Attacking liberal bias as assault on free press?

| April 25, 2018 | 73 Comments

Hillary Clinton thinks so. Apparently, what’s obvious to us regarding the truth, fact, reason, logic, etc., is something else to Hillary Clinton. She’s seeing this from a liberal perspective; liberal lies, snowflake emotion, irrational thought, etc., are, “fact, reason, and logic.”

Hillary Clinton insinuates that President Trump, and conservatives, are waging war against the truth, fact, and reason. Her argument suggests that President Trump is ignoring things that are “plainly obvious” or “fact” like man-made global warming. This “dismissal” of the “truth” marks the “beginning” of the “end” of freedom.

Yes, by not getting behind a farce like man-made global warming, and by taking action against useless policies aimed at fighting nonexistent threats, President Trump is carrying out “authoritarian” actions.

Hillary Clinton quote by The Associated Press:

“Although obsessed with his own press coverage, he evaluates it based not on whether it provides knowledge or understanding, but solely on whether the daily coverage helps him and hurts his opponents.”

When Hillary Clinton argues that the Free Press is under open assault, critical thinking people would see something else… The liberally biased press is under open assault from those that want real news. Not liberal propaganda shoved down our throats. Consequently, those that do not like to be baffled with nonsense are waging on all-out war on lies, non-facts, and irrationality, intended to get people to mindlessly support liberal agenda.

Tags:

Category: Politics

Comments (73)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. In The Mailbox: 04.25.18 : The Other McCain | April 25, 2018
  1. jim h says:

    timing is good. it coincides with the agreement reached between Gowdy and DOJ to hand over the bajillion documents relating to her server investigation. makes me wonder what we’re about to learn.

  2. AW1Ed says:

    Makes me wonder what we’re about to have confirmed that was already suspected.

  3. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Has Hillary even remotely bothered to ‘splain hoe all those emails “accidentally” got erased along with her running Classified Info over an unsecured server? OH, and I’m quite sure that she and President trump’s predecessor were sleeping soundly the night that four American Citizens were murdered by a mob in Benghazi, she and her ilk have no soul or conscience.

  4. Mason says:

    Calling out fake news is itself fake news. Makes perfect sense.

    Clintons have turned repeating a lie so much it becomes believed into a way of life.

  5. The Other Whitey says:

    Dad Hildabeast comes up with a new bullshit excuse every week for why she lost, yet not a single one of them touch on the fact that she’s obscenely corrupt, an admitted liar, and an all-around hateful cunt. Every excuse blames someone else, mostly voters, who failed to fall for her bullshit because “they’re too dumb,” according to her.

    Trump certainly has his supporters, but he won the 2016 election in the face of significant voter vote fraud because millions of Americans who didn’t like him that much voted *against* the Bitch of Benghazi. Since that win, the number of people who would likely vote to re-elect him on his merits has grown, but that’s the way it was. Now he needs to make sure that the FBI, as corrupt as it has become, cracks open the Clinton Mafia for all to see.

  6. Garold says:

    This from the same people who tell us there are 42 sexes and we are the cause of the climate changing as it has since the beginning of this planet. I also read the other day of a professor claiming that students shouting down conservative speakers and ideas is an example of free speech.

    • thebesig says:

      She also dismissed the investigations, regarding her husband’s perjury and obstruction of justice, and the argument supporting that investigation, as “vast right-wing conspiracy” or something like that.

      Then we had her reaction to her claims, of dodging sniper fire in the Balkans, being proven wrong.

      What Hillary Clinton accuses President Trump, and the conservatives, regarding “attacks on the media”, is her, and the Democrats, projecting their traits onto those that they try to assign these traits to.

      • Garold says:

        Dittos to all you said; especially exhibiting the traits they accuse others of possessing. I’m reminded of the ‘antifa’ thugs using Nazi tactics. Plus we can’t forget Hillary claiming to be a supporter of abused women while ignoring her past deviling of the victims of her predatory husband.

  7. OWB says:

    At least lefties are consistent in that whatever they accuse others of doing you can bet the farm that the left has already done it and/or is currently doing it.

    • thebesig says:

      During the 2016 presidential primaries, the Democratic candidates were the very caricature that they painted the Republicans, and the Republicans showed a diversity that the Democrats claimed to be for.

