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

I already showed the video from a few weeks back when CNN grayed out a hero's shirt because he was supporting Trump. More evidence that CNN is doing shady things. This time through Donna Brazille, Hillary's team was given a debate forum question in advance. And some still question why many call CNN the Clinton News Network.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/11/then-cnn-contributor-donna-brazile-to-clinton-camp-sometimes-i-get-the-questions-in-advance/?utm_term=.59ff2e0b0da6

 
You're still pushing this agenda? This is still a thing with you?

You're first article is tenuous at best.

The second; who knows why they chose to do that and frankly I don't care. Neither 3rd party candidate is a good or viable alternative at this point. To be honest, it's something that's been going on since cable news was created. You can see it in the documentary "Spin" about the media in the 92 election.

Third; do you read these articles? There isn't really any telling of "what they should do" going on. It's just banter between the press and a campaign. "Watchout he could give you trouble", "hey this is an interesting clip with my dad and Pat B. in it", "let's get lunch!" Come on...

Fourth; you really don't think this is common practice on all sides with the media and candidates? The media doesn't want to burn bridges and potentially lose interview access. Unless they are out to ruin a candidate, they are almost always going to let them review and propose edits. I was interviewed for an article and was aforded the same liberty for christ's sake...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What a great interview. This guy is saying the same thing I have been saying for a long time. Glad someone within the conservative media is starting to say these things.


 
ZRod said:
You're still pushing this agenda? This is still a thing with you?

You're first article is tenuous at best.

The second; who knows why they chose to do that and frankly I don't care. Neither 3rd party candidate is a good or viable alternative at this point. To be honest, it's something that's been going on since cable news was created. You can see it in the documentary "Spin" about the media in the 92 election.

Third; do you read these articles? There isn't really any telling of "what they should do" going on. It's just banter between the press and a campaign. "Watchout he could give you trouble", "hey this is an interesting clip with my dad and Pat B. in it", "let's get lunch!" Come on...

Fourth; you really don't think this is common practice on all sides with the media and candidates? The media doesn't want to burn bridges and potentially lose interview access. Unless they are out to ruin a candidate, they are almost always going to let them review and propose edits. I was interviewed for an article and was aforded the same liberty for christ's sake...
Click to expand...
Nice dodging. If you really don't think that NBC, CNN, the Washington Post and the NY Times are in the tank for Hillary, you are simply blind. Why would Hillary Clinton be getting questions before a debate from a DNC insider who works for CNN? Why would the NY Times allow Hillary to proof stories before they publish them about her.

 
Here's some more evidence of bias at NBC. So with the Billy Bush tapes, NBC sat on these tapes for months and waited until 2 days before the 2nd debate to release them. If NBC really cared about ensuring that America had the best candidates in the general election, why wouldn't they have released this sooner as it appears they had these tapes during the primary season.

Also, NBC planned the release of their tape with the timing of doing an NBC/WSJ poll ONLY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY which was off the normal schedule for that particular poll. And in that poll they oversampled Democrats and undersampled Independents.

 
zoogs said:
"NBC sat on these tapes for months".

Have anything to back that up, or...?
Click to expand...
zoogs said:
"NBC sat on these tapes for months".

Have anything to back that up, or...?
Click to expand...
It's been reported on several sites and is not surprising. Eleven-year old tapes don't just miraculously appear out of nowhere except to some on here who want to continue to be naive in thinking that MSM outlets like NBC are not biased.

http://www.tmz.com/2016/10/12/nbc-trump-tape-billy-bush-plan-election-debate/

 
zoogs said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/nbc-delayed-publication-of-lewd-trump-tape-because-of-lawsuit-fears/2016/10/08/a3c6850e-8db9-11e6-875e-2c1bfe943b66_story.html

NBC News was aware of video footage of Donald Trump making lewd and disparaging remarks about women for nearly four days, a network executive said Saturday, but held onto the recording until lawyers finished reviewing the material.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If you really believe that this video just magically appeared in the last week, you are being completely naive. The Washington Post and NBC have been shown time and again to be in the tank for Hillary. It's no different than Wikileaks releasing the DNC video the day before the DNC convention...it was timed for maximum impact. The difference is that NBC claims to be a credible network, and some actually still believe they are credible.

 
Good tactic. If we can agree to give equal deference to the Washington Post and TMZ/"Many people have said", then literally anything might be true.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top