, 2012 and headlined by David Petraeus. However Petraeus does not appear to have attended the event, given that he resigned several days prior to it over his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell.

Page 748 — Here you can find the official copy of Reines’ infamous email exchange with Michael Hastings.

Pages 830 through 832 — Reines emails with Maureen Dowd and her research assistant, and claims that he was fired that last time he helped Maureen Dowd with a column.

Pages 971 through 980 — The State Department redacted the entirety of what appears to be ten pages of email correspondence between Reines and Carolyn Greenspan Rosen, a producer at Entertainment Tonight. The pages are marked with the exemption code “B6,” which is used to justify withhold information that, if disclosed, “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

Page 1030 — Greta van Susteren emails Reines: “How come you ignore my emails?”

Page 1082 — Anne Kornblut of The Washington Post emails Reines: “I know you’re on the other side of the earth, but if you get bored in a meeting, want to send me some examples of politico’s most flagrant stupidity or errors?”

Page 1155 — Tara Palmeri of the New York Post writes to Reines about Hillary Clinton’s plans to endorse a candidate in the 2013 New York City mayoral race: “I wanted to reach out to you about Hillary’s status on Weiner. Last time we chatted you said she would likely endorse him for Mayor of New York over Bill de Blasio. In light of recent events, will Hillary still endorse Weiner for Mayor?” To which Reines responds (after asking Palmeri to identify him as a “friend”): “Her support of him remains unchanged.”

http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-coverage-she-wants-1758019058


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 17, 2016, 09:34:50 AM
The New York Times’ empty Trump exposé
By Post Editorial Board
May 16, 2016

It didn’t take long at all for that New York Times front-page “exposé” of Donald Trump’s treatment of women to start falling apart.

The Sunday article opened with a 25-year-old anecdote about Rowanne Brewer Lane. By Monday, she was ripping the Times for distorting what she’d said.

“He never made me feel like I was being demeaned in any way,” Lane told Fox News. “He never offended me in any way. He was very gracious.”

Yet the Times’ Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey described the former model’s first meeting with Trump, during which he offered her the use of a swimsuit at his Florida estate, as “debasing” — a word she never used — and somehow a window on his “private treatment” of women.

Lane says the Times reporters told her “several times . . . that it would not be a hit piece.” But that’s exactly what it was.

A microscopic search of Trump’s private life over decades revealed that he likes beautiful women. Not much to set against his strong record of promoting women in an industry that’s still male-dominated.

Far, far worse has been said for more than two decades about Bill Clinton. But the Times has never seemed much interested in his private life or character. Especially not when he was running for president.

But the self-styled paper of record will bend over backward to smear a Republican candidate.

In 2008, just days after locking up the GOP nomination, John McCain got hit by a 3,200-word Times story suggesting he may have had an “inappropriate relationship” with a female lobbyist.

Both parties denied it — and the Times found no one to confirm that anything untoward had happened. Later, the paper’s public editor said flat-out that the Times was “wrong” and owed its readers “more proof” than it was “able to provide.”

So honest readers will see this latest exposé for what it is: a blatantly partisan — and blatantly unfair — hit job.

By the way, the Times’ star witness, the “debased” Rowanne Brewer Lane? She says she’s voting for Trump.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/16/the-new-york-times-empty-trump-expose/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 20, 2016, 01:33:54 PM
Nets Keep Hammering Melania Trump, Went Easy on Obama Plagiarism in ’08
By Rich Noyes and Mike Ciandella | July 20, 2016

It’s been a day and a half since the establishment liberal media sank their jaws into the Melania Trump “plagiarism” story, and they are showing few signs of letting go, with heavy coverage on the broadcast networks’ Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning news shows.

Eight years ago, however, when a similar flap threatened then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, the broadcast networks generated much less coverage — just 14 minutes of airtime, or barely one-fourth what they’ve churned out this week.

From Tuesday morning through Wednesday morning, the broadcast morning and evening news shows have spent 59 minutes, 25 seconds covering the flap over similarities in Melania Trump’s speech on Monday vs. one given by Michelle Obama at the 2008 Democratic convention.

CBS has spent the most time on this (25 minutes, 52 seconds), followed by NBC (17 minutes, 6 seconds) and ABC (16 minutes, 27 seconds). ABC’s Jon Karl padded his report this morning by relaying social media mockery of Mrs. Trump: “The hashtag #FamousMelaniaTrumpQuotes trending online, joking about Melania making up other famous phrases like ‘you can’t handle the truth,’ ‘Luke, I am your father,’ and ‘I have a dream.’”

Over on NBC’s Today, correspondent Hallie Jackson chose a geekier approach, running both speeches through an online word analyzer to document the overlap: “The popular plagiarism site TurnItIn.com found that six percent of Trump’s entire speech matched the First Lady’s eight years ago. Word for word, the site found, Trump used 23 of the same words in a row that Obama did.”

Melania Trump, of course, is not the candidate herself, nor is she regarded as a master speechmaker. But that’s exactly how journalists saw Barack Obama in 2008, when he was caught recycling rhetoric from then-Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, a political ally.

“Obama has made much of his ability to inspire, that words can truly matter in trying to unite a nation,” ABC anchor Charles Gibson intoned on the February 18, 2008 edition of World News. “But now it turns out some of the words that he uses are not his own.”

As with Mrs. Trump and Mrs. Obama, all three networks ran clips of Obama’s February 16, 2008 speech alongside clips from Patrick’s October 15, 2006 speech using identical language to argue that inspiring rhetoric matters: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal — just words. We have nothing to fear but fear itself — just words.”

The first network coverage of Obama’s evident plagiarism appeared on Monday, February 18, 2008. Over the next day and a half, CBS produced only 2 minutes, 58 seconds of coverage, or less than one-eighth their total coverage of the Melania Trump flap.

NBC offered a nearly-identical amount of coverage — three minutes, exactly. The February 19, 2008 Today show included a long interview co-host Matt Lauer had conducted with Obama the day before, at the height of the controversy, but Lauer never asked Obama about his plagiarism.

ABC offered the most coverage, but also did the most to excuse Obama’s conduct. “Politicians steal slogans more often than comedians steal jokes,” correspondent David Wright argued on the February 18 World News.

The next morning, ABC’s Good Morning America hosted Governor Patrick for a three-and-a-half minute interview to say how delighted he was that Obama was borrowing his language. “Barack Obama’s candidacy is not only about words, it’s about really great ideas,” Patrick enthused. “I think that is the tremendous power of Barack Obama, and I’m neither surprised nor troubled that he used the words that I asked him to use of my own.”

The questions about Melania Trump’s speech are legitimate and deserve coverage, but the networks have blown this all out of proportion. If suspected plagiarism by an actual presidential candidate deserves only 14 minutes of coverage, then how does the same alleged offense by a candidate’s wife merit four times as much journalistic scrutiny?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2016/07/20/nets-keep-hammering-melania-trump-went-easy-obama-plagiarism-08


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 25, 2016, 04:28:30 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/politico-dnc-ken-vogel_us_57951b65e4b02d5d5ed1f8e2


Boom   

Pollutico busted


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 25, 2016, 04:29:55 AM
MEDIA
Politico Admits ‘Mistake’ In Sending DNC An Article In Advance
No substantive changes were made to the piece, though the arrangement has prompted criticism from the RNC and prominent conservatives.
 07/24/2016 05:25 pm 17:25:27
Michael Calderone 
Senior Media Reporter, The Huffington Post

MSNBC
Politico says it was a mistake for reporter Ken Vogel to have sent the DNC an article in advance.
NEW YORK ― Politico acknowledged Sunday that it was a “mistake” for one of its top reporters to send the Democratic National Committee an advance copy of an article while emphasizing there were no substantive changes made to the piece prior to publication.

A May 2 article by Politico’s Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf ― “Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties” ― has come under scrutiny since WikiLeaks published over 19,000 internal DNC emails on Friday.

In an April 29 email thread, DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach shared Vogel’s detailed questions with others working to coordinate a response to what would be an unflattering story about fundraising efforts. Paustenbach also spoke to the Clinton campaign that day in preparing the DNC’s pushback, according to the emails.

On April 30, Paustenbach told DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda that he’d received the story in advance. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” he wrote. “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”


WIKILEAKS
Sharing articles with sources in advance is generally frowned upon in newsrooms.
Journalists are expected to ask questions of those they write about prior to publication, but sharing entire stories in advance is generally discouraged in newsrooms.

On Sunday, Politico spokesman Brad Dayspring told The Huffington Post in an email that sharing stories with sources isn’t standard practice.

“Politico’s policy is to not share editorial content pre-publication except as approved by editors,” Dayspring wrote. “In this case the reporter was attempting to check some very technical language and figures involving the DNC’s joint fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign. Checking the relevant passages for accuracy was responsible and consistent with our standards; Sharing the full piece was a mistake and not consistent with our policies. There were no substantive changes to the piece and in fact the final story was blasted out by the both RNC and the Sanders campaign, and prompted Politifact to revise its rating on the issue in question.”

Vogel, Politico’s chief investigative reporter and author of the 2014 book Big Money, is regarded as one of the top journalists on the politics and money beat. He’s reported critically on fundraising across party lines and the article in question wasn’t one the DNC or the Hillary Clinton campaign would have liked to see in print. Vogel and Arnsdorf reported that only 1 percent of $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund ― a group comprised of Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and 32 state party committees ― had gone to state parties.

Two days later, Politifact revised its rating on a claim from actor and Clinton supporter George Clooney that “the overwhelming amount” of money raised at a Clinton fundraiser would go to down-ballot Democrats. In light of Politico’s reporting, the fact-checking organization changed its assessment from “Mostly True” to “Half True.”

As Vogel and Arnsdorf wrote at the time, allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were concerned with the joint fundraising arrangement. “They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House,” they wrote.

The WikiLeaks trove, more broadly, has reinforced long-running perceptions among Sanders supporters that the DNC was assisting the Clinton campaign during the Democratic primary. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced her resignation Sunday in response to the fallout from the leak.

Though the Politico story wasn’t positive toward the DNC, the courtesy Vogel extended to the party has been seized upon as evidence of liberal media bias by some conservatives media figures, such as radio hosts Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin and Republican pollster Frank Luntz.

 Follow
 Frank Luntz ✔ @FrankLuntz
Dear Media: If you're wondering why conservative Americans don't trust you, please see @Politico reporter @KenVogel. https://twitter.com/zackbrownca/status/756542939791253504 …
2:27 PM - 22 Jul 2016
  1,255 1,255 Retweets   1,023 1,023 likes
The Republican National Committee, too, has turned a spotlight on leaked emails involving Politico.

On Saturday, The Republican National Committee blasted a Business Insider story on Vogel’s emails to its press mailing list and communications director Sean Spicer charged that the reporter allowed the Democrats “to edit” his stories in advance.

Disclosure: The reporter worked with Vogel at Politico from November 2007 to March 2010.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on July 25, 2016, 06:57:39 AM
by NEIL W. MCCABE24 Jul 2016Washington2489
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

email address
SUBMIT
The tight relationship between The Washington Post and the Democratic National Committee was borne out in emails discovered in the 20,000-deep email trove from the DNC posted on WikiLeaks.
In an April 26 email to Mark Paustenbach, the DNC’s deputy communications director, the paper’s White House Bureau Chief Juliet Eilperin wrote:

Subject: just FYI, the story is running on A1 tomorrow
Dear Mark,
I think you all will be totally fine with it. Thanks again for all your help.
Best, Juliet

VIDEO: OBAMA ON DEMOCRATIC RACE: LET THE PROCESS PLAY ITSELF OUT

The article was a review of President Barack Obama’s stewardship of the Democratic Party — “Obama, who once stood as party outsider, now works to strengthen Democrats” — written by Eilperin.

Eilperin (pictured) told Breitbart News: “As with most reporters, I regularly contact officials at the DNC, RNC, and political offices for information. The context of the email was that I honored the conditions of our discussions. The story speaks for itself.”

Walter Garcia, who is the party’s press secretary for its Western Region, weighed in on the article after it was published: “Not sure if you’ve already seen it, but flagging this article for you guys. Overall, not too bad for us.”

Garcia pointed out where in the article the DNC’s messaging was reflected in Eilperin final draft — particularly that the president’s own private political machine “Organizing for Action,” which was once “Obama for America.”

Eilperin wrote:

Organizing for Action (OFA), the nonprofit group that grew out of Obama’s campaign operation, has continued to compete with the Democratic National Committee for Democratic dollars — first as a parallel organization within the DNC and then as a separate entity. In the first six months of 2013, the DNC raised $30.8 million, while OFA raised $13 million. And this was at a time when the DNC was carrying more than $18 million in debt.

Garcia also cited a conversation Eilperin related: “During a 2010 gathering of Democratic governors in Washington, according to multiple attendees, one governor asked a senior presidential political adviser, ‘Will the OFA please join the Democratic Party?'”

Apparently, Eilperin had been working with the Paustenbach, because when he forwarded the email to the DNC’s Director of Communications Luis Miranda, Miranda replied: “Yup. Thanks to you and walker for connecting Roberta. I think her line was helpful.”

The quote Mirada appreciated was this one: “Close cooperation has taken time; OFA gave the DNC limited access to its list of supporters starting in 2013, but it turned over the entire list only in August 2015. Now, according to Nevada Democratic Party chair Roberta Lange, ‘That voter file is used by everyone in our state.'”

Certainly, the DNC appreciates it anytime there is close cooperation.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 25, 2016, 06:07:35 PM
'60 Minutes' Omitted Clinton's Answers on DNC Stifling Sanders
By Mark Swanson   |   Monday, 25 Jul 2016

The CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" aired a two-part interview with Hillary Clinton and new running mate Tim Kaine on Sunday night, but omitted a key segment about email leaks that showed Democratic National Committee members interfering with Bernie Sanders' run for the nomination.

CBS elected, instead, to play that segment on "Overtime," its digital-only product with millions of fewer eyeballs.

Interviewer Scott Pelley, also the CBS Evening News anchor, asked Clinton three questions about officials within the DNC trying to prop up Clinton while undermining Sanders' campaign, and Clinton gave three versions of "I don't know" anything.

Clinton did muster up criticism of the DNC's chief financial officer, revealed in the email leaks that came out, trying to make some headway in southern states by getting a question posed to Sanders about his religious beliefs — Jewish or atheist?

"I am adamantly opposed to anyone bringing religion into our political process," Clinton told Pelley. "The Constitution says no religious tests so that is just absolutely wrong and unacceptable."

The email leaks and what they contained led to DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to immediately announce her resignation.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/60-minutes-hillary-clinton-tim-kaine-bernie-sanders/2016/07/25/id/740373/#ixzz4FTbTJeZD


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on July 25, 2016, 06:21:16 PM
 ::)  ::)  ::)

I can't stand when CBS plays their stupid, lying tag-lines for the CBS news.

Because the reality of it speaks for itself.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 01, 2016, 10:11:03 AM
Condemning Republicans, Cheering Democrats: The Media’s Biased 2016 Convention Coverage
By Rich Noyes | July 29, 2016 |

With both the Republican and Democratic conventions now concluded, it’s time to judge the news media on how fairly they covered the two parties. Media Research Center analysts looked at various aspects of coverage, all of which demonstrate that journalists obviously favored the Democratic gathering.

By a 12-to-1 margin, journalists spent far more time deriding the Republican convention for its negativity, even as their reactions to Democratic speakers were consistently positive and often enthusiastic. Cable news had its own unique biases: MSNBC carved out time on each night of the GOP convention for interviews with top Democratic officials, but — despite promises to the contrary — aired no such interviews with Republicans during the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.

Here are details of our research evaluating the convention coverage, with special thanks to MRC analysts Matthew Balan, Mike Ciandella, Nicholas Fondacaro, Curtis Houck and Scott Whitlock.

■ Double standard on convention videos: During the Republican convention, CNN’s primetime (8pm to midnight, ET) coverage included just three RNC-produced videos totalling a bit more than 14 minutes of airtime: a non-partisan tribute to the Apollo 11 mission; a video narrated by Lynne Patton telling how she was helped by the Trump family; and the six-minute Thursday night biography of Donald Trump shown in advance of his acceptance speech. CNN skipped videos on important topics such as the Benghazi attack and the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scandal, instead airing journalist panel discussions.

But during the Democratic convention, CNN chose to air 18 of the Democrats’ videos, six times more party videos than they aired during the GOP convention. Included in those that made the cut on CNN: two “Funny or Die” videos mocking Donald Trump’s policies, and several “Trump In His Own Words” videos criticizing the GOP candidate’s controversial statements. In addition, CNN showed the party-produced videos introducing speakers including Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, President Obama, and the nearly 12-minute video for Hillary Clinton that aired on the final night of the convention.

The total airtime for Democratic videos shown during CNN’s primetime coverage: 62 minutes, or more than four times the 14 minutes of airtime given to Republican videos during the same time slot the prior week.

■ Double standard on giving free airtime to the opposition: During the first night of the Republican convention, CBS’s 10pm ET primetime coverage included a four-minute long segment of an interview of Hillary Clinton, during which Rose invited Clinton to bash her Republican opponent, asking if Donald Trump was “the most dangerous man ever to run for President of the United States?”

But during their primetime coverage of the Democratic convention, CBS included no interviews with Republicans so they could bash Hillary Clinton.

Similarly, MSNBC’s primetime coverage (8pm to midnight ET) of the GOP convention included five interviews with elected Democrats: Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH) on Monday, July 18; Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Tuesday, July 19; Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on Wednesday, July 20; and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) on Thursday, July 21.

None of the Democratic interlopers missed a chance to take shots at the GOP. Schiff was brought on board a few minutes after Pat Smith spoke about the loss of her son in Benghazi. “We’ve never politicized a tragedy like this,” Schiff claimed, “and I just think it really is unfortunate to bring a grieving woman before the convention this way.”

Later in the week, Senator McCaskill condemned the GOP program as “very dark and angry, and mostly fact-free,” points echoed the next day by Senator Franken, who blasted the convention as “very ugly.”

Setting up his interview with Representative Ryan, anchor Brian Williams explained that “we like to bring in the other side, as in fairness we’ll be doing when it’s the Democrats’ turn.” But that wasn’t true: during all four nights of the Democratic convention, MSNBC’s 8pm to midnight coverage included absolutely no interviews with any Republicans.


■ Double standard on complaining about negative rhetoric: During the first two days of the Democratic convention, various speakers called Donald Trump a con man, a fraud, a bigot, and a racist; someone who “cheats students, cheats investors, cheats workers,” who “rejects science” and would take America “back to the dark days when women died in back alleys.” Trump’s policies and rhetoric was described as “cruel,” “frightening,” “deceitful,” “deeply disturbing” and “ugly.” He was someone who promoted “racial hatred,” who had “hate in their heart,” and was “making America hate again.”

But while the media routinely attacked the Republicans during the GOP convention for negative attacks on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ attacks on Trump were given a pass. MRC studied ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC’s coverage from 9pm to midnight during the first two nights of each convention. During the GOP convention, journalists scolded the Republicans for negativity 63 times; for the same time period during the Democratic convention, viewers heard only five such comments from reporters, a more than 12-to-1 disparity.

A few examples: CBS’s Bob Schieffer on July 19 said Clinton had been “accused of everything from a ‘who’d a thought it’ to the diphtheria epidemic.” On NBC, Tom Brokaw said the convention was trying to “work up a big hate for Hillary.” On MSNBC, Chris Matthews called the convention a “festival of hating Hillary tonight, this brewing up of almost a witch-like ritual tonight,” adding the words “bloodthirsty” and “blood curdling” to describe the delegates’ reaction to Chris Christie’s speech. [See video compilation below for many more examples.]

During the Democratic convention, the references to negativity were far fewer and much milder. CNN’s Gloria Borger on July 25 pointed out that speakers were “belittling and making fun of Donald Trump a lot tonight.” On MSNBC the next night, regular panelist Steve Schmidt, a former GOP campaign consultant, said there had been “real tough blows tonight on Donald Trump,” for the purpose of “the destruction of Donald Trump’s character.”

Tell the Truth 2016

■ Gushing over Democratic speeches while panning the GOP: In addition to the supposed negativity of the overall program, journalists scorned the individual speeches delivered at the GOP convention, especially nominee Donald Trump. CBS’s Scott Pelley said Trump was “more vengeful than hopeful,” while ABC’s Terry Moran called it “more of a harangue than a speech.” NBC’s Tom Brokaw thought some viewers “are going to see someone they will only think of as a demagogue of some kind.”

Thursday’s reactions to Hillary Clinton’s address, while unenthusiastic, included none of the criticism aimed at Trump. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie said Clinton’s was “a do-no harm speech,” while her colleague Chuck Todd thought it “was a grinder” of an address. CNN’s Gloria Borger admitted “it was not an oratorical masterpiece” but called Clinton’s speech “sturdy” and “steely.” Over on CBS, co-anchor Norah O’Donnell touted Clinton for “stressing her steadiness, her readiness, her experience and her empathy.”

Up until Clinton’s speech, the media had been positively swooning over the Democratic speakers. On Monday, CNN’s Jake Tapper was excited by New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, calling his speech “a crowd pleaser like no speech I’ve seen at a convention since a young state senator Barack Obama in 2004.”

Minutes later on ABC, anchor George Stephanopoulos gushed over First Lady Michelle Obama: “Polished, passionate and personal,” while on MSNBC, Joy Reid called the First Lady’s speech “magnificent, exquisite...[and] splendid.”

Hardball host Chris Matthews loved all of it: “I just thought the whole night was a slugger’s row of wonderful sentiments.”

As the week wore on, none of the major Democrats earned a bad review. On Tuesday night, CBS’s Gayle King found Bill Clinton’s speech on behalf of Hillary “heartwarming.” The next night, correspondents for NBC, CBS and ABC praised vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine for his “suburban dad” personality, whose “extraordinary” Spanish-speaking skills made for “a Spanish lesson down here.”

And, of course, President Obama sent thrills up journalists’ legs. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a President, save Lincoln, who is as great a speechwriter as this man,” NBC’s Andrea Mitchell oozed. “It was magnificent,” MSNBC’s Matthews tingled, “a wonderful farewell address.”

++++++

Every four years, the party conventions give the establishment news media a chance to provide even-handed coverage of the two parties. Once again, unfortunately, the networks have shown their obvious bias in favor of the liberals that rule the Democratic Party.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2016/07/29/condemning-republicans-cheering-democrats-medias-biased-2016


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 10, 2016, 12:01:51 PM
Trump frenzy proves media need Xanax
By  Todd Starnes 
Published August 10, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
The Mainstream Media and Democrats have gone bat-crap crazy over Donald Trump.