  8. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    You lost, b***ch so, I have to ask, what difference does it make now?

  9. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Cankles McPantsuit is still crying about not being POTUS?

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH FUCKING WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH

  10. Yef says:

    I just expended $314.20 at Playmobil buying the Knights castle set and additional medieval style soldier sets for my two kids, 3 and 5.
    My wife is going to kill me.

  11. Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

    I think the lame street media learned their trade from watching black & white Joseph Goebbels speeches, approved by NPR.

  12. Ex-PH2 says:

    It’s bad enough that the cow is a Huge Sore Loser, but does she even know what today’s date is?

    When she can’t descend a flight of steps without nearly losing her c——- bag, she should just quit public life and stay home. She has money coming out of her ears and her backside. I guess that simply is not enough….

  13. JURRASSICHM says:

    Everything that comes out of this woman’s mouth is meant to support her status as a professional victim. Her pathological behavior since her loss should make it clear to everyone that it’s a very good thing that she lost the election.

    • thebesig says:

      There are many liberals that still insist that she was cheated out of what “should have” been hers, and that President Trump should be “impeached”. 🙄

    • Daisy Cutter says:

      I still remember when she criticized Trump for not stating that he will abide by the election results.

      Irony, sweet irony.

      • thebesig says:

        Hillary and many of her supporters when they thought that she’d win. But, when Trump won, they weren’t willing to do what they demanded Trump and the conservatives do had Hillary won.

        • rgr769 says:

          When dealing with progtards, every concept is relative to their belief system and what advances it. It is why they have double standards for every proposition. They don’t believe in irony when their ox was gored.

  14. Perry Gaskill says:

    There are more than a few liberal dog whistles going off in the AP story. As a matter of background, Jocelyn Noveck is a Manhattan-based “culture” reporter, and apparently the kind of second-string journalist you send to a writer’s conference to cover who gets the Arthur Miller award. Something most of the country would probably react to hearing with, “Arthur who?”

    What’s also likely is that most of the country would probably rather hear from Noveck how much Hillary Clinton got paid for an appearance where she can once again trash-talk President Trump, and risk facing merely the softest of softball questions.

    Journalism’s biggest problem these days is not so much direct bias as it is financial weakness. Being objective takes time and money. Problematic now that Google and Facebook suck up most of the advertising revenue. The result is that we’re losing local news across the country, and it does not bode well for the republic.

    We get yet another story from Manhattan about a still-bitter Hillary because that’s the low-hanging fruit.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      I still get the local news. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have anything to wrap dead fish in.

    • thebesig says:

      Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

      Journalism’s biggest problem these days is not so much direct bias as it is financial weakness. Being objective takes time and money. Problematic now that Google and Facebook suck up most of the advertising revenue. The result is that we’re losing local news across the country, and it does not bode well for the republic.

      Regardless of finances, it doesn’t require more money to provide fair and objective news. For example, they could cover the plight of the poor during Democrat president administration just much they could during conservative presidential administrations. Although their plight is reported under both administrations, they tend to emphasize this issue under Republican administrations.

      Another one, that I see, is reporting on the weather and climate. Journalists overemphasize global warming, while not giving as much enthusiasm to the wider reality of global cooling.

      I saw this one report where the reporter, a meteorologist, explained how a high-pressure system was dragging cooler than normal air over our area. In the graphic, it showed that system projected to movies. Did he explain the fact that it’s rotation was going to bring warmer than normal air into our area? No, he didn’t. It wouldn’t have cost more money for him to report how we were going to get warmer than normal temperatures.

      They can research, or bring in, opposing views. But, they don’t.

      The fact of the matter is that as a population, journalists contain a larger percentage of journalists that identify as Democrat than the percentage of American people that identify as Democrat in the general population.

      In this case, bias comes naturally. A whole bunch of liberal journalists are in their liberal microcosms with the assumption that their views, shared within their bubble, is no-nonsense in the rest of the country.

      Bernard Goldberg, a career CBS journalists, wrote books on this topic. Here’s one of his books, BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News:

      https://www.amazon.com/Bias-Insider-Exposes-Media-Distort/dp/0060520841

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        You might have missed my point.

