Unanswered Questions

[kaz]

Can you imagine if FoxNews talked over Obama the way Jim Accosta talked over Trump? Or if conservative media talked to a female Democrat press secretary the way they talk to Sanders? They would lose it.

It's more that I want the media to treat Democrats like they do Republicans though rather than I want them to treat Republicans like they do Democrats. I'd rather the press be hostile to government like they are Republicans than fawn over government like they do Democrats

Well, Trump's win blew the media right off the rails, and they're not even trying to hide their advocacy at this point.

But at the same time, Trump brought much of this on himself with his attacks on them. I was in that business for about 18 years, and I can tell you one thing for sure: Their most cherished possession, seriously, is their opinion of their profession and their roles within it. It is holy, it is sacrosanct. He can't be surprised at this, with his history with the media. Attack the media's "journalistic integrity" and you're asking for all out, no holds barred war, I don't care WHO you are.

That's what we're seeing.
.

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

On that one, sure. I agree with that. There's no clear line for either, they overlapped.

But the press started their venom campaign against him before he responded and blasted the crap out of them back. That one is clear. The media was not innocently sitting there and Trump started blasting them

 

[Mac1958]

Well, Trump's win blew the media right off the rails, and they're not even trying to hide their advocacy at this point.

But at the same time, Trump brought much of this on himself with his attacks on them. I was in that business for about 18 years, and I can tell you one thing for sure: Their most cherished possession, seriously, is their opinion of their profession and their roles within it. It is holy, it is sacrosanct. He can't be surprised at this, with his history with the media. Attack the media's "journalistic integrity" and you're asking for all out, no holds barred war, I don't care WHO you are.

That's what we're seeing.
.

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

On that one, sure. I agree with that. There's no clear line for either, they overlapped.

But the press started their venom campaign against him before he responded and blasted the crap out of them back. That one is clear. The media was not innocently sitting there and Trump started blasting them

Agreed, the press has just slowly been getting more and more biased over the years, and went into turbo mode once Obama ran.

So add 'em up: First, Trump could not be much more different than Obama. Second, he's a Republican. And third, he attacked their integrity.

Holy shit, that's a trifecta right there.
.

 

[OKTexas]

At some point here, we're going to have to reach the conclusion, as a society, that our national "press" is no longer even attempting to be objective.

I realize that denying the obvious has its advantages, granted, but at some point it will no longer work.

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Can you imagine if FoxNews talked over Obama the way Jim Accosta talked over Trump? Or if conservative media talked to a female Democrat press secretary the way they talk to Sanders? They would lose it.

It's more that I want the media to treat Democrats like they do Republicans though rather than I want them to treat Republicans like they do Democrats. I'd rather the press be hostile to government like they are Republicans than fawn over government like they do Democrats

Well, Trump's win blew the media right off the rails, and they're not even trying to hide their advocacy at this point.

But at the same time, Trump brought much of this on himself with his attacks on them. I was in that business for about 18 years, and I can tell you one thing for sure: Their most cherished possession, seriously, is their opinion of their profession and their roles within it. It is holy, it is sacrosanct. He can't be surprised at this, with his history with the media. Attack the media's "journalistic integrity" and you're asking for all out, no holds barred war, I don't care WHO you are.

That's what we're seeing.
.

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This thread is as credible as the claims that millions of persons not eligible to vote do so.

LE Agencies on the Federal, State and local level have policies which will cost an officer, deputy or agent their job, their retirement and their liberty.

Of course some are stupid and do violate these policies, but those of us who worked IA enforce such violations, and when such wrong doing is clear and convincing they are put on leave, and the hiring authority is notified with a recommendation that the employee should be terminated. The district attorney is also notified and all evidence is provided to that office.

During the investigation someone who accepted a bribe will lie, and that is and of itself cause for termination.

 

[Seawytch]

If you could prove that I would join you and Mac on your quest to give the bullshit machine control of this nation by throwing up my arms and giving in to the assholes. But you cannot.

The fact is that our major news sources have standards which have generally been adhered to. Anyone who wants to can ascertain the facts from our mainstream media outlets.

What you have is called confirmation bias and you and the media both suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome.

Your offer is like someone with OCD trying to diagnose what's wrong with someone who has OCD. You don't see a problem.

That you can't turn on the news and just see the overt one sided reporting and outright vitriol to anyone the media disagrees with is just flat out pathetic

Not long ago, the hardcore Left mocked and attacked anyone who pointed out the media is not objective.

Their argument? "Of course it's objective. Truth has a liberal bias".

And today, the hardcore Left still mocks and attacks anyone who points out the media is not objective.

Their argument now? "Who says they have to be objective?"

So which one is it? Hey, who cares.

These people are either compulsive, habitual liars, or they're so consumed by their partisan ideology that honesty has literally reached zero priority for them. Or both.
.

It's unreal though how people like LoneLaugher who seem to believe they are actually looking for bias can watch that one sided crap and actually believe the press treats both sides the same

Commitment to a hardcore partisan ideology distorts both perceptions and thought processes.

