Defining the "Liberal Media" and the "Mainstream Media"

[zoogs]

All of politics is bad, in a sense.

A healthy mix of representation is some mitigation to the bad.

At this point, the Republicans have most of U.S. Congress, and certainly the House, on lock. We can talk about the ways they've accomplished that elsewhere. They've had a quarter century of Supreme Court pre-eminence, and for every progressive victory we can point to a Hobby Lobby ('14), Shelby County ('13), Citizens United ('10?), or Heller ('08).

I'd like to see some defense against this. The Supreme Court is an important start. A GOP loss in the Senate -- even if it's temporary -- will provide some additional relief. And optimistically, we never forget or forgive this watershed moment where the GOP called its shot for Donald Trump. Perhaps a landslide defeat can accelerate the burning down and rising anew of something better. Perhaps not.

 

[HuskerNation1]

I know there are some here that still think CNN is not biased, but their Headline News just demonstrated once again that bias. A retired police officer who is a Trump supporter saved a baby who was left in a hot car on a 90-degree day. In the interview he was asked questions and had a Trump shirt on, and when CNN replayed that interview, they blocked out his t-shirt. This is probably the most blatant example of bias I have seen in a long-time, yet I'm sure some will continue to claim on here that CNN is not biased.

http://www.wxxv25.com/2016/09/01/bias-alert-hln-blurs-out-retired-officer039s-trump-2016-shirt/

 

[huskerfan2000]

This has been an attempt at your part to equate Rush, Breitbart, et. al. with the continued myth of a dangerous "MSM", the topic of the OP. A false equivalency that has been routinely criticized by many, and defended by you.

There's not that much mystery to this; please stop attempting to obfuscate.

I could care less if the groupthink going on in here matters. If you don't think there is any liberal bias in the MSM, that is naive, but you can continue to believe that. As I said above, they do not create the liberal bias in the MSM but simply call it out. I have said the MSM does a better job disguising their bias, but a bias is still there.

There most certainly is bias, some more so than others.. Like that Vox site that is continually used.

 

[huskerfan2000]

I know there are some here that still think CNN is not biased, but their Headline News just demonstrated once again that bias. A retired police officer who is a Trump supporter saved a baby who was left in a hot car on a 90-degree day. In the interview he was asked questions and had a Trump shirt on, and when CNN replayed that interview, they blocked out his t-shirt. This is probably the most blatant example of bias I have seen in a long-time, yet I'm sure some will continue to claim on here that CNN is not biased.

http://www.wxxv25.com/2016/09/01/bias-alert-hln-blurs-out-retired-officer039s-trump-2016-shirt/

This morning they were interviewing someone from the Trump camp, and the lady from CNN kept trying to site polls from 2 weeks ago while telling the guy Trump was behind in this specific poll. The guy was trying to tell her his poll was the same one, but from the last couple days, which showed Trump ahead.

She just kept with her failed argument.. trying hard to ignore his updated poll.

 

[Red Five]

This seems like as good of place as any to post this

 

[BigRedBuster]

This seems like as good of place as any to post this

And the Hannity fan's moods about Assange will swing wildly depending on what ever Hannity says.

Just follow along and soak up all the crap you can from whatever your media says.

 

[HuskerNation1]

This seems like as good of place as any to post this

And the Hannity fan's moods about Assange will swing wildly depending on what ever Hannity says.

Just follow along and soak up all the crap you can from whatever your media says.

I'm not a fan of Hannity, and don't agree with anyone changing their views which happens with pundits on both sides of the aisle, but this still is not as bad as CNN blanking out a Trump supporters shirt as part of their "Headline News" programming.

 

[zoogs]

Really?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Seriously???

 

[HuskerNation1]

Seriously???

Why the shock. We all know Hannity is one of the "opinion" shows on Fox and will have a bias. Headline News is supposed to be focused on just presenting the news. Moreover, we can look at nearly every politician and opinion journalist and find statements they made in the past that contradict a current statement or opinion. Altering a video for political purposes on what is deemed to be "hard news" is just absurd.

 

[zoogs]

I think you're missing the point.

What BRB posted illustrates that so many of these hysterical arguments (the ones you are so fond of regurgitating, ad nauseam) are simple cheap shots that lack totally in substance.

Hannity -- and his ilk -- will believe anything if it makes for a good partisan rallying cry. There's no indication this is less true today.

 

[HuskerNation1]

I think you're missing the point.

What BRB posted illustrates that so many of these hysterical arguments (the ones you are so fond of regurgitating, ad nauseam) are simple cheap shots that lack totally in substance.

Hannity -- and his ilk -- will believe anything if it makes for a good partisan rallying cry. There's no indication this is less true today.

Like I said, whether it's Hannity on Fox, Lemon on CNN, or Maddow on MSNBC, they are all partisan opinion shows, and all networks have these. But, with these partisan opinion shows, we expect contradictory statements and completely biased views. On headline news I would not expect what they did. It's really pretty simple.

 

[zoogs]

You can have opinions without abandoning reason. You can have "biased" political views without being intentionally misleading.

I don't know that cable news is obligated to provide people they interview for unrelated reasons a political statement platform. In any case, they've said it was a mistake to blur it out.

 

[huskerfan2000]

I think you're missing the point.

What BRB posted illustrates that so many of these hysterical arguments (the ones you are so fond of regurgitating, ad nauseam) are simple cheap shots that lack totally in substance.

Hannity -- and his ilk -- will believe anything if it makes for a good partisan rallying cry. There's no indication this is less true today.

Sounds like Hillary and her ilk..

 

[Red Five]

Drudge is deplorable.

Late Thursday afternoon, monstrous Hurricane Matthew was just hours away from a likely devastating impact with Florida. It was a time when meteorologists, emergency managers and politicians of all persuasions were joining to deliver a simple, clear message in the spirit of keeping people safe: Take this storm seriously, and prepare.

Yet the popular Drudge Report website, visited by a massive audience, including vulnerable Floridians, was casting doubt on the severity of the Category 4 storm. In big, bold all-capital letters, it said the storm was “ragged” and suggested it could be fizzling. It made this proclamation at the same time the National Hurricane Center was calling for “potentially disastrous impacts” in Florida.

To make matters worse, Drudge took to Twitter and accused the government of purposefully inflating Matthew’s intensity to send a message about climate change.

“The deplorables are starting to wonder if govt has been lying to them about Hurricane Matthew intensity to make exaggerated point on climate,” Matt Drudge, who runs the Drudge Report, tweeted.

This is an incredible and offensive accusation. The National Hurricane Center is the government agency responsible for determining hurricane intensity and it is apolitical as it gets. The scientists working there are obsessive about scientific accuracy and integrity and have deservedly earned a tremendous amount of public trust.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2016/10/06/drudge-report-posts-infuriating-and-flawed-comments-on-hurricane-matthew/