        Truth and accuracy, it’s been argued in the past, tends to be better when there are a lot of eyeballs looking at something. Since the year 2000, the number of professional journalists in the country has declined by about half. Once upon a time, there was a rough rule-of-thumb at daily newspapers that if you wanted to do a good job of news coverage in a community, you needed about one reporter per thousand of circulation. That number would now be considered laughable.

        Nor has the news business failed all at once everywhere. A general trend has been that news media bean counters have fired older experienced reporters for being too expensive, along with positions such as copy desk to act as a back-stop. Another shift has been towards an extreme level of dominance by New York City-based news media which is subject to its own bias and echo chamber not necessarily shared by news media in other parts of the country.

        A California example of how local media can fail badly is the current sanctuary state law brought about by a minority open borders faction. There was little public discussion or media coverage about it. One day it was simply presented as a fait accompli.

        Another example is the high-speed rail project which shows every sign of having pulled off one of the biggest financial flim-flams in the history of the state. Explaining how the scam likely worked requires deeper pockets than most of the California news media is capable of.

        Any advanced democracy needs an effective news media in order to remain an advanced democracy. It’s not something you should be willing to get rid of just because you don’t agree with it. For the most part, the main problem is that we’re not getting the news media we deserve.

        • thebesig says:

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          You might have missed my point.

          No, I didn’t miss your point. You claimed that it cost more money to be objective. The implication was that it was cheaper to not be objective. That was your point. I didn’t miss it, I disagreed with it.

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          Truth and accuracy, it’s been argued in the past, tends to be better when there are a lot of eyeballs looking at something. Since the year 2000, the number of professional journalists in the country has declined by about half. Once upon a time, there was a rough rule-of-thumb at daily newspapers that if you wanted to do a good job of news coverage in a community, you needed about one reporter per thousand of circulation. That number would now be considered laughable.

          This is a strawman argument. The number of journalists, relative to the population, is irrelevant when it comes to reporting the facts, and being objective. The argument that the more journalists there are, chances are that the more “accurate” the reporting will be is inductive fallacy.

          Again, when the majority of the journalists, in this country, identifies as Democrat in scientific polling, and the percentage of Democrats among the journalists exceed the percentage of Democrats in the country, you’re going to have liberal bias.

          So, given this scenario, it doesn’t matter how many journalists there are in a community, or region. If the majority of those journalists are liberals, the chances are real good that their reporting is going to be liberally biased.

          Each journalist, and reporter, has control over what they will report. They can include information, or they could exclude it. They could word things a certain way as well. For example, describing conservative commentators as “conservative” while not describing liberal commentators as “liberal”, is deliberate and is intended to portray the liberal argument as “mainstream”.

          It doesn’t cost more money to simply describe both of them by their ideology, or not even describe any of them by their ideology. They can simply identify a conservative commentator by their name and title without describing them as “conservative”, just like they do with the liberal commentator. No additional money spent.

          A single person can dig for the facts. A single person can obtain information. A single person can ask the right questions, and make the right requests, to get an accurate story. Whether to ask the right question or a deceptive question isn’t going to take up more expenses.

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          Nor has the news business failed all at once everywhere. A general trend has been that news media bean counters have fired older experienced reporters for being too expensive, along with positions such as copy desk to act as a back-stop. Another shift has been towards an extreme level of dominance by New York City-based news media which is subject to its own bias and echo chamber not necessarily shared by news media in other parts of the country.

          This does not dismiss the fact that bias exists in the media. Those older, more experienced, journalists were also biased. I remember watching a video of Richard Nixon, after losing his election bid, lament the fact that he did not have a single reporter that could report him in context. The media even deliberately assisted Democrat candidates on things as simple as lighting in front of the TV cameras. This bias existed for decades. A big difference between them, and now, is that the bias is even more in-your-face. But, the trend has been towards more in-your-face liberal bias over the past few decades.

          I posted a link to Bernard Goldberg’s book, Bias. In there, he made the observation that the New York Times is the flagship of the liberal media. He pointed out that if the New York Times were shut down, our mainstream media will be at a loss as to what to report. This isn’t something new, his book was published early last decade.

