NY Times Turns On Obama: “The Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility”

[edthecynic]

Isn't NY Times liberal city of newspapers?

No!

 

[MaxGrit]

Rats fleeing as the ship burns.

 

[Pogo]

Would that be the idiots that keep claiming there is no bias in the media despite the abundant evidence of said bias? Have you noticed that, despite all my posts about media bias and your stupidity, I never once tried to argue that Fox was "Fair and balanced"? Could that be because I see them as biased, and take that into account when I actually argue with you using the one thing you cannot deal with, truth?

By the way, when was the last time you changed your mind in the face of actual facts? You went to the trouble of reposting the stupid Keynes quote in an attempt to prove how much smarter you are after I deleted it, wouldn't it e easier to simply stop eating the roaches?

See? You just excised the quote again. Smatter, is it getting hot in here? Too close for comfort, is it? You don't get that by pulling the quote out you're actually drawing attention to it?

I didn't bring up "smart" so your butthurt over that is your own issue. I haven't mentioned Fox Noise either. I mentioned the myth of "liburrul media" and how it's used when convenient and when the evidence doesn't support the premise, is spun around on its head -- rather than question the veracity of the myth in the first place.

That point is not going away, regardless of "roaches".

I took out a pointless picture of an someone being misused to make a stupid point by a guy that thinks roaches are garnish on his food.

The liberal media is not a myth, it is a fact of life. Bias is a very real, and human, condition. Pretending it doesn't exist simply because you like the end result does not negate the evidence.

Cable News Coverage and Online News Stories: A Large-Scale Comparison of Digital Media Content by Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Marcelo Mendoza, Nasir Khan, Carlos Castillo :: SSRN

How Pervasive Are Perceptions of Bias? Exploring Judgments of Media Bias in Financial News

There are, quite literally, hundreds of different articles exploring and outlining the bias, its causes, and its effect on the news cycle. I am the one laying out the facts, and admitting that there is bias from both sides. You insist that all the bias comes from the side you disagree with because you view roaches as a food garnish.

Facts are not your enemy, bias exists in all human beings, even me. The difference between us is I don't need a fake quote from a dead guy to make my point. Keynes never said what you posted, something you would know if you had ever read anything he wrote. I know this because, unlike you, I know that the facts do not change, that is why they are called facts. I also know that Keynes, despite his deification by some idiots who completely misrepresent his policies, understood that facts do not change.

So, once again, I present the facts, including the fact that you are misquoting someone. Will you change your mind, or will you continue to insist that you are right because those roaches look so tasty?

Look, I have no doubt you can come up with innumerable robots from the Bubble that continue to promulgate said myth. That's my whole point here -- that when the real world obviously doesn't fit the premise, y'all will bend over backward in an orgy of stretch-to-fit rather than ever consider the pungently distasteful inconsolability that the myth your ilk follow around like a puppet is, simply put, a crock of shinola. Nor have I brought up a view of which way mass media bias IS; I've brought up what it ISN'T.

I understand that Keynes was not talking about this topic, nor were these his exact words (which were "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"). The actual original would have been preferable but the image is what it is and since the point is identical, it's not worth my creating a corrected one for the sake of a subject/object. The topic is irrelevant; Keynes was saying, as am I, that when your premise is shown to be faulty, what one does is not to start banging on it to fit; one admits that one started out in the wrong place and starts over in the right one.

If your perspective is so hopelessly narrow as to buy the fairy tale of "liberal media" hook line and sinker, then you're probably not even following all of this anyway so it's not worth any more of my time.

What do I mean by "narrow"?

Over to you, Abby...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4s4OKZe8Y"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4s4OKZe8Y[/ame]


Now close your eyes, click your heels together and keep chanting "duh media is liburrull... duh media is liburrull..."

 

[P F Tinmore]

Isn't NY Times liberal city of newspapers?

NY Times Turns On Obama: ?The Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility?? | RedFlagNews.com​

Obama had credibility?