So, and I'm being serious, it's entirely possible that partisan ideologues actually believe the stuff they say.

This will only get worse as the two ends become more and more isolated.
.

Can you imagine if FoxNews talked over Obama the way Jim Accosta talked over Trump? Or if conservative media talked to a female Democrat press secretary the way they talk to Sanders? They would lose it.

It's more that I want the media to treat Democrats like they do Republicans though rather than I want them to treat Republicans like they do Democrats. I'd rather the press be hostile to government like they are Republicans than fawn over government like they do Democrats

Like this?

Obama interrupted by heckling reporter

 

[Wry Catcher]

At some point here, we're going to have to reach the conclusion, as a society, that our national "press" is no longer even attempting to be objective.

I realize that denying the obvious has its advantages, granted, but at some point it will no longer work.

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Consider: You call the local police because someone hit your car parked in front of your house. When the police arrived you let them in, and when in your living room they spot in plan sight child porn, left on the coffee table. Do they ignore it, or do they take you into custody?

Duh, they take you in and seek a warrant to search for other such material; they then find child porn on your computer and in a drawer in your bedroom cocaine and a sawed off shotgun in the closet.

All legal.

 

[OKTexas]

This thread is as credible as the claims that millions of persons not eligible to vote do so.

LE Agencies on the Federal, State and local level have policies which will cost an officer, deputy or agent their job, their retirement and their liberty.

Of course some are stupid and do violate these policies, but those of us who worked IA enforce such violations, and when such wrong doing is clear and convincing they are put on leave, and the hiring authority is notified with a recommendation that the employee should be terminated. The district attorney is also notified and all evidence is provided to that office.

During the investigation someone who accepted a bribe will lie, and that is and of itself cause for termination.

And what should happen to the folks that offered and paid the bribes?


.

 

[OKTexas]

At some point here, we're going to have to reach the conclusion, as a society, that our national "press" is no longer even attempting to be objective.

I realize that denying the obvious has its advantages, granted, but at some point it will no longer work.

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Consider: You call the local police because someone hit your car parked in front of your house. When the police arrived you let them in, and when in your living room they spot in plan sight child porn, left on the coffee table. Do they ignore it, or do they take you into custody?

Duh, they take you in and seek a warrant to search for other such material; they then find child porn on your computer and in a drawer in your bedroom cocaine and a sawed off shotgun in the closet.

All legal.

That has nothing to do with the discussion of press bias I was pointing out.


.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This thread is as credible as the claims that millions of persons not eligible to vote do so.

LE Agencies on the Federal, State and local level have policies which will cost an officer, deputy or agent their job, their retirement and their liberty.

Of course some are stupid and do violate these policies, but those of us who worked IA enforce such violations, and when such wrong doing is clear and convincing they are put on leave, and the hiring authority is notified with a recommendation that the employee should be terminated. The district attorney is also notified and all evidence is provided to that office.

During the investigation someone who accepted a bribe will lie, and that is and of itself cause for termination.

And what should happen to the folks that offered and paid the bribes?


.

Quid pro quo, tickets to an event, transportation freely offered, a job for a wife or child, sex, drugs and money can all be bribes, and can all be illegal.

Bribery of a government official is a felony, and anyone convicted of such a crime ought to pay a large fine, make restitution if warranted, and serve at least one year and a day in lock up; upon release be denied the right to vote, hold elected or appointed office, and if a member of the bar, lose their license to practice.

Consider: If Trump were to pardon Manafort, and Manafort refused to testify if later subpoenaed, would Trump's use of the pardon be considered a bribe? Yes or No, what say you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

At some point here, we're going to have to reach the conclusion, as a society, that our national "press" is no longer even attempting to be objective.

I realize that denying the obvious has its advantages, granted, but at some point it will no longer work.

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Insinuated? That’s a great word. You can bend that one any way you like.

I’ve heard news outlets go into painstaking detail in order to explain that the actual charges that Manafort faces are not directly related to Trump.

Please direct me to the specific news program that you are referring to.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well, Trump's win blew the media right off the rails, and they're not even trying to hide their advocacy at this point.

But at the same time, Trump brought much of this on himself with his attacks on them. I was in that business for about 18 years, and I can tell you one thing for sure: Their most cherished possession, seriously, is their opinion of their profession and their roles within it. It is holy, it is sacrosanct. He can't be surprised at this, with his history with the media. Attack the media's "journalistic integrity" and you're asking for all out, no holds barred war, I don't care WHO you are.

That's what we're seeing.
.

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

They showed every rally start to finish. That HELPED TRUMP ENORMOUSLY.

 

[OKTexas]

This thread is as credible as the claims that millions of persons not eligible to vote do so.

LE Agencies on the Federal, State and local level have policies which will cost an officer, deputy or agent their job, their retirement and their liberty.

Of course some are stupid and do violate these policies, but those of us who worked IA enforce such violations, and when such wrong doing is clear and convincing they are put on leave, and the hiring authority is notified with a recommendation that the employee should be terminated. The district attorney is also notified and all evidence is provided to that office.

