Liberal Media Bias

[Soul Crusher]

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 ...

[Yamcha]

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

[lilhawk1]

Breitbart, seriously? 

[Soul Crusher]

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 ...

[mazrim]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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/

[Soul Crusher]

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 ...

[Soul Crusher]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/18/msnbc-host-labels-rep-scalise-an-extremist-while-he-lies-in-hospital-bed


sick bitch

[Yamcha]

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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

[Las Vegas]

^ To be fair, FOX has been known to actually change an 'R' to a 'D' for their visuals on TV.

[Dos Equis]

^ 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. 

[Las Vegas]

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.

[Straw Man]

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:
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Mark Foley:

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Las Vegas]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Las Vegas]

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.