Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
February 13, 2016, 06:14:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Liberal Media Bias  (Read 25232 times)
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #275 on: June 05, 2015, 10:37:13 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...
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #276 on: June 08, 2015, 09:51:24 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #277 on: June 08, 2015, 10:10:36 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
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #278 on: June 08, 2015, 10:20:25 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.   Smiley

Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #279 on: June 08, 2015, 11:10:14 AM »

LOL!  Nobody cares about traffic tickets.  Except for low information voters who aren't going to support the candidate anyway.  This is hilarious.   Smiley

I'm pretty sure the dude getting sideswiped cares Wink

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 Wink lol
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #280 on: June 08, 2015, 12:32:23 PM »

I'm pretty sure the dude getting sideswiped cares Wink

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 Wink lol

Who was sideswiping cars and getting tickets fixed? 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #281 on: June 08, 2015, 08:33:42 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #282 on: June 09, 2015, 03:46:41 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. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #283 on: June 22, 2015, 10:52:47 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #284 on: July 06, 2015, 10:34:09 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.



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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27696


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #285 on: July 06, 2015, 11:21:56 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
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #286 on: July 07, 2015, 06:43:12 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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #287 on: July 13, 2015, 09:32:58 AM »

Amazon: No Evidence of Unusual Bulk Sales of Ted Cruz's Book

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #288 on: July 16, 2015, 01:42:41 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #289 on: November 03, 2015, 12:26:38 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Straw Man
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 27696


one dwells in nirvana


« Reply #290 on: November 03, 2015, 01:52:35 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
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6420


Getbig!


« Reply #291 on: November 03, 2015, 03:00:19 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.



Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 95020


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #292 on: November 03, 2015, 04:23:55 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!"
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #293 on: December 18, 2015, 05:38:27 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
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #294 on: December 24, 2015, 12:09:53 PM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
avxo
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 4843


Here's looking at you kid!


« Reply #295 on: December 24, 2015, 12:43:58 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 47160

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #296 on: February 12, 2016, 10:15:23 AM »

Blatant. 

This Is How Hillary Clinton Gets the Coverage She Wants
J.K. Trotter


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:


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
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!