GOP whimpering about media already

[Synthaholic]

Do you really consider Hannity, Beck, or O'Reilly, less biased than Schieffer, Lehrer, or Brokaw?

Oh my God no! I think they have the SAME amount of bias.

 

[Synthaholic]

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films​

8/7/13

Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:

NEWSMAX – A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.

…

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -

Of course! Any biopic of Hillary is going to be more helpful to the far Right than to the Left.

But once again, the wingnuts are too stupid to realize this.

 

[Synthaholic]

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.

I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". Even though many try to play that game. I do believe it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones chestnuts to the fire).

No! NONE of them try to play that game.

No! It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.

It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.

Example: "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"

Now, that is certainly not a tough question. But it is a question that America cares about. This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster. THAT'S the tough part.

 

[Synthaholic]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I just don't understand why you're putting a spot light on Fox News when I don't really know of any reporter/anchorperson/ that hasn't shown his bias. I think the best political interviewer was Tim Russert. He asked tough questions of everybody. Beyond Greta Van Sustern I would also add Chris Wallace to the mix.

Now, see, I disagree again. Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.

He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob. (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)

And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.

I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right. I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism. Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.

Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.

I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.

No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Now, see, I disagree again. Tim Russert was allergic to tough questions, and was the poster child for 'go along to get along' media.

He got along with everyone because they all knew they had nothing to fear from him - just softball lob after lob. (Andrea Mitchell has taken up his flag)

And his son Luke - The Dauphin Of MSNBC - learned well from dear old dad.

I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right. I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism. Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.

Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.

I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.

No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.

I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". Even though many try to play that game. I do believe it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones chestnuts to the fire).

No! NONE of them try to play that game.

No! It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.

It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.

Example: "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"

Now, that is certainly not a tough question. But it is a question that America cares about. This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster. THAT'S the tough part.

I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, " How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".
I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films​

8/7/13

Stunning. I feel like this story came out of some alternate universe:

NEWSMAX – A liberal watchdog group has joined the Republican call for NBC and CNN to cancel planned film projects on Hillary Clinton, increasing pressure on the networks to avoid the appearance of promoting the former secretary of state as a possible 2016 presidential contender.

Media Matters of America founder and longtime Clinton ally David Brock sent out letters to NBC and CNN on Tuesday backing Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus’ demand that the networks cancel a film and documentary on Clinton.

…

WOAH! Media Matters joins RNC Chair in calling for CNN, NBC to cancel Clinton films » The Right Scoop -

Of course! Any biopic of Hillary is going to be more helpful to the far Right than to the Left.

But once again, the wingnuts are too stupid to realize this.

Nice try but a left leaning network doing a biopic of Hillary is going to be a pretty sweet and inaccurate propaganda puff piece.

 

[Synthaholic]

I admired Tim Russet's even handedness towards people on the left and right. I didn't care that he was a democrat because he was a professional. Anybody who thinks Russert was allergic to tough questions is far too liberal to understand journalistic professionalism. Of course, the far left isn't exactly known for journalistic professionalism to begin with.

Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.

I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.

No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?

Now, see, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion.

My bad.

 

[Synthaholic]

I agree that it's not a moderator's job to play "gotcha". Even though many try to play that game. I do believe it is a moderator's job to ask tough questions though as opposed to soft ball questions (i.e. holding ones chestnuts to the fire).

No! NONE of them try to play that game.

No! It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.

It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.

Example: "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"

Now, that is certainly not a tough question. But it is a question that America cares about. This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster. THAT'S the tough part.

I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, " How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".
I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.

I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?

The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.

The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

What's the problem? The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.


Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Yeah - he treated both sides with kid gloves.

I guess your view of professional journalism is to not rock the boat.

No one in Washington was ever afraid to appear on Russert's show.

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that you think Russer treated people with kid gloves because he didn't ask Bush how he planned 9/11?

Now, see, I thought you were actually interested in a discussion.

My bad.

Sorry to disappoint you about seeming not interested in a discussion but I'm still somewhat a computer novice so I couldn't show a picture of the three stooges with their hands over their faces as a worthy intellectual response deserved of a man with your intellect and wit.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

No! NONE of them try to play that game.

No! It's not their job to ask tough questions - it's not their show, and they are not acting as reporters, they are acting as moderators.

It's their job to ask the questions that concern America, in as neutral a way as possible.

Example: "Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone Pipeline?"

Now, that is certainly not a tough question. But it is a question that America cares about. This is an opportunity for them to answer, and it then becomes the job of the moderator to keep the candidate on point to answer the question, and not deflect or filibuster. THAT'S the tough part.

I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, " How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".
I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.

I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?

The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.

The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

What's the problem? The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.


Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?

I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.
Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
Politician- " I have never beaten my wife!"
Moderator- " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"

 

[Synthaholic]

I wish the liberal moderators would ask,"Candidates, what are your views on building the Keystone pipeline?" Of course, what the "moderators" are going to ask is, " How concerned are you about global warming and animal life when it comes to the controversial Keystone pipeline?".
I think it is the moderators job to not just ask tough questions but point out previous statements from the politician that may seem diametrically opposed to what the politician says now. I like tough questions. I don't like biased questions. Tough questions should be based on fact as opposed to DNC or RNC talking points. We will certainly disagree but I believe tough questions are perfectly fair and even important.