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          A California example of how local media can fail badly is the current sanctuary state law brought about by a minority open borders faction. There was little public discussion or media coverage about it. One day it was simply presented as a fait accompli.

          The local media, like the regional and national media, are heavily Democratic. As such, they’re going to support and push for liberal agendas. Since they control what ends up being reported in the news, it’s easy for them to present a one-sided view in favor of the view that they support. In this case, “sanctuary state”.

          When you have a liberal dominated industry, the media, it’s easy to see how they could control what information goes out. They could also withhold information. And, with that control, they can influence which way the population will vote or behave.

          Herein lies the crux of many a conservative complaint.

          In this example, the fact that there was little public discussion was deliberate. Presenting both sides, in a timely manner, which would not have been expensive, would have allowed for public discussion and debate. Presenting complete facts, again which would not have costed any more than what it cost to present bias reporting, would very well have changed the direction California went in.

          However, the majority of the journalists, the liberal, abused their position to get a liberal outcome.

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          Another example is the high-speed rail project which shows every sign of having pulled off one of the biggest financial flim-flams in the history of the state. Explaining how the scam likely worked requires deeper pockets than most of the California news media is capable of.

          Not true. A magnetic rail proposal failed in my area in last year’s Presidential Election. An initiative was placed on the local ballot to extend the magnetic rail from where it ended in Norfolk, to the Town Center area in Virginia Beach. Enough information was made available, by both the journalists and by interest groups, to let us know the viability of such a project. It ultimately ended up getting a “no” vote.

          With a fair and balanced, objective, media, we would not have even needed the special interest group. Journalists, and the media organization that they work for, control the time, and the investigative reporting procedure. Again, much of the information can be gained through the right questioning and the right requests.

          Going back to the example that I pointed out above. The meteorologist explained how the clockwise rotation of a high-pressure system brought cold Canadian air into our area. It wouldn’t have cost to him more money to explain the opposite effect when the high-pressure system moved out to sea. Getting that information would not have costed a dime.

          However, that explanation was left out as heaven forbid that people realize that above average warming is natural, not man-made.

          Presenting fair, objective, and accurate reporting does not require the expenses that you claim it would require.

          Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

          Any advanced democracy needs an effective news media in order to remain an advanced democracy. It’s not something you should be willing to get rid of just because you don’t agree with it. For the most part, the main problem is that we’re not getting the news media we deserve.

          Where, in any my posts, do I argue that we should get rid of the news media?

          It’s you that missed my point. Not the other way around. Nobody here is arguing that we should get rid of the media. What we are arguing is that the media is capable of being fair, balanced, accurate, objective, etc.

          THAT is what an advanced Republic/democracy needs. We need a fair, balanced, accurate, objective, etc. media. That is essential to a free democracy.

          However, a media that is biased in favor of one of the political parties, in favor of one of the ideologies, that actively abuses its position to favor one of the political parties, turns itself into a threat to democracy. They do voluntarily what state-run media is required to do under an authoritative/dictatorial government.

          • Perry Gaskill says:

            So what you’re saying is I’m incapable of recognizing that a person such as yourself, and a few others, are apparently both capable and willing to report on all the relevant news on the planet for free. That facts, nuance, supporting background, eyewitness observation, and context are just lying around waiting to be plugged into whatever news narrative happens to be needed.

            Or something.

            It also seems ironic you would mention Bernard Goldberg twice. From my own perspective, a former CBS guy ragging on the New York Times is about like Bozo the Clown accusing Zippy the Pinhead of being insincere. Goldberg, yet another NYC MSM windbag, isn’t part of the solution to a current primary cause of failure of the news media. He’s another part of the problem.

            Too, a single example of a weather-droid being too ignorant or lazy to explain a weather pattern properly also seems like an outlier in the larger scope of things. Laziness and ignorance are not always the same kind of news bias as that which pushes a political agenda.

            thebesig, it’s fairly obvious we’re not on the same page. I’ll be first in line to defend your right to express your opinion. I just don’t happen to agree with a lot of it. Bias exists on both sides of the political street. The extent to which it can be mitigated, at least it seems to me, is a matter of having the resources to combat it. YMMV

            • thebesig says:

              Perry Gaskill:So what you’re saying is I’m incapable of recognizing that a person such as yourself, and a few others, are apparently both capable and willing to report on all the relevant news on the planet for free.

