Media Bias On Display

[PoliticalChic]

With a certain regularity, some dunces claim that the media is corporate owned, and this proves that they are slanted to the Right.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

This morning's news provides a lesson in the bias of the main stream media in the most blatant terms.

1. "The New York Times has apparently suspended the “off the record” rule
....reports that the New York Times is sitting on a video of Donald Trump, taken during an editorial board meeting, where he supposedly said something about immigration policy which could shake up the campaign.

2. Trump visited the paper’s Manhattan headquarters on Tuesday, Jan. 5, as part of a round of editorial board meetings that — as is traditional — the Democratic candidates for president and some of the Republicans attended.

The meetings, conducted partly on the record and partly off the record in a 13th-floor conference room, give candidates a chance to make their pitch for the paper’s endorsement.

3.Sources familiar with the recording and transcript — which have reached near-mythical status at the Times — tell me that the second sentence is a bit more than speculation. It reflects, instead, something Trump said about the flexibility of his hardline anti-immigration stance.


4. The real question which needs to be addressed is… why do we know about this? Your first response may be to say that we demand transparency of our candidates and Trump should immediately give the Times permission to release the video. Fair enough. That’s the reality of the political chess board as it stands today. But in the recent past, something went very wrong to bring us to this point.

5. When any of these conversations take place they generally fall into one of four categories which everyone in this business understands:
On the record, off the record, on background or deep background. (You can see the Associated Press definitions of these terms here if you’re not familiar with them.) They’re pretty much what the names imply.

On the record conversations may be published with full attribution to the speaker. The two levels of background conversations can be referenced in publications, but the source is either not identified at all or is referred to vaguely. (e.g. “a source close to the Senator’s office” or “a person familiar with the committee hearings.”)

Off the record conversations are precisely that.

They are not to be printed or referenced. These are generally comments which the subject will make which allow the reporter to have a better understanding of the background behind the story or to frame it in a relatable context. But in any event, when the reporter agrees that comments are off the record, the subject is assured that the content will not be revealed. It’s a covenant which has been around pretty much forever and it keeps the Fourth Estate in business.

Somebody at the New York times broke that rule."

The New York Times has apparently suspended the “off the record” rule - Hot Air



Now....clearly, the intent of releasing "off the record" material is to harm, hurt, deny election to a potential Republican presidential candidate.


Would you like to see a comparable situation involving a potential Democrat presidential candidate...and how very.....very.....differently it is handled????


Coming right up.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

There is no such thing anywhere. The key is understanding who is funding them and what they want. Once you have a handle on that then its quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The BBC is the nearest thing to neutral that we have over here and it is regularly condemned for bias by both sides. That is probably where it should be.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

There is no such thing anywhere. The key is understanding who is funding them and what they want. Once you have a handle on that then its quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The BBC is the nearest thing to neutral that we have over here and it is regularly condemned for bias by both sides. That is probably where it should be.

Stick with this thread....maybe I can change response....

...at least as far as admitting the huge bias of the press in favor of the Leftists.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First...'on background,' know who Rashid Khalidi is....?
You should.

6. "Khalidi was born in New York in 1950, the son of a Palestinian father and a Lebanese mother. .... Khalidi taught for a brief time at a university in Beirut, where he often spoke to reporters on behalf of Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Prior to joining the Columbia faculty, Khalidi was a professor at the University of Chicago, where he served as Director of both the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Center for International Studies.

Khalidi has long cited the lateEdward Saidas his major academic influence. Following the latter’s death in 2003, Khalidi penned an obituary that valorized Said....

....he once served as Director of the Palestinian press agency,Wikalat al-Anba al-Filastinija. .... Khalidi so strongly identified with the aims of the PLO, which was designated as a terrorist group by the State Department during Khalidi’s affiliation with it in the 1980s, that he repeatedly referred to himself as “we” when expounding on the PLO’s agenda. Additional evidence of Khalidi’s intimacy with the PLO can be seen in his involvement with the organization’s so-called “guidance committee” in the early 1990s.


Khalidi’s 1986 book,Under Siege: P.L.O. Decision-Making During the 1982 War,was dedicated to Yasser Arafat. Opening with a glowing tribute to anti-Israel fighters (“to those who gave their lives during the summer of 1982 … in defense of the cause of Palestine and the independence of Lebanon”), the book offered an airbrushed account of PLO-instigated violence against Israelis and Lebanese.

Khalidi is longtime a friend of ...."
Rashid Khalidi - Discover the Networks


Wanna guess who he is a 'longtime friend' of....one who provided $75,000 in grants to Khalidi?



Hint:
"At the World Policy Forum,Jesse Jackson told the audience what America should expect from an Obama presidency:

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end. Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House." Jesse Jackson On What To Expect With Obama As President

Was any of that revealed by the main stream press?

Shouldn't it have been???

 

[PoliticalChic]

7.Now, I promised to show a juxtaposition of how the main stream media breaks every rule in order to harm GOP candidates...and how it hides news detrimental to Democrat candidates.


In an earlier post I described a close and intimate friend of Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him)....a bitter and inveterate enemy of the United States' ally in the Middle East, ...Rashid Khalidi.