 

[Samson]

The President is legally using a tool that Republicans wrote for the executive branch to use, and in secret!

Republicans only have themselves to blame.

I appreciate some of the moves the President has made, like making the drone program public and shifting more to the Pentagon's control and away from the CIA and the executive branch.

In other small moves, the President has restricted a few provisions within the Patriot Act that gave the executive branch far-reaching powers, but it didn't go far enough because Republicans hope that one day soon they'll have their guy in power again, so they'll never get rid of that awful bill.

It's here to stay, and you can thank the George W. Bush administration and his neo-cons for warrantless spying on the American public.

IOW

Blame Bush,


Never gets old.

And then it's called "history". And there's that old saw about forgetting history and what that leads to. But don't get me wrong, I'm just as opposed to this Administrations over-reach as I was Bushes'. Damn the first guy who said "9/11 changes everything". That led us down a very dangerous road. I keep hoping we'll get back on the right track.

You mean if we're lucky then we'll return to building our Space Shield and increasing our supply of nuclear warheads?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See? You just excised the quote again. Smatter, is it getting hot in here? Too close for comfort, is it? You don't get that by pulling the quote out you're actually drawing attention to it?

I didn't bring up "smart" so your butthurt over that is your own issue. I haven't mentioned Fox Noise either. I mentioned the myth of "liburrul media" and how it's used when convenient and when the evidence doesn't support the premise, is spun around on its head -- rather than question the veracity of the myth in the first place.

That point is not going away, regardless of "roaches".

I took out a pointless picture of an someone being misused to make a stupid point by a guy that thinks roaches are garnish on his food.

The liberal media is not a myth, it is a fact of life. Bias is a very real, and human, condition. Pretending it doesn't exist simply because you like the end result does not negate the evidence.

Cable News Coverage and Online News Stories: A Large-Scale Comparison of Digital Media Content by Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Marcelo Mendoza, Nasir Khan, Carlos Castillo :: SSRN

How Pervasive Are Perceptions of Bias? Exploring Judgments of Media Bias in Financial News

There are, quite literally, hundreds of different articles exploring and outlining the bias, its causes, and its effect on the news cycle. I am the one laying out the facts, and admitting that there is bias from both sides. You insist that all the bias comes from the side you disagree with because you view roaches as a food garnish.

Facts are not your enemy, bias exists in all human beings, even me. The difference between us is I don't need a fake quote from a dead guy to make my point. Keynes never said what you posted, something you would know if you had ever read anything he wrote. I know this because, unlike you, I know that the facts do not change, that is why they are called facts. I also know that Keynes, despite his deification by some idiots who completely misrepresent his policies, understood that facts do not change.

So, once again, I present the facts, including the fact that you are misquoting someone. Will you change your mind, or will you continue to insist that you are right because those roaches look so tasty?

Look, I have no doubt you can come up with innumerable robots from the Bubble that continue to promulgate said myth. That's my whole point here -- that when the real world obviously doesn't fit the premise, y'all will bend over backward in an orgy of stretch-to-fit rather than ever consider the pungently distasteful inconsolability that the myth your ilk follow around like a puppet is, simply put, a crock of shinola. Nor have I brought up a view of which way mass media bias IS; I've brought up what it ISN'T.

I understand that Keynes was not talking about this topic, nor were these his exact words (which were "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"). The actual original would have been preferable but the image is what it is and since the point is identical, it's not worth my creating a corrected one for the sake of a subject/object. The topic is irrelevant; Keynes was saying, as am I, that when your premise is shown to be faulty, what one does is not to start banging on it to fit; one admits that one started out in the wrong place and starts over in the right one.

If your perspective is so hopelessly narrow as to buy the fairy tale of "liberal media" hook line and sinker, then you're probably not even following all of this anyway so it's not worth any more of my time.

What do I mean by "narrow"?

Over to you, Abby...




Now close your eyes, click your heels together and keep chanting "duh media is liburrull... duh media is liburrull..."