I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?

The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.

The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

What's the problem? The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.


Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?

I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.
Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

You flipped that. It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.

How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote? ZERO!

Why not?

It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).

Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
Politician- " I have never beaten my wife!"
Moderator- " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"

Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.

It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I disagree that would be what they would ask instead, but why wouldn't that be an acceptable question?

The Democrat could say that he did have concerns about preserving wildlife areas, and furthering Global Warming.

The Republican could say that he values energy production over wildlife, and thinks Global Warming is a hoax.

What's the problem? The American people get to hear each of their views, and can make a more informed decision.


Or is your objection that the Republican would actually have to state his views on the record?

I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.
Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

You flipped that. It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.

How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote? ZERO!

Why not?

It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).

Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
Politician- " I have never beaten my wife!"
Moderator- " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"

Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.

It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.

I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.

... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

GOP: The media is already in the tank for Hillary Clinton - The Week

Lining up their excuses early...

I just gave them a very good piece of advice. Christie is their only hope.

That's genuinely funny. The only way Christie might possibly win is as a democrat.


He sure as hell isn't going to pull any republican votes. Do you think democrats are going to jump the fence to vote for their darling? Is that it?

 

[Synthaholic]

I have a sneaking suspicion (from the polls I've read) that the republicans would LOVE this debate and state their views. Hell, many democrats even agree with the majority of republicans who want to have less business dealings with the middle east and create american jobs at the same time.
Also, if you think biased questions are the same as tough questions then I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

You flipped that. It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.

How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote? ZERO!

Why not?

It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).

Moderator- "How often do you beat your wife?"
Politician- " I have never beaten my wife!"
Moderator- " So you deny that you have beaten your wife?"
Synthaholic- " That was a fair question! We have every right to know if he beats his wife which he obviously does because he just denied it and I can tell he's lying!"

Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.

It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.

I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.

... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?

It wasn't a question about rape. It was a question of early release/furloughs for violent criminals.

The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.

That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw. He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question. CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks. He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).

But . . .















It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.


Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone. A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.

Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

You flipped that. It's the Democrats who do not want jobs going overseas, and want to create jobs here.

How many times has Boehner brought Obama's Jobs Bill to the floor for a straight up or down vote? ZERO!

Why not?

It's Republicans who want cheap overseas labor and a "New World Order" (H.W. Bush's words).



Of course, this is totally dishonest, as they would never ask this, and no debate question has ever come close to this kind of question.

It's telling, though, that you equate asking a Republican his views on Global Warming in front of a national audience with a "how often do you beat your wife" question.

I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.

... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?
[ame=http://youtu.be/DF9gSyku-fc]Dukakis-Bush debate: death penalty - YouTube[/ame]

It wasn't a question about rape. It was a question of early release/furloughs for violent criminals.

The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.

That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw. He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question. CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks. He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).

But . . .















It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.


Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone. A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.

Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.

Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline just like most people are for a valid ID for voting. This of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha moment".

 

[Synthaholic]

I know many democrats don't want jobs going overseas. That's why they are siding with the republicans in terms of the Keystone pipeline. Finally, we agree on something.
I equated global warming with wife beating? That's just stupid.

... and no debate question has come close to asking about wife beating? Do hypothetical questions about your wife being raped count?
Dukakis-Bush debate: death penalty - YouTube

It wasn't a question about rape. It was a question of early release/furloughs for violent criminals.

The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.

That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw. He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question. CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks. He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).

But . . .















It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.


Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone. A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.

Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.

Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline

False. And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.

I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term? That's their argument against infrastructure spending. But creating a short term pipe building project is fine? More hypocrisy.

 

[Synthaholic]

just like most people are for a valid ID for voting. This of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha moment".

Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) - should not be valid for voting.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

It wasn't a question about rape. It was a question of early release/furloughs for violent criminals.

The fact that Willie Horton's crime was rape was irrelevant - it could have been murder during armed robbery, etc. - but was the sole reason for Bernard Shaw's question.

That said, I think that was a low blow from Shaw. He knew the impact he was setting up when crafting his question. CNN was only 7 years old or less, and I remember thinking at the time that he was swinging for the fences to play with the big boys from the networks. He redeemed himself a bit in my eyes with the reporting from Al Rashid Hotel(?).

But . . .















It is another example of the Main Stream Media actually being tougher on Democrats than they ever are with Republicans.


Edit To Add: No, the Democrats are not with the Republicans on Keystone. A few may, but they are the ones who have long been getting campaign contributions.

Ideologically, Democrats are anti-Keystone.

Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline

False. And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.

I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term? That's their argument against infrastructure spending. But creating a short term pipe building project is fine? More hypocrisy.

Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.
Again, most people are for the Keystone pipeline. To suggest otherwise is simply false.

NewsDaily: Most in US, Canada support Keystone pipeline: polls
Keystone XL Pipeline: Poll Shows Project More Popular In U.S. Than Canada
60% Favor Building Keystone XL Pipeline - Rasmussen Reports?
Americans show broad support for Keystone: poll - The Globe and Mail
Sun News : A new poll finds most Americans support building Keystone pipeline

 

[JohnL.Burke]

just like most people are for a valid ID for voting. This of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha moment".

Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) - should not be valid for voting.

Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.