I keep telling you ... the BIASED MSM is the major problem in America..and 94% of this

[Remodeling Maidiac]

No. The links mean nothing and I've never seen or heard of any college professor anywhere teaching "Dems are good GOP dumb". And if anyone did it would have at most the opposite effect.
Grow up.

Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend.
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend.

Speaks about intelligence but doesn't proof read an asinine post.

Irony

Please show me mistakes that I made in this post:
"Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend."
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend"

I never questioned your "facts" idiot. I only commented on your conclusion.

Post some more inane drivel, please.

Weren't my conclusions though!
Explain please the below.

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

Or this study:
85% of Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Or this statement by the same guy who called Obama "sort of a god"!
Editor Newsweek Evan Thomas ..quote:
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic,
they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas.

Not interested. I'm man enough to know when something is my own fault. If you're not or blaming others is your thing, so be it.

 

[healthmyths]

Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend.
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend.

Speaks about intelligence but doesn't proof read an asinine post.

Irony

Please show me mistakes that I made in this post:
"Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend."
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend"

I never questioned your "facts" idiot. I only commented on your conclusion.

Post some more inane drivel, please.

Weren't my conclusions though!
Explain please the below.

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

Or this study:
85% of Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Or this statement by the same guy who called Obama "sort of a god"!
Editor Newsweek Evan Thomas ..quote:
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic,
they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas.

Not interested. I'm man enough to know when something is my own fault. If you're not or blaming others is your thing, so be it.

So in your INFINITE knowledge you know everything about everything. YOU get NO information from the MSM. You get no information from your
educational institutions. All your opinions are BASED solely on your observations of events that you observe personally.
That is truly a pompous attitude. Obviously you are MORE then a man. You are as Evan Thomas spoke reverently of the Messiah... "sort of a God"... you
are in that vein?
See the rest of us mortals depend on "reporters" who are at the events. That's how NEWS is shared.
The problem is the MSM has 85% of it's personnel donating to the Democrats. It has shown in 130,000 stories they preferred positive stories about Obama
and negative stories about Romney.

And that's how the vast majority of people that are NOT "gods" like you and Obama get information to form opinions that pollsters use to help politicians make
"policies".

Since you are entirely self informed this thread is meaningless and you shouldn't even deign to comment as it is beneath your attention.
Go on and do mighty things that the deities like Obama who TOLD US in 2008 after his nomination that...
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Speaks about intelligence but doesn't proof read an asinine post.

Irony

Please show me mistakes that I made in this post:
"Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend."
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend"

I never questioned your "facts" idiot. I only commented on your conclusion.

Post some more inane drivel, please.

Weren't my conclusions though!
Explain please the below.

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

Or this study:
85% of Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Or this statement by the same guy who called Obama "sort of a god"!
Editor Newsweek Evan Thomas ..quote:
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic,
they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas.

Not interested. I'm man enough to know when something is my own fault. If you're not or blaming others is your thing, so be it.

So in your INFINITE knowledge you know everything about everything. YOU get NO information from the MSM. You get no information from your
educational institutions. All your opinions are BASED solely on your observations of events that you observe personally.
That is truly a pompous attitude. Obviously you are MORE then a man. You are as Evan Thomas spoke reverently of the Messiah... "sort of a God"... you
are in that vein?
See the rest of us mortals depend on "reporters" who are at the events. That's how NEWS is shared.
The problem is the MSM has 85% of it's personnel donating to the Democrats. It has shown in 130,000 stories they preferred positive stories about Obama
and negative stories about Romney.

And that's how the vast majority of people that are NOT "gods" like you and Obama get information to form opinions that pollsters use to help politicians make
"policies".

Since you are entirely self informed this thread is meaningless and you shouldn't even deign to comment as it is beneath your attention.
Go on and do mighty things that the deities like Obama who TOLD US in 2008 after his nomination that...
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

I never said I knew everything about anything. I said one thing. YOU, ME & EVERYONE else is responsible for their own level of knowledge. NOT THE MEDIA

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"I keep telling you ... the BIASED MSM is the major problem in America..and 94% of this"

Delusional rightwing nonsense.

The major problem in America is this sort of conservative idiocy.

 

[Pogo]

The msm has zero to do with any problems. Americans ain't that bright. Perhaps that is the problem.

Sorry but your intellectual capacity is showing when you resort to "ain't"!