An, reminded that Khalidi is a close associate of terrorists and terrorism.



Compare the NYTimes revelations vis-a-vis Donald Trump with this:

"As you all know, the Los Angeles Times is holding hostage a tape of Barack Obama at a 2003 ArabAmericanAction Network (AAAN) dinner at which his friends, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn were in attendance. It’s the story I startedwhen Los Angeles Times plagiarist/”reporter” Peter Wallsten ripped offmy January column onBarack Obama’s Nation of Islam staffers and friendship with AAAN founder Ali Abunimah.
But here’s what you haven’t yet heard: that a kids’ dance troupe that appeared at the event has a history of simulating beheadings and stomping onAmerican, Israeli, and British flags.


Reports ofthe partial guest listat the 2003 dinner include “the Sanabel Debka troupe”, but the group’s name is really “Sanabel AlQuds Dabka troupe.”Sanabelmeans “grains” or “kernels” (of wheat or barley) in Arabic.AlQuds, or “The Holy”, is the Muslim name for Jerusalem, which isripped-off from the eternal Hebrew name for Jerusalem, “Ir Kadosh“, or Holy City.
The Milwaukee-based Muslimkids dancingtroupe… But they didn’t just dance the debkah.


Suddenly the Sanabel AlQuds dancers pulled out fake swords and rifles and adorned three of their troupe respectively with anAmerican, Isreaeli, and British flag. The others pretended to behead and/or shoot the boys wearing the flags. Then they put red scarves over the three boys heads, signifying blood and no head. Then, the flags were taken off, thrown to the ground, and trampled on by this young group of Milwaukee dancers.

While I do not know if Sanabel AlQuds performed this particular “dance” for Barack and Michelle Obama and other guests at this dinner, I know that this was their performance in the summer of 2004, just a year after the dinner that is the subject of the videotape the Los Angeles Times will not release. It may be that this same “act” was performed for the Obamas, but that it was not part ofthe tape, which would be why L.A. Times plagiarist/”reporter” Peter Wallsten did not write about it.
Still, why is Barack Obama hanging out with young kids who simulate beheadings of Americans and Jews on a regular basis?"
EXCLUSIVE: Dance Troupe @ Obama-Khalidi Dinner (of Secreted Tape Fame) Simulated Beheadings in Recent Past



"... the Los Angeles Times is holding hostage a tape of Barack Obama at a 2003 ArabAmericanAction Network (AAAN) dinner at which his friends, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn..."


Was any of that revealed by the main stream press?

Shouldn't it have been???

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

There is no such thing anywhere. The key is understanding who is funding them and what they want. Once you have a handle on that then its quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The BBC is the nearest thing to neutral that we have over here and it is regularly condemned for bias by both sides. That is probably where it should be.

Stick with this thread....maybe I can change response....

...at least as far as admitting the huge bias of the press in favor of the Leftists.

Your postings have gone incoherent.I dont really know how any of it relates to an unbiased media.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

There is no such thing anywhere. The key is understanding who is funding them and what they want. Once you have a handle on that then its quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The BBC is the nearest thing to neutral that we have over here and it is regularly condemned for bias by both sides. That is probably where it should be.

Stick with this thread....maybe I can change response....

...at least as far as admitting the huge bias of the press in favor of the Leftists.

Your postings have gone incoherent.I dont really know how any of it relates to an unbiased media.

You should read more carefully.

".I dont really know how any of it relates to an unbiased media."

Item #1 was the NYTimes revealing off the record material to hurt Donald Trump.
Item #2 was the LATimes keeping a video of Obama at the party for a terrorist supporter hidden.


How about now...do you know?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....on the one hand, the NYTimes allows off the record comments by the GOP candidate to get out......

....but:


8. "The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape

Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said's successor, but the press doesn't think it's quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin's wardrobe.

....a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.




Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist ....

....a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape



"The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times. "
Ibid.




Kind of puts Obama's Islamist leanings, Iranian nuclear deal, and the FBI removing references to Islamist terrorism from their website, into perspective, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. How...and when....did the radicals infiltrate and infest, and take control of the media????


a. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.



b. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.”
Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51





c. “[The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood.”
Ibid p. 53



".... They went into politics, print and electronic journalism..."



Where they stand?

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. is Publisher ofThe New York Times, was asked y his father: “If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot?”

“I would want to see the American get shot,”replied the young man. “It's the other guy's country.” (This statement ignores the fact that most of those fighting against Americans in then-South Vietnam were soldiers invading from another country, Communist North Vietnam.)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps he should sue them ?

Is an unbiased media important to you?

There is no such thing anywhere. The key is understanding who is funding them and what they want. Once you have a handle on that then its quite easy to sort the wheat from the chaff.
The BBC is the nearest thing to neutral that we have over here and it is regularly condemned for bias by both sides. That is probably where it should be.

Stick with this thread....maybe I can change response....

...at least as far as admitting the huge bias of the press in favor of the Leftists.

Your postings have gone incoherent.I dont really know how any of it relates to an unbiased media.

It is clear why the NYTimes is ready to reveal off the record comments by Donald Trump, Republican.....