              Again, you’re arguing that fair, balanced, objective, factual, etc. reporting isn’t being done as it is hard to do due to the costs of reporting. Or something like that. In order to prove that argument wrong, I argued the fact that no additional expenses need to be paid in order to provide objective reporting.

              No, we are not arguing about whether the journalists will do their jobs for free or not. A journalist, being paid a salary, is going to have a set amount of time to gather the information they need for their reporting. They are going to receive information related to their queries and investigation.

              Whether they have to provide a full-blown report, or just a simple segment, there is a way to provide a fair, balanced, objective, and factual report. However, the journalist controls the interview questions asked, and which of the information is included in the report.

              Which way they’re going to decide, regarding what to include in the report, is going to be done regardless of whether they have more or less money.

              Perry Gaskill: That facts, nuance, supporting background, eyewitness observation, and context are just lying around waiting to be plugged into whatever news narrative happens to be needed… Or something.

              The facts, nuance, supporting documentation, eyewitness accounts, contacts, etc., all exist. It is up to reporter to ask the right questions, and request the appropriate documentation and information. Once they receive that, it is again up to them to decide what gets included in the report.

              A good example of this is the shooting that happened in Florida. The liberal media is emphasizing the students that are advancing the liberal argument regarding gun control. The students that are advocating in favor of the Second Amendment? Not as much traction, or media enthusiasm, as those that are running with the liberal agenda.

              The liberally biased reporters are going to craft a report that supports their agenda. In PSYOP, we call that propaganda.

              Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:

              It also seems ironic you would mention Bernard Goldberg twice. From my own perspective, a former CBS guy ragging on the New York Times is about like Bozo the Clown accusing Zippy the Pinhead of being insincere. Goldberg, yet another NYC MSM windbag, isn’t part of the solution to a current primary cause of failure of the news media. He’s another part of the problem.

              I mentioned him twice on the account that he has relevant experiences regarding the mainstream media. He worked for CBS for decades. He saw the internal workings of his colleagues and has working knowledge understanding of why bias exists in the media. In other words, he has first-hand experiences. Your perspective misses the mark and is yet another strawman argument.

              He, having worked in CBS, having seen standard operating procedures for that network, has a leg to stand on when talking about the New York Times setting the agenda for the network news.

              There is no comparison with your analogy regarding Bozo the Clown and Zippy the Pinhead. A more appropriate application, to your analogy, would be something like a reality TV show. We are not talking about reality TV shows. We are talking about liberal bias regarding the mainstream media.

              No, he’s not a “mainstream media windbag”, he is actually criticizing the mainstream media. If you bothered reading his books, not just Bias, but also Arrogance, and A slobbering Love Affair, you would realize they are the things that he lays out:

              He identifies the problem.

              He identifies the direction the media is going in while this problem continues to exists.

              He offers solutions.

              He is not the only one that criticizes the fact that the New York Times contributes to the bias, and sets the agenda as to what is reported. Bob Kohn wrote Journalistic Fraud: How the New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer be Trusted.

              https://www.amazon.com/Journalistic-Fraud-Distorts-Longer-Trusted/dp/B000685KVK

            • thebesig says:

              Originally posted by Perry Gaskill: Too, a single example of a weather-droid being too ignorant or lazy to explain a weather pattern properly also seems like an outlier in the larger scope of things. Laziness and ignorance are not always the same kind of news bias as that which pushes a political agenda.

              No, he is not an outer layer, an extreme fringe.

              I only brought up that one example. I know of others, but only brought that one up to make a point. You need to quit making assumptions about my understanding, or the number of examples that I’ve seen, simply because you want to make a point in an argument where you are clearly demonstrating a lack of understanding what you are arguing about.

              Google “Ice Age Now” and you will see numerous examples of media bias regarding weather reporting. However, whether reporting is not the only area where bias is demonstrated. It is demonstrated in other topic areas as well.

              This goes back to what I argued, regarding a predominantly Democrat populated journalistic profession demonstrating a bias in reporting in all topic areas where there is a major conservative/liberal debate.