This time they’re accusing Mr. Trump of threatening to assassinate Mrs. Bill Clinton.

I mean it's full-blown, head-spinning, Linda Blair-projectile vomiting kind of crazy, folks.

So first - I want you to hear what Donald Trump actually said about the Second Amendment.

“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment," Trump started. "By the way, and if she gets to pick - if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although, the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Before Mr. Trump could say, “God bless America -- Thanks for coming,” - the Mainstream Media had interrupted regular programming with the emergency broadcast system.

Breathless anchors -- their faces ashen in sheer horror - held back tears as they delivered the breaking news.

CNN acquired the services of renowned political scientist Rob Reiner, known for his acclaimed role as Meathead in the 1970’s hit, “All in the Family.”

Mr. Reiner dutifully advanced the left-wing narrative that Trump was calling for his supporters to take out Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Senator Chris Murphy, (D-CT), also piled on – tweeting: “Don't treat this as a political misstep. It's an assassination threat, seriously upping the possibility of a national tragedy & crisis.”

Rolling Stone's posted this headline: “Trump's Assassination Dog Whistle Was Even Scarier Than You Think.” New York Magazine’s was just as bad, “Trump's Assassination 'Joke' Was Thinly Veiled Sedition.”

It was full-blown liberal media bias.

Last month, Sen. Elizabeth Warren told MSNBC that she wanted to make Trump “disappear.” Was that a threat? What exactly did the senator mean by wanting to make Trump disappear?

Where was the Mainstream Media outrage to such a nefarious suggestion? Where was the wall-to-wall speculation, smothered in righteous indignation?

There was none – nary a peep.

And the truth is there should not have been – because Warren was not suggesting she wanted someone to assassinate Trump and Trump was not suggesting someone should take out Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Maybe it’s a good time for the cable news networks to pull the plug on the breaking news banners, stop hyperventilating and take a Xanax.

Finally - here's a bit of friendly advice to the Trump Campaign - y'all need to knock off the nonsense.  Say what you mean to say -- and stop explaining what you said instead of what you meant to say in the first place.

Sweet mercy, America.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/08/10/trump-frenzy-proves-media-need-xanax.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 12, 2016, 09:40:19 AM
Missing Mateen: Top Newspapers Even WORSE Than TV In Hillary v. Trump Controversy Coverage
By Tim Graham | August 11, 2016

Our number-crunchers found the networks gave Trump’s “Second Amendment” crack about stopping Hillary-nominated judges drew five times as much air time as Hillary’s embarrassment when the father of mass-murdering Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen showed up behind her on TV at a Florida rally.

Guess what? The nation’s top newspapers were even worse in demonstrating a double standard on these two bad-news moments from the campaign trail in their Wednesday editions.

The New York Times printed a 1,287-word article at the top right of the front page headlined (all caps) “TRUMP SUGGESTS GUN OWNERS ACT AGAINST CLINTON: ALARM AT HIS REMARK.” Just to the left of that on top of the front page was an article headlined “G.O.P. Women Are Retreating From Nominee.” The Times also wrote a scathing staff editorial leading that page with the headline “Further Into the Muck With Mr. Trump.”

But the Times offered absolutely nothing in the print edition on Mr. Mateen, dismissing the story in a 440-word feature online by Matt Flegenheimer with the headline “Clinton Campaign Plays Down Appearance at Rally by Orlando Gunman’s Father."

The Washington Post wasn’t much better. Like the Times, it plopped the Trump story on top right of Page One, a 1,409-word story headlined “Trump decried for gun remark: Critics see his comments on 2nd Amendment as a threat against Clinton.” Also like the Times, its lead staff editorial piled on, with the headline “An ugly call to ‘Second Amendment people’: Mr. Trump seems to offer a veiled threat in comments about Mrs. Clinton and gun rights.”

So where was the story on Papa Mateen in the Post? There wasn’t a story. On the back page came an article by Anne Gearan headlined “Clinton prods GOP congressional leaders to take emergency action on Zika.” In the sixth paragraph of the Zika article, the Post offered a measly two sentences adding up to 54 words:

Separately, the Clinton campaign said it was unaware that Seddique Mateen, the father of the suspect in the June mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub, secured a prime seat at a Clinton rally on Monday in Kissimmee, near Orlando. Mateen told Florida television station WPTV that he had been "invited by the Democratic Party."

The Trump story carried over to the back page, where the Post reprinted the 41-word Trump 'Second Amendment people' quote in headline-size type, taking up about 24 column inches of space.

The Post’s free tabloid Express also showed the double standard. It published a 16-paragraph version of the regular front-page article on Trump, and only ran a 20-word “Verbatim” quote from Papa Mateen at the bottom of the same page (13). The quote was “Clinton is good for the United States, versus Donald Trump...I was invited by the Democratic Party. I’m a member.” Aligned next to the Trump story on page 13 was a five-paragraph story on how Hillary is spending more than $13 million in political ads on the Olympics broadcasts while Trump airs nothing.

USA Today isn’t exactly in the same territory. They offered a front-page story on Trump’s Second Amendment remarks, as well as a front-page story headlined “Never Trump Ranks Grow.”

There was also an article of some depth on the Mateen embarrassment...but not by a news reporter. It was a column on the editorial page by conservative "Instapundit" blogger/professor Glenn Reynolds.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2016/08/11/missing-mateen-top-newspapers-even-worse-tv-hillary-v-trump


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 15, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
The MSM will be in overdrive till November.

NYT story on Manafort's Russia ties omits reporting on Clinton's Moscow speech
Published August 15, 2016
FoxNews.com

The New York Times published an extensive report Monday examining Donald Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s work for a pro-Russian party in Ukraine – but despite pointing to it as a “rising issue” in the presidential campaign, glossed over its own past reporting on the Clintons’ Russian connections.

The latest article detailed ledgers purportedly showing more than $12 million earmarked for Manafort by the pro-Russian party. According to the Times, investigators claim they were part of an illicit off-the-books operation, though Manafort denies ever getting such payments.

The Times noted that Manafort’s “involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine” has been reported before – but said American relationships there have emerged as a “rising issue” in the presidential campaign.

Yet the article focused on Trump and Manafort’s ties, without harkening back to another extensive Times report in April 2015 on, among other details, a $500,000 payment to Bill Clinton for a controversial Moscow speech.

The payment came from “a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting” the stock of a company called Uranium One, which reportedly was taken over by the Russians between 2009 and 2013 – and had donor links to the Clinton Foundation.

According to the Times’ own reporting, among other donations, the company’s chairman used his family foundation to direct $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department also was among the agencies to sign off on the Russian takeover of what had been a Canadian company.

The report on the dealings, which Fox News also reported on at the time, was based in part on the findings of Peter Schweizer, author of the anti-Clinton book “Clinton Cash.”

The Clinton campaign at the time pushed back on any suggestion that Hillary Clinton took action to support foundation donor interests, calling the idea “utterly baseless.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/15/nyt-story-on-manaforts-russia-ties-omits-reporting-on-clintons-moscow-speech.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on August 24, 2016, 04:06:59 AM
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228



 >:(


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 29, 2016, 01:14:21 PM
BIAS ALERT: CNN scrubs 'Crooked' from Trump tweet
Published August 29, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
CNN ensured a Sunday night Donald Trump statement about Hillary Clinton wasn’t “crooked” – but that might be the entire problem for the news network.

A tweet from the Republican presidential candidate appeared to be edited and scrubbed of the word “crooked” when a graphic on Trump was shown Sunday night, Breitbart News reported. The only word omitted from the tweet was part of Trump’s infamous descriptor for his Democratic opponent, whom he almost unfailingly calls “Crooked Hillary.”

No other words were left out of the CNN graphic or anchor Jim Sciutto’s read of the tweet.

CNN appeared to edit the word "Crooked" from Donald Trump's tweet on Sunday.

Trump had originally written: “I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary and myself, should release detailed medical records. I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?”

Trump’s use of nicknames to describe his adversaries – Crazy Bernie, Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco, Low Energy Jeb, Goofy Elizabeth Warren – have been one of his most consistent traits during the 2016 cycle.

CNN and the Trump campaign did not immediately respond to emails from FoxNews.com.


Donald J. Trump
✔  ‎@realDonaldTrump  
I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary and myself, should release detailed medical records. I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?
1:24 PM - 28 Aug 2016

(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/08/29/bias-alert-cnn-scrubs-crooked-from-trump-tweet/_jcr_content/article-text/article-par-3/images/image.img.jpg/880/558/1472495711472.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/29/bias-alert-cnn-scrubs-crooked-from-trump-tweet.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on August 29, 2016, 01:15:45 PM
Some of us with minor scoliosis don't take too kindly to the use of a the word 'crooked'.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on August 29, 2016, 01:25:25 PM
It's so weak, anyway.  Maybe the "guys" in the media who spend all their time bending-over took offense.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on August 30, 2016, 04:26:06 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2uR-KqD8o

 :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 30, 2016, 09:10:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX2uR-KqD8o

 :D

lol.  Nice. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 05, 2016, 10:18:23 AM
Internet Goes Wild After People Find Out What's on Hero's T-Shirt Censored by Cable News Network
BY KYLE BECKER

A heroic man captured national attention for his action rescuing a baby from a hot car in New Jersey. But it was the way his interview on CNN-owned Headline News went down that has truly gone viral.

The man at the center of the story is Steve Eckel, a retired police officer who used a sledgehammer to break into a parked car at a New Jersey Kohl's, as reported by CBS News on Wednesday. The baby was taken from the vehicle, which Eckel said had reached a temperature of over 120 degrees.

HLN had Eckel on to get his story about the rescue, but apparently was not interested in getting all of his free speech. The network aired the interview... while blurring his T-shirt out.

(http://ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screenshot-9_1_2016-11_33_24-AM.jpg)

What was on the retired police officer's shirt that was so controversial? An expletive-laded shirt? An image containing nudity? No. All Lives Matter? Support America's Police Officers? Nope, it was a "2016 Trump" T-shirt.

(http://ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-01-at-6.10.25-AM-1024x567.jpg)

An interview version that arose after the segment originally aired shows exactly what was on the man's shirt. It was too late, however, the bias of the network had already been shown.

News followers on Twitter were not amused:


The only question someone needs to ask: Would CNN or HLN have done this if a guest was wearing a pro-Hillary T-shirt?

http://ijr.com/2016/09/685059-internet-goes-wild-after-people-find-out-whats-on-heros-t-shirt-censored-by-cable-news-network/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 07, 2016, 02:58:05 PM
BIAS ALERT: Media dismisses military brass backing Trump
Published September 07, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
Donald Trump likely hoped that a letter backing him and signed by 88 former generals and admirals would prompt journalists to report on his support within military leadership -- what he got, instead, were media guns using Pentagon brass for target practice.

Trump, who on Wednesday delivered a major policy speech on the state of the U.S. military, was touted in the letter as a commander in chief capable of dealing with “enemies of this country [who] have been emboldened” by weakness in Washington.

Boykin, (l.), and Bell, (r.), were among the former generals signing on for Trump.
 
“ … we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically,” read the letter. “We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”

The Washington Post immediately combed through the lengthy roster of signatories and noted that one, retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, was reprimanded for disclosing classified information in a 2008 memoir, “Never Surrender: A Soldier’s Journey to the Crossroads of Faith and Freedom.” Boykin also happens to be the co-founder and former commander of the elite Delta Force, and carried out missions in Iran, North Korea, Somalia and Colombia during his storied career.

He angered Muslims around the world in 2003 when, giving a speech about his hunt for a Somali warlord, said, “I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.”

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures as he speaks to the American Legion National Convention, Thursday, Sept. 1, 2016, in Cincinnati. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Expand / Contract

Trump was looking to bolster his image as a capable commander-in-chief. (The Associated Press)
 
Boykin, who had become executive vice president at the conservative Family Research Council by the time the Pentagon investigated him, has long insisted he had permission for the disclosures and has hinted that the probe was politically motivated.

The list of generals and admirals was put together by Army Maj. Gen. Sidney Shachnow, a Holocaust survivor, and Rear Adm. Charles Williams of the Navy.

The Daily Beast also searched the list for anyone with a black mark on his stripes. In a story headlined “The Disgraced and Little-Known Generals Backing Donald Trump,” the outlet reported that four were present during a massive 1991 scandal in which more than 100 Navy and Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted 90 people at the 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium in Las Vegas. None of the signatories were charged, although one later served as a Navy lawyer in the case.

“To be sure, scores of the signatories had exemplary military records and continue to work in public service,” the Daily Beast article seemed to grudgingly acknowledge. “There are Vietnam veterans, three four-star generals and an admiral, as well as key commanders in the U.S. war in Iraq.”

The Washington Post even sought to drive a wedge between Trump and his military backers by noting that retired four-star Army Gen. Burwell Bell III was once a top NATO commander, and then noting that Trump has questioned NATO’s usefulness.

Three other four-star generals supporting Trump “all retired more than 20 years ago,” the Post wrote.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper scored a Tuesday night interview with retired Army Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who dismissed the names on Trump’s list.

"I didn't recognize many of those names as being there in the fight with me over the last 16 years," Hertling said. "There aren't a whole lot of names in the fight against Al Qaeda or several of the other forces."

The media was not the only party to seemingly scoff at Trump’s flag officer support.

“Compare where Trump is with where both Romney and McCain were,” Hillary Clinton, Trump’s opponent in the November presidential race, told Fox News. “They had between 300 and 500. I am doing better than any Democrat. He is doing worse than recent Republicans.”

For his part, Trump thanked the military brass for supporting him.

“I thank each of them for their service and their confidence in me to serve as commander in chief,” Trump said in a statement. “Keeping our nation safe and leading our armed forces is the most important responsibility of the presidency.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/07/bias-alert-media-dismisses-military-brass-backing-trump.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on September 12, 2016, 08:06:50 AM
Huff Post: "If you don't vote Democrat, then Fuck You!"

http://archive.is/IpdxU (http://archive.is/IpdxU)

Article archived so that the Huff Post won't get credit for views.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 13, 2016, 12:40:34 PM
BIAS ALERT: CBS edits out Bill Clinton slip on Hillary health
Published September 13, 2016
FoxNews.com

CBS Evening News edited out what sure sounded like a Freudian slip and a lawyerly correction when Bill Clinton was talking about how often his wife collapses from dehydration.

“She’s been well, if it is it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors, because frequently, not frequently, rarely, but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing has happened to her where she got severely dehydrated,” the former president said of Hillary Clinton, who is seeking the office he once held.
 
The CBS News website posted video showing the exchange, and Clinton’s mid-sentence correction. But when the exchange with Charlie Rose occurred during the nightly newscast, the “frequently, not frequently, rarely” part edited out.

For folks who wonder if the public is being told all there is to know about the former secretary of state’s health, Clinton’s full sentence seemed to hold a tantalizing clue. By the time other news channels, including Fox, picked up the comment, the slipup was gone.

The Daily Caller was first to compare the ex-president’s full statement to the one that aired, and NewsBusters followed up with a side-by-side comparison.

CBS backpedaled Tuesday and included the full quote on their morning newscast. NewsBusters claimed it was only the latest example of deft editing by the liberal media to make Hillary Clinton look good, or her opponent, Donald Trump, look bad.

Last month, CNN edited Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway speaking on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” to make it appear that Conway promised Trump would refrain from personal attacks. In fact, Conway said she didn’t approve of personal insults by candidates, but made no pledges on behalf of Trump.

Click for more from The Daily Caller

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/13/bias-alert-cbs-edits-out-bill-clinton-slip-on-hillary-health.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on September 14, 2016, 03:48:50 AM
These compilations are always funny. Start at 1:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEeALJtWOfs


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 14, 2016, 04:46:08 PM
Even when the Clinton camp admits it should have been more transparent, the MSM is in overdrive trying to protect her. 

CNN's Amanpour suggests Clinton health coverage sexist
Published September 14, 2016
FoxNews.com

After learning from the mainstream media during the last eight years of the Obama presidency that seemingly benign phrases and words like “Chicago,” “that one” and “golf” are now deemed racist, viewers are getting a similar lesson when it comes to Clinton coverage.

CNN host Christiane Amanpour suggested on air Monday that the heavy coverage of the Democratic nominee's health is simply sexist.

“Can’t a girl have a sick day or two?” Amanpour said, before asking: “What about Donald Trump’s tax returns, where are they?”

This was after Hillary Clinton for days experienced coughing fits on the trail and then came close to collapsing on the sidelines of a 9/11 event Sunday, before being whisked away in an SUV. Her campaign then revealed she had pneumonia, while saying she had become dehydrated and overheated.

Amanpour appealed to her colleagues to lay off.

“When it comes to overqualified women having to try a hundred times harder than underqualified men to get a break or even a level playing field, well, we know that story,” she said.

As proof that sick men can do the job of the presidency just fine, she first cited the example of President Franklin Pierce -- a mid-19th century president who passed out in the battlefield.

As first noted by Mediaite, Amanpour cited the examples of the media covering up President Franklin Roosevelt’s debilitating polio and John F. Kennedy’s many health issues – lapses in journalism that journalists generally accept as ethically problematic today. Amanpour said these health crises did not stop them from being good presidents.

“Leading the world in sickness and in health—if the boys can do it, why not the women?” she asked.

Amanpour seemed to approve of the bygone media attitude that the public didn’t need to know their commander-in-chief was wheelchair bound (FDR) or was given an anti-psychoticfor fluctuating moods (JFK).

Years ago, Amanpour’s husband, James Rubin, was a member of Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

Amanpour did not mention how male candidates' health has been scrutinized before. 2008 Republican nominee John McCain and 1996 nominee Bob Dole were both scuritinized for their health and their age – as was President Ronald Reagan when he stood for re-election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/cnns-amanpour-suggests-clinton-health-coverage-sexist.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 14, 2016, 06:24:11 PM
It's so funny how the 240 media covers for her


Even when the Clinton camp admits it should have been more transparent, the MSM is in overdrive trying to protect her. 

CNN's Amanpour suggests Clinton health coverage sexist
Published September 14, 2016
FoxNews.com

After learning from the mainstream media during the last eight years of the Obama presidency that seemingly benign phrases and words like “Chicago,” “that one” and “golf” are now deemed racist, viewers are getting a similar lesson when it comes to Clinton coverage.

CNN host Christiane Amanpour suggested on air Monday that the heavy coverage of the Democratic nominee's health is simply sexist.

“Can’t a girl have a sick day or two?” Amanpour said, before asking: “What about Donald Trump’s tax returns, where are they?”

This was after Hillary Clinton for days experienced coughing fits on the trail and then came close to collapsing on the sidelines of a 9/11 event Sunday, before being whisked away in an SUV. Her campaign then revealed she had pneumonia, while saying she had become dehydrated and overheated.

Amanpour appealed to her colleagues to lay off.

“When it comes to overqualified women having to try a hundred times harder than underqualified men to get a break or even a level playing field, well, we know that story,” she said.

As proof that sick men can do the job of the presidency just fine, she first cited the example of President Franklin Pierce -- a mid-19th century president who passed out in the battlefield.

As first noted by Mediaite, Amanpour cited the examples of the media covering up President Franklin Roosevelt’s debilitating polio and John F. Kennedy’s many health issues – lapses in journalism that journalists generally accept as ethically problematic today. Amanpour said these health crises did not stop them from being good presidents.

“Leading the world in sickness and in health—if the boys can do it, why not the women?” she asked.

Amanpour seemed to approve of the bygone media attitude that the public didn’t need to know their commander-in-chief was wheelchair bound (FDR) or was given an anti-psychoticfor fluctuating moods (JFK).

Years ago, Amanpour’s husband, James Rubin, was a member of Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

Amanpour did not mention how male candidates' health has been scrutinized before. 2008 Republican nominee John McCain and 1996 nominee Bob Dole were both scuritinized for their health and their age – as was President Ronald Reagan when he stood for re-election.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/14/cnns-amanpour-suggests-clinton-health-coverage-sexist.html



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on September 14, 2016, 06:26:30 PM
It's so funny how the 240 media covers for her

Oh, I think I alerted getbig of her impending health demise long before you or coach or others.

If I was up here saying "oh she's fine", like other are, yes, you're accurate.

but I'm the first one to say that shit looks like parkinsons stage 3.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 19, 2016, 10:12:18 AM
CNN’s Jake Tapper Edits out Hillary Clinton’s ‘Bombings’ Remark
by JOEL B. POLLAK
18 Sep 2016

CNN’s Jake Tapper asked New Jersey Governor Chris Christie on State of the Union on Sunday morning about the supposed contrast between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their responses to the explosions Saturday in New York, editing out Clinton’s reference to “bombings” to create a false distinction.
Tapper cited Trump referring to a “bomb” in New York, then played a clip of Clinton criticizing him for saying that — leaving out Clinton’s reference, seconds before, to what she called “bombings.”

Here is the Tapper’s question for Christie, with the edited Clinton clip:

Tapper: There is a contrast, I would say, between how you’re speaking about it and how Mr. Trump spoke about it yesterday. He’s being criticized for talking about the New York bomb before local officials or local law enforcement had a chance to do so. He told the Colorado Springs crowd that “a bomb went off in New York, and nobody knows exactly what’s going on” — that’s really just a few minutes after the incident. And his opponent tried to draw a contrast. She waited hours later, until local officials spoke, and then she said this:

Clinton (clip): I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions.

Tapper: As a general note, do you think politicians should wait until more information comes in, and should they defer to local official and investigators? Isn’t that what you do as the governor of New Jersey?

Tapper made no mention of Clinton’s similar remark.

Here is the full, relevant exchange between Clinton and reporters on Saturday night, via Liz Kreutz of ABC News and other sources:

Clinton: I’ve breen briefed about the bombings in New York and New Jersey, and the attack in Minnesota. Obviously, we need to do everything we can to support our first responders, also to pray for the victims. We have to let this investigation unfold. We’ve been in touch with various officials, including the mayor’s office in New York, to learn what they are discovering as they conduct this investigation. And I’ll have more to say about it when we actually know the facts?

Reporter: Secretary Clinton, Do you have any reaction to the fact that Donald Trump, immediately upon taking the stage tonight, called the explosion in New York a “bomb” … ?

Clinton: Well, I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this. That’s why it’s critical to support the first responders, the investigators who are looking into it, trying to determine what did happen. I think it’s always wiser to wait until you have information before making conclusions because we are just in the beginning stages of trying to determine what happened.

Ironically, later in the program, while introducing Clinton’s running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Tapper played the full clip, including Clinton’s use of the word “bombings.” Tapper did not ask Kaine about whether Clinton’s remark was appropriate.