Because all those reporters suddenly turn into Clark Kent? The guy that constantly lies about his relationship with his biggest story?

Funny thing, I never said the media is liberal, I said it is biased. You keep countering that by attacking the fact that I claim it is liberal. Isn't there a word for that?

Bias exists, and nothing you can say will change the fact that reporters have it. The really good ones know it, and work to make sure they are fair, but most reporters simply do not care about bias in their stories. If you don't believe me, or the studies, perhaps you might actually believe the reporters.

Top journalists from The New York Times, NBC News and CNN acknowledged Wednesday that, generally speaking, the national media have a liberal bias.
On a Playbook Breakfast panel, the Times' Peter Baker and Mark Leibovich, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and CNN's Jake Tapper all said "yes" when asked if the news media lean left — though all agreed it was a nuanced issue having more to do with journalists' life experiences than with any particular agenda.
"Most of my colleagues, I have no idea what their politics are. ... But think about it: I live in northwest Washington, none of my neighbors are evangelical Christians, I don't know a lot of people in my kid's preschool who are pro-life," Leibovich said. "When you have conversations, at all the newspapers I've worked at, about politics — it doesn't happen often — but you see clues that there is absolutely a left-wing bias."

Journalist consensus: Media lean left - POLITICO.com

Want to post that fake Keynes quote again? Or are you simply going to pretend that everyone but you is wrong and insist that your information trumps everything else in the universe?

Want to know why you can't win a debate with me Pogo? I only argue when I am right.

 

[FJO]

Denialism is a strange disease. When media doesn't criticize The O'bama, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth blubbers "b-but but, Liburrul Media!". When it does criticize the weeping and gnashing shifts to "even the Liburrul Media is turning on him!".

In neither case does it ever occur to them that the LM premise was a crock in the first place. Because conservatism means never having to change your mind.

SMH...

Sorry if I can't take the words of somebody who advocates more and more and more spending when you are broke, in order to get out of the mess that insane spending got one into, seriously.

Keynes has been proven a fraud, long ago, many times over.

 

[FJO]

Rats fleeing as the ship burns.

Which reminds me:

The ship is burning and the captain announces that everyone must abandon ship.

The German passenger says: Line up in orderly rows for the life boats.
The English passenger says: Women and Children first!
The American passenger says: Fuck the women!

The French passenger says: Sir, you think we have time??

 

[JakeStarkey]

Isn't NY Times liberal city of newspapers?

NY Times Turns On Obama: ?The Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility?? | RedFlagNews.com​

OP is merely RedFlag summation, not quoted NY Times headline or conclusion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Isn't NY Times liberal city of newspapers?

NY Times Turns On Obama: ?The Administration Has Now Lost All Credibility?? | RedFlagNews.com​

OP is merely RedFlag summation, not quoted NY Times headline or conclusion.

The NYTimes are reactionaries! -- Jake "I'm a real Republican" Starkey

 

[Pogo]

Denialism is a strange disease. When media doesn't criticize The O'bama, all the weeping and gnashing of teeth blubbers "b-but but, Liburrul Media!". When it does criticize the weeping and gnashing shifts to "even the Liburrul Media is turning on him!".

In neither case does it ever occur to them that the LM premise was a crock in the first place. Because conservatism means never having to change your mind.

SMH...

Sorry if I can't take the words of somebody who advocates more and more and more spending when you are broke, in order to get out of the mess that insane spending got one into, seriously.

Keynes has been proven a fraud, long ago, many times over.

John Maynard Keynes --and spending philosophies -- have absolutely zero to do with any part of this point whatsoever.

Oh look -- a shiny object!

:::wwwhhhoooooosssshhh::::

 

[Pogo]

I took out a pointless picture of an someone being misused to make a stupid point by a guy that thinks roaches are garnish on his food.

The liberal media is not a myth, it is a fact of life. Bias is a very real, and human, condition. Pretending it doesn't exist simply because you like the end result does not negate the evidence.