              This was not a case of someone being “too ignorant” or “too lazy” to explain the weather pattern. The liberal media is advancing an argument regarding man-made global warming. When you have above average temperatures being explained away as a natural phenomenon, that explanation goes against the longer-term disinformation campaign… The canard that the planet is “warming up” and that “we” are “behind” it.

              That was not laziness, but deliberate. In that one example, the theme was that the reason to why it was colder than normal was because of a “freak” act of nature. However, explaining the warmer than average temperatures as an act of nature goes against the bigger liberal agenda. Hence, he did not report how the warmer than average temperatures would occur.

              • Perry Gaskill says:

                Whatever. Or is that another strawman argument? I’m also sorry I apparently hurt your feelings. You and Bernard Goldberg might be butt buddies for all I know, and comparing him to Zippy was obviously unkind.

                • thebesig says:

                  Perry Gaskill: Whatever.

                  Usually said by someone that got his/her ass handed to him/her, but who wants to keep arguing despite running out of argument. Your narcissism, and need for control, is strong with your replies. You can’t handle loosing, and your juvenile responses are your ways to try to regain that control.

                  Perry Gaskill: Or is that another strawman argument?

                  You advanced strawmen arguments above. That’s much easier for you to do than to argue against the actual argument advanced, or to come to terms that your original argument got crushed.

                  Perry Gaskill: I’m also sorry I apparently hurt your feelings.

                  Wrong. I take sadistic pleasure in destroying arguments like yours, and watching the reaction of the dummy that advanced said argument. Like Hillary, you’re projecting your own traits onto the opposition.

                  Having had your ass handed to you, in a way that even you’re doubting your arguments (see strawman comentary), you’re attempting to massage your bruised ego by attempting to claim some semblance of a victory… to make up for the fact that even you’re seeing that you don’t have an argument.

                  Perry Gaskill: You and Bernard Goldberg might be butt buddies for all I know,

                  The only thing that you seem to know how to do is to make erroneous assumptions about the person that you’re debating against. Just like someone, like you, to respond to getting his arse handed to him by insinuating that the arse kicker is “gay”.

                  Tell that one brain celled activity of yours to quit trying to take you over and to start doing its job so that you quit posting as if a retarded ghost possesses you.

                  Perry Gaskill: and comparing him to Zippy was obviously unkind.

                  You missed the point, again. Your comparison missed the mark. If your firearm marksmanship were anything like your Bozo to Zippy comparison to Goldberg to NYT, I’d hate to be the person standing behind you as you attempt to shoot the target in front of. You’re that far off.

                  This is an example of what I talked about regarding you making a strawman argument.

            • thebesig says:

              Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:
              thebesig, it’s fairly obvious we’re not on the same page. I’ll be first in line to defend your right to express your opinion. I just don’t happen to agree with a lot of it.

              This is something that was obvious to me regarding your stance; hence my disagreement post. I debated with you knowing full well that you would not change your mind based on anything that I said.

              However, dismissing my argument as just an “opinion” is simply you excusing yourself of the fact that you don’t really have an argument.

              I lost count of how many times people tried to argue their positions, who find that they don’t have an argument, or that they advanced one that is indefensible, who tried to throw the “opinion” card in an attempt to put equal standing between their non-argument and the argument against their weak argument.

              I mean, unicorns existing in a rainbow field, in a world in an adjacent universe is “an opinion”. Just as a “Get out of jail free” card get you out of jail in a game of Monopoly, the “That’s your opinion” card is something that many people try to use to get out of the realization that there is an imbalance regarding the credibility of both sides of the arguments… And the lack of balance, with no leg to stand on, happens to be on the one who is pulling the “that’s just your opinion” card.

              But the cold hard reality is that what I point out here is observed fact. Books have been written about it, and an observable pattern can be traced regarding media bias.

              Originally posted by Perry Gaskill:
              Bias exists on both sides of the political street. The extent to which it can be mitigated, at least it seems to me, is a matter of having the resources to combat it. YMMV

              Nobody is saying that there is a complete absence of bias from the conservative side of the house. Although Fox News demonstrates a conservative bias when it comes to editorials, their news reporting is fair, balanced, objective, etc. However, when bias is utilized in an attempt to change the argument in favor of one side of the argument, then that bias is an issue. It is epidemic on the liberal side of the house.