For the record, Christie’s response to Tapper’s question defended Trump without referring to Clinton’s statement.

Christie: Well, listen, I don’t think you have to defer when saying there was an explosion and a bomb in New York. I mean, everybody knew that. It was being reported in television, Jake, so there’s a difference. Now, you shouldn’t attribute it to any particular organization or group if you don’t have the facts or information to do that. But I think that what Donald did was perfectly appropriate to tell that group in Colorado Springs a bomb exploded. This is typical of Mrs. Clinton. She has absolutely no basis to be critical of what he did yesterday …

Tapper was not all smiles for Kaine: he questioned the Democratic vice presidential nominee aggressively about Hillary Clinton’s close confident Sidney Blumenthal’s alleged role in pushing the Birther conspiracy theory in 2008.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/09/18/cnn-jake-tapper-edits-clintons-bombings-remark/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on September 20, 2016, 04:54:56 AM
(https://i.redd.it/2xd069g7jomx.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: polychronopolous on September 20, 2016, 04:57:12 AM
Huff Post: "If you don't vote Democrat, then Fuck You!"

http://archive.is/IpdxU (http://archive.is/IpdxU)

Article archived so that the Huff Post won't get credit for views.

I like it!  8) ;)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on September 22, 2016, 04:52:21 AM
Good to see GQ is putting out quality work!

http://archive.is/mOwmq (http://archive.is/mOwmq)

Article archived so not to give GQ the clicks.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 26, 2016, 10:35:43 AM
BIAS ALERT: Amazon 'fixed' reviews for Hillary Clinton's book
Published September 26, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/09/26/bias-alert-amazon-fixed-reviews-for-hillary-clintons-book/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1474907085358.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sept. 5: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton holds up a book titled “Stronger Together” as she speaks at the 11th Congressional District Labor Day festival at Luke Easter Park in Cleveland, Ohio.  (AP)


Hillary Clinton's newest book, "Stronger Together," has been met with critical reviews and slow sales since its release earlier this month.

But Amazon.com appears to be helping the Democratic presidential nominee by removing negative reviews from its website, WND.com reported.

The book, co-authored by Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, sold just 2,912 copies in its first week on sale, according to Nielsen BookScan. And the online ratings have been abysmal, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7 on Amazon.com after it hit book shelves on Sept 6.

Amazon, however, has tried to fix that.

According to WND.com -- which has been tracking the number of reviews -- Amazon deleted hundreds of comments last week that were critical of the book, which lays out a policy blueprint of how the country would look under a Clinton-Kaine administration.

On Thursday, Amazon -- whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post -- said there were 91 positive reviews compared to 166 critical ones, according to WND. Just two days earlier, there were 1,244 reviews -- 81 percent of them with one-star and 16 percent with five-star ratings, the website reported.

As of Monday morning, 85 percent of the customer reviews on Amazon gave it one star, while only 11 percent gave it five stars.

The book dropped from No. 840 on Amazon's best-seller rankings early last  week to No. 1,538 on Thursday.

One reader, identified as Robert S Lionel JR, gave the book a one-star rating and wrote, "Every time I write my review it gets deleted, it's so weird. Does anyone know where the servers are hosted that contain reviews?"

Another reader commented: "I expected that Amazon tweaked reviews but have lost all belief in Amazon reviews now. Will switch to Walmart for ordering most the things I used to buy here."

According to Amazon's description, the book "presents [their] agenda in full, relating stories from the American people and outlining the Clinton/Kaine campaign's plans on everything from apprenticeships to the Zika virus."

Many of the poor reviews appeared to hit the candidate rather than the substance of the book. Of the comments that critiqued the book, readers used words such as "boring" and "dishonest" in describing the 250-page text interspersed with bullet-point policy ideas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/26/bias-alert-amazon-fixed-reviews-for-hillary-clintons-book.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on September 27, 2016, 06:12:39 AM
BIAS ALERT: Amazon 'fixed' reviews for Hillary Clinton's book
Published September 26, 2016
FoxNews.com
 
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2016/09/26/bias-alert-amazon-fixed-reviews-for-hillary-clintons-book/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.jpg/876/493/1474907085358.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
Sept. 5: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton holds up a book titled “Stronger Together” as she speaks at the 11th Congressional District Labor Day festival at Luke Easter Park in Cleveland, Ohio.  (AP)


Hillary Clinton's newest book, "Stronger Together," has been met with critical reviews and slow sales since its release earlier this month.

But Amazon.com appears to be helping the Democratic presidential nominee by removing negative reviews from its website, WND.com reported.

The book, co-authored by Clinton's running mate, Tim Kaine, sold just 2,912 copies in its first week on sale, according to Nielsen BookScan. And the online ratings have been abysmal, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7 on Amazon.com after it hit book shelves on Sept 6.

Amazon, however, has tried to fix that.

According to WND.com -- which has been tracking the number of reviews -- Amazon deleted hundreds of comments last week that were critical of the book, which lays out a policy blueprint of how the country would look under a Clinton-Kaine administration.

On Thursday, Amazon -- whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post -- said there were 91 positive reviews compared to 166 critical ones, according to WND. Just two days earlier, there were 1,244 reviews -- 81 percent of them with one-star and 16 percent with five-star ratings, the website reported.

As of Monday morning, 85 percent of the customer reviews on Amazon gave it one star, while only 11 percent gave it five stars.

The book dropped from No. 840 on Amazon's best-seller rankings early last  week to No. 1,538 on Thursday.

One reader, identified as Robert S Lionel JR, gave the book a one-star rating and wrote, "Every time I write my review it gets deleted, it's so weird. Does anyone know where the servers are hosted that contain reviews?"

Another reader commented: "I expected that Amazon tweaked reviews but have lost all belief in Amazon reviews now. Will switch to Walmart for ordering most the things I used to buy here."

According to Amazon's description, the book "presents [their] agenda in full, relating stories from the American people and outlining the Clinton/Kaine campaign's plans on everything from apprenticeships to the Zika virus."

Many of the poor reviews appeared to hit the candidate rather than the substance of the book. Of the comments that critiqued the book, readers used words such as "boring" and "dishonest" in describing the 250-page text interspersed with bullet-point policy ideas.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/26/bias-alert-amazon-fixed-reviews-for-hillary-clintons-book.html

Funny how she told people to go out and buy her book (and check out her website) during the debate.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on September 27, 2016, 07:40:42 AM
Clinton Received Debate Questions Week Before Debate, According to Sources
Baltimore Gazette ^ | 9/27/2016
Posted on 9/27/2016, 11:27:11 AM



The first presidential debate was held and Hillary Clinton was proclaimed the winner by the media. Indeed Clinton was able to turn in a strong debate performance, but did she do so fairly? Multiple reports and leaked information from inside the Clinton camp claim that the Clinton campaign was given the entire set of debate questions an entire week before the actual debate.

Earlier last week an NBC intern was seen hand delivering a package to Clinton’s campaign headquarters, according to sources. The package was not given to secretarial staff, as would normally happen, but the intern was instead ushered into the personal office of Clinton campaign manager Robert Mook. Members of the Clinton press corps from several media organizations were in attendance at the time, and a reporter from Fox News recognized the intern, but said he was initially confused because the NBC intern was dressed like a Fed Ex employee.

The reporter from Fox questioned campaign staff about the intern, but campaign staff at first claimed ignorance and then claimed that it was just a Fed Ex employee who had already left. No reporters present who had seen the intern dressed as a Fed Ex employee go into Mook’s office saw him leave by the same front entrance. The Fox reporter who recognized the intern also immediately looked outside of the campaign headquarters and noted that there were no Fed Ex vehicles parked outside.

Clinton seemed to have scripted responses ready for every question she was asked at the first debate. She had facts and numbers memorized for specific questions that it is very doubtful she would have had without being furnished the questions beforehand. The entire mainstream media has specifically been trying to portray Trump as a racist and a poor candidate.

(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoregazette.com ...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
Priorities. 

Nearly 20 Mins on Trump’s ‘Miss Piggy’ Remark, Silence on Clinton Chief of Staff Immunity
By Mike Ciandella | September 28, 2016

Once again, ABC, CBS and NBC have ignored a major news story that could be embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and have national implications, while promoting a negative (and trivial) Trump story initially pushed by the Clinton campaign.

On September 23, news broke that during the now-infamous investigation into Clinton’s emails, the FBI granted Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills immunity. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz called Mills’s immunity “beyond explanation,” adding that “the FBI was handing out immunity agreements like candy.” Yet, neither ABC, CBS nor NBC ever even mentioned this story once.

But the same networks that have failed to cover the Mills story since it broke on September 23 were quick to devote a full 19 minutes and 40 seconds to the controversy over Trump allegedly calling a former Miss Universe “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” The networks began covering this 20-year-old incident after Clinton brought it up in her remarks during the debate on Monday night, and then exponentially increased their coverage when Trump attempted to defend himself on Fox News’s Fox & Friends on the morning of September 27.

On September 27’s edition of World News Tonight, correspondent Cecilia Vega described the former contestant (and Clinton supporter) as an “instant cause célèbre.” On NBC’s Today on September 28, co-host Matt Lauer, echoing Bloomberg Politics’s Mark Halperin, mused that the Miss Universe debacle was “going to be more than a one or two-day story” – as if journalists had no control over how long a story would be discussed.

According to a summary of the Mills incident written by Andrew McCarthy for the National Review, “[t]his is very strange. There was no need to grant concessions to Mills. The Justice Department could have required the production of the computer by simply issuing a grand jury subpoena. And had there been any concern that Mills would not cooperate, would destroy the computer, or would “misplace” it (as Team Clinton claims to have misplaced so many Hillary devices), investigators could have applied for a search warrant and seized the computer.”

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2016/09/28/nearly-20-mins-trumps-miss-piggy-remark-silence-clinton-chief


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: 240 is Back on September 28, 2016, 03:33:36 PM
weird that when trump called in to FOX news, all he wanted to talk about was justifying calling her miss piggy

yet

now people are mad that the news is talking about it. 


I don't know how you can complain about it.   Trump himself gave this story serious legs, and you know it.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: chaos on September 28, 2016, 03:40:22 PM
Weird that MSM consistantly and constantly ignores Killarys blatantly massive cheating and lying issues while compounding and exploding Trumps minor remarks.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 03, 2016, 08:57:51 AM
LOL!  :D

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/10/03/jock-journalists-condemn-all-lives-matter-protestor-as-racist-then-cops-take-off-his-gorilla-mask/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social (http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/10/03/jock-journalists-condemn-all-lives-matter-protestor-as-racist-then-cops-take-off-his-gorilla-mask/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on October 03, 2016, 10:30:31 AM
LOL!  :D

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/10/03/jock-journalists-condemn-all-lives-matter-protestor-as-racist-then-cops-take-off-his-gorilla-mask/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social (http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/10/03/jock-journalists-condemn-all-lives-matter-protestor-as-racist-then-cops-take-off-his-gorilla-mask/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social)


(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/10/Angelo-Graham-Mugshot-640x480.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 06, 2016, 07:58:28 AM
Here is a old, but good, one!  :D

http://archive.is/oP1Md (http://archive.is/oP1Md)

White men must be stopped: The very future of mankind depends on it


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 07, 2016, 06:22:14 AM
.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2016, 11:43:03 AM
7 to 1: Trump Sex Scandals vs Hillary WikiLeaks Coverage
By Mike Ciandella | October 13, 2016

From Friday evening to Thursday morning, the morning and evening news shows on ABC, CBS and NBC dedicated 4 hours and 13 minutes to discussing the recent allegations of sexual misconduct surrounding Donald Trump’s campaign. Meanwhile, not only has the continual release of the WikiLeaks emails from top Hillary staff gotten a comparatively puny 36 minutes of coverage during this same time period, the coverage that is there continues to ignore specifics that could be damaging to Hillary.

Still completely absent from the network coverage? Any mention of the emails where journalists collaborated with the Clinton campaign.

Journalists quick to be critical of Trump dismissed the entirety of the email leak as a “distraction” (Nancy Cordes, CBS This Morning on October 13) with “no major bombshells” (Kasie Hunt, NBC’s Today on October 8 ). CBS This Morning on October 13 even invited on New York Times correspondent Mark Leibovich to talk about the leaked emails, -- a reporter who himself was featured in the leaked emails for having Hillary Clinton approve one of his stories about her. Yet not a single CBS “journalist” even mentioned this huge potential conflict of interest.

Incriminating emails that were mentioned, such as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s comments about “needy Latinos” were only mentioned in passing. In the case of a series of anti-Catholic emails, the worst examples were ignored.

A large focus of the network news coverage of WikiLeaks has been on how the emails were hacked and leaked. This is a legitimate news topic, but if these were leaked emails from the Trump campaign, would the same effort be put into caring about how the emails were released, instead of focusing on their content?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mike-ciandella/2016/10/13/7-1-trump-sex-scandals-vs-hillary-wikileaks-coverage


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Coach is Back! on October 14, 2016, 02:03:17 PM
http://conservativetribune.com/rush-michelle-perverted-past/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-10-14&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Thin Lizzy on October 14, 2016, 02:08:43 PM
If asked how the American mainstream media is any different from the Pravda in the old Soviet Union, I have no answer.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 15, 2016, 05:59:00 AM
(https://i.redd.it/a2kgcir06krx.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on October 30, 2016, 08:20:10 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwB0zfOXEAEpkmm.jpg:large)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 31, 2016, 05:12:33 AM
(https://i.sli.mg/GgrJ3g.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 31, 2016, 06:02:48 AM
Fucking fuck!

(https://i.sli.mg/ivhqWX.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: James on October 31, 2016, 06:47:03 AM
BBC Tries to Ambush Milo...With Exactly The Result You'd Expect


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3K1pGN-O8I


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Thin Lizzy on October 31, 2016, 07:03:24 AM
Wolf Blitzer unable to handle Rudy Giuliani's truth bombs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVCcxm-I3wM


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on October 31, 2016, 02:18:19 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/31/leaked-emails-cnn-journalist-refers-to-gop-hell-calls-podesta-a-star/?utm_campaign=thedcmainpage&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 01, 2016, 03:12:39 AM
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/10/31/study-big-three-networks-attack-comey-over-clinton-3-1


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 07, 2016, 05:31:49 AM
(https://i.sli.mg/RwtfzF.jpg)

Someone who has spent his entire career against government corruption just cast his ballot to support it.
What a dipshit.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 07, 2016, 05:35:06 AM
CNN colluding with DNC on Trump interview with Wolf Blitzer

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846 (https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/25846)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 07, 2016, 06:50:10 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/wikileaks-show-washington-post-writer-asked-dnc-for-anti-trump-research


 >:(


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 07, 2016, 06:54:28 AM
FOX's Chris Wallace begging for an Interview

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55678#efmACgADLAFCAMd (https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55678#efmACgADLAFCAMd)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 11, 2016, 03:40:55 AM
Two "Journalists" from the Telegraph:

(https://i.redd.it/zqp8tx1puwwx.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: avxo on November 11, 2016, 03:57:43 AM
Two "Journalists" from the Telegraph:

(https://i.redd.it/zqp8tx1puwwx.jpg)

Jesus H. Christ... how fucking stupid are these people!?!?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 11, 2016, 04:04:59 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/b76816f15b5648fe9b928001a3ec09cd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=387827929a074fc74b87675346c4de54)

Is Baron Trump autistic? - US Weekly

Could you imagine if someone wrote an article called, "Is Bill Clinton Autistic?"  :D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: mazrim on November 11, 2016, 10:22:31 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/b76816f15b5648fe9b928001a3ec09cd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=387827929a074fc74b87675346c4de54)

Is Baron Trump autistic? - US Weekly

Could you imagine if someone wrote an article called, "Is Bill Clinton Autistic?"  :D
Wow!


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on November 11, 2016, 11:36:23 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/b76816f15b5648fe9b928001a3ec09cd?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=387827929a074fc74b87675346c4de54)

Is Baron Trump autistic? - US Weekly

Could you imagine if someone wrote an article called, "Is Bill Clinton Autistic?"  :D

Despicable but not unexpected from the media. They should leave the kids out of this.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 11, 2016, 11:48:02 AM
Despicable but not unexpected from the media. They should leave the kids out of this.

The problem is that most have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on November 11, 2016, 12:09:59 PM
The problem is that most have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

If Trump lost, his kid most likely wouldn't break down in tears, unlike some sensitive snowflakes who previously wanted to leave the country (but not to Mexico, Canada only) and now claim to "live in fear".
Attacking children is very low.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 11, 2016, 12:18:18 PM
If Trump lost, his kid most likely wouldn't break down in tears, unlike some sensitive snowflakes who previously wanted to leave the country (but not to Mexico, Canada only) and now claim to "live in fear".
Attacking children is very low.

On the bright side, it exposes them for the classless pieces of shit that they are. Lukewarm Dems who voted for Hillary might think twice before voting for this again.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Howard on November 11, 2016, 05:23:26 PM


Is Baron Trump autistic? - US Weekly


[/quote]

No, his dad is.

F'n media gets it wrong again.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 13, 2016, 03:44:56 PM
Despicable but not unexpected from the media. They should leave the kids out of this.

The problem is that most have the emotional maturity of a 10 year old.

Funny thing is: Baron is 10 years old and stayed up to 3 am.... Where was Hillary???

Oh yeah...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Thin Lizzy on November 13, 2016, 03:50:39 PM
Funny thing is: Baron is 10 years old and stayed up to 3 am.... Where was Hillary???

Oh yeah...


Haha

Even Trump's 10 year old son outworked Hillary.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on November 13, 2016, 03:58:08 PM
Funny thing is: Baron is 10 years old and stayed up to 3 am.... Where was Hillary???

Oh yeah...


She must've had a monumental meltdown.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 15, 2016, 04:46:41 AM
A small school newspaper. Not even one day on the job:

(https://i.reddituploads.com/2e3f6fa313e34dc49ce1d38a94b0fa40?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=37af3ba1bfa574da6feb36db5aa74c12)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 15, 2016, 09:24:24 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/932b5adcc77d4ab0b515a5c8b6146db2?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=48d02aed5051b7efebee8e282adb87d9)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 15, 2016, 09:26:00 AM
The president of the university founded by Thomas Jefferson is being asked to stop quoting Thomas Jefferson.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/15/president-of-school-founded-by-jefferson-told-to-stop-quoting-jefferson/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter (http://nypost.com/2016/11/15/president-of-school-founded-by-jefferson-told-to-stop-quoting-jefferson/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 16, 2016, 02:50:45 AM
ABC says Trump's family dinner was "no small thing" and a "Lack of Transparency"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxWOoRQXgAA2WN7.jpg)

We are one week in, and I need boots to wade through all the shit that the media is trying to create.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 16, 2016, 05:45:42 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/c43e4020b6664dc2be1ea392f12e82ee?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=71d0935d96de07c586f3015abbfdef2c)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 16, 2016, 10:09:34 AM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/c3c7ab84e44246f4850d94f6a366caf3?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=edd0f6276afc2105ee58a5193a1ad558)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Howard on November 16, 2016, 11:18:36 AM
ABC says Trump's family dinner was "no small thing" and a "Lack of Transparency"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxWOoRQXgAA2WN7.jpg)

We are one week in, and I need boots to wade through all the shit that the media is trying to create.

He refused to disclose if he chose the rib eye or sirloin  ;)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on November 16, 2016, 12:55:52 PM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/c3c7ab84e44246f4850d94f6a366caf3?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=edd0f6276afc2105ee58a5193a1ad558)

More evidence that the media tried to drag her across the finish line. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on November 16, 2016, 01:03:25 PM
(https://i.reddituploads.com/c3c7ab84e44246f4850d94f6a366caf3?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=edd0f6276afc2105ee58a5193a1ad558)

They peddled this shit so hard that they believed it themselves and it came back to bite them in the ass on November 8th...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 17, 2016, 03:48:32 AM
Why in the fuck is CNN talking about Trump and showing the Reagan assassination attempt footage?! I need more context, but this is wrong...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVgR_O5jL_8

EDIT: Apparently, they said that the media has the right to be around Trump at all times so they can capture moments like the Reagan assassination. Oh okay, much better.  ::) fuck these scumbags

This is why they made a bug deal about Trump ditching the press core, so the could repeatedly talk about Trump and Presidential assassination in the same conversation.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on November 17, 2016, 06:36:08 AM
Google’s Eric Schmidt Wore ‘Staff’ Badge at Hillary Clinton Election Night Party
Washington Free Beacon ^ | November 16, 2016 | Joe Schoffstall
Posted on 11/17/2016, 8:11:11 AM by kevcol

Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Inc., was spotted at Hillary Clinton’s “victory” party last Tuesday wearing a staff badge, according to a picture recently submitted to Politico.

Google came under fire earlier this year for allegedly altering search results to paint Hillary Clinton in a more favorable light than Donald Trump. Schmidt stated at the time that Google did not pick sides in the presidential race.

(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on November 18, 2016, 04:11:52 AM
(https://i.sli.mg/ucZItl.jpg)

(https://i.redditmedia.com/v2JZm5nog_vATAmuupt4td1lWY0Zcpu-wjsK5P-DwuI.png?w=677&s=97692ccb9d414109415270f0c97a03bc)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 20, 2016, 09:28:55 AM
BIAS ALERT: Slate switches from defense of Electoral College to calling it a tool of white supremacy
Published December 20, 2016 
FoxNews.com

What a difference four years and Donald Trump's victory make for the liberal site Slate.

Slate published a piece in November 2012 called "In Defense of the Electoral College" that lists five reasons why the system, which allows state electors to ultimately select the future president whether or not that person won the popular vote, is actually great for democracy.

Those reasons include the "certainty of outcome" and being able to avoid run-off elections. 

Of course, that was published in the wake of President Obama's victory over Mitt Romney. The left-leaning site is singing a very different tune this year.

About-face: Slate's opinion of the Electoral College changed dramatically in four years.

Slate published a new piece a few days after this year's election calling the Electoral College an "instrument of white supremacy and sexism."

The writer claims that the Electoral College was used to both perpetuate slavery, through the Three-Fifths Clause that was eventually abolished, and delay the advancement of women's suffrage.

How do the folks at Slate justify this about-face?

They don't, of course. But they do encourage readers to embrace the idea of abolishing the Electoral College entirely.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/20/bias-alert-slate-switches-from-defense-electoral-college-to-calling-it-tool-white-supremacy.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Howard on December 20, 2016, 10:51:29 AM
Yes and Trump recently did a 180 on his view of the electoral college LOL.

This kind of 2nd guessing the official rules AFTER it's over, makes me cringe.