Pretty stunning statement from a guy who starts a thread on which hand O'bama wipes his ass with.

 

[healthmyths]

Please show me mistakes that I made in this post:
"Of course to people like you FACTS are non-essential. In stating "Dems are good GOP dumb" I was putting it on a level I thought you might comprehend."
I was wrong. I underestimated your ability to comprehend"

I never questioned your "facts" idiot. I only commented on your conclusion.

Post some more inane drivel, please.

Weren't my conclusions though!
Explain please the below.

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
Conclusion seems clear. there was a bias by the MSM. That is NOT my conclusion but the study.

Or this study:
85% of Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Or this statement by the same guy who called Obama "sort of a god"!
Editor Newsweek Evan Thomas ..quote:
"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic,
they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume's bosses are liberal and they're always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut."
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas.

Not interested. I'm man enough to know when something is my own fault. If you're not or blaming others is your thing, so be it.

So in your INFINITE knowledge you know everything about everything. YOU get NO information from the MSM. You get no information from your
educational institutions. All your opinions are BASED solely on your observations of events that you observe personally.
That is truly a pompous attitude. Obviously you are MORE then a man. You are as Evan Thomas spoke reverently of the Messiah... "sort of a God"... you
are in that vein?
See the rest of us mortals depend on "reporters" who are at the events. That's how NEWS is shared.
The problem is the MSM has 85% of it's personnel donating to the Democrats. It has shown in 130,000 stories they preferred positive stories about Obama
and negative stories about Romney.

And that's how the vast majority of people that are NOT "gods" like you and Obama get information to form opinions that pollsters use to help politicians make
"policies".

Since you are entirely self informed this thread is meaningless and you shouldn't even deign to comment as it is beneath your attention.
Go on and do mighty things that the deities like Obama who TOLD US in 2008 after his nomination that...
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Is Barack Obama the Messiah?: "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

I never said I knew everything about anything. I said one thing. YOU, ME & EVERYONE else is responsible for their own level of knowledge. NOT THE MEDIA

At what point does an individual become responsible for their own level of knowledge?
At birth? Age 5 starting kindergarten? After high school graduation? College?
Assuming at 18 we are considered legal citizens then before that are high schools/parents are failing to explain the PROVEN MSM bias that all my sourcing seems not to be "educational" for idiots like you that can't seem to comprehend that all of us are influenced by all entities attempting to sway our opinion.
And that is where the MSM is responsible. The creed of a "professional journalist"...
"I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism."
https://journalism.missouri.edu/tabbed-content/creed-2/

It appears that creed is not adhered to when studies like this study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.
Overall, the Republicans were more frequently the object of negative statements," wrote the study authors,
Their conclusion:
"The Republican Party is the most divisive subject in the campaign, and is portrayed in a more negative fashion than the Democrats."
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

Conclusion seems clear. There was not in this study of 130,213 evidently "FAIRNESS" in the reporting. That is NOT my conclusion, but the study.

A perfect example is the majority of news organization with just their headlines promote this belief. Trump and millions like me are "anti-immigrant".
About 45,500 results in the News section of Google show headlines like this:
"Donald Trump, the face of a resurgence in anti-immigrant vitriol,"
"Trump's plan to ... Arellano reported that "when it comes to anti-immigrant proposals"
"Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's candidacy in ... can openly voice anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views at televised "

Now I'm going to shout because the MSM is Totally misrepresenting people like Trump/me and millions of others:
WE ARE NOT AGAINST LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!

Trump's wife is a "LEGAL IMMIGRANT" as is my daughter-in-law and over 45 million Americans are LEGAL Immigrants!

 

[mamooth]

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.

Mother Teresa got more positive press than Charles Manson, hence the media is clearly biased.

The flaw with your logic is not understanding that the Republicans get more negative press because they _deserve_ more negative press, and thus it would be bias to pretend both sides were equally bad/good. That's overwhelmingly the real kind of bias we see today, the "both sides are equally bad" nonsense that is effectively an exercise in shilling for Republicans.

 

[hadit]

I keep telling you, mass media is first and foremost commercial. That means it reports what sells.

Nobody in the world makes money from taking an ideological stance. They make money from attracting ears and eyeballs. And they'll do that by finding disasters and scandals and who-cares celebrities to make fake news out of --- which makes the vast majority of what it reports. Meanwhile you're scraping up cherrypicked impressions to whine about as if that has anything to do with how they work.