              You mentioned the “resources to combat bias in reporting”. Again, the majority of the journalists, in the US, identifies as Democrat, and their percentages exceed that of the general population. The resources that you talk about has to come from outside. That comes in the form of conservative media as well as individuals like President Trump who will call liberal media out regarding their bias.

        • rgr769 says:

          Where I live, the local newspapers merely reprint articles from the NY Times and other major leftist newpapers. One can’t even find a reprint of an article from the Wall Street Journal, because it might not support the leftard narrative.

    • timactual says:

      ” Being objective takes time and money”

      I beg to differ. It takes no more time or money to be objective than it does being partisan.

      When Jim tells a police officer that ” Joe was yelling and screaming and trying to steal my lawn mower”, the police officer prefaces that in his report with “Jim claims Joe was…”. He does not write “Joe was caught attempting to steal Jim’s lawnmower and verbally abuse him”.

      It ain’t rocket science, it’s an attitude.

      • Perry Gaskill says:

        Most of the time crime stories involve a careful tap dance around libel. No reporter I’ve known who ever passed Journalism 101 would write, “Joe was caught attempting to steal Jim’s lawnmower and verbally abuse him.”

        More likely it would be something such as:

        According to police reports, Joe was arrested for allegedly trying to take Jim’s property during a neighborhood dispute.

        “He was yelling and screaming, and trying to steal my lawn mower,” Jim said.

        It ain’t rocket science, it’s attribution.

  15. HMC Ret says:

    I’d be pissed, too, if I lost an election I had rigged.

  16. rgr769 says:

    What these progtard cucks and scrunts don’t seem to understand is that we are merely fighting back against their media propaganda, which is based upon a whole bastion of “big lies” and little lies. They are shocked by the blow-back because the prior Republican admins didn’t fight back. They mostly just shut up and took it.

    • thebesig says:

      In their narcissistic level of arrogance, they don’t see it that way. To them, what they “see” as “fact”, is “blatantly obvious”. Take Jim Acosta, of CNN. He claims that we have an intellectual void, that our elevators are not stopping at every level. He can’t accept the fact that many want President Trump to do what he’s doing relative to the press and to the liberals.

      Don’t expect them to come to the conclusion that our position is based on our own analysis. Jim Acosta thinks that we’ve been hoodwinked, and that we don’t “see” the “act” that President Trump is “engaging” in:

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/24/jim-acosta-says-voters-too-stupid-to-grasp-trump-a/

      Jim Acosta farts:

      They’re not in on the act, and they take what he says very seriously, and they take attacks from [former White House press secretary] Sean Spicer and Sarah Sanders and what they do to us on a daily basis very seriously. They don’t have all their faculties in some cases – their elevator might not hit all floors. My concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days.

      He did a great job describing the last president, the liberals that supported the last president, and many CNN viewers. :mrgreen:

    • AW1Ed says:

      “They are shocked by the blow-back because the prior Republican admins didn’t fight back.”

      This. They are so used to dishing it out, they are completely unable to rationally deal with push-back, and revert to ad hominem attacks instead of logical debate. Racist. Sexist. Homophobe. Protectionist. Dumb stump-fucking fly-over state redneck. This exposes their lack of defendable arguments, so they just get louder, shriller, and less coherent. I give you the new scold, 16 year old high school kids telling us about democracy and rights.
      Pathetic, and folks are getting very tired of this.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      You guys have never been picked on, have you?

      These so-called reporters are used to picking on people they deem unworthy of ‘whatever’ and dishing it out, but don’t like it when it’s handed right back to them, or worse: ignored.

      These clankers are slowly losing their base. When they focus on something like shoes or the color of someone’s hair, instead of on the job at hand, they literally have nothing to say.

  17. timactual says:

    Some of us have been pointing out the shortcomings of the media for decades. The difference is that now they have a critic who cannot be ignored, intimidated, or mocked into obscurity. Rush Limbaugh got the same treatment when he appeared on the scene.

    Between CSPAN and the internet, there is more than enough evidence to support claims that the press is ignorant, lazy, abusive, and biased. Not to mention the reference section of your local library.