Trump won , end of story.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 01, 2017, 12:05:29 PM
Oh snap.  This is hilarious.   ;D

Trump: ‘I Don’t Watch CNN’ Because ‘I Don’t Like Watching Fake News’
by Ian Hanchett
1 Feb 2017

During a listening session for Black History Month on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said, “I don’t watch CNN. … I don’t like watching fake news.”

Trump said, “You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago, when somebody said I took the statue out of my office, and it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things in the — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson and we have Dr. Martin Luther King, and we have –, but they said the statue, the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office, and it was never even touched. So, I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is, very unfortunate.”

He added, “I don’t watch CNN. … I don’t like watching fake news…but Fox has treated me very nice, wherever fox is, thank you.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/01/trump-i-dont-watch-cnn-because-i-dont-like-watching-fake-news/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: gothorium on February 01, 2017, 10:52:32 PM
Oh snap.  This is hilarious.   ;D

Trump: ‘I Don’t Watch CNN’ Because ‘I Don’t Like Watching Fake News’
by Ian Hanchett
1 Feb 2017

During a listening session for Black History Month on Wednesday, President Donald Trump said, “I don’t watch CNN. … I don’t like watching fake news.”

Trump said, “You read all about Dr. Martin Luther King a week ago, when somebody said I took the statue out of my office, and it turned out that that was fake news. The statue is cherished. It’s one of the favorite things in the — and we have some good ones. We have Lincoln, and we have Jefferson and we have Dr. Martin Luther King, and we have –, but they said the statue, the bust of Dr. Martin Luther King was taken out of the office, and it was never even touched. So, I think it was a disgrace, but that’s the way the press is, very unfortunate.”

He added, “I don’t watch CNN. … I don’t like watching fake news…but Fox has treated me very nice, wherever fox is, thank you.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/01/trump-i-dont-watch-cnn-because-i-dont-like-watching-fake-news/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

My smug at how good Trump is getting is so huge it could form its own planet.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on March 02, 2017, 03:36:50 PM
Study: Nightly News Broadcasts 88 Percent Negative Toward Trump
By Jason Devaney   |    Thursday, 02 Mar 2017

Almost 90 percent of the nightly news broadcasts during President Donald Trump's first month in office presented negative reporting of his administration, according to a new analysis.

The Media Research Center concluded that the three major national news networks dedicated 54 percent of their time, or 16 hours, reporting on the president and his staff. Of that reporting, 88 percent of it was negative.

Last year during the presidential campaign, the Media Research Center found that 91 percent of the reporting on Trump was negative during the three major national news broadcasts.

The largest controversy, at least in the eyes of the nightly news, was Trump's temporary ban on immigration from seven nations with a terror presence. Trump signed the directive Jan. 27, although it has since been placed on hold as the court system looks at it.

Trump is expected to unveil an updated order soon.

The national news broadcasts dedicated 188 minutes to the immigration story, while reporters and anchors sometimes made political statements against it either with their words or actions. For example, NBC's Lester Holt anchored the Jan. 30 news in front of the Statue of Liberty.

Trump and the members of his administration have repeatedly bashed the news media for what they feel is an unfair bias against him.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Nightly-News-Coverage-Trump-Negative/2017/03/02/id/776553/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on March 02, 2017, 04:05:36 PM
Study: Nightly News Broadcasts 88 Percent Negative Toward Trump
By Jason Devaney   |    Thursday, 02 Mar 2017

Almost 90 percent of the nightly news broadcasts during President Donald Trump's first month in office presented negative reporting of his administration, according to a new analysis.

The Media Research Center concluded that the three major national news networks dedicated 54 percent of their time, or 16 hours, reporting on the president and his staff. Of that reporting, 88 percent of it was negative.

Last year during the presidential campaign, the Media Research Center found that 91 percent of the reporting on Trump was negative during the three major national news broadcasts.

The largest controversy, at least in the eyes of the nightly news, was Trump's temporary ban on immigration from seven nations with a terror presence. Trump signed the directive Jan. 27, although it has since been placed on hold as the court system looks at it.

Trump is expected to unveil an updated order soon.

The national news broadcasts dedicated 188 minutes to the immigration story, while reporters and anchors sometimes made political statements against it either with their words or actions. For example, NBC's Lester Holt anchored the Jan. 30 news in front of the Statue of Liberty.

Trump and the members of his administration have repeatedly bashed the news media for what they feel is an unfair bias against him.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Nightly-News-Coverage-Trump-Negative/2017/03/02/id/776553/

what if he does negative stuff 88% of the time

should they just lie about it?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: tonymctones on March 02, 2017, 04:43:52 PM
what if he does negative stuff 88% of the time

should they just lie about it?
Negative to who? There are a lot of people who agree with his actions.

Their views shouldn't be represented in the media?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on March 02, 2017, 04:48:30 PM
Negative to who? There are a lot of people who agree with his actions.

Their views shouldn't be represented in the media?

Lots of people agree with racism, bigotry, etc..

Should the media report that with a positive spin just because other people also share those opinions?



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: tonymctones on March 02, 2017, 04:58:53 PM
Lots of people agree with racism, bigotry, etc..

Should the media report that with a positive spin just because other people also share those opinions?


Ideally they wouldn't present it with any spin, you know as its the "news"...

LMFAO if you think that the news isn't being spun to suit your worldview. How fucking naive and arrogant are you to think that only you and your ilk know what's right and wrong.

simply bc you don't agree with it doesn't mean it should be denegraded, mocked or not covered at all.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on March 02, 2017, 05:04:54 PM
Ideally they wouldn't present it with any spin, you know as its the "news"...

LMFAO if you think that the news isn't being spun to suit your worldview. How fucking naive and arrogant are you to think that only you and your ilk know what's right and wrong.

simply bc you don't agree with it doesn't mean it should be denegraded, mocked or not covered at all.

Fucking goddamn amen


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on March 02, 2017, 05:10:11 PM
Ideally they wouldn't present it with any spin, you know as its the "news"...

LMFAO if you think that the news isn't being spun to suit your worldview. How fucking naive and arrogant are you to think that only you and your ilk know what's right and wrong.

simply bc you don't agree with it doesn't mean it should be denegraded, mocked or not covered at all.

what you might think is spin others will see as objective reporting

Is there any news organization that you believe just reports the facts and doesn't interject their own bias (as you see it)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: tonymctones on March 02, 2017, 05:20:14 PM
what you might think is spin others will see as objective reporting
Lol I'm going to ask that you just read this and view it as if I had posted it....

This is true from both sides straw, what you might think is spin others will see as objective reporting as well. Why should their views be under reported, mocked or denegraded as they are now?

No not really, CNN is the channel that i normally watch but ever since trump won the primary they have been in 100% bash mode. I know they generally lean left but they have taken it to a new level these days.

Are there any news organizations you feel don't interject their bias?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Top Poodle on March 03, 2017, 06:44:54 PM
The Economist, which I considered respectable before, is now showing it's true colors and is absolutely hideous


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Core on March 04, 2017, 12:45:35 AM
The Economist, which I considered respectable before, is now showing it's true colors and is absolutely hideous

They're all fucking hideous guys. don't you get it? They are all owned by the same special interest group. Trump isn't america's saviour guys, he supports israel which is a big tell as to his loyalties. Sure he's a lot better than Hillary and is treating us nice for a bit and he may continue for his whole presidency, but a TRUE American President who is for the American people would begin their presidency by telling israel to fuck off and die, and then tell the Fed to fuck off and die. Then they would find a way to destroy the liberal msm and then we would have a chance!!!!! Only after israel, the fed and the msm is weakened and destroyed can America be reclaimed by us. These are the 3 major forces holding america hostage.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Top Poodle on March 04, 2017, 01:10:31 AM
They're all fucking hideous guys. don't you get it? They are all owned by the same special interest group. Trump isn't america's saviour guys, he supports israel which is a big tell as to his loyalties. Sure he's a lot better than Hillary and is treating us nice for a bit and he may continue for his whole presidency, but a TRUE American President who is for the American people would begin their presidency by telling israel to fuck off and die, and then tell the Fed to fuck off and die. Then they would find a way to destroy the liberal msm and then we would have a chance!!!!! Only after israel, the fed and the msm is weakened and destroyed can America be reclaimed by us. These are the 3 major forces holding america hostage.

Are you for or against palestine


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Core on March 04, 2017, 02:56:34 AM
Are you for or against palestine

A tough question. I care not for those who were removed; my concern lies with the removers and their meddlesome antics in the USA and the rest of the world.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on March 06, 2017, 09:32:46 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXEeXY7S8CY


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on March 07, 2017, 04:41:45 AM
No One Mentions That The Russian Trail Leads To Democratic Lobbyists

In pushing its Manchurian-candidate-Trump narrative, the media fail to mention the much deeper ties of Democratic lobbyists to Russia. Don’t worry, the media seems to say: Even though they are representing Russia, the lobbyists are good upstanding citizens, not like the Trump people. They can be trusted with such delicate matters.

The media targeted former Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, for consulting for deposed Ukrainian president’s (Yanukovich’s) Party of the Regions. He also worked for billionaire oligarch, Firtash, who stands accused of skimming billions in the Ukraine gas trade in league with Russian oligarchs. The media also singled out Trump’s former national security advisor, General Michael Flynn, for attending a dinner with Putin and appearing on Russia’s foreign propaganda network RT. Trump’s own Russian ties were the subject of intense media coverage of an unverified opposition-research report purportedly prepared by an ex-British spy, who remains in hiding. It seems no enterprising reporter has tried to find him.

The media’s focus on Trump’s Russian connections ignores the much more extensive and lucrative business relationships of top Democrats with Kremlin-associated oligarchs and companies. Thanks to the Panama Papers, we know that the Podesta Group (founded by John Podesta’s brother, Tony) lobbied for Russia’s largest bank, Sberbank. “Sberbank is the Kremlin, they don’t do anything major without Putin’s go-ahead, and they don’t tell him ‘no’ either,” explained a retired senior U.S. intelligence official. According to a Reuters report, Tony Podesta was “among the high-profile lobbyists registered to represent organizations backing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich.” Among these was the European Center, which paid Podesta $900,000 for his lobbying.

That’s not all: The busy Podesta Group also represented Uranium One, a uranium company acquired by the Russian government which received approval from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to mine for uranium in the U.S. and gave Russia twenty percent control of US uranium. The New York Times reported Uranium One’s chairman, Frank Guistra, made significant donations to the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 for one speech from a Russian investment bank that has “links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”  Notably, Frank Giustra, the Clinton Foundation’s largest and most controversial donor, does not appear anywhere in Clinton’s “non-private” emails. It is possible that the emails of such key donors were automatically scrubbed to protect the Clinton Foundation.

Let’s not leave out fugitive Ukrainian oligarch, Dymtro Firtash. He is represented by Democratic heavyweight lawyer, Lanny Davis, who accused Trump of “inviting Putin to commit espionage” (Trump’s quip: If Putin has Hillary’s emails, release them) but denies all wrongdoing by Hillary.

That’s still not all: Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) read Kremlin propaganda into the Congressional Record, referring to Ukrainian militia as “repulsive Neo Nazis” in denying Ukrainian forces ManPad weapons. Conyers floor speech was surely a notable success of some Kremlin lobbyist.

Lobbying for Russia is a bi-partisan activity. Gazprombank GPB, a subsidiary of Russia’s third largest bank, Gazprombank, is represented by former Sen. John Breaux, (D., La.), and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R., Miss.), as main lobbyists on “banking laws and regulations, including applicable sanctions.” The Breaux-Lott client is currently in the Treasury Department list of Russian firms prohibited from debt financing with U.S. banks.

In his February 16 press conference, President Trump declared in response to the intensifying media drumbeat on his Russian connections: “I haven’t done anything for Russia.” K-Street lobbyists, on the other hand, have done a lot to help Russia. They greased the skids for a strategic deal (that required the Secretary of State’s approval) that multiplied the Kremlin’s command of world uranium supplies. They likely prevented the shipment of strategic weapons needed by Ukraine to repulse well-armed pro-Russian forces. A fugitive billionaire who robbed the Ukrainian people of billions is represented by one of the establishment’s most connected lawyers.

Gazprombank GPB hired Breux and Lott to gain repeal of sanctions. That’s perfectly fine in Washington; they are playing according established “swamp rules” in their tailored suits and fine D.C. restaurants. General Flynn lost his job when the subject of sanctions was mentioned by the Russian ambassador in their telephone conversation, but that’s the way the media and Washington play.

No wonder that Trump’s’ “drain the swamp” and anti-media messages resonate so well with mainstream America.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on April 07, 2017, 11:53:24 AM
Gallup Poll: 62 Percent Say American News Media Favors One Party
By Tim Graham | April 7, 2017

The pollsters at Gallup are reporting something that should be obvious. More Americans realize the media favors one party over the other. “Sixty-two percent of U.S. adults say the media has a favorite, up from about 50% in past years. Just 27% now say the media favors neither major party.”

Just how many reporters were sampled in this survey? They (and the rest of the 27 percent) are in denial. Most people know the media look like Trump's opposition party.

Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of those who believe the media tilts toward a political party say they favor the Democrats. Only 22 percent believe the media show a preference for Republicans:

When Gallup last asked this question in February 2003, Americans were about evenly divided on the issue. Republicans are mostly responsible for the increase in perceptions of partisan media bias since 2003. Currently, 77% of Republicans say the media favors one party over the other; in 2003, 59% of Republicans said the same. By comparison, 44% of Democrats now say the media plays favorites, unchanged from the 44% who said so in 2003...

Perhaps not surprisingly, Republicans are fueling the belief that the news media favors Democrats: 88% of Republicans who believe the media is biased say this. Democrats are split in their views, with 43% naming Democrats as the recipients of that bias and 40% saying the bias is toward Republicans.

There's even worse news at a time when the media elites claim to rise above "fake news" emanating from Trump fans. Gallup also found in their March survey that a majority of Americans believe news organizations are often wrong in their reporting: 55 percent said that news organizations' stories and reports are "often inaccurate." Only 36 percent agreed that news organizations generally get the facts straight.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2017/04/07/gallup-poll-62-percent-say-american-news-media-favors-one-party


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on April 13, 2017, 10:47:30 AM
Former Clinton Spokeswoman: The Press Leans Left, But That Makes Them Tougher on Democrats
free beacon ^ | April 12, 2017 | David Rutz
Posted on 04/13/2017 11:25:22 AM PDT by digger48

Former Hillary Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmeri acknowledged Wednesday that the press has a liberal bias, but she claimed that actually makes journalists harder on Democrats in their coverage.

Palmieri spoke alongside former Bush administration spokesman Ari Fleischer at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., as part of a series of panels on "First Amendment challenges in the early days of the Trump administration."

"I think most journalists are probably leaning more to the left than the right," she said. "Think about the kind of person that's drawn to do this as a career. They believe in government, they think politics matters, they like it, they find it interesting, they don't make a lot of money … But what I've found is it means they come after us harder on what I describe as the crap. They come after us harder on the palace intrigue, on the process, on things that really shouldn't matter."

In addition to her communications role for Clinton's presidential campaign against Donald Trump, Palmieri served as communications director during the Obama administration and also worked for Bill Clinton.

Moderator Mike Allen, the founder of Axios, relayed that she said backstage that the press was more likely to be tougher on Democrats in general.

"I think in general they are," she said, telling a story near the end of Bill Clinton's administration where the press was on the White House's case about rising gas prices.

"I said if President Bush were president, you guys wouldn't be coming after him on gas prices, and they were like, ‘Well, no, because he's a Republican, he doesn't think that he should weigh in and fix gas prices, but you're Democrats, you're supposed to solve problems!'" she said.

She went on to say there was a "different metric" applied to Democrats by the press.

"I think they come after us harder on both being able to solve a problem, and then also on process and intrigue," she said.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 19, 2017, 12:03:14 PM
Harvard Study Agrees With MRC: Media Biased Against Trump
By Jackson Richman | May 19, 2017

 One of America’s top colleges agrees with the Media Research Center’s numerous conclusions (gasp!): The media is biased against President Donald Trump. Though slightly different methodologically than the MRC’s study in April, a new study from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government concurs: the negative coverage during Trump’s first 100 days was unprecedented.

According to the Harvard study, Trump consisted of 41 percent of national television content, which included of Trump, his administration, and Republicans outside the White House received the overwhelming majoirty of that coverage. Allocated in the coverage alone, Trump soundbites constituted 65 percent, while remarks from the GOP inside and outside the White House combined for 15 percent. Meanwhile, Democrats consisted of only six percent of soundbites.

Moreover, the tone behind the coverage of the Trump agenda was negative. For instance, immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. The closest to balanced coverage on an issue was the economy with 54 percent of the media's tone as negative with 46 percent of it as positive.

The research was conducted by analyzing the news coverage based on analysis of news coverage in the print editions of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post in addition to the newscasts on CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News. Analysis from three European news outlets, including the BBC, were also considered.

"Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president," professor Thomas Patterson said.

Patterson, who published the study, added: "Donald Trump’s ongoing feud with the media is not the first time a president has felt wronged by the press."

What makes media coverage of Trump unique, Patterson noted, was that though "virutally every president since Nixon has obsessed over what they’ve seen as unfair treatment by the press," Trump has "taken the fight to the press, openly and with relish."

Nonetheless, Patterson warned the media to watch itself more responsibly:

If a mud fight with Trump will not serve the media’s interests, neither will a soft peddling of his coverage. Never in the nation’s history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy. The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back. The news media gave Trump a boost when he entered presidential politics. But a head-on collision at some point was inevitable. It’s happened, it isn’t pretty, and it isn’t over.

At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. The public’s low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biased. That perception weakens the press’s watchdog role. One of the more remarkable features of news coverage of Trump’s first 100 days is that it has changed few minds about the president, for better or worse.

Patterson added that the majority of press coverage needs to dedicated toward policy ramifications as oppsoed to power politics. "Journalists’ focus on the Washington power game—who’s up and who’s down, who’s getting the better of whom—can be a fascinating story but at the end of the day, it’s food for political junkies," he said. "It’s remote enough from the lives of most Americans to convince them that the political system doesn’t speak for them, or to them."

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/jackson-richman/2017/05/19/harvard-study-agrees-mrc-media-biased-against-trump


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 25, 2017, 05:24:37 PM
FAKE NEWS: DOJ Responds to CNN’s Sessions Accusations
by IAN MASON
24 May 2017
Washington, DC

The Department of Justice issued a prompt response to CNN’s Wednesday accusation of impropriety against Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
CNN used the two already reported meetings between Sessions and Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyac as the basis for a news story on the Attorney General.

Sessions did not mention the meetings, which took place as part of Sessions’ official duties as a United States Senator, on his SF-86, the disclosure form for those applying for “top secret” clearance. This fact was, by CNN’s own account, freely volunteered by the Justice Department.

DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told CNN that Sessions did not list any of the dozens of ambassadors he met over years of being a senator.

Shortly after CNN ran their story, which quoted a Washington attorney who claimed that he would advise a client to disclose all official meetings, the Justice Department issued a press release firing back at the implication of wrongdoing.

Attributed to DOJ Deputy Director of Public Affairs Ian Prior, the response read:

As a United States Senator, the Attorney General met hundreds—if not thousands—of foreign dignitaries and their staff. In filling out the SF-86 form, the Attorney General’s staff consulted with those familiar with the process, as well as the FBI investigator handling the background check, and was instructed not to list meetings with foreign dignitaries and their staff connected with his Senate activities.

CNN concluded its piece with a quote by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling for Sessions to resign.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/24/fake-news-doj-responds-to-cnns-sessions-accusations/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on May 25, 2017, 05:33:23 PM
poor little Donny


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AbrahamG on May 25, 2017, 06:05:07 PM
Are you for or against palestine

Viva Palestine!  Not sure if I'm more anti-Israel or pro-Palestine.  Israel isn't just bad for the Palestinians.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 04, 2017, 08:54:10 AM
Viva Palestine!  Not sure if I'm more anti-Israel or pro-Palestine.  Israel isn't just bad for the Palestinians.

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/cnn-host-calls-trump-piece-sht-renewed-call-travel-ban



classy


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 05, 2017, 10:55:22 AM
Megyn Kelly Advances 4 Democratic Conspiracy Theories in Putin Interview
Breitbart ^ | June 5, 2017 | Aaron Klein
Posted on 6/5/2017, 2:37:35 PM by COUNTrecount

On her newly launched NBC program Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News anchor featured an exclusive interview with Vladimir Putin in which she espoused multiple conspiracy theories in her questions to the Russian leader.

Here are four wild conspiracies contained in Kelly’s queries, presented below in the order in which the questions were asked:

1 – Kelly stated inaccurately that 17 intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

She said, “President Putin, you have repeatedly and passionately denied that Russia was behind the interference with our American presidential election. But as you know, the consensus view in the United States is that you did. That’s what the 17 intelligence agencies concluded.”

The major anti-Trump talking point that 17 federal intelligence agencies concluded Russia interfered in the election has been around since at least last October, when Hillary Clinton stated the following at the third presidential debate: “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.”

However, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, twice affirmed in his May testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that the intelligence community’s assessments regarding alleged Russian interference were not the product of all 17 agencies but only three – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA).

The U.S. intelligence community report is titled, “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.”

The report itself makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on June 05, 2017, 11:48:35 AM
Megyn Kelly Advances 4 Democratic Conspiracy Theories in Putin Interview
Breitbart ^ | June 5, 2017 | Aaron Klein
Posted on 6/5/2017, 2:37:35 PM by COUNTrecount

On her newly launched NBC program Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly, the former Fox News anchor featured an exclusive interview with Vladimir Putin in which she espoused multiple conspiracy theories in her questions to the Russian leader.

Here are four wild conspiracies contained in Kelly’s queries, presented below in the order in which the questions were asked:

1 – Kelly stated inaccurately that 17 intelligence agencies concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

She said, “President Putin, you have repeatedly and passionately denied that Russia was behind the interference with our American presidential election. But as you know, the consensus view in the United States is that you did. That’s what the 17 intelligence agencies concluded.”

The major anti-Trump talking point that 17 federal intelligence agencies concluded Russia interfered in the election has been around since at least last October, when Hillary Clinton stated the following at the third presidential debate: “We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing.”

However, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, twice affirmed in his May testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that the intelligence community’s assessments regarding alleged Russian interference were not the product of all 17 agencies but only three – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the National Security Agency (NSA).

The U.S. intelligence community report is titled, “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.”

The report itself makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



That whole interview was cringe worthy


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: lilhawk1 on June 05, 2017, 06:59:13 PM
Breitbart, seriously? 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 06, 2017, 04:02:52 AM
NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/04/fake-news-nbc-correction-after-claiming-putin-had-compromising-info-trump/ ^
Posted on 6/6/2017, 7:56:17 AM by DOC44

Full Title: Fake News: NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump

NBC News was forced to issue a correction on Sunday evening after spinning its newest talent Megyn Kelly’s interview to falsely claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not deny having compromising information” on President Donald Trump.

