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

[HuskerNation1]

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.

 

Actually I have not heard anyone at the top of TMZ come out forcefully against either candidate. Meanwhile Jeff Bezos bought the post and has been very public about his hatred for Trump. Journalism is so pathetic these days the lines of genuine jouralism really don't exist anymore.

[ZRod]

 

 

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...

 

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.

You didn't even read your own article...

"Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it." She instructed an aide to send Clintons position along. That sequence suggests that Brazile may have been forwarding the question for her own purposes that is, to be prepared for some panel discussion about the death penalty.

Because god forbid a political analyst and admitted former democratic advisor should communicate with and understand the democratic nominees philosophies... There is no proof she was sending debate questions. Any well preped campaign knows this is a possible topic to be brought up, so it would reason that she knew too.

 

And I guess you didn't read my other comment when it comes to interviews. Maybe go back and do that. It's a very common courtesy between journalists and their subjects. Myself, a measly little peon of an engineer, was afforded the exact same liberty...

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

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...

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.

You didn't even read your own article...

"Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it." She instructed an aide to send Clintons position along. That sequence suggests that Brazile may have been forwarding the question for her own purposes that is, to be prepared for some panel discussion about the death penalty.

Because god forbid a political analyst and admitted former democratic advisor should communicate with and understand the democratic nominees philosophies... There is no proof she was sending debate questions. Any well preped campaign knows this is a possible topic to be brought up, so it would reason that she knew too.

 

And I guess you didn't read my other comment when it comes to interviews. Maybe go back and do that. It's a very common courtesy between journalists and their subjects. Myself, a measly little peon of an engineer, was afforded the exact same liberty...

 

 

You will believe what you want to believe. There is plenty of evidence with these latest batch of Wikileaks of many news outlets (including Donna Brazille who worked as a CNN commentator at the time) trying to help out Hillary.

[Landlord]

You just need to show some impartiality to be able to see this.

 

 

You wouldn't know a teaspoon of impartiality if it was bright green flesh-dissolving poison covering your face.

 

 

I mean. Literally (in the literal sense of the word) every. thing. that you post related to politics is pro republican/conservative/right/Trump. Literally every single thing. Literally every post. 100% of them. The entirety of your post count does not include nor has ever included any that are in defense of any other position or side.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

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...

 

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.

You didn't even read your own article...

"Hi. Yes, it is one she gets asked about. Not everyone likes her answer but can share it." She instructed an aide to send Clintons position along. That sequence suggests that Brazile may have been forwarding the question for her own purposes that is, to be prepared for some panel discussion about the death penalty.

 

Because god forbid a political analyst and admitted former democratic advisor should communicate with and understand the democratic nominees philosophies... There is no proof she was sending debate questions. Any well preped campaign knows this is a possible topic to be brought up, so it would reason that she knew too.

And I guess you didn't read my other comment when it comes to interviews. Maybe go back and do that. It's a very common courtesy between journalists and their subjects. Myself, a measly little peon of an engineer, was afforded the exact same liberty...

You will believe what you want to believe. There is plenty of evidence with these latest batch of Wikileaks of many news outlets (including Donna Brazille who worked as a CNN commentator at the time) trying to help out Hillary.

No there's not. There's just not. Like anything Clinton; there's a the smell of smoke, you may even see smoke, but you'll never find the fire. There is nothing in those links suggesting the media is aiding her. This kind of thing happens on both sides, and has for as long as cable news has been around. You're links are tenuous, and prove nothing.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Good point. I should be less naive and swallow Trump campaign talking points like this whole.

 

You just need to show some impartiality to be able to see this.

 

There is something rather humorous about this post.

[ZRod]

 

 

Good point. I should be less naive and swallow Trump campaign talking points like this whole.

 

You just need to show some impartiality to be able to see this.

There is something rather humorous about this post.

In a sad way.

[HuskerNation1]

 

You just need to show some impartiality to be able to see this.

 

 

You wouldn't know a teaspoon of impartiality if it was bright green flesh-dissolving poison covering your face.

 

 

I mean. Literally (in the literal sense of the word) every. thing. that you post related to politics is pro republican/conservative/right/Trump. Literally every single thing. Literally every post. 100% of them. The entirety of your post count does not include nor has ever included any that are in defense of any other position or side.

 

 

You crack me up. You are the ultimate leftist defender on here and persistently bash Trump while failing to criticize Hillary despite plenty of reasons to do so the past 10 days with all the Wikileaks. I have criticized Trump way more than you have criticized Hillary.

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Good point. I should be less naive and swallow Trump campaign talking points like this whole.

 

You just need to show some impartiality to be able to see this.

 

There is something rather humorous about this post.

 

 

Yeah, if only Zoogs could get there...but it's laughable to think that will happen BRB.

[zoogs]

+1.

[HuskerNation1]

+1.

 

I can agree with a smiley face Zoogs

[HuskerNation1]

And the wikileaks moratorium from the media continues as they solely focus on running negative stories on Trump.

 

http://observer.com/2016/10/rigged-debates-wikileaks-emails-confirm-media-in-clintons-pocket/

 

Even the Wall Street Journal which hates Trump and has been outspoken against him is now admitting that the media is trying to help get Hillary elected.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/wall-street-journal-blasts-press-consistently-buries-hillary-clintons-sins

[BigRedBuster]

I just had a conversation with my father that relates to this crap. I've mentioned my father on here before as someone who always was extremely smart and was able to see through BS better than most people and it made him very successful in many ways.

 

Well...he's now 82 years old and has grown into one of these people who sits at home in the evenings and watches Fox News all evening getting more and more angry at those evil liberals that are out to destroy the world. Then, during the day he will sit and read emails passed around with crap stories made up about whomever is the latest evil liberal.

 

Anyway...I was in a conversation with another person and he popped in and asked if we had seen the movie Hillary's America. He started talking about how horrible she is and I simply asked, how do you know the movie is true? He said..."Well, that's what the movie said" in an attitude like...why would you question it????

THIS is going to be the destruction of America and the Dems and Repubs are going to be pointing fingers at each other when it's actually media and the behind the scenes pathetic humans who make up these stories and put out propaganda.

[knapplc]

I just had a conversation with my father that relates to this crap. I've mentioned my father on here before as someone who always was extremely smart and was able to see through BS better than most people and it made him very successful in many ways.

 

Well...he's now 82 years old and has grown into one of these people who sits at home in the evenings and watches Fox News all evening getting more and more angry at those evil liberals that are out to destroy the world. Then, during the day he will sit and read emails passed around with crap stories made up about whomever is the latest evil liberal.

 

Anyway...I was in a conversation with another person and he popped in and asked if we had seen the movie Hillary's America. He started talking about how horrible she is and I simply asked, how do you know the movie is true? He said..."Well, that's what the movie said" in an attitude like...why would you question it????

 

THIS is going to be the destruction of America and the Dems and Repubs are going to be pointing fingers at each other when it's actually media and the behind the scenes pathetic humans who make up these stories and put out propaganda.

The movie is true because the movie said it's true.

 

That is the definition of "echo chamber." And we all know people that are guilty of that. To some extent we all are - it's human nature.

[BigRedBuster]

Yes....but the extent to which it happens now days with the media/social network technology/internet is so far above and beyond anything the world has seen before and it's so easy to create a completely false narrative and have masses of people believe it.