During the investigation someone who accepted a bribe will lie, and that is and of itself cause for termination.

And what should happen to the folks that offered and paid the bribes?


.

Quid pro quo, tickets to an event, transportation freely offered, a job for a wife or child, sex, drugs and money can all be bribes, and can all be illegal.

Bribery of a government official is a felony, and anyone convicted of such a crime ought to pay a large fine, make restitution if warranted, and serve at least one year and a day in lock up; upon release be denied the right to vote, hold elected or appointed office, and if a member of the bar, lose their license to practice.

Consider: If Trump were to pardon Manafort, and Manafort refused to testify if later subpoenaed, would Trump's use of the pardon be considered a bribe? Yes or No, what say you.

What say I, I say you're trying to derail the thread, this thread is about FBI conduct and the conduct of the reporters that used valuable inducements to get stories.


.

 

[OKTexas]

At some point here, we're going to have to reach the conclusion, as a society, that our national "press" is no longer even attempting to be objective.

I realize that denying the obvious has its advantages, granted, but at some point it will no longer work.

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Insinuated? That’s a great word. You can bend that one any way you like.

I’ve heard news outlets go into painstaking detail in order to explain that the actual charges that Manafort faces are not directly related to Trump.

Please direct me to the specific news program that you are referring to.

6/15/18 ABC World News Tonight.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Insinuated? That’s a great word. You can bend that one any way you like.

I’ve heard news outlets go into painstaking detail in order to explain that the actual charges that Manafort faces are not directly related to Trump.

Please direct me to the specific news program that you are referring to.

6/15/18 ABC World News Tonight.


.

Thanks.

 

[kaz]

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

They showed every rally start to finish. That HELPED TRUMP ENORMOUSLY.

I agree with that. The media was so blind they thought showing Trump with their leftist hate commentary would harm him. They didn't realize in their bias how when people heard him speak for himself, he was making a lot of sense.

That was fundamentally different than prior Republicans who the media did not show extensively and just told us a twisted version of what they actually said

 

[OKTexas]

I totally don't buy that the media would be any different if he hadn't attacked them back. They started on him as soon as it was apparent he was going to be the nominee. W never attacked the media and they were just flat out vicious to him

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

They showed every rally start to finish. That HELPED TRUMP ENORMOUSLY.

And made them a butt load of money in the process. That doesn't change the fact that they mocked Trump and his supporters once they were over, they made a industry out of it. And it continues to this day.


.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You say that as though you don’t believe any of our news sources attempts to be objective.

I realize that taking that position has its advantages. But it certainly does not work.

I watched ABC last night, the bias was obvious.


.

Nope. You didn't like what they said. That does not indicate bias on their part.

Really, they insinuated the charges against Manafort was connected to the Trump campaign, when in fact they stem form a decade before. They never seem to mention that, they only mention it's connected with the Russia investigation. For folks that know the facts the spin is very obvious.


.

Insinuated? That’s a great word. You can bend that one any way you like.

I’ve heard news outlets go into painstaking detail in order to explain that the actual charges that Manafort faces are not directly related to Trump.

Please direct me to the specific news program that you are referring to.

6/15/18 ABC World News Tonight.


.

Did you notice that they called him “Carl” and not Paul in the story?

They said nothing that was not accurate.

They did not state that the crimes Manafort was charged with happened years ago. If you call that bias by omission then I am sure you expect any report about anything to cover all history.

They also didn’t mention that Manafort has two hairy balls. Bias!!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Well, just my opinion, based on my experience.

It's as bad as insulting a person's religion. At least.
.

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

They showed every rally start to finish. That HELPED TRUMP ENORMOUSLY.

And made them a butt load of money in the process. That doesn't change the fact that they mocked Trump and his supporters once they were over, they made a industry out of it. And it continues to this day.


.

Bullshit on the mocking. They reported what he said. He said crazy shit. That’s on him.

 

[kaz]

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you that it pisses them off. I'm just saying that they went into this mode immediately once it was clear Trump was going to win

Yeah, I don't know which came first, the evidence that he was going to win, or his worst attacks on the press.

The chicken or the egg at this point.
.

The fact is the MSM used the Trump rallies for ratings when they thought he had no chance of winning, they mocked him and his supporters. Once he won they moved form mockery to disdain for both.


.

They showed every rally start to finish. That HELPED TRUMP ENORMOUSLY.

And made them a butt load of money in the process. That doesn't change the fact that they mocked Trump and his supporters once they were over, they made a industry out of it. And it continues to this day.


.

Bullshit on the mocking. They reported what he said. He said crazy shit. That’s on him.

No, they constantly twist what he says.

He said murderers and rapists come here from Mexico. The media still lies and intentionally misquotes him that he said Mexicans are murderers and rapists.

On his inauguration, Trump said more people around the world watched his inauguration than Obama. The media still lies that he said more people were physically at his inauguration than Obama.

Fake news lies that Trump didn't immediately condemn the Nazis in Charottesville. He did, he immediately condemned both sides which were both fascist

The press just lies and lies and lies. And their minions, you know you, keep repeating those lies