To promote the debut of Kelly’s “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” program, NBC News tweeted, “EXCLUSIVE: Putin does not deny having compromising information on President Trump in interview with @megynkelly.” CNBC, NBC’s sister station, did not send out fake news, linking to the same story after tweeting, “Russia’s Putin denies having compromising information on Trump.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: mazrim on June 06, 2017, 05:33:10 AM
NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/04/fake-news-nbc-correction-after-claiming-putin-had-compromising-info-trump/ ^
Posted on 6/6/2017, 7:56:17 AM by DOC44

Full Title: Fake News: NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump

NBC News was forced to issue a correction on Sunday evening after spinning its newest talent Megyn Kelly’s interview to falsely claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not deny having compromising information” on President Donald Trump.

To promote the debut of Kelly’s “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” program, NBC News tweeted, “EXCLUSIVE: Putin does not deny having compromising information on President Trump in interview with @megynkelly.” CNBC, NBC’s sister station, did not send out fake news, linking to the same story after tweeting, “Russia’s Putin denies having compromising information on Trump.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


This is what I was referring to in the Kelly thread.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 06, 2017, 10:09:12 AM
NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/04/fake-news-nbc-correction-after-claiming-putin-had-compromising-info-trump/ ^
Posted on 6/6/2017, 7:56:17 AM by DOC44

Full Title: Fake News: NBC Issues Correction After Falsely Claiming Putin ‘Does Not Deny’ Having Compromising Info on Trump

NBC News was forced to issue a correction on Sunday evening after spinning its newest talent Megyn Kelly’s interview to falsely claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin “does not deny having compromising information” on President Donald Trump.

To promote the debut of Kelly’s “Sunday Night with Megyn Kelly” program, NBC News tweeted, “EXCLUSIVE: Putin does not deny having compromising information on President Trump in interview with @megynkelly.” CNBC, NBC’s sister station, did not send out fake news, linking to the same story after tweeting, “Russia’s Putin denies having compromising information on Trump.”

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...



That's pretty scandalous.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 09, 2017, 09:23:58 AM
CNN’s War On Trump Is Going Swimmingly
JUNE 9, 2017
By Ben Domenech

Back in February, I was riding on the New York to DC shuttle and CNN’s own Jeff Zucker was seated in the row behind me with a woman I took to be a colleague or personal assistant. She was yelling loudly into her phone, loudly enough that the other passengers took note of it, at one point escalating her voice to say: “If they want war with CNN, they got it.” When we landed, I noted the likely inspiration for the call: the administration had offered Mike Pence to every network except for CNN.

Since the new administration arrived in Washington, CNN has continued this war at a fever pitch. Daily they roll out eight-person panels where not one person defending the administration is represented. They have offered the most biased coverage of the Trump administration by far, to the point that Republicans on Capitol Hill openly mock their lack of balance. A network that once strove to be centrist in their approach is now openly antagonistic, and will run with the thinnest of scoops for hours at a time in order to make their case against President Trump.

This has led them to be sloppier journalists than we’ve ever seen before. Consider their worst performance this week: CNN didn’t get anywhere near enough flack for their ridiculous story that ran on Tuesday night, which they talked about for hours, saying that James Comey would refute Trump’s claim that he was cleared three times. The four-person byline included a major host and commentator: Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper, and Brian Rokus. They have since changed the headline on the piece from “Comey expected to refute Trump” to “Comey unlikely to judge on obstruction.”

For the entire evening, CNN ran with this story as their main discussion point.  They told viewers over and over again that Comey was set to utterly undermine what Trump had claimed, and that he would do it in front of Congress and the people, based on two anonymous sources who turned out to be totally wrong.

On air, Borger doubled down on the story she helped report:  “On CNN’s air, analyst Gloria Borger put matters more starkly, saying, ‘Comey is going to dispute the president on this point if he’s asked about it by senators, and we have to assume that he will be. He will say he never assured Donald Trump that he was not under investigation, that that would have been improper for him to do so.’”

Of course, none of that happened. In fact, Comey testified that he volunteered that information, and that contrary to Borger’s claims, he saw nothing inappropriate in doing so.  The correction and update CNN ran doesn’t come anywhere near what they should’ve done, which was a total retraction: “CORRECTION AND UPDATE: This article was published before Comey released his prepared opening statement. The article and headline have been corrected to reflect that Comey does not directly dispute that Trump was told multiple times he was not under investigation in his prepared testimony released after this story was published.”

“Does not directly dispute” should be read as “utterly and totally confirms.” At some point, CNN is going to have to decide what they are willing to do in this war on the president and his administration, and whether they are willing to sacrifice even a semblance of balance and centrism in their quest against him, transforming themselves from a news network to an agenda-driven propaganda unit, complete with their useful idiots, their organs of the past administration, and their collection of invented sources who pass along useful lies.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/09/cnns-war-trump-going-swimmingly/#.WTq0Pgc0rSM.twitter


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 09, 2017, 09:27:54 AM
New York Times Defends Trump Article After James Comey Calls it “Not True”
by ADAM SHAW
9 Jun 2017

The New York Times Thursday was forced to defend itself Thursday from accusations of spreading fake news after fired FBI Director James Comey slammed an article the so-called “paper of record” published in February — calling it “not true.”
At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Comey was asked about a story that featured in the Times on Valentine’s Day — “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence”.

The story opened:

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

However, Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) asked about the article at the hearing,

“Okay, so again,” Risch said. “So the American people can understand this, that report by the New York Times was not true, is that a fair statement?”

“In the main, it was not true,” Comey replied, before accusing the Times reporting team of not knowing what it was talking about. “Again, all of you know this, maybe the American people don’t. The challenge — I’m not picking on reporters about writing stories about classified information… [the challenge is] that people talking about it often don’t really now what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”

“And we don’t call the press to say, hey, you got that thing wrong about this sensitive topic,” Comey said. “We just have to leave it there.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, (R-AR), followed up, asking Comey if the story was “almost entirely wrong.’ Comey said yes.

The Times immediately tweeted that it was “looking into” Comey’s statements.

 The New York Times ✔ @nytimes
We are looking into James Comey's statements, and we will report back with more information as soon as we can. https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/872847226493702146 …
7:24 AM - 8 Jun 2017
  818 818 Retweets   2,053 2,053 likes

Eventually the Times published a report and support of its article late Thursday, noting that Comey did not say what it was about the article that was false. However, it had some ideas what Comey may have disputed:

One possible area of dispute is the description of the Russians involved. Some law enforcement officials took issue with the Times account in the days after it was published, saying that the intelligence was still murky, and that the Russians who were in contact with Mr. Trump’s advisers did not meet the F.B.I.’s black-and-white standard of who can be considered an “intelligence officer.”

Another possibility, the Times said, was that he may have disagreed with the paper’s description of the evidence for the contacts with Russia — the Times said authorities had relied on “phone records and intercepted calls” to gain evidence.

However, the Times noted that the reporters’ sources had stood by their accounts, and also pointed to subsequent reporting that it said backed up some of the claims made in the Feb. 14 article.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/09/nyt-defends-trump-article-comey-calls-not-true/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 14, 2017, 10:02:56 PM
Skip to comments.

HuffPost lays off dozens of staffers (Verizon culls the AOL/Yahoo HuffPo herds)
The Hill ^ | 6/14/17 | John Bowden - The Hill
Posted on 6/14/2017, 6:32:33 PM by NormsRevenge

News outlet HuffPost — previously known as the Huffington Post — laid off 39 staffers on Wednesday, a move that follows parent company AOL's acquisition by telecom giant Verizon.

...

The layoffs also included several reporters in HuffPost's Washington, D.C., bureau. HuffPost senior politics editor Sam Stein described the layoffs on Twitter as "a very difficult day."

HuffPost is "also a business, with all that entails," Stein wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 19, 2017, 03:21:32 AM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/18/msnbc-host-labels-rep-scalise-an-extremist-while-he-lies-in-hospital-bed


sick bitch


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on June 22, 2017, 03:54:46 PM
(https://i.redd.it/7h36iaokp75z.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on June 26, 2017, 07:24:32 AM
CNN Source: “People Will Be Disciplined” Over Retracted Russia Reporting
Hotair ^ | 06/26/2017 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on 6/26/2017, 10:29:26 AM by SeekAndFind

It must have sounded like a great scoop. CNN reporter Thomas Frank heard from a single source that claimed the Senate Intelligence Committee was probing Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci for a supposed meeting with a Russian investment fund CEO, and ran the story on Thursday. By Friday, though, the story had mysteriously disappeared, and it took more than twelve hours for CNN to officially retract the story — and only after Buzzfeed began asking questions about it:

The now-deleted story, by investigative reporter Thomas Frank, was published Thursday and cited a single, unnamed source who claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee was looking into a “$10-billion Russian investment fund whose chief executive met with a member of President Donald Trump’s transition team four days before Trump’s inauguration.”

But by Friday evening, the story had vanished from CNN’s website. It was not immediately clear when the story was removed, but a tweet linking to the story, from CNN’s Politics account, was also deleted sometime Friday evening.

After noticing the story’s disappearance, BuzzFeed News contacted CNN. More than an hour later, an editor’s note appeared on CNN’s website. A company representative sent BuzzFeed News a link to the note, but did not answer other questions about why the story was removed.

“The story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted,” the editor’s note said. It did not say which parts of the story failed to meet the company’s standards. The note also apologized to Anthony Scaramucci, a member of Trump’s transition team and an adviser to his presidential campaign, who was named in the report.

Over the weekend, CNN’s executives busied themselves with a new process for reporting on Russia, Buzzfeed later learned. According to an internal memo, all reporting from CNN on that topic will have to get specific approval from executives before appearing on any of their platforms. Jon Passantino’s source says that disciplinary action will also be forthcoming over last week’s debacle:

In wake of story retraction, CNNMoney exec editor sends memo to staff mandating all "Russia-related content" must be cleared by him or VP pic.twitter.com/2Y6QMZj1h5

— Jon Passantino (@passantino) June 25, 2017

A source close to the network, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter, told BuzzFeed News earlier that the story was a “massive, massive [f***] up and people will be disciplined.” The person said CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker and the head of the company’s human resources department are “directly involved” in an internal investigation examining how the story was handled.

It will be worth watching just how CNN handles the discipline in this specific case. Did Frank’s source provide solid reporting before, and just get this one wrong? Or did the source simply sucker Frank? How much effort went into corroborating the information? While CNN is at it, they may also want to explain why the story was allowed to be deleted off their platforms without any explanation at all for hours, which also seems like an editorial failure of its own.

In part, though, this happens because of the hyperbolic and hyper-competitive environment in which the national media now operates on the Trump administration, and especially the Russia angles. There seems to be almost a desperation to provide grist for that particular mill, as no real evidence has emerged of any collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence, despite several months of focus on it by Congress, the FBI, and national media outlets. So far at least it’s a dry hole, and yet media outlets insist on pumping it continuously — and that need to provide new reporting on a weak narrative seems like a pretty good incentive to lower standards on reporting in order to get something fresh to put in front of readers and viewers. If that is what happened in this case — we don’t know that for sure yet, of course — it would be an utterly predictable outcome.

Perhaps this might provide a lesson to other outlets about this particular story. It’s one that will in all likelihood get ignored.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on June 26, 2017, 02:47:38 PM
CNN Source: “People Will Be Disciplined” Over Retracted Russia Reporting
Hotair ^ | 06/26/2017 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on 6/26/2017, 10:29:26 AM by SeekAndFind

It must have sounded like a great scoop. CNN reporter Thomas Frank heard from a single source that claimed the Senate Intelligence Committee was probing Trump transition team member Anthony Scaramucci for a supposed meeting with a Russian investment fund CEO, and ran the story on Thursday. By Friday, though, the story had mysteriously disappeared, and it took more than twelve hours for CNN to officially retract the story — and only after Buzzfeed began asking questions about it:

The now-deleted story, by investigative reporter Thomas Frank, was published Thursday and cited a single, unnamed source who claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee was looking into a “$10-billion Russian investment fund whose chief executive met with a member of President Donald Trump’s transition team four days before Trump’s inauguration.”

But by Friday evening, the story had vanished from CNN’s website. It was not immediately clear when the story was removed, but a tweet linking to the story, from CNN’s Politics account, was also deleted sometime Friday evening.

After noticing the story’s disappearance, BuzzFeed News contacted CNN. More than an hour later, an editor’s note appeared on CNN’s website. A company representative sent BuzzFeed News a link to the note, but did not answer other questions about why the story was removed.

“The story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted,” the editor’s note said. It did not say which parts of the story failed to meet the company’s standards. The note also apologized to Anthony Scaramucci, a member of Trump’s transition team and an adviser to his presidential campaign, who was named in the report.

Over the weekend, CNN’s executives busied themselves with a new process for reporting on Russia, Buzzfeed later learned. According to an internal memo, all reporting from CNN on that topic will have to get specific approval from executives before appearing on any of their platforms. Jon Passantino’s source says that disciplinary action will also be forthcoming over last week’s debacle:

In wake of story retraction, CNNMoney exec editor sends memo to staff mandating all "Russia-related content" must be cleared by him or VP pic.twitter.com/2Y6QMZj1h5

— Jon Passantino (@passantino) June 25, 2017

A source close to the network, who requested anonymity to discuss the matter, told BuzzFeed News earlier that the story was a “massive, massive [f***] up and people will be disciplined.” The person said CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker and the head of the company’s human resources department are “directly involved” in an internal investigation examining how the story was handled.

It will be worth watching just how CNN handles the discipline in this specific case. Did Frank’s source provide solid reporting before, and just get this one wrong? Or did the source simply sucker Frank? How much effort went into corroborating the information? While CNN is at it, they may also want to explain why the story was allowed to be deleted off their platforms without any explanation at all for hours, which also seems like an editorial failure of its own.

In part, though, this happens because of the hyperbolic and hyper-competitive environment in which the national media now operates on the Trump administration, and especially the Russia angles. There seems to be almost a desperation to provide grist for that particular mill, as no real evidence has emerged of any collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence, despite several months of focus on it by Congress, the FBI, and national media outlets. So far at least it’s a dry hole, and yet media outlets insist on pumping it continuously — and that need to provide new reporting on a weak narrative seems like a pretty good incentive to lower standards on reporting in order to get something fresh to put in front of readers and viewers. If that is what happened in this case — we don’t know that for sure yet, of course — it would be an utterly predictable outcome.

Perhaps this might provide a lesson to other outlets about this particular story. It’s one that will in all likelihood get ignored.

They have been doing this kind of stuff since Trump won the nomination.  Glad they are finally showing some journalistic integrity. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 11, 2017, 04:39:17 PM
Washington Post article linking Scalise shooter to conservative radio host sparks online outrage
Published July 09, 2017
Fox News
 
The Washington Post struck out with many on social media over an article that appears to blame a right-wing Illinois shock jock for the Virginia shooting rampage by a Trump-hating, Bernie Sanders volunteer who targeted Republicans during a baseball practice.

The lengthy piece takes aim at the foul-mouthed Bob Romanik, who spews invective on the AM dial from a studio in Belleville, Ill., shooter James Hodgkinson’s hometown.

“What’s the point of this?" Buzz Feed political reporter Katherine Miller asked on Twitter. “The shooter hated Trump and there’s no indication in the story he listened to this pro-Trump host.”

What's the point of this? The shooter hated Trump and there's no indication in the story he listened to this pro-Trump host. https://t.co/7mb4nLIjT6

— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) July 8, 2017
Washington Examiner political correspondent and Fox News contributor Byron York tweeted, “Revision of the year: WP suggests, without evidence, Alexandria shooter was inspired by right-wing bigoted radio talker.”

“Devoted Bernie supporter shoots up baseball field of Republicans. Washington Post blames pro Trump talk radio in his hometown for it,” Heat Street contributor Stephen Miller said in a tweet.

WaPo evidence-free revisionism: Maybe Scalise shooter was inspired by right-wing Trump-loving radio host. https://t.co/VFSbFIBwlP

— Byron York (@ByronYork) July 9, 2017
The Post article, written by Peter Holley, pointed out Hodgkinson "shot four people at a congressional baseball practice" in Virginia -- but never got around to identifying the victims.

Cops killed Hodgkinson after his rampage, which wounded House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, lobbyist Matt Mika, House GOP aide Zack Barth and Capitol Police Officer Crystal Griner. Capitol Police Officer David Bailey and Texas Rep. Roger Williams also were hurt during the incident.

Devoted Bernie supporter shoots up baseball field of Republicans. Washington Post blames pro Trump talk radio in his hometown for it pic.twitter.com/59HEvgBXZY

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) July 8, 2017
Scalise is still hospitalized following the June 14 shooting; he underwent surgery for an infection on July 5.

The Post article reports that the shooting shocked the nation but not Romanik -- "The Grim Reaper of Radio" -- adding that among those who listen to his rants about race, crime and government are many disgruntled southern Illinois Democrats.

I'm honestly not sure I've ever seen one article (and tweet) that so neatly encapsulates why Americans by and large loathe the MSM. https://t.co/x5tuYjWhdY

— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) July 8, 2017
“I can’t say for sure if this Hodgkinson guy listened to me, but he probably did,” Romanik was quoted as telling the Post reporter. “If people would be honest about what drove Hodgkinson to the point of violence, you’d probably see a lot of people right on the same page with him all over the country. But around here, for sure.”

Critics of the piece took to social media after it ran Saturday.

Even when a leftist is to blame, the media will blame the right. https://t.co/5k8c6bqH2b

— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) July 8, 2017
“I'm honestly not sure I've ever seen one article (and tweet) that so neatly encapsulates why Americans by and large loathe the MSM,” self-described conservative Josh Hammer tweeted.

(1) Find inflammatory local radio host.
(2) Find people who listen to him.
(3) Say shooter could maybe have been a listener.

Journalism.

— Gabriel Malor (@gabrielmalor) July 9, 2017
Real Clear reporter Ashe Schow said on Twitter, “Even when a leftist is to blame, the media will blame the right.”

Neither the Washington Post nor Holley have tweeted a response.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/09/washington-post-article-linking-scalise-shooter-to-conservative-radio-host-sparks-online-outrage.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 21, 2017, 02:45:54 PM
Chuck Todd under fire for 'softball' interviews with Antifa ally
Published August 21, 2017
Fox News

Anchor Chuck Todd is under fire for his “softball” treatment of an Antifa sympathizer on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” with conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell accusing him of allowing a “radical to promote domestic terrorism with little push back.”

Todd, following a similar interview on his daily MSNBC show last week, hosted a brief debate Sunday on the radical left-wing group’s violent tactics. Speaking in support of Antifa was Dartmouth professor Mark Bray, who justified what he described as the group’s “self-defense” tactics as a “legitimate response to white supremacist and neo-Nazi violence.”

The group, however, has a history of attacking not just neo-Nazis but conservative and pro-Trump crowds in general. Its allies infamously clashed with Trump supporters in a melee earlier this year in Berkeley, Calif., leading to the cancellation of a Breitbart editor’s speech.

In that riot, protesters broke windows, threw smoke bombs and started a bonfire outside the building that would have hosted the speech.

Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, blasted Todd and NBC for giving a platform for such extremist groups as Antifa.

3h
Brent Bozell  ✔ @BrentBozell
Replying to @BrentBozell
6/6 NBC must cease giving legitimacy to supporters of this violent left-wing movement immediately.

Brent Bozell ✔ @BrentBozell
Here is my statement on Chuck Todd after he gave the violent, antifa movement a platform on his program twice in under a week. pic.twitter.com/0w1xtZ7eIL
9:29 AM - Aug 21, 2017
View image on Twitter
 28 28 Replies   228 228 Retweets   266 266 likes

He said in a statement posted to Twitter:

“Violent leftists have broken into the mainstream and Chuck Todd is guilty of aiding and abetting. It is abhorrent that NBC and Todd believe it acceptable to normalize extremist groups like Antifa which use terror to silence their opposition.

“After last Wednesday's softball interview, Chuck Todd had the opportunity to correct his mistake but instead chose to again allow a radical to promote domestic terrorism with little push back.

“Can you imagine Chuck Todd inviting a member of a militant right-wing group on his show to rationalize violence against the left? NBC must cease giving legitimacy to supporters of this violent left-wing movement immediately.”

PETITION URGES TERROR LABEL FOR ANTIFA

Fox News has reached out to NBC for comment.

Todd’s own Twitter feed reflected similar complaints, with critics accusing the show of giving a platform to the promotion of violence. Todd, in introducing Bray, did describe him as part of a "very small minority who is defending the idea of violence."

20 Aug
Chuck Todd  ✔ @chucktodd
Joining me now on #MTP: "Antifa" author @Mark__Bray and @splcenter President Richard Cohen

Joe Dandan @JoeDandan
I seriously cannot believe this is going on. Congratulations @chucktodd , your an official public icon promoting violence in our country
5:50 AM - Aug 20, 2017 · Pleasant Prairie, WI
 4 4 Replies   8 8 Retweets   22 22 likes

20 Aug
Chuck Todd  ✔ @chucktodd
Joining me now on #MTP: "Antifa" author @Mark__Bray and @splcenter President Richard Cohen
 Follow
QuirkySquark @QuirkySquark
Neither whitesupremacists nor antifa should be allowed to hijack the important debates of our time.
5:18 AM - Aug 20, 2017
 Replies   2 2 Retweets   35 35 likes

Antifa is back in the spotlight after President Trump criticized “both sides” for the clashes in Charlottesville two weekends ago, when a counter-protester at a white supremacist rally was killed in a car attack. Trump was hammered for his comments and accused of equating neo-Nazis with those who would protest them.

But Antifa’s tactics at other rallies have faced increased scrutiny, with critics concerned they could trigger more violence. 

On Todd’s show, that argument was made forcefully by Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“I think it's a spectacularly bad idea to give one group of people the right to silence another group of people,” Cohen said.

Bray, though, said, “There's a big difference between confronting fascism and confronting other forms of violence.”

Todd gently pushed back, saying some critics claim Antifa is against free speech, bordering on censorship.

“Well, let's be clear that Antifa are not calling on the government to censor anyone,” Bray said. “… And so the idea is, the real enemies of free speech are fascists.”

A report in Bozell’s NewsBusters noted that Todd did not press Bray on Antifa’s broad definition of fascists.