Cable News Coverage and Online News Stories: A Large-Scale Comparison of Digital Media Content by Sandra Gonzalez-Bailon, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Marcelo Mendoza, Nasir Khan, Carlos Castillo :: SSRN

How Pervasive Are Perceptions of Bias? Exploring Judgments of Media Bias in Financial News

There are, quite literally, hundreds of different articles exploring and outlining the bias, its causes, and its effect on the news cycle. I am the one laying out the facts, and admitting that there is bias from both sides. You insist that all the bias comes from the side you disagree with because you view roaches as a food garnish.

Facts are not your enemy, bias exists in all human beings, even me. The difference between us is I don't need a fake quote from a dead guy to make my point. Keynes never said what you posted, something you would know if you had ever read anything he wrote. I know this because, unlike you, I know that the facts do not change, that is why they are called facts. I also know that Keynes, despite his deification by some idiots who completely misrepresent his policies, understood that facts do not change.

So, once again, I present the facts, including the fact that you are misquoting someone. Will you change your mind, or will you continue to insist that you are right because those roaches look so tasty?

Look, I have no doubt you can come up with innumerable robots from the Bubble that continue to promulgate said myth. That's my whole point here -- that when the real world obviously doesn't fit the premise, y'all will bend over backward in an orgy of stretch-to-fit rather than ever consider the pungently distasteful inconsolability that the myth your ilk follow around like a puppet is, simply put, a crock of shinola. Nor have I brought up a view of which way mass media bias IS; I've brought up what it ISN'T.

I understand that Keynes was not talking about this topic, nor were these his exact words (which were "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"). The actual original would have been preferable but the image is what it is and since the point is identical, it's not worth my creating a corrected one for the sake of a subject/object. The topic is irrelevant; Keynes was saying, as am I, that when your premise is shown to be faulty, what one does is not to start banging on it to fit; one admits that one started out in the wrong place and starts over in the right one.

If your perspective is so hopelessly narrow as to buy the fairy tale of "liberal media" hook line and sinker, then you're probably not even following all of this anyway so it's not worth any more of my time.

What do I mean by "narrow"?

Over to you, Abby...




Now close your eyes, click your heels together and keep chanting "duh media is liburrull... duh media is liburrull..."

Because all those reporters suddenly turn into Clark Kent? The guy that constantly lies about his relationship with his biggest story?

Funny thing, I never said the media is liberal, I said it is biased. You keep countering that by attacking the fact that I claim it is liberal. Isn't there a word for that?

Bias exists, and nothing you can say will change the fact that reporters have it. The really good ones know it, and work to make sure they are fair, but most reporters simply do not care about bias in their stories. If you don't believe me, or the studies, perhaps you might actually believe the reporters.

Top journalists from The New York Times, NBC News and CNN acknowledged Wednesday that, generally speaking, the national media have a liberal bias.
On a Playbook Breakfast panel, the Times' Peter Baker and Mark Leibovich, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and CNN's Jake Tapper all said "yes" when asked if the news media lean left — though all agreed it was a nuanced issue having more to do with journalists' life experiences than with any particular agenda.
"Most of my colleagues, I have no idea what their politics are. ... But think about it: I live in northwest Washington, none of my neighbors are evangelical Christians, I don't know a lot of people in my kid's preschool who are pro-life," Leibovich said. "When you have conversations, at all the newspapers I've worked at, about politics — it doesn't happen often — but you see clues that there is absolutely a left-wing bias."

Journalist consensus: Media lean left - POLITICO.com

Want to post that fake Keynes quote again? Or are you simply going to pretend that everyone but you is wrong and insist that your information trumps everything else in the universe?

Want to know why you can't win a debate with me Pogo? I only argue when I am right.