10. "So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities?

Given Obama’s (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn’t the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher?


Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials?
The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama's Khalidi Bash Tape





The first amendment makes special accommodation for the press....based on the promise of a free and unbiased press.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."




Our democracy is based on an informed electorate.....impossible with a biased media.


This is where we lost our country.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So the LA paper hasnt ,allegedly, released something but the New York paper, allegedly has.

I dont think you are holding much at all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So the LA paper hasnt ,allegedly, released something but the New York paper, allegedly has.

I dont think you are holding much at all.

"I dont think you are holding much at all."
Those first three words tell it all, Tommy.

Maybe this will help:

"For decades, the editorial page of The New York Times has served as the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. But in a sign of the left’s panic over Donald Trump, the Times has moved beyond pushing an agenda to becoming a political hack, dirty tricks and all.

That’s the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the fishy aftermath of a Trump meeting with the edit board. The meeting happened in early January, but only on the eve of Super Tuesday did word spread about something the leading Republican candidate supposedly said in an off-the-record segment.

Under any definition of journalism ethics, anyone at the paper who leaked Trump’s off-the-record comments would be committing a serious violation."
http://nypost.com/2016/03/02/the-new-york-times-abandoned-its-ethics-to-take-down-trump/


Versus this:
"As you all know,the Los Angeles Times is holding hostage a tape of Barack Obama at a 2003 ArabAmericanAction Network (AAAN) dinner at which his friends, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn were in attendance.It’s the story I startedwhen Los Angeles Times plagiarist/”reporter” Peter Wallsten ripped offmy January column onBarack Obama’s Nation of Islam staffers and friendship with AAAN founder Ali Abunimah.
But here’s what you haven’t yet heard: that a kids’ dance troupe that appeared at the event has a history of simulating beheadings and stomping onAmerican, Israeli, and British flags."
Op. Cit.

 

[MarathonMike]

CNN Jake Tapper is leading the charge to take down Trump. After all that is the role of American media. He interviewed Trump this morning and tried his heart out to blame Trump for the Chicago rally. He never mentioned the fact that Moveon.orgy was the organizer of protesters and our old friend George Soros was the man funding it. Trump ate his lunch. Tapper and CNN is an embarrassment and should not be called or in any way related to the term NEWS. They are dedicated to entertainment, inflaming Racism and Republican demagoguery. The TV media in America is a disgrace. I'm primarily watching BBC news and RT now. They actually attempt to report the news, not make it.

 

[gipper]

The MSM is all about misinformation and dividing Americans. It often promotes statism and leftism, while criticizing and demeaning all opposing view points.

Many on the Left, if they were honest, know the MSM is liberally biased and they are fine with it. They firmly believe they are right and all who disagree with them are wrong.

Regarding Obama, if the MSM had actually vetted him properly and fairly, he never would have become POTUS. I am willing to bet that millions of Americans have little to no understanding of his radical communist anti-American background.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The MSM is all about misinformation and dividing Americans. It often promotes statism and leftism, while criticizing and demeaning all opposing view points.

Many on the Left, if they were honest, know the MSM is liberally biased and they are fine with it. They firmly believe they are right and all who disagree with them are wrong.

Regarding Obama, if the MSM had actually vetted him properly and fairly, he never would have become POTUS. I am willing to bet that millions of Americans have little to no understanding of his radical communist anti-American background.

As an example of your statement...."It often promotes statism and leftism, while criticizing and demeaning all opposing view points,"...
...let me remind of this:


Here is an exposure of leftist journalists using the term ‘racists’ to cow their political opponents. Enlightening.

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,…
2. 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:
3. …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.
4. 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.
5. …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.
6. 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.”
7. 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…
8. 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.”
9. 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

 

[gipper]

The MSM is all about misinformation and dividing Americans. It often promotes statism and leftism, while criticizing and demeaning all opposing view points.

Many on the Left, if they were honest, know the MSM is liberally biased and they are fine with it. They firmly believe they are right and all who disagree with them are wrong.

Regarding Obama, if the MSM had actually vetted him properly and fairly, he never would have become POTUS. I am willing to bet that millions of Americans have little to no understanding of his radical communist anti-American background.

As an example of your statement...."It often promotes statism and leftism, while criticizing and demeaning all opposing view points,"...
...let me remind of this:


Here is an exposure of leftist journalists using the term ‘racists’ to cow their political opponents. Enlightening.

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,…
2. 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:
3. …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.
4. 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.
5. …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.
6. 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.”
7. 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…
8. 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.”
9. 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

Good point. Not only does the MSM misinform and denigrate those who oppose liberalism and statism, they will actively cover up negative information of leftist politicians.

This has gone on a long time...remember Drudge exposed the Monica story that others in the MSM had uncovered, but refused to publish because they wanted to protect a leftist president.

 

[mamooth]

If even our nutty conservative mainstream media has had enough of Trump, that shows just how awful he must be.

As Trump has been demonizing the media, announcing his intent to censor, and encouraging his followers to attack media, what did he expect? Conservative media loyalty only goes so far. One sure way to make conservative journalists less conservative is to assault them.