The report said: “There was no clarification from Todd of how Antifa’s definition of ‘fascist’ only applies to those who don’t hold liberal beliefs. Their definition blankets nearly everyone on the right and now covers those on the left who question their tactics of shutting down free speech.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/21/chuck-todd-under-fire-for-softball-interviews-with-antifa-ally.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 05, 2017, 02:53:01 PM
As Trial Looms, NY Times Bizarrely Leaves Out Sen. Menendez’s Democratic Affiliation
By Clay Waters | September 5, 2017

New York Times reporter Nick Corasaniti’s initial 1,200-word story on the upcoming trial of Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey on federal bribery charges had everything but one little detail: His Democratic Party affiliation. It’s a bad habit by the Times to ignore party affiliation of scandal-plagued Democrats, while eagerly, sometimes instantly, identifying Republican politicians in similar straits.

The story itself (minus the amazing omission of a “Democrat" label for Menendez) was sufficiently tough on the senator, but also weirdly mentioned the “unrelenting turbulence of the Trump administration,” which has nothing to do with the long-standing allegations against Menendez.

The moment underscored the unusual predicament facing Mr. Menendez, a senior senator: For the first time in 36 years, a sitting United States Senator is facing a federal bribery trial, one that comes as a bitterly divided Congress reconvenes amid the unrelenting turbulence of the Trump administration.
Despite ample space, Corasaniti managed to avoid a basic piece of “Who?” information: What party does Menendez represent in Congress?

(After social media pushback, the Times allowed a puny insert in the below paragraph, although it came too late for at least one National edition of Tuesday's paper. The first sentence now reads: “Since his indictment more than two years ago, Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence, and last week he reiterated that.”)

Since his indictment more than two years ago, Mr. Menendez has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence, and last week, he reiterated that. “I am going to be exonerated,” he said in a brief interview on Wednesday with reporters following a rally protesting President Trump’s immigration policies.

Mr. Menendez is charged with 12 corruption-related counts, including six counts of bribery and three counts of honest services fraud.

....

The retort from the defense was a reminder of what is at stake for Mr. Menendez: Not only must his team win over the jury that will hear the criminal case, but the senator must preserve his standing with voters, who will decide next year whether to re-elect him.

....

The trial, which is expected to last six to eight weeks, hinges not necessarily on the concrete evidence that the government has collected, but rather on subjective questions about intent, friendship and “official acts.”

Indeed, the defense for Mr. Menendez is unlikely to dispute some of the facts; that Dr. Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist, bestowed on the senator lavish gifts of private flights, luxury accommodations and free vacations -- all which Mr. Menendez initially failed to disclose -- and he made more than $700,000 in direct and indirect political contributions to Mr. Menendez.
This sentence provided the only hint in the original of the senator’s political affiliation:

When Dr. Melgen needed quick changes to a Medicare reimbursement program, he donated $300,000 through his company to Majority PAC, a super PAC supporting Democratic candidates for Senate. The same day, Mr. Menendez met with officials at Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and a month later, with Kathleen Sebelius, then the secretary of Health and Human Services, according to the brief.
It’s a bad habit by the Times to ignore party affiliation of scandal-plagued Democrats, while instantly identifying Republican politicians of similar status.

A 2011 Times story shielded the party of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards after he was indicted on campaign finance violations involving covering up an affair.

A May 2017 story on Florida Dem. Corrine Brown’s indictment initially managed to leave off her party affiliation. Yet in November 2016 Times’ Christine Hauser couldn’t wait half a sentence before identifying former Rep. Aaron Schock as a Republican when he was indicted for wire fraud: “Aaron Schock, the former Republican representative from Illinois whose taste for first-class travel and a ‘Downton Abbey’-themed office design led to questions about his judgment and adherence to spending rules, was indicted on Thursday by a federal grand jury on 24 counts, including wire fraud and theft of government funds.”

Other Democrats in hot water, including Sen. Chris Dodd and Sen. Jesse Jackson Jr., were also spared a party label, while Republican Rep. Vito Fossella was readily identified as a Republican.

Most notorious, reporter Adam Nossiter in 2008 filed a disturbing story about racism and anti-Semitism in a Democratic primary in Memphis -- but left out the "Democrat" part (Item #2). Even then-MSNBC left-winger Keith Olbermann, in naming the candidate at the center of the story his "Worst Person in the World,” managed to identify offending candidate Nikki Tinker as a Democrat.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/clay-waters/2017/09/05/trial-looms-ny-times-bizarrely-leaves-out-sen-menendezs-democratic


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 05, 2017, 03:07:26 PM
^ To be fair, FOX has been known to actually change an 'R' to a 'D' for their visuals on TV.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 05, 2017, 03:09:27 PM
^ To be fair, FOX has been known to actually change an 'R' to a 'D' for their visuals on TV.

Has been known or it has happened in the past?  I don't think it's a fair comparison unless it's habitual like the MSM. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 05, 2017, 03:17:51 PM
Has been known or it has happened in the past?  I don't think it's a fair comparison unless it's habitual like the MSM. 

Yes, I know they've done it.  Whatever it means, and however it might happen, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But then again, I think it's fair to say the money behind FOX has the same idea for this society as all the rest.  They do it to make us angry with one another, so we won't get together and "fix" their wagon for them.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 05, 2017, 03:30:24 PM
Has been known or it has happened in the past?  I don't think it's a fair comparison unless it's habitual like the MSM. 

LOL - I love how you pretend to be completely unaware of this.  It's been talked about many time on this board (you know, the one you allegedly moderate) and many videos have been posted

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/shocking-fox-news-labels-disgraced-re

Here's three that came to mind immediately- Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Mark Sanford

Larry Craig:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj7xrT1KMVg

Mark Foley:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRcV_ARr-I4


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 05, 2017, 03:46:49 PM
Yes, I know they've done it.  Whatever it means, and however it might happen, let's just say it doesn't look good.

But then again, I think it's fair to say the money behind FOX has the same idea for this society as all the rest.  They do it to make us angry with one another, so we won't get together and "fix" their wagon for them.

I don't see it as a pattern at all with Fox News.  I don't watch their local affiliates, so I have no idea what they do or don't do.  But routinely hiding or changing party affiliation by Fox News?  It if happened, must be isolated, remote instances.  Nothing like the ongoing, repeated, pervasive bias we see in the MSM. 

But I agree it doesn't look good whenever it happens.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 05, 2017, 04:08:30 PM
I don't see it as a pattern at all with Fox News.  I don't watch their local affiliates, so I have no idea what they do or don't do.  But routinely hiding or changing party affiliation by Fox News?  It if happened, must be isolated, remote instances.  Nothing like the ongoing, repeated, pervasive bias we see in the MSM. 

But I agree it doesn't look good whenever it happens.

they only do it when a Republican is caught up in a scandal or when a Republican is espousing a point of view they don't agree with (see the examples of Arlen Specter and John McCain)

this thread is 17 pages long and you have yet to even remotely prove "ongoing, repeated, pervasive bias we see in the MSM"

of course "bias" is filtered through your own personal lens so I'm sure you see it everywhere


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 05, 2017, 07:14:03 PM
No, I do believe a very strong anti-American agenda exists in the little pinkie culture-club known as MSM.  And they wield power almost beyond full comprehension.

For instance, they get to invent a single word to blanket an issue (think "Dreamers" for example in these current events) and from that moment forward it shall be referred to by that description.  Everything becomes filtered through a word of their carefully-determined choice.  And then the weakest among us link their logic to it, and it spreads like cancer.

Very nasty, very deceptive, very manipulative little bastards, they are in MSM, playing with our society while joyfully doing the same thing with their dicks, no doubt.

Not cool, man.  Not acceptable.  We can't have this.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 05, 2017, 07:34:40 PM
No, I do believe a very strong anti-American agenda exists in the little pinkie culture-club known as MSM.  And they wield power almost beyond full comprehension.

For instance, they get to invent a single word to blanket an issue (think "Dreamers" for example in these current events) and from that moment forward it shall be referred to by that description.  Everything becomes filtered through a word of their carefully-determined choice.  And then the weakest among us link their logic to it, and it spreads like cancer.

Very nasty, very deceptive, very manipulative little bastards, they are in MSM, playing with our society while joyfully doing the same thing with their dicks, no doubt.

Not cool, man.  Not acceptable.  We can't have this.

Regarding the Dreamers Trump said "I have a love for these people and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly"

btw - Trump lawyers will be arguing next month in favor of HIS broad executive authority

the only reason Obama did anything on this issue is because Congress did NOTHING



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 05, 2017, 07:57:42 PM
Regarding the Dreamers Trump said "I have a love for these people and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly"

btw - Trump lawyers will be arguing next month in favor of HIS broad executive authority

the only reason Obama did anything on this issue is because Congress did NOTHING



Did nothing, toward what?  Help me understand this one, because (honestly) maybe I don't know.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 05, 2017, 09:00:19 PM
Did nothing, toward what?  Help me understand this one, because (honestly) maybe I don't know.

help me understand what you're referring to?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 06, 2017, 09:40:57 AM
help me understand what you're referring to?

You said Obama decided to do something because Congress did not.

What sort of thing should we/he have expected Congress to do when it comes to the issue?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 06, 2017, 10:59:09 AM
No, I do believe a very strong anti-American agenda exists in the little pinkie culture-club known as MSM.  And they wield power almost beyond full comprehension.

For instance, they get to invent a single word to blanket an issue (think "Dreamers" for example in these current events) and from that moment forward it shall be referred to by that description.  Everything becomes filtered through a word of their carefully-determined choice.  And then the weakest among us link their logic to it, and it spreads like cancer.

Very nasty, very deceptive, very manipulative little bastards, they are in MSM, playing with our society while joyfully doing the same thing with their dicks, no doubt.

Not cool, man.  Not acceptable.  We can't have this.

Absolute truth.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Straw Man on September 06, 2017, 11:25:08 AM
You said Obama decided to do something because Congress did not.

What sort of thing should we/he have expected Congress to do when it comes to the issue?

DACA was a direct result of Congress failing to do something about this group of undocumented immigrants



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 06, 2017, 02:54:06 PM
Reminder: The press really wanted Hillary Clinton to be president
by Becket Adams | Sep 5, 2017

Hillary Clinton's supporters love to complain that the press torpedoed her White House ambitions 2016.

What utter nonsense.

First, as noted by my colleague Eddie Scarry, if Clinton lost the 2016 election because of negative press coverage, then how did Donald Trump win? He had 15 solid months of bad press. No one – left, center or right – can argue the press went easy on the Queens businessman. If elections were determined by which candidate had the rosier press coverage, then we'd be saying "Madam President" today.

Secondly, when it came to which candidate the press obviously preferred in 2016, Clinton was the hands-down winner. This isn't opinion or conjecture. This is a matter of record!

By Nov. 6, 2016, just two days before Election Day, an astonishing 57 newspapers had already endorsed Clinton for president. Trump, on the other hand, had exactly two (t-w-o) endorsements.

As if that weren't impressive enough, Clinton also overshadowed Trump when it came to political donations from the media. The margin wasn't even close.

Through August of last year, members of all classes of media, including journalists, editors, news anchors, etc., had donated roughly $382,000 to Clinton's election efforts, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis released in October 2016.

In contrast, Trump had netted only about $14,000 in donations from members of the press.


Putting things more simply, a whopping 96 percent of all journalism-related donations went to Clinton, according to the report. Trump got the scraps.

We don't bring any of this up to twist the knife or pour salt in not-yet-healed wounds. Rather, this is a direct response to Clinton superfan Peter Daou, who launched a supposed fact-checking website this weekend.

The site itself, Verrit, is ... whatever. Clinton fans need something to do.

The thing that begs for a response here is when he tweeted this weekend, "I founded [Verrit] because Hillary Clinton's voters – an inspiringly diverse coalition – are unrepresented in the media."

Unrepresented? There are certainly specific demographic issues that newsrooms are struggling to address, but the idea that the Clinton coalition didn't get a fair shake last year is preposterous. The industry almost entirely comprises people who saw her as the much better option for president.

Clinton got their endorsements, their money and (likely) their votes. What more does Daou want?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reminder-the-press-really-wanted-hillary-clinton-to-be-president/article/2633494


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Las Vegas on September 06, 2017, 07:44:37 PM
DACA was a direct result of Congress failing to do something about this group of undocumented immigrants



Do you know if it's that they wouldn't have citizenship anywhere else, if not for DACA?  Or how that works? (Anyone?)

I suppose not, though, or we'd have heard about it with this story (endlessly, I'm sure).

I'm trying to figure out how a person in that situation is being deprived without something like DACA.  Absolutely NO offense to anyone, I do have a heart, and I understand this is about individuals who were brought here as minors.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 13, 2017, 01:06:00 PM
Study: 91 Percent of Trump News Coverage Over Summer Was Negative
Sep 12, 2017 // 9:21pm
As seen on The Five

Over the past three months, evening news coverage of President Donald Trump on the main broadcast stations was 91 percent negative, according to a new Media Research Center study.

By the end of August, the MRC said, nearly 40 percent of coverage during the nightly news on ABC, NBC and CBS was about the Trump White House or the administration.

Comparatively, President Barack Obama received about ten percent of broadcast news coverage.

The top four Trump related topics discussed over the past three months were the Russia investigation 27 percent of the time, the failure to repeal ObamaCare, the handling of the North Korea situation and Trump's controversial response to Charlottesville.

Greg Gutfeld reacted to the study, agreeing that there has been "more favorable [press] coverage of scurvy."

"Trump is a one-man-band generating money and outrage - rather, money for the outrage."

Watch more above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/09/12/donald-trump-news-coverage-mostly-negative-new-study-shows


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 05, 2017, 02:01:18 PM
September News Coverage of Trump Administration 92 Percent Negative
By Jason Devaney   |   Thursday, 05 Oct 2017

The negative coverage of President Donald Trump and his administration continued in September, with a new report showing just 8 percent of the coverage was positive.

The Media Research Center (MRC) study found that 92 percent of the coverage on the three major networks' nightly newscasts was negative. That was slightly higher than the 90 percent negative coverage the MRC claims the administration has received since Inauguration Day in January.

Other findings from the MRC's September report:

The six topics most discussed on the news were North Korea, immigration, Trump's response to the three hurricanes that hit the U.S. and its territories, Trump's comments regarding the NFL's national anthem controversy, the GOP's Obamacare repeal efforts, and the controversy regarding several members of the cabinet using private and/or military jets.

News stories about repealing and replacing Obamacare and the aforementioned private jets saga were 100 percent negative.

Stories about immigration, which included talk about the planned end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, were 96 percent negative.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/september-news-coverage-negative-donald-trump/2017/10/05/id/817957/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on October 13, 2017, 03:32:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6cv-6WuDK0

Late-night comedian Seth Meyers has had enough of Donald Trump supporters, asking his viewers to “choose” between the President and his show; ultimately telling GOP voters to “go away” before throwing up a middle-finger towards the camera.

Meyers began his rant by praising rapper Eminem’s four-minute long anti-Trump tirade at the BET Hip Hop Music Awards earlier this week, saying he was “inspired” by the musician’s vicious attacks on the Commander-in-Chief.

“[Eminem] ended the video by calling on any of his fans who still support Donald Trump to decide between Trump and himself,” said Meyers.

“I was inspired by that,” he added. “So, tonight I would say to any fans of this show who are also big fans of Donald Trump: It’s time to make a decision guys. Get off the fence. Do you support him or do you support this show that constantly mocks and denigrates everything about him?”

“I know it’s a tough call, but it’s time to make a decision. Now, I’m not much of a rapper but here it goes,” said the late-night comedian.

“My name is Seth and I’m here to say, that if you like Trump then go away,” he rapped, before flipping off Trump voters who hadn’t already changed the channel.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 16, 2017, 03:14:30 PM
Protecting one of their own.  Shameful.

Tucker: NBC News President Should Be Fired For Refusing to Run Weinstein Story
Oct 12, 2017 // 8:38pm
As seen on Tucker Carlson Tonight

Tucker Carlson said NBC News president Noah Oppenheim should resign or be fired immediately for punting on reporting Ronan Farrow's explosive story on Harvey Weinstein.

Oppenheim said there was good reason to kill the story, and instead added that he provided resources to Farrow who then shopped the story to the New Yorker, according to Carlson.

"Let's be clear," Carlson said. "NBC is lying."

He listed several claims by Oppenheim he said were untrue.

Oppenheim said Farrow was given resources, but it turned out he wasn't given even a camera crew.

Despite claims Farrow hadn't completed the bulk of his story when he brought it to NBC executives, Carlson said the story was all but complete when he went to the New Yorker.

Carlson credited MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow with going ahead and interviewing Farrow despite reported warnings against the segment.

"This is a scandal and the truth has a way of emerging," he said.

He said Oppenheim is also a Hollywood screenwriter with deep ties to the Democratic Party and Hollywood establishments.

Carlson said Oppenheim should disclose any ties to The Weinstein Company or Harvey Weinstein.

 Follow
Tucker Carlson ✔ @TuckerCarlson
Powerful ppl knew what Weinstein was doing & not only ignored it but actively took his side against his many victims #Tucker @FoxNews
2:10 PM - Oct 12, 2017
 
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Carlson said that if he doesn't clear up all questions he should resign or be fired by NBC's parent company, Comcast.

"News executives are not allowed to tell lies," he said.

Watch more above.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/12/tucker-carlson-nbc-news-president-noah-oppenheim-should-be-fired-over-harvey-weinstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJzdVMKlVd0



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 25, 2017, 10:09:25 AM
Bias: 1,000 Minutes for Trump/Russia 'Collusion' vs. 20 Seconds for Hillary/Russia Scandal
By Rich Noyes | October 25, 2017

Here’s one top takeaway from network news coverage in 2017: Sneaky Russian influence in American politics is a huge story if it involves Republicans/Donald Trump, but a non-story if it involves Democrats/Hillary Clinton.

MRC analysts have been tracking all evening news coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day. From Inauguration Day, January 20, through last Friday, October 20, these broadcasts have aired an astonishing 1,000 minutes of coverage discussing Russia’s attempt to boost Trump in 2016, and speculation that Trump’s campaign may have colluded with the Russians in this project.

Last week, The Hill published new information about Russian efforts to infiltrate the American uranium industry, including $31.3 million in payments to the Clinton Foundation, as well as a huge speaking fee delivered to Bill Clinton personally, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. In eight days, the network evening news coverage of this story amount to a mere 20 seconds on ABC’s World News Tonight.

According to an October 22 story by The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann, FBI agents “were surprised by the timing and size of a $500,000 check that a Kremlin-linked bank provided Bill Clinton with for a single speech in the summer of 2010. The payday came just weeks after Hillary Clinton helped arrange for American executives to travel to Moscow to support Putin’s efforts to build his own country’s version of Silicon Valley, agents said.”

According to the same article: “‘There is not one shred of doubt from the evidence that we had that the Russians had set their sights on Hillary Clinton’s circle, because she was the quarterback of the Obama-Russian reset strategy and the assumed successor to Obama as president,’ said a source familiar with the FBI’s evidence at the time, speaking only on condition of anonymity, because he was not authorized to speak to the news media.”

Imagine $500,000 in Russian money being paid for a speech delivered by Donald Trump or a member of his family. But Bill Clinton’s big payday has generated ZERO network news coverage this week, and only a single reference on ABC’s This Week back in 2015, when the book Clinton Cash first disclosed the potential scandal.

In fact, from April 2015 through last night, the Clinton/Uranium/Russia story has been granted only 3 minutes, 21 seconds of evening news coverage — less than one-half of one percent of the coverage doled out just this year to the conspiracy theories surrounding Trump and Russia.

ABC’s World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News have been the most intensive, churning out 350 minutes and 381 minutes of evening news coverage of the Trump/Russia story, respectively, while the NBC Nightly News aired a relatively restrained 269 minutes of coverage since January 20. (Note: These statistics include weekend broadcasts, when aired in the Washington D.C. area.)

Combined, the three evening newscasts have aired a total of 5,015 minutes of coverage of the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, which means the Russia story alone has comprised almost exactly one-fifth of all Trump news this year.

There’s no conclusive proof that the Clintons traded favors in exchange for all of the cash going their way, but there’s no proof that Trump and his campaign team did anything wrong vis a vis Russia, either — yet the media have made it their business to keep the cloud of suspicion over Trump and his presidency.

Now that they have a chance to be equally zealous in applying the same standard to a Democrat, it’s obvious that much of the media’s interest in the Trump/Russia story has less to do with Russia’s attempts to infiltrate our government and politics, and more to with a partisan news agenda.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2017/10/25/bias-1000-minutes-trumprussia-collusion-vs-20-seconds-hillaryrussia


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 05, 2017, 12:57:46 PM
ABC reporter who had major error in Trump report will no longer cover stories on president: Report
washingtonexaminer.com ^ | 12/5/17 | Caitlin Yilek
Posted on 12/5/2017, 2:26:28 PM by ColdOne

CNN reported Monday that Ross, who has been suspended without pay for four weeks, will no longer be allowed to cover stories related to the president.

ABC News president James Goldston told staffers, in audio of a call obtained by CNN, that the network’s and Ross’ credibility have been damaged over the mistake.

"I don't think ever in my career have I felt more rage and disappointment and frustration that I felt through this weekend and through the last half of Friday," Goldston said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 07, 2017, 10:06:09 AM
lol @ CNN's headline about Krusty the Clown retiring: 

"Sen. Franken calls out Trump during his resignation speech"
'I am leaving while a man who has bragged on tape about his history of sexual assault sits in the Oval Office,' he says


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on December 08, 2017, 11:42:56 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-botches-major-bombshell-alleging-contacts-between-don-jr-and-wikileaks/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: mazrim on December 08, 2017, 12:02:46 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/08/cnn-botches-major-bombshell-alleging-contacts-between-don-jr-and-wikileaks/
No idea how people are so dumb to continue watching these guys. Sad state of affairs.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: polychronopolous on December 08, 2017, 12:28:37 PM
Rush had a pretty good segment on it today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqEqOlQI92A


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 08, 2017, 02:16:49 PM
Rush had a pretty good segment on it today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqEqOlQI92A

Bunch of dishonest turds. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 13, 2017, 11:05:50 AM
Media bias continues: 90% of Trump coverage in last three months has been negative, study says
Major broadcast news reports in September, October and November were hostile
By Jennifer Harper - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 12, 2017

The working relationship between President Trump and the news media shows no signs of improving. Journalists continue to appear aggressively hostile toward the president, according to research released Tuesday by the Media Research Center, a conservative press watchdog.

The new study of major broadcast coverage reveals that 90 percent of statements made by reporters and nonpartisan sources the last three months on ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts about Mr. Trump and his administration were negative.

It’s all in the numbers. The analysts found 1,123 out of 1,228 statements made about the president on the “Big Three” news networks during September, October and November were critical of Mr. Trump. Only 105 of the statements were considered positive in tone or content.

“As the Media Research Center has been documenting all year, the media have approached the Trump presidency with unrelenting hostility,” wrote Rich Noyes, director of research for the organization, which has found evidence of liberal bias against the White House in previous research this year.

“Even as the media whine about about Trump, their hostile coverage shows no let up. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative coverage — which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president,” Mr. Noyes said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/12/media-bias-continues-90-of-trump-coverage-in-last-/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 15, 2017, 09:49:14 AM
Nets Blackout Damning Text Messages from Pro-Hillary FBI Agents   
By Nicholas Fondacaro | December 13, 2017
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/12/13/nets-blackout-damning-text-messages-pro-hillary-fbi-agents


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on December 28, 2017, 10:17:14 AM
Pew: Trump media three times more negative than for Obama, just 5 percent positive
by Paul Bedard | Dec 27, 2017

(http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/1060x600-6dc3f656fa7ba334667a9606a118320c.jpg)
The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump's first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was "positive." (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The media’s coverage of President Trump has been overwhelmingly negative, more than three times more critical than the initial coverage of former President Barack Obama and twice that of former Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

The Pew Research Center said that the early coverage of Trump was 62 percent negative. By comparison, Obama’s coverage was just 20 percent negative.

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/122717-Trump-Pew-Coverage.png)

“About six-in-ten stories on Trump’s early days in office had a negative assessment, about three times more than in early coverage for Obama and roughly twice that of Bush and Clinton. Coverage of Trump’s early time in office moved further away from a focus on the policy agenda and more toward character and leadership,” said Pew.

The report about the harsh media coverage was included in Pew’s year-ending report titled "17 Striking Findings From 2017."

The media story reviewed the tone of coverage of Trump’s first 60 days in office and found that just 5 percent was “positive.”

By comparison, Obama’s coverage was 42 percent positive.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pew-trump-media-three-times-more-negative-than-for-obama-just-5-percent-positive/article/2644448


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 16, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
The president did "exceedingly well" on cognitive screening.  AP drops the word "exceedingly" in its headline.  Subtle and not a big issue, but part of a pattern.  

Trump doctor says he did well on cognitive exam

Associated Press January 16, 2018

White House physician Dr. Ronny Jackson spoke to reporters during the daily press briefing, today, in the Brady press briefing room at the White House, in Washington.
 
WASHINGTON >> The Latest on President Donald Trump’s health (all times local):

4:20 p.m.

President Donald Trump asked that a cognitive test be included as part of his first physical exam.

ADVERTISING

Trump’s physician — Navy doctor Ronny Jackson — says the president achieved a perfect score on the test, which was included in last Friday’s medical checkup.

Jackson says Trump’s 30 out of 30 score means there’s no indication that Trump has any cognitive issues.

The doctor speculates that Trump requested the exam in an attempt to beat back the narrative of the past few weeks that he is mentally unfit for office.

Jackson describes Trump as “very sharp” and “very articulate when he speaks to me.”

The doctor says he’s found “no reason whatsoever” to think the president has any issues with his thought process.

4:15 p.m.

President Donald Trump performed “exceedingly well” on cognitive screening during his recent physical examination.

That’s according to his White House physician, navy doctor Ronny Jackson.


The doctor says he had “absolutely no concerns” about the 71-year-old president’s cognitive abilities, but performed the screening because Trump asked him to do it.

Jackson says Trump’s overall health “is excellent.” Jackson is providing a more detailed readout today following Trump’s first physical last Friday at the Walter Reed military hospital.

4:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump’s doctor says he’s confident that Trump has a “very strong and a very probable possibility” of completing his presidency “with no medical issues.”

Navy doctor Ronny Jackson says his assessment is based on Trump’s cardiac assessment.

Trump had his first physical last Friday. Jackson says Trump’s heart exam was normal, with regular rhythm and no abnormal sounds.

Trump also has no heart disease and no family history of it.

Jackson says that based on the clinical information he has on Trump and his year of observing the president, “I feel very confident that he has a very strong and a very probable possibility of making it completely through his presidency with no medical issues.”

Trump took office at age 70, making him the oldest incoming U.S. president.

4 p.m.

President Donald Trump’s overall health “is excellent” and he did “exceedingly well” on cognitive screening.

That’s according to his White House physician, Navy doctor Ronny Jackson.

Jackson is providing a more detailed readout today following Trump’s first physical last Friday at the Walter Reed military hospital.

Jackson reports that the 6-foot-3 president weighed in at 239 pounds — three pounds heavier than he was in September 2016.

Trump’s blood pressure was 122 over 74, and his total cholesterol was 223, which is higher than recommended.

Trump was 70 when he took office, making him the oldest person ever elected to the nation’s highest office.

Jackson says Trump is healthy and should remain so for the remainder of his presidency.

7:30 a.m.

A fuller readout of President Donald Trump’s health following his first medical check-up is expected later today.

Trump’s White House physician – Navy doctor Ronny Jackson – declared Trump to be in “excellent health” following last Friday’s exam at the Walter Reed military hospital in Maryland.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Jackson will attend her briefing today to provide a more complete readout on Trump’s physical health.

Not expected are any conclusions about Trump’s mental acuity. Questions about Trump’s mental fitness have been raised following comments attributed to some of his close advisers in a new book, and his recent slurring of words on national TV.

Presidents aren’t required to get a checkup, but modern presidents do so regularly and release a doctor’s report on the findings.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/01/16/breaking-news/trump-doctor-says-he-did-well-on-cognitive-exam/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 26, 2018, 09:59:39 AM
Fox's Howie Kurtz in New Book: I'm 'Radicalized' by Media Dropping 'Any Semblance of Fairness'
By Tim Graham | January 24, 2018

Michael Calderone at Politico is reporting on the new book by Fox News Mediabuzz host Howard Kurtz titled Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth.

"I have always believed in the mission of aggressive reporting and holding politicians accountable," he writes, "But the past two years have radicalized me. I am increasingly troubled by how many of my colleagues have decided to abandon any semblance of fairness out of a conviction that they must save the country from Trump."

Kurtz characterizes the news media as underestimating candidate Trump throughout the long campaign, and asserts several times that he recognized the insurgent Republican’s electoral potential when other pundits dismissed him. “The truth is that I wasn’t pro-Trump at all, I was pro-reality,” he writes. “It turns out they were the ones who failed to recognize what was unfolding before their eyes,” Kurtz writes of the Old Media. “It was the most catastrophic media failure in a generation.”

Donald Trump is staking his presidency, as he did his election, on nothing less than destroying the credibility of the news media; and the media are determined to do the same to him. This is not just a feud or a fight or a battle. It is scorched-earth warfare in which only one side can achieve victory. To a stunning degree, the press is falling into the president's trap. The country's top news organizations have targeted Trump with an unprecedented barrage of negative stories, with some no longer making much attempt to hide their contempt.

Some stories are legitimate, some are not, and others are generated by the president's own falsehoods and exaggerations. But the mainstream media, subconsciously at first, has lurched into the opposition camp and is appealing to an anti-Trump base of viewers and readers, failing to grasp how deeply it is distrusted by a wide swath of the country.

In the book, Kurtz writes that Trump complained to him that tweets from New York Times political reporter Jonathan Martin were “just horrible" and that Martin was viciously negative in interactions with Republicans: 

Kurtz writes that Martin had a dispute with a Republican National Committee staffer weeks before the party’s July 2016 convention. Martin, by Kurtz’s account, told the RNC staffer that Trump is “a racist and a fascist” and that anyone supporting his candidacy was “culpable.” After a second episode, Kurtz claims that then-RNC communications director Sean Spicer reported Martin’s behavior to a top Times editor, prompting the reporter to fire back at Spicer in a subsequent call.

Martin fired back when Politico called:

“Howie paraphrased a vague, preposterous-sounding quote to me that I told him sounded ridiculous and not the kind of thing I'd say,” Martin told POLITICO. “He couldn't tell me who I purportedly said it to, but said he'd see what more he could tell me and get back to me. I never heard another word from him after that. And I still have no idea what he or Sean Spicer are talking about.”

How many times have anonymous sources said ridiculous things that Trump thinks are "fake news"? But the New York Times and The Washington Post think their anonymous digs at the president are what keeps "democracy out of darkness." A spokesman for Regnery, which published the book, said the publisher and author “absolutely stand by everything reported in the book.”

The Hollywood Reporter has posted offered an excerpt from Kurtz.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/01/24/foxs-howie-kurtz-new-book-im-radicalized-media-dropping-any-semblance


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Yamcha on February 04, 2018, 08:26:24 AM
 :-\


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: polychronopolous on February 04, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Fox's Howie Kurtz in New Book: I'm 'Radicalized' by Media Dropping 'Any Semblance of Fairness'
By Tim Graham | January 24, 2018

Michael Calderone at Politico is reporting on the new book by Fox News Mediabuzz host Howard Kurtz titled Media Madness: Donald Trump, the Press, and the War Over the Truth.

"I have always believed in the mission of aggressive reporting and holding politicians accountable," he writes, "But the past two years have radicalized me. I am increasingly troubled by how many of my colleagues have decided to abandon any semblance of fairness out of a conviction that they must save the country from Trump."

Kurtz characterizes the news media as underestimating candidate Trump throughout the long campaign, and asserts several times that he recognized the insurgent Republican’s electoral potential when other pundits dismissed him. “The truth is that I wasn’t pro-Trump at all, I was pro-reality,” he writes. “It turns out they were the ones who failed to recognize what was unfolding before their eyes,” Kurtz writes of the Old Media. “It was the most catastrophic media failure in a generation.”

Donald Trump is staking his presidency, as he did his election, on nothing less than destroying the credibility of the news media; and the media are determined to do the same to him. This is not just a feud or a fight or a battle. It is scorched-earth warfare in which only one side can achieve victory. To a stunning degree, the press is falling into the president's trap. The country's top news organizations have targeted Trump with an unprecedented barrage of negative stories, with some no longer making much attempt to hide their contempt.

Some stories are legitimate, some are not, and others are generated by the president's own falsehoods and exaggerations. But the mainstream media, subconsciously at first, has lurched into the opposition camp and is appealing to an anti-Trump base of viewers and readers, failing to grasp how deeply it is distrusted by a wide swath of the country.

In the book, Kurtz writes that Trump complained to him that tweets from New York Times political reporter Jonathan Martin were “just horrible" and that Martin was viciously negative in interactions with Republicans: 

Kurtz writes that Martin had a dispute with a Republican National Committee staffer weeks before the party’s July 2016 convention. Martin, by Kurtz’s account, told the RNC staffer that Trump is “a racist and a fascist” and that anyone supporting his candidacy was “culpable.” After a second episode, Kurtz claims that then-RNC communications director Sean Spicer reported Martin’s behavior to a top Times editor, prompting the reporter to fire back at Spicer in a subsequent call.

Martin fired back when Politico called:

“Howie paraphrased a vague, preposterous-sounding quote to me that I told him sounded ridiculous and not the kind of thing I'd say,” Martin told POLITICO. “He couldn't tell me who I purportedly said it to, but said he'd see what more he could tell me and get back to me. I never heard another word from him after that. And I still have no idea what he or Sean Spicer are talking about.”

How many times have anonymous sources said ridiculous things that Trump thinks are "fake news"? But the New York Times and The Washington Post think their anonymous digs at the president are what keeps "democracy out of darkness." A spokesman for Regnery, which published the book, said the publisher and author “absolutely stand by everything reported in the book.”

The Hollywood Reporter has posted offered an excerpt from Kurtz.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2018/01/24/foxs-howie-kurtz-new-book-im-radicalized-media-dropping-any-semblance

Good for Kurtz. I always considered him to be fairly reasonable in his analysis, especially given the massively biased landscape.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Slapper on February 04, 2018, 01:57:19 PM
To think Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent, a book solely conceived to expose the conservative elites' grip on all media, is slowly but surely being turned into bullshit. Wow.

It really is a sobering reminder to the likes of me... having spent so much time thinking that all that Noam said and wrote was The Truth, and it turns out real life is showing an entirely different reality.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 06, 2018, 05:33:12 PM
Networks Censored 75 Percent of Dow Record Highs Since Start of 2017
By Julia A. Seymour | February 6, 2018

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2018/02/06/networks-censored-75-percent-dow-record-highs-start-2017


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on February 27, 2018, 10:00:46 PM
Why Is CNN’s Approval Rating For Trump 15 Points Lower Than Rasmussen’s?
ROBERT DONACHIE
Capitol Hill and Health Care Reporter
02/26/2018

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/cnn-skewing-polling-data/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on March 08, 2018, 07:25:36 PM
TV vs. Trump in 2018: Lots of Russia, and 91% Negative Coverage (Again!)
By Rich Noyes | March 6, 2018
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/03/06/tv-vs-trump-2018-lots-russia-and-91-negative-coverage


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on March 26, 2018, 11:24:08 AM
The Liberal Media’s Brazen Double-Standard on Sex Scandals
By Rich Noyes | March 26, 2018
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/03/26/liberal-medias-brazen-double-standard-sex-scandals


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 31, 2018, 10:21:06 AM
WATCH: New York Times Columnist Declares 'You Must Vote Democrat In 2020'
"... the man sitting in the Oval Office today is the greatest threat to our democracy ..."
ByJACOB AIREY
May 30, 2018

Throwing off all pretense of objectivity, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman appeared on Tuesday's edition of "Morning Joe" where he practically begged the MSNBC audience to pull the lever for Democrats during the 2018 midterm elections and, presumably, the 2020 presidential election. The reason for voting straight Democrat, he explained: stopping Donald Trump, "the greatest threat to our democracy."

"Look, these midterms are soon to be upon us and I only have one piece of advice for people," Friedman said. "You have to vote for a Democrat."

He tried to offer his capitalism credits before diving back into his desperate plea for voting straight ticket Democrat Party.

"I have a lot of very conservative leanings on a lot of issues," he claimed. "I'm for free trade. I'm a pro-globalization, pro-business but the fact is, John, the worst Democrat running for Congress or the Senate today is better than the best Republican because the best Republicans except those who are tragically dying or retiring simply will not stand up to this man."

He got an "amen" from "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski who said, "Right," as he gave his diatribe.

Friedman continued: "And if you see the norms that he is violating. The way he is trashing some of our most cherished institutions. Things like the FBI, the Justice Department. The spreading of conspiracy theories from the bully pulpit of the White House that is a threat to the very fabric of our society and the very fabric of our democracy."

Of course, Friedman did not criticize MSNBC or anyone in the media for peddling the Russia-collusion conspiracy theory targeting President Trump.

Friedman then went on to downplay hot button issues as distractions from the Trump Administration.

"So I'm approaching this election coming up unlike any other election. I care about these issues but for me it's not about gun control, it's not about abortion, it's not about high taxes and low taxes," he said. "It's about whether you can get a lever of power that can restrain this man for the next two years because the man sitting in the Oval Office today is the greatest threat to our democracy, and I will just add one other thing which people need to remember."

He declared that there will be a crisis in the United States, which we will of course only be saved from if the viewers do not vote Republican.

Friedman opined, "We have not had a crisis yet. We've not had a real crisis except the crises Donald Trump has created. Wait till we have a real crisis and you have a president who cannot be believed sitting in the Oval Office. Then you will really see the true impact of all of this line all of this undermining of institutions."

You can watch the interview below:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31222/watch-new-york-times-columnist-declares-you-must-jacob-airey


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 10, 2018, 12:09:37 PM
MSNBC Kavanaugh Coverage: 27 Guests, ZERO Conservatives
By Richard Howell | July 10, 2018

On Monday night, MSNBC prime-time shows spent the vast majority of their time discussing President Trump’s pick for the Supreme Court. Of the 27 guests which appeared over the four-hour block from 8:00 p.m. to midnight ET, not a single conservative was given time to speak about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

Among the guests were progressive activists brought on to discuss the significance of the nomination. Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Cecile Richards, former CEO of Planned Parenthood, and Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, all got screen time.

Each expressed deep concern about Kavanaugh, and Northup in particular argued that “this nomination really is a threat to all of our rights.” Conservative activists, such as representatives from the Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society who helped pick Kavanaugh and could offer a more positive evaluation, were conspicuously absent.

Moreover, three elected officials were interviewed: Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut, Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and, appearing across two different shows, Democratic Senator and likely presidential candidate Cory Booker from New Jersey.

Booker described himself as “sort of stunned at the way this has all played out,” and would later appear along with Warren at a protest against Kavanaugh on the steps of the Supreme Court. Not a single Republican lawmaker appeared during the four different segments.

Rounding out the cast of progressive speakers were a slate of former Democratic staffers and journalists. Former Democrat aides Adam Jentleson (for Harry Reid) and Ron Klain (for Barack Obama) were present. Jonathan Alter from the Daily Beast, Dahlia Lithwick from Slate, and Jess McIntosh from progressive Shareblue Media likewise spoke. And while there were also a number of journalists from center-Left publications, such as David Maraniss from The Washington Post, there was not a single writer from a conservative publication.

For those watching MSNBC on Monday night, instead of the news viewers saw a carefully curated exhibition of the Left and their criticisms of an otherwise qualified nominee.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/richard-howell/2018/07/10/msnbc-kavanaugh-coverage-27-guests-zero-conservatives


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: loco on July 13, 2018, 03:45:06 AM
Washington Post slammed for ‘pathetic’ report that Kavanaugh used credit card on baseball tickets

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/rmX2lyvl_f_Vl_pCnHlp2w--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://l.yimg.com/yp/offnetwork/2f93a098640d5aa887df9244c76d07ab)

The Washington Post is being mocked for a “pathetic” report that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh racked up credit card debt on Washington Nationals baseball tickets -- even though he paid off the bill.

The Associated Press ran a similar story that focused on Kavanaugh not being particularly wealthy and mentioned the baseball tickets without painting it as a national scandal. The Post, on the other hand, homed in on Kavanaugh incurring “tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade” and waited until the fourth paragraph to mention that he paid the bill.

Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain’s piece was headlined, “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh piled up credit card debt by purchasing Nationals tickets, White House says.” The report vilifies the common practice of one individual laying out the funds needed to secure baseball tickets for a group of friends who want to be seated next to each other.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/33b66fd7-e2e6-39aa-a594-55641b34906e/ss_washington-post-slammed-for.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 13, 2018, 11:05:23 AM
Washington Post slammed for ‘pathetic’ report that Kavanaugh used credit card on baseball tickets

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/rmX2lyvl_f_Vl_pCnHlp2w--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://l.yimg.com/yp/offnetwork/2f93a098640d5aa887df9244c76d07ab)

The Washington Post is being mocked for a “pathetic” report that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh racked up credit card debt on Washington Nationals baseball tickets -- even though he paid off the bill.

The Associated Press ran a similar story that focused on Kavanaugh not being particularly wealthy and mentioned the baseball tickets without painting it as a national scandal. The Post, on the other hand, homed in on Kavanaugh incurring “tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt buying baseball tickets over the past decade” and waited until the fourth paragraph to mention that he paid the bill.

Post investigative reporter Amy Brittain’s piece was headlined, “Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh piled up credit card debt by purchasing Nationals tickets, White House says.” The report vilifies the common practice of one individual laying out the funds needed to secure baseball tickets for a group of friends who want to be seated next to each other.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/33b66fd7-e2e6-39aa-a594-55641b34906e/ss_washington-post-slammed-for.html

Reason no. 999 why I hate the media.  This kind of crap keeps good people out of public service. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 10:14:36 AM
FNC’s Baier Stunned Media Didn’t Correct False Cohen ‘Bombshell’
By Kyle Drennen | August 24, 2018
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2018/08/24/fncs-baier-stunned-media-didnt-correct-false-cohen-bombshell


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Desolate on August 24, 2018, 10:58:48 AM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2vv9imw.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: chaos on August 24, 2018, 04:54:50 PM
FNC’s Baier Stunned Media Didn’t Correct False Cohen ‘Bombshell’
By Kyle Drennen | August 24, 2018
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2018/08/24/fncs-baier-stunned-media-didnt-correct-false-cohen-bombshell
This kind of stuff cracks me up, people like Straw, Prime, andre…….all get so excited when these stories break, then when they're proven false, these guys go completely silent.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on August 24, 2018, 05:22:20 PM
This kind of stuff cracks me up, people like Straw, Prime, andre…….all get so excited when these stories break, then when they're proven false, these guys go completely silent.

Yep.  Crickets.  But that's what hacks do.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 14, 2018, 06:26:56 PM
New York Times admits creating 'unfair impression' about Nikki Haley's $53G curtains that were OK'd by Obama administration
Brian Flood By Brian Flood   | Fox News

The Times issues correction for implying that U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley spent over $52,000 on curtains; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'

The New York Times has added an editor’s note and changed the headline on a story that was widely criticized for reporting U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley has extravagant curtains in her official residence costing nearly $53,000, because the purchase was actually approved in 2016, under the Obama administration.

“An earlier version of this article and headline created an unfair impression about who was responsible for the purchase in question. While Nikki R. Haley is the current ambassador to the United Nations, the decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration, according to current and former officials,” the editor’s note states.

"The decision on leasing the ambassador’s residence and purchasing the curtains was made during the Obama administration."

- New York Times
“The article should not have focused on Ms. Haley, nor should a picture of her have been used. The article and headline have now been edited to reflect those concerns, and the picture has been removed.”

The New York Times initially reported this week that $52,701 was spent last year on buying customized and mechanized curtains for the picture windows in Haley’s New York City residence, for which rent is $58,000 a month. The paper didn't mention until the sixth paragraph that Haley's spokesman said the Trump administration had no input in the purchase decision.

Haley’s office declined Fox News’ request for comment.

The first version of the story was mocked across social media for appearing to place the blame on Haley. Earlier in the day, Donald Trump Jr. mocked the paper for the mistake, tweeting “It was Obama’s State Dept. Will you print a correction or just leave it as is because you want it to be true???”

Washington Post reporter Josh Dawsey said the Times change is “pretty significant,” while HuffPost’s Yashar Ali called the original story “irresponsible.”

The news-making curtains themselves reportedly cost nearly $30,000, but the hardware needed to operate them cost an additional $22,801. The curtains were installed last year.

Patrick Kennedy, the top management official at the State Department during the Obama administration, defended the spending, saying the curtains will be used by future officials and cited security and entertainment purposes.

“All she’s got is a part-time maid, and the ability to open and close the curtains quickly is important,” Kennedy told the newspaper.

The State Department, under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, had frozen hiring, reduced diplomatic staff and proposed cutting the department’s budget by 31 percent.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/14/new-york-times-admits-creating-unfair-impression-about-nikki-haleys-53g-curtains-that-were-okd-by-obama-administration.html


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2018, 08:09:36 AM
WHY WE HATE THE MEDIA, KAVANAUGH EDITION
POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2018 BY STEVEN HAYWARD

It is hard to single out the most egregious media treatment of the sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh because the field is so large and the competition so intense. But The Guardian at least deserves to make the Finals with its story today entitled “‘No accident’ Brett Kavanaugh’s female law clerks ‘looked like models’, Yale professor told students.”

It is a transparent attempt to paint Kavanaugh as a sexist pig, but the story depends on besmirching the reputation of two eminent Yale Law Professors, Amy Chua and Jed Rubinfeld. Just watch how this story unfolds:

A top professor at Yale Law School who strongly endorsed supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh as a “mentor to women” privately told a group of law students last year that it was “not an accident” that Kavanaugh’s female law clerks all “looked like models” and would provide advice to students about their physical appearance if they wanted to work for him, the Guardian has learned.

Amy Chua, a Yale professor who wrote a bestselling book on parenting called Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, was known for instructing female law students who were preparing for interviews with Kavanaugh on ways they could dress to exude a “model-like” femininity to help them win a post in Kavanaugh’s chambers, according to sources.

Did they get this information from Prof. Chua herself? No—it comes from anonymous “sources.” How many sources? The story doesn’t say. Let’s keep going:

Yale provided Kavanaugh with many of the judge’s clerks over the years, and Chua played an outsized role in vetting the clerks who worked for him. But the process made some students deeply uncomfortable.

One source said that in at least one case, a law student was so put off by Chua’s advice about how she needed to look, and its implications, that she decided not to pursue a clerkship with Kavanaugh, a powerful member of the judiciary who had a formal role in vetting clerks who served in the US supreme court.

In one case, Jed Rubenfeld, also an influential professor at Yale and who is married to Chua, told a prospective clerk that Kavanaugh liked a certain “look”.

“He told me, ‘You should know that Judge Kavanaugh hires women with a certain look,’” one woman told the Guardian. “He did not say what the look was and I did not ask.”

Sources who spoke to the Guardian about their experiences with Chua and Rubenfeld would only speak under the condition of anonymity because they feared retribution and damage to their future careers.

Did The Guardian ask Prof. Chua to comment on these allegations? It is not until very far down in the story that you learn this:

Chua has cancelled her classes at Yale this semester and, according to her office, has been hospitalised and is not taking calls. Rubenfeld sent an email to the Yale Law School community that said his wife had been ill and in hospital and had a long period of recuperation ahead of her.

I was told by a good source last week that Chua’s illness is life-threatening. Gee—what classy journalism on The Guardian‘s part. But they were just getting warmed up. The Guardian story goes on to report that Chua’s husband, Prof. Rubenfeld, is currently under investigation himself by Yale on unspecified harassment charges, though this has nothing to do with the Kavanaugh matter—it is clearly just a smear:

The Guardian has learned that Rubenfeld is currently the subject of an internal investigation at Yale. The investigation is focused on Rubenfeld’s conduct, particularly with female law students. Students have also raised related concerns to Yale authorities about Chua’s powerful influence in the clerkships process. The investigation was initiated before Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump to serve on the high court.

Rubenfeld said in a statement to the Guardian: “In June, Yale University informed me that it would conduct what it terms an ‘informal review’ of certain allegations, but that to preserve anonymity, I was not entitled to know any specifics. As a result, I do not know what I am alleged to have said or done. I was further advised that the allegations were not of the kind that would jeopardize my position as a long-tenured member of the faculty.

“For some years, I have contended with personal attacks and false allegations in reaction to my writing on difficult and controversial but important topics in the law. I have reason to suspect I am now facing more of the same. While I believe strongly that universities must conduct appropriate reviews of any allegations of misconduct, I am also deeply concerned about the intensifying challenges to the most basic values of due process and free, respectful academic expression and exchange at Yale and around the country.”

The Guardian leaves out a lot here. While Amy Chua is best known as the author of the famous book about “tiger moms,” her most recent book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations, goes unmentioned in The Guardian article. This is relevant because it is clear from this book and other writings that Chua does not subscribe to leftist orthodoxy about identify politics. Plus, quite obviously she’s Asian, and as we know the Left now considers Asians to be “white” for their political purposes.

The Guardian article is a blatant piece of character assassination, and journalism so shoddy and biased that  it doesn’t even rise to the level of fake news. Their operating rule is simple: anyone who stands in the way of leftist power must be destroyed. Smear Kavanaugh. And smear anyone who might have anything good to say about him.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/why-we-hate-the-media-kavanaugh-edition.php


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on September 28, 2018, 11:07:58 AM
(http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/politics/2018/09/28/new-york-times-slammed-for-depicting-ford-as-calm-kavanaugh-as-angry-photos-are-perfect-liberal-narrative/_jcr_content/par/featured_image/media-0.img.jpg/931/524/1538148770994.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)



Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 09, 2018, 12:23:24 PM
Study: Economic Boom Largely Ignored as TV's Trump Coverage Hits 92% Negative
By Rich Noyes | October 9, 2018

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/10/09/study-econ-boom-ignored-tv-trump-coverage-hits-92-percent-negative


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: chaos on October 09, 2018, 05:03:46 PM
Study: Economic Boom Largely Ignored as TV's Trump Coverage Hits 92% Negative
By Rich Noyes | October 9, 2018

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2018/10/09/study-econ-boom-ignored-tv-trump-coverage-hits-92-percent-negative
LOL typical


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on January 15, 2019, 01:43:01 PM
Networks Trashed Trump With 90% Negative Spin in 2018, But Did It Matter? 
By Rich Noyes | January 15, 2019
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/01/15/networks-trashed-trump-90-negative-spin-2018-did-it-matter


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on January 15, 2019, 05:35:03 PM
Hahaha!

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accuses David Webb of ‘white privilege’ before learning he’s black

It was a rough day for author and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin on Tuesday.

Martin accused Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation host David Webb of “white privilege” during a segment on a radio program before he broke the news.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said.

The embarrassing moment occurred during a discussion about experience being more important than race when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job.

“I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said.

“That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.”

A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-analyst-calls-out-radio-host-david-webb-on-air-for-white-privilege-webb-informs-her-hes-black/


For reference, a picture of the CNN/CBS doofus (to the left) and the "privileged white male" Mr Webb to the right:

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/01/1024/576/Martin-Webb.jpg)


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: chaos on January 15, 2019, 05:38:55 PM
Hahaha!

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accuses David Webb of ‘white privilege’ before learning he’s black

It was a rough day for author and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin on Tuesday.

Martin accused Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation host David Webb of “white privilege” during a segment on a radio program before he broke the news.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said.

The embarrassing moment occurred during a discussion about experience being more important than race when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job.

“I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said.

“That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.”

A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-analyst-calls-out-radio-host-david-webb-on-air-for-white-privilege-webb-informs-her-hes-black/


For reference, a picture of the CNN/CBS doofus (to the left) and the "privileged white male" Mr Webb to the right:

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/01/1024/576/Martin-Webb.jpg)
Classic! Shows how some people like to blame skin color for their races lack of success


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Soul Crusher on January 15, 2019, 05:45:27 PM
Hahaha!

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accuses David Webb of ‘white privilege’ before learning he’s black

It was a rough day for author and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin on Tuesday.

Martin accused Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation host David Webb of “white privilege” during a segment on a radio program before he broke the news.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said.

The embarrassing moment occurred during a discussion about experience being more important than race when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job.

“I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said.

“That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.”

A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-analyst-calls-out-radio-host-david-webb-on-air-for-white-privilege-webb-informs-her-hes-black/


For reference, a picture of the CNN/CBS doofus (to the left) and the "privileged white male" Mr Webb to the right:

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/01/1024/576/Martin-Webb.jpg)

Any nudes from earlier years ?


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Moontrane on January 15, 2019, 09:11:28 PM
Hahaha!

CNN legal analyst Areva Martin accuses David Webb of ‘white privilege’ before learning he’s black

It was a rough day for author and CNN legal analyst Areva Martin on Tuesday.

Martin accused Sirius XM radio and Fox Nation host David Webb of “white privilege” during a segment on a radio program before he broke the news.

“Areva, I hate to break it to you, but you should’ve been better prepped. I’m black,” Webb said.

The embarrassing moment occurred during a discussion about experience being more important than race when determining whether or not someone is qualified for a particular job.

“I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue, I considered my qualifications the issue,” Webb said.

“That’s a whole, another long conversation about white privilege, the things that you have the privilege of doing, that people of color don’t have the privilege of,” said Martin – who also hosts CBS’ “Face the Truth.”

A dumbfounded Webb asked, “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?”

Martin responded, “David, by virtue of being a white male you have white privilege.”

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black

https://www.mediaite.com/online/cnn-analyst-calls-out-radio-host-david-webb-on-air-for-white-privilege-webb-informs-her-hes-black/


For reference, a picture of the CNN/CBS doofus (to the left) and the "privileged white male" Mr Webb to the right:

(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2019/01/1024/576/Martin-Webb.jpg)

You can't make this stuff up.  Her agenda trumps reality. 

http://cdn7.loonastatic.com/img/user/gif/3/1/5/4/3154218249211830.mp4


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 16, 2019, 12:35:30 AM
Any nudes from earlier years ?


Probably not he seems pretty conservative.  ;D


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: AbrahamG on January 16, 2019, 06:29:39 PM

Probably not he seems pretty conservative.  ;D

I heard from a guy in NYC that David Webb put himself through community college by giving handjobs under the Brooklyn Bridge for $15.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: SOMEPARTS on January 18, 2019, 03:15:08 PM
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/sebastian-gorka-jim-acosta-get-shouting-match-front-press-room




“I was waiting inside the entrance of the Briefing Room for a private meeting with the president,” Gorka told The Daily Caller.

Acosta walked in then, according to Gorka, touched his arm and said “Why are you here? This place is for journalists only,” then walked away. He also noted that the incident occurred in front of fellow SALEM host Mike Gallagher and Sirius Patriot XM host David Webb — and explained that, although they had been in the same building on several occasions, he and Acosta had never officially met prior to this incident".


“Abilio ‘Jim’ Acosta, you are a d**kh**d,” Gorka yelled.


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on March 27, 2019, 05:49:27 PM
Alan Dershowitz: How CNN misled its viewers
BY ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/27/19

In our hyperpartisan world, in which so many people watch only media that will give them news with which they agree, CNN viewers understandably expected the Mueller report to find overwhelming evidence that President Trump colluded, conspired with and is beholden to Russia. After all, that is what they have been hearing for many months.

Pundit after pundit, commentator after commentator, host after host already had made up their minds: President Trump was guilty and should be indicted, impeached or removed under the 25th Amendment. To be sure, CNN presented the occasional dissenting view, but it was almost always from right-wing Republicans who viewers could easily discount.

During the first several months of the investigation, CNN viewers also heard my more nuanced, more centrist views. As a liberal Democrat who strongly supported Hillary Clinton, I had some credibility when I raised questions about the certainty with which other CNN guests had declared Trump guilty. I introduced constitutional analysis regarding the allegations of obstruction of justice, arguing that — regardless of Trump’s intentions — he could not be charged with obstruction based exclusively on exercising his constitutional authority under Article II. This includes the power to fire any member of the executive branch.

Viewers enjoyed my feisty debates with legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and asked for more. Host Anderson Cooper enjoyed sparring with me, as did hosts Chris Cuomo and Don Lemon. CNN viewers benefited from evaluating my viewpoints against those of other guests and hosts.

But then, suddenly, I was banned from CNN.

Over the past half year or so, I have never once been asked to appear on a CNN program. Initially I wondered why, and I asked some of my friends at the network. They were evasive and studiously avoided any direct answer to my question.

Then I received off-the-record information that an order had come from the very top: CNN executive Jeff Zucker didn’t want me on CNN any more. My centrist, nuanced perspective was anathema to CNN’s emerging brand as the anti-Trump network.

I continued to be invited on other networks, including NBC, ABC, MSNBC and Fox. But not CNN.

Being perceived as a Trump legal defender, even though I publicly disagreed with many of his policies, was a cardinal sin for a liberal Democrat. It would confuse CNN’s viewers at a time when one had to be either for or against Trump. It was as if I were a Red Sox fan on the Yankee network. Today, everyone has to pick a team — Trump or anti-Trump — and picking the side of the Constitution and civil liberties just doesn’t do it.

As my mother said to me when I defended the right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill., back in the ’70s: “You’re either for the Nazis or the Jews.” When I tried to explain that I was for the First Amendment, not the Nazis, my mother replied: “I’m your mother. Don’t give me that legal stuff. You should be for the Jews.”

My mother, smart as she was, didn’t go to college. The CNN brass did. They should know better, but for them the bottom line is what counts. And the bottom line grew bigger when CNN began to be seen as the anti-Trump network. The brass didn’t want their viewers’ minds to be confused by the law or the facts. Trump was guilty; that’s all they needed to know.

This simplistic perspective insults the intelligence and open-mindedness of many CNN viewers who email me, saying that they miss my contrarian views. But the CNN brass apparently prefer the absolute certainty of, say, attorney Michael Avenatti — “I guarantee Trump will not serve out his term” — to my calibrated legal analysis.


Well, my calibrated views turned out to be largely right, while CNN’s wishful thinking turned out to be largely wrong. That isn’t because I’m smarter than the CNN execs. It’s because I don’t allow my political preferences to substitute for objective legal analysis.

Jeff Zucker has said that he is “entirely comfortable” with CNN’s coverage. Of course he and his company’s shareholders are comfortable: Their one-sided coverage earned the network lots of money.

But they shouldn’t be comfortable with the quality of their on-air performance. They should review the footage and require those who were demonstrably wrong to listen to how badly they misled their viewers.

John Brennan, the former director of the CIA, has acknowledged that he may have based his mistaken assessments and predictions on “bad information,” but what he failed to say was that he and CNN were often the source of this bad information that led viewers to have false expectations.

So let’s hope that CNN, and other media that got it wrong, will reassess their approach to divisive, controversial issues. Their viewers are entitled to hear contrary views, even those that make them uncomfortable.

Jeff Zucker should be uncomfortable, rather than smug, about what his network did — and didn’t do. It did not well serve its viewers, or the American public.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/436059-alan-dershowitz-how-cnn-misled-its-viewers


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2019, 10:01:52 AM
Democrats Claim ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Media Repeat It 386 Times
By Bill D'Agostino | May 14, 2019

Evidently Democrats need only utter the words "constitutional crisis" for the media to report it as fact.

Watch cable “news” these days, and you’ll surely see talking heads parroting the Democratic line that the Trump administration’s noncompliance with House Committee subpoenas amounts to a constitutional crisis. While a small handful of analysts and guest legal scholars disagree, TV hosts continue to push the idea uncritically, with some even urging the alleged crisis be used as grounds for impeachment.

MRC analysts looked at all coverage on broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC) and liberal cable (CNN, MSNBC) networks from May 8 to 12, finding 386 utterances of the term “constitutional crisis” by hosts, analysts, or guest journalists. This count did not include cases in which the term was used by political partisans, such as members of Congress, former administration officials, or Democratic and Republican strategists.

Watch the video below for a glimpse at the media’s breathless coverage of the supposed “constitutional crisis”:


After House Judiciary Chairman Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alleged the existence of a constitutional crisis, cable hosts quickly treated their declarations as established fact. On May 8, the same day that Nadler first used the term, CNN’s Don Lemon began his show with the grandiose proclamation: “Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes.”

Others kept their powder dry until Pelosi repeated Nadler’s words the following morning. For example, on May 11, MSNBC’s David Gura kicked off his show with the line: “Constitutional crisis is no longer a hypothetical.”

Just hours after Nadler’s claim, a few impatient reporters were already pushing for impeachment. “If we are in a constitutional crisis, why not pursue impeachment; why are you resisting?” CNN senior Congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked during the 6 pm EDT hour of The Situation Room, May 8.

On May 10, CNN’s Erin Burnett asked indignantly: “If this is a constitutional crisis, how can Democrats not move forward with impeachment hearings?”

Despite all the hubbub from journalists, some lawyers and analysts were unconvinced that the Democrats’ claims rose beyond the level of political rhetoric. The most prominent example was former FBI Director James Comey, who disappointed Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall event on May 9. “Are we in a constitutional crisis as Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say we are?” Cooper inquired, to which Comey replied, “I actually don’t think so.”

CNN correspondent Laura Jarrett was also unconvinced: “For Nadler to say we’re in a constitutional crisis? Well, we’re not. The courts haven’t even intervened yet,” she argued during the May 8 edition of The Situation Room.

But these disagreements were confined to panel discussions (or in Comey’s case, special coverage). Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC’s regular reporting has included no mention of the critics who disagree that such a crisis exists. Instead they've continued merrily along with their breathless reporting of the “constitutional crisis” they’ve been agitating since Trump took office.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/05/14/democrats-claim-constitutional-crisis-media-repeat-it-386-times


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Skeletor on May 15, 2019, 10:07:45 AM
Democrats Claim ‘Constitutional Crisis,’ Media Repeat It 386 Times
By Bill D'Agostino | May 14, 2019

Evidently Democrats need only utter the words "constitutional crisis" for the media to report it as fact.

Watch cable “news” these days, and you’ll surely see talking heads parroting the Democratic line that the Trump administration’s noncompliance with House Committee subpoenas amounts to a constitutional crisis. While a small handful of analysts and guest legal scholars disagree, TV hosts continue to push the idea uncritically, with some even urging the alleged crisis be used as grounds for impeachment.

MRC analysts looked at all coverage on broadcast (ABC, CBS, NBC) and liberal cable (CNN, MSNBC) networks from May 8 to 12, finding 386 utterances of the term “constitutional crisis” by hosts, analysts, or guest journalists. This count did not include cases in which the term was used by political partisans, such as members of Congress, former administration officials, or Democratic and Republican strategists.

Watch the video below for a glimpse at the media’s breathless coverage of the supposed “constitutional crisis”:


After House Judiciary Chairman Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi alleged the existence of a constitutional crisis, cable hosts quickly treated their declarations as established fact. On May 8, the same day that Nadler first used the term, CNN’s Don Lemon began his show with the grandiose proclamation: “Ever wonder what a constitutional crisis looks like? Well, open your eyes.”

Others kept their powder dry until Pelosi repeated Nadler’s words the following morning. For example, on May 11, MSNBC’s David Gura kicked off his show with the line: “Constitutional crisis is no longer a hypothetical.”

Just hours after Nadler’s claim, a few impatient reporters were already pushing for impeachment. “If we are in a constitutional crisis, why not pursue impeachment; why are you resisting?” CNN senior Congressional correspondent Manu Raju asked during the 6 pm EDT hour of The Situation Room, May 8.

On May 10, CNN’s Erin Burnett asked indignantly: “If this is a constitutional crisis, how can Democrats not move forward with impeachment hearings?”

Despite all the hubbub from journalists, some lawyers and analysts were unconvinced that the Democrats’ claims rose beyond the level of political rhetoric. The most prominent example was former FBI Director James Comey, who disappointed Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall event on May 9. “Are we in a constitutional crisis as Jerry Nadler and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi say we are?” Cooper inquired, to which Comey replied, “I actually don’t think so.”

CNN correspondent Laura Jarrett was also unconvinced: “For Nadler to say we’re in a constitutional crisis? Well, we’re not. The courts haven’t even intervened yet,” she argued during the May 8 edition of The Situation Room.

But these disagreements were confined to panel discussions (or in Comey’s case, special coverage). Meanwhile, CNN and MSNBC’s regular reporting has included no mention of the critics who disagree that such a crisis exists. Instead they've continued merrily along with their breathless reporting of the “constitutional crisis” they’ve been agitating since Trump took office.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/bill-dagostino/2019/05/14/democrats-claim-constitutional-crisis-media-repeat-it-386-times

The repeated use of the term reminded me of this:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4wtj-NWQAAHWGn.jpg)

Of course it would not have been a Constitutional crisis but apparently in Kohn's mind it was and it was also "straightforward".


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on May 15, 2019, 11:34:48 AM
The repeated use of the term reminded me of this:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4wtj-NWQAAHWGn.jpg)

Of course it would not have been a Constitutional crisis but apparently in Kohn's mind it was and it was also "straightforward".

Twisted mofos. 


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on July 22, 2019, 01:39:09 PM
81 Media Mistakes in the Trump Era: The Definitive List
JANUARY 22, 2019 BY SHARYL ATTKISSON
Updated July 21, 2019
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 14, 2019, 03:18:23 PM
Not surprised by any of this.

PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS
 by Eric Spracklen October 14, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 15, 2019, 03:49:16 PM
Not surprised by any of this.

PART 1: CNN Insider Blows Whistle on Network President Jeff Zucker’s Personal Vendetta Against POTUS
 by Eric Spracklen October 14, 2019
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/10/14/exposecnnpart1/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: Dos Equis on October 18, 2019, 08:12:01 PM
Jan Brewer slams media ‘hypocrites’ for praising Pelosi finger-pointing, scolding her for pointing at Obama
By Adam Shaw | Fox News

Former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Thursday took aim at “hypocrites” in the media who she says have branded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a hero for pointing her finger at President Trump -- despite calling Brewer a racist for doing something similar to former President Obama.

"The news media hails @SpeakerPelosi as a hero for pointing her finger at @POTUS @realDonaldTrump but when I stood up to @BarackObama I was vilified as rude and racist," she tweeted.

. . .

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHGY6ncUcAEqw5M?format=jpg&name=small)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHGY6ncU0AUfKUs?format=jpg&name=medium)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jan-brewer-slams-media-hypocrites-for-praising-pelosi-finger-pointing-after-scolding-her-for-doing-the-same-to-obama


Title: Re: Liberal Media Bias
Post by: SOMEPARTS on October 20, 2019, 06:15:57 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/michelle-obama-bares-abs-sports-bra-gym-195451063.html


 ;D


“It doesn’t always feel good in the moment,” she said of her workout. “But after the fact, I’m always glad I hit the gym.”

Her followers were impressed, judging by the flood of bulging bicep emojis in the comments section.

“Come through queen,” read one comment.

“You put me to shame,” added an admirer, while one commenter added “Come on mama!”

“So proud of you Michelle,” another fan wrote. “I’m going to plank because of this post.”

Others hailed her as an “inspirational goddess” — though many also joked that unlike the former FLOTUS, they spent their ‘Self-Care Sunday” sleeping in.