It doesn't.

Yet no one seems to be able to find cherry picked examples of conservative bias in the blamemainstreet media. Why is that?

You don't think sites like the Daily Caller, WND, Breitbart, the Examiner, Newsmax, the Gateway Pundit, Town Hall

are conservative biased?

lol

Read what I wrote. I cited the blamemainstreet media, aka the MSM. Those you cite are not part of that.

 

[healthmyths]

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.

Mother Teresa got more positive press than Charles Manson, hence the media is clearly biased.

The flaw with your logic is not understanding that the Republicans get more negative press because they _deserve_ more negative press, and thus it would be bias to pretend both sides were equally bad/good. That's overwhelmingly the real kind of bias we see today, the "both sides are equally bad" nonsense that is effectively an exercise in shilling for Republicans.

So the Dems are more honest. Dems are more careful to take care of the defense of the country. Dems are more pro military. Dems are more prone to
hate business, capitalism, i.e. the entities that have produced our standard of living. Dems are more concerned about the best interest of the people is
what you are saying that the MSM reports.

De facto Dems are the good guys, GOP the bad guys according to the stories written by the MSM.

 

[hadit]

A sweeping study of some 130,213 news articles on the 2012 presidential match between President Obama and Mitt Romney has proven anew that there was a strong pro-Democratic bias in the U.S. and international press. The study, published in the authoritative journal Big Data Society, also tested the campaign themes the media focused on and determined that Obama succeeded in stealing the economic issue from Republican Romney.
"Overall, media reporting contained more frequently positive statements about the Democrats than the Republicans.

Mother Teresa got more positive press than Charles Manson, hence the media is clearly biased.

The flaw with your logic is not understanding that the Republicans get more negative press because they _deserve_ more negative press, and thus it would be bias to pretend both sides were equally bad/good. That's overwhelmingly the real kind of bias we see today, the "both sides are equally bad" nonsense that is effectively an exercise in shilling for Republicans.

So the Dems are more honest. Dems are more careful to take care of the defense of the country. Dems are more pro military. Dems are more prone to
hate business, capitalism, i.e. the entities that have produced our standard of living. Dems are more concerned about the best interest of the people is
what you are saying that the MSM reports.

De facto Dems are the good guys, GOP the bad guys according to the stories written by the MSM.

Yet Republicans are super powerful creatures that can completely shut down all democrat attempts to bring about utopia with a single glance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Uninformed & uneducated voters are the problem not the media. If you are smart enough to exercise due diligence when it comes to issues that matter it's irrelevant how the media portrays it.
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat but it's nothing more than that, a scapegoat.

So contrary to ALL the material that I've presented your "INFORMED" opinion is there IS NO biased MSM that influences less informed people like you and that
when polled regarding political personalities these UNINFORMED people just happen to without ANY sources have an opinion that for example
Donald Trump like millions like me are "ANTI-IMMIGRANT". WE HATE immigrants. Is that true? Those uninformed and uneducated voters you so pompously
decry versus YOUR informed opinion based on NOTHING don't watch/read the news. They are for the most part just plain ignorant.

Did anyone provide the Jounolist Scandal?

1. After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data,…

1. 1. Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:
   2. …videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright….in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them.
   3. Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.
   4. …at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
   5. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
   6. Journolist members collaborated on an open letter criticizing ABC’s Charlie Gibson for asking questions about Wright during ABC’s presidential debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton….a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidate’s links to radicals…
   7. Ackerman appealed to the other members of the Journolist group: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
   8. It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question the ethics and judgment of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread.
   Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists - Hot Air
   

 

[Pogo]

Uninformed & uneducated voters are the problem not the media. If you are smart enough to exercise due diligence when it comes to issues that matter it's irrelevant how the media portrays it.
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat but it's nothing more than that, a scapegoat.

So contrary to ALL the material that I've presented your "INFORMED" opinion is there IS NO biased MSM that influences less informed people like you and that
when polled regarding political personalities these UNINFORMED people just happen to without ANY sources have an opinion that for example
Donald Trump like millions like me are "ANTI-IMMIGRANT". WE HATE immigrants. Is that true? Those uninformed and uneducated voters you so pompously
decry versus YOUR informed opinion based on NOTHING don't watch/read the news. They are for the most part just plain ignorant.

Did anyone provide the Jounolist Scandal?

1. After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data,…

1. 1. Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:
   2. …videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright….in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them.
   3. Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.
   4. …at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
   5. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
   6. Journolist members collaborated on an open letter criticizing ABC’s Charlie Gibson for asking questions about Wright during ABC’s presidential debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton….a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidate’s links to radicals…
   7. Ackerman appealed to the other members of the Journolist group: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
   8. It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question the ethics and judgment of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread.
   Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists - Hot Air

Jeremiah Wright???

You're actually suggesting legitimate news should be based on hyperemotional association fallacies about Scary Black Man?

Eloquent.

This post is gonna follow you around like a puppy.

Jeremiah Wright association fallacies --- how far we've come. From the same poster still pining for Joe McCarthy.

SMFH

 

[healthmyths]

Uninformed & uneducated voters are the problem not the media. If you are smart enough to exercise due diligence when it comes to issues that matter it's irrelevant how the media portrays it.
I understand the desire to have a scapegoat but it's nothing more than that, a scapegoat.

So contrary to ALL the material that I've presented your "INFORMED" opinion is there IS NO biased MSM that influences less informed people like you and that
when polled regarding political personalities these UNINFORMED people just happen to without ANY sources have an opinion that for example
Donald Trump like millions like me are "ANTI-IMMIGRANT". WE HATE immigrants. Is that true? Those uninformed and uneducated voters you so pompously
decry versus YOUR informed opinion based on NOTHING don't watch/read the news. They are for the most part just plain ignorant.

Did anyone provide the Jounolist Scandal?

1. After someone torpedoed Dave Weigel’s Washington Post gig by breaking the code of silence on the Journolist listserv, the race has been on to see who would sell the entire contents of the e-mail messages between the liberal members of the group — and who would get to buy them. We may never know who sold it, but Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller wound up with the data,…

1. 1. Daily Caller reporter Jonathan Strong lays out a strategy plotted by Journolist members to kill the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 primaries — and to smear Barack Obama’s critics as racists:
   2. …videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright….in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them.
   3. Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged.
   4. …at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
   5. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”
   6. Journolist members collaborated on an open letter criticizing ABC’s Charlie Gibson for asking questions about Wright during ABC’s presidential debate between Obama and Hillary Clinton….a campaign by professional journalists to tell ABC not to ask tough questions about a candidate’s links to radicals…
   7. Ackerman appealed to the other members of the Journolist group: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”
   8. It certainly puts efforts by the Left to paint the Tea Party as racist in an entirely new light. It also calls into question the ethics and judgment of anyone who participated in that Ackerman thread.
   Daily Caller discovers Journolist plot to spike Wright story, smear conservatives as racists - Hot Air

Jeremiah Wright???

You're actually suggesting legitimate news should be based on hyperemotional association fallacies about Scary Black Man?

Eloquent.

This post is gonna follow you around like a puppy.

Jeremiah Wright association fallacies --- how far we've come. From the same poster still pining for Joe McCarthy.

SMFH

Do you think the person that wrote this believed white folks had to be "tricked" or "tactics" had to be employed because he believed most white folks are scared by black men?

"Of course either way you needed some luck. That's what Pablo had lacked, mostly, not having his driver's license that day, a cop with nothing
better to do than to check the trunk of his car..
Or Bruce not finding his way back from too many bad acid trips, winding up in a funny farm.
Or Duke not walking away from that car wreck....
I had tried to explain some of this to my mother once, the role of luck in the world, the spin of the wheel.
It was at the start of my senior year in high school; she was back in Hawaii her field work completed and one day she had marched into my room
wanting to know the details of Pablo's arrest.
I had given her a reassuring smile and patted her hand told her not to worry, I wouldn't do anything stupid.
It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied.
They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

 

[Mac1958]

Nice to see that Americans are paying close enough attention to recognize that traditional journalism has decayed into advocate journalism.

 

[longknife]

 

[my2¢]

I find that all media is biased but fortunately we don't have to pick just one. On the radio I listen to NPR. On the web I prefer the FOX News website. For TV, I watch CNN. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[rdean]

Obama has won cases in the WTO saving the rubber and steel industries among others. Where has it been reported?

U.S. Enforcement Win of WTO Case Against China's Illegal Duties Deserves Credit for Defense of American Steel Jobs, Industry

ITC votes in favor of duties on China tire imports (Update) - Tire Business

Has any Republican ever won a case in the WTO?

Where has it been reported?