The navel-gazing self-delusion of a self-absorbed Danthian. How quaint.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look, I have no doubt you can come up with innumerable robots from the Bubble that continue to promulgate said myth. That's my whole point here -- that when the real world obviously doesn't fit the premise, y'all will bend over backward in an orgy of stretch-to-fit rather than ever consider the pungently distasteful inconsolability that the myth your ilk follow around like a puppet is, simply put, a crock of shinola. Nor have I brought up a view of which way mass media bias IS; I've brought up what it ISN'T.

I understand that Keynes was not talking about this topic, nor were these his exact words (which were "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?"). The actual original would have been preferable but the image is what it is and since the point is identical, it's not worth my creating a corrected one for the sake of a subject/object. The topic is irrelevant; Keynes was saying, as am I, that when your premise is shown to be faulty, what one does is not to start banging on it to fit; one admits that one started out in the wrong place and starts over in the right one.

If your perspective is so hopelessly narrow as to buy the fairy tale of "liberal media" hook line and sinker, then you're probably not even following all of this anyway so it's not worth any more of my time.

What do I mean by "narrow"?

Over to you, Abby...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT4s4OKZe8Y


Now close your eyes, click your heels together and keep chanting "duh media is liburrull... duh media is liburrull..."

Because all those reporters suddenly turn into Clark Kent? The guy that constantly lies about his relationship with his biggest story?

Funny thing, I never said the media is liberal, I said it is biased. You keep countering that by attacking the fact that I claim it is liberal. Isn't there a word for that?

Bias exists, and nothing you can say will change the fact that reporters have it. The really good ones know it, and work to make sure they are fair, but most reporters simply do not care about bias in their stories. If you don't believe me, or the studies, perhaps you might actually believe the reporters.

Top journalists from The New York Times, NBC News and CNN acknowledged Wednesday that, generally speaking, the national media have a liberal bias.
On a Playbook Breakfast panel, the Times' Peter Baker and Mark Leibovich, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and CNN's Jake Tapper all said "yes" when asked if the news media lean left — though all agreed it was a nuanced issue having more to do with journalists' life experiences than with any particular agenda.
"Most of my colleagues, I have no idea what their politics are. ... But think about it: I live in northwest Washington, none of my neighbors are evangelical Christians, I don't know a lot of people in my kid's preschool who are pro-life," Leibovich said. "When you have conversations, at all the newspapers I've worked at, about politics — it doesn't happen often — but you see clues that there is absolutely a left-wing bias."

Journalist consensus: Media lean left - POLITICO.com

Want to post that fake Keynes quote again? Or are you simply going to pretend that everyone but you is wrong and insist that your information trumps everything else in the universe?

Want to know why you can't win a debate with me Pogo? I only argue when I am right.

The navel-gazing self-delusion of a self-absorbed Danthian. How quaint.

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, you have me for that.

 

[Howey]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz journalists protecting journalists. Been going on since Washington.

 

[Howey]

Oh. And if you want to be credible, link us to the NYTIMES.COM and not some nutcase blog.

 

[Howey]

Oh. And if you want to be credible, link us to the NYTIMES.COM and not some nutcase blog.

Oh. Now I know why. The articles from a year ago.

 

[Pogo]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz journalists protecting journalists. Been going on since Washington.

If you think that video was about "journalists", you might be as dense as the Windbag.

Is he giving you density lessons?

 

[Howey]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz journalists protecting journalists. Been going on since Washington.

If you think that video was about "journalists", you might be as dense as the Windbag.

Is he giving you density lessons?

I guess you've never heard of The Intercept.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/welcome-intercept/

 

[Samson]

Oh. And if you want to be credible, link us to the NYTIMES.COM and not some nutcase blog.

I guess you've never heard of The Intercept.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/welcome-intercept/

^^^^
Nut Case Blog.

You realize that you have no credability, right?

 

[Howey]

Oh. And if you want to be credible, link us to the NYTIMES.COM and not some nutcase blog.

I guess you've never heard of The Intercept.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/10/welcome-intercept/

^^^^
Nut Case Blog.

You realize that you have no credability, right?

What's a nutcase blog. Greenwald's?