    I used to buy a copy of “Statistical Abstract of the United States” every year (less than $10 at most supermarkets, bookstores, etc.) to do my own “fact check” on what I read/heard. Keep it next to you when you watch TV, or keep it in the bathroom to occupy those idle moments. It really doesn’t take much time.

    • thebesig says:

      I’ve been tracking global weather, and articles/studies related to it since 2007. One of the websites I use is a global wind/temperature map.

      Whenever the mainstream media reports climate/weather related events, I can see their bias. It’s blatant. They like to show an NOAA global map, that shows a heat bias based on mathematical manipulation. When I compare this to what I’ve seen on the global wind/temperature map, it’s plainly obvious that the media is disregarding cold hard fact as it is not as hot as their man-made global warming agenda.

      • 26Limabeans says:

        The reds and oranges on the media weather maps are much brighter.

        • thebesig says:

          Either on “What’s up with that” blog or “Suspicious Observers” website, someone pulled up a weather map, by NOAA, with reds and oranges showing record heat. Then, they compared it to the raw data graphic which showed the reds and oranges being weaker, and the blues being stronger.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        All the forecasts by such notaries as Paul Ehrlich, et al., going back to the 1970s (The Ice Age is Coming!) and moving forward (The Planet is Burning UP! – Al Gorebull) have failed to come true. ALL. OF. THEM.

        And now we’ve been having a late spring in my kingdom because a blob of cold air sent my way with affection by Vlad Putin (I have the card, too! Eat your heart out!) has been sitting on my kingdom since March 1 like a broody hen on a clutch of eggs. But finally, there is some relief.
        I turned the furnace off last night. The house only dropped to 69F, and I had to change the thermostat battery this morning. But Spring is here. And it’s gonna stay here, too.

        • thebesig says:

          It’s like that in other areas as well. Spring came late to Southeast Virginia this year, with trees dominating the landscape did not have either leaves or buds when April started. Not usual for this area, to have the heater going in April.

      • Jeff LPH 3, 63-66 says:

        I check out the below Wx map and moniter NAVTEX on 518KZ, 45 baud 100 shift (sitor B) plus I monitor my 2 wall mercury and mechanical barometers. I used to have a mil surplus Facimille that used a 19 inch paper and carbon paper roll and run it off of my Drake R7 shortwave receiver and get surface and sea water temps.I also monitor Coastal station WLO which transmits on sitor B and ITA 2 (45baud, 170 shift).
        http://www.opc.ncep.noaa.gov-ua-atl_tropics.gif

  18. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    She is so adept at projection,

    She should be employed at a movie theater.

  19. Island of Misfit Toys says:

    I must have missed how balanced the press is. I have to be subjected to CNN everyday because it is on the damn wall. Non stop anti White House coverage hour to hour. They did not even bother to cover the officers shot in Dallas yesterday that one was lost today. But they did have “First Lady seen smiling in photo with former First Ladies and Presidents” yes because that is news worthy. Of course they fail to cover any real news and now working hard to wreck the career of a Naval Officer even though they had no issues with him when he served the last President. I need to find a way to block CNN I would rather watch reruns of the Banana Splits all day.

  20. ArmyATC says:

    Despite what she and others say, I don’t believe the ‘Bitch of Benghazi’ is a leftist or even liberal. I don’t believe she’s conservative either. She changes her beliefs with the political winds. She was against gay marriage before she was for it. She was against abortion before she was for it. The list goes on. She’s nothing more than a political opportunist, an extreme egotistical narcissist who craves power and money like others crave oxygen. She can’t let anything stand in the way of her drive towards power and wealth, and she will take any position that will help her achieve that goal. To her it isn’t about belief, it’s simply a means towards an end.

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      No, she is not a liberal or anything else, politically. She changes positions more often than a weathervane in a storm.

      What she is, which most people miss, is a pending dictator, a queen bitch on wheels whose sole intent is to run at least as roughshod as possible over anyone in her path. I sincerely believe that she never had any other intention.

  21. Rosalee Adams says:

    Liberals would love to see the 1st scrubbed……It would fold quickly if the 2nd was scrubbed as some of the more
    radical element of the liberal menagerie want to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *