Funny how none of those "facts" ever appeared on the NYT. Did you ever see a story that said, "Publicly the Clinton campaign very confident, privately very worried" no of course not. Intimate details would never have been shared with the NYT if Clinton camp viewed the the NYT as impartial that would be incredibly stupid.
NYT was a confidant of the Clinton campaign it doesn't get any more obvious. But some will never be convinced, and ultimately it doesn't matter Trump won decisively and was never a push over Hillary and Bill Clinton knew this from the beginning. The epic failure of Clinton and her media surrogates is they all spent so much time trying to shape public opinion that they forgot about the people (and publicly called them names) that would ultimately give Trump the win.
Here's an undeniable fact (well you'd think) if the Dems keep up with the same failed tactics they are going to be completely destroyed.
So your solution is that media should publish conjecture even if nobody can/will confirm it? Facts be damned?
Honestly zamler, you're locked into the right-wing media cycle and eating everything up, hook line and sinker. Expand your sources, read outside your bubble.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Zamler, I haven't read the last few pages so you may have already stated your purpose. I'm curious...are you a USA citizen? I'm just curious why you are putting so much energy into defending Trump. I'm not a USA citizen but I spend several months a year in Idaho. Other than general Canadian concerns for our closest ally, Trump vs Clinton doesn't mean much.
Lol that wikileaks email example of 'collusion' was as well interpreted as the supposed creation of University safe spaces for Halloween which never happened either.
Tons of articles have a note in them "requests for comments from the X campaign were not returned.", that's because journalists are fact checking what they're going to print; they can't just print whatever they want without some kind of support. Other times they're confirming what they have permission to print, if there was an interview and some of it wasn't on the record or there was a prior agreement about what could and couldn't be reported (which happens all the time) and the reporter is confirming what they can go with so they don't violate an agreement. There's tons of reasons journalists communicate with the people they're writing stories about none of which is 'collusion'.
So that list is just as dumb as people tweeting angry tweets at and boycotting the Hamilton Theatre in Ontario because people can't tell the difference between a theater named Hamilton and a musical named Hamilton. If someone broke the list out and showed each one and how it was collusion, then it'd be worth examining for credibility otherwise it's just another example of fake news that ran amok during the campaign that the Trump supporters ate up like candy.
And there actually was articles about internal views in the Clinton campaign about Trump that they didn't put out into the public, I read several where they talked about how Bill didn't think they were focusing on the right things.
A grand conspiracy among all the media to plan out the stories throughout the campaign... lol that's pedophile child trafficking ring run out of a pizza shop conspiracy level.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
This is not a problem with the conservative media, this is a problem with for-profit media and the massive companies that own them.
CNN is more culpable for the decline in the standard of presented journalism that Fox News by a country mile.
There's something I can agree with you on. I used to have CNN on almost all the time when I was at home relaxing. There was a time it was informative and was the best way to consume news from the US and their coverage around the world was impressive. You could be up to date and know you were getting the best news product available. Their website was my home page for at least a decade.
It has regressed over the years to the point I seldomly watch it or even go to their .com.
Was it that Fox News become tabloid like and had ratings success that caused them to do the same? Was it Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck? Its astonishing how bad CNN has become. They are like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck (OK maybe that's an exaggeration but they're more like them now than any time before).
Election night was so disappointing in how CNN covered it. They wouldn't report the story of what was going on because they were so tied into the idea Clinton would become president they had nothing to do but sit back and report about how Clinton could still win-- when the story should have been about the Trump surge which was the real story of the night.
EDIT: I think Fox News shares the blame but only less because they came from behind in viewership. CNN as the go to news organization that dropped the ball can be in part blamed on the Fox News phenomenon.
Funny how none of those "facts" ever appeared on the NYT. Did you ever see a story that said, "Publicly the Clinton campaign very confident, privately very worried"no of course not. Intimate details would never have been shared with the NYT if Clinton camp viewed the the NYT as impartial that would be incredibly stupid.
NYT was a confidant of the Clinton campaign it doesn't get any more obvious. But some will never be convinced, and ultimately it doesn't matter Trump won decisively and was never a push over Hillary and Bill Clinton knew this from the beginning. The epic failure of Clinton and her media surrogates is they all spent so much time trying to shape public opinion that they forgot about the people (and publicly called them names) that would ultimately give Trump the win.
Here's an undeniable fact (well you'd think) if the Dems keep up with the same failed tactics they are going to be completely destroyed.
Yeah, I did. In fact it was the exact article that the e-mail was fact checking for which was published the day after that e-mail exchange. It included the following passages:
Quote:
But others, including former President Bill Clinton, dismissed those conclusions as denial. They said that Mr. Trump clearly had a keen sense of the electorate’s mood and that only a concerted campaign portraying him as dangerous and bigoted would win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election.
Quote:
Democrats say they risk losing the presidency if they fail to take Mr. Trump seriously, much as Republicans have done in the primary campaign.
“He’s formidable, he understands voters’ anxieties, and he will be ruthless against Hillary Clinton,” said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut. “I’ve gone from denial — ‘I can’t believe anyone would listen to this guy’ — to admiration, in the sense that he’s figured out how to capture everyone’s angst, to real worry.”
Quote:
Now, Mr. Mook and his colleagues regard Mr. Trump as a wily, determined and indefatigable opponent who seems to be speaking to broad economic anxieties among Americans and to the widely held belief that traditional politicians are incapable of addressing those problems. Publicly, the Clinton operation is letting the Republicans slug it out. But privately, it and other Democrats are poring over polling data to understand the roots of Mr. Trump’s populist appeal and building up troves of opposition research on his business career.
It is important to expand your media palete, lest you miss messages that are being echoed. Exposure to a small portion of media outlets makes you succeptible to a perceived conflict of interest.
And we all know that leads to finger pointing, lizard people and DARPA.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
The Following User Says Thank You to 2Stonedbirds For This Useful Post:
Almost all the major networks were bitterly disappointed that Clinton did not win, some went into rants and tirades others literally cried. If that is not a reflection of slanted journalism nothing is.
The New York Times even issued an apology and promised to clean up their act. The Washington Post is the gutter trash of publications outside of salon.com and a few others. But what did you expect they are based in Washington, D.C. at one time they were quite pro Republican not anymore.
Quote:
On October 21, 2014, the newspaper endorsed 44 Democratic candidates versus 3 Republican candidates for the 2014 elections in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia.[72] On October 13th, 2016, it endorsed Hillary Clinton for the presidential election of that year. [73]
I don't recall making any other predictions (you might again have what I've said confused with some else), and I think it's obvious it's not a prediction, but as another way of saying "if he's going to round up and berate the media leaders every time they say something he doesn't like he's going to be doing that a lot over the next 4 years because a whiny bully trying to browbeat someone into doing something different doesn't usually result in positive outcomes".
And what do I expect after an article by some guy off the fashion pages who otherwise writes about identifying models by their distinctive walks and why expensive men's tote bags don't have a place for a pen says obvious things (trophy wife) or derogatory things? I expect what almost everyone who places themselves in the public eye does when people express their opinions; ignore it.
To be incapable of tolerating someone saying something negative about them without firing back or being unable to deal with someone being wrong from their (often wrong) point of view such that they have to be put in a room and berated because they didn't like what was said isn't a virtue; it's a psychosis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
If the press said that about Michelle Obama the media would be flinging #### for months if not years. 95% of the media has no credibility outside the echo chambers, including your favourite.
My favorite, I've never listed my favorite, so again you're confused with maybe what someone else said?
I don't think you're one to talk about echo chambers...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
The media, their coverage and blatant slant was the biggest expose to the public eye ever experienced.
I think a lot of people really stood up and said what is this news organization reporting and how is it factual? Facebook and Zucker with the fake real news and their commitment to clean up their act.
On Facebook 65% of all political reposts or shares were fake news. I think it's a valid positive takeaway for both the USA and Canada.
It's the equivalent of propaganda pamphlets being dropped on enemy territory to control the thinking. Democracy has no space for this.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to calgarywinning For This Useful Post:
Election night was so disappointing in how CNN covered it. They wouldn't report the story of what was going on because they were so tied into the idea Clinton would become president they had nothing to do but sit back and report about how Clinton could still win-- when the story should have been about the Trump surge which was the real story of the night.
I spent most of the night on PBS, but I did check Fox every so often and from what I could see and heard from others their election night coverage was quite good.
Cable news could all go away though and I wouldn't shed a tear.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Trump had invited a bunch of the media to an off-the-record meeting. A few thought it might be about media access; Trump hasn't held a press conference since I think July (lol remember when Trump criticizing Clinton for not having press conferences was a thing?). Some thought it might be generally about access, Trump doesn't have a protective press pool yet.
Nope, guess it was so he could berate them some more.
“It was like a f---ing firing squad,” one source said of the meeting. "Trump started with [CNN President] Jeff Zucker and said, ‘I hate your network, everyone at CNN is a liar and you should be ashamed.’"
“The meeting was a total disaster. The TV execs and anchors went in there thinking they would be discussing the access they would get to the Trump administration, but instead they got a Trump-style dressing down.”
The Post’s second source said the meeting included 30 to 40 people, and said Trump also took aim at ABC and NBC.
“Trump kept saying, ‘We’re in a room full of liars, the deceitful dishonest media who got it all wrong,'" the source said. "He addressed everyone in the room calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. Trump didn’t say [NBC reporter] Katy Tur by name, but talked about a female correspondent who got it wrong.
Hahaha, that's not true either. At least not 'outside the echo chambers'. Or to anyone who read the letter.
Kinda like how Trump lied about the NYT's subscriptions too.
The letter obviously reads as an apology for not reporting nor investigating Trumps surge in support across rural America, but not as an apology for biased coverage. Any intelligent person reading the Times should go in knowing it has a leftward bias.
Admittedly, not all American supporters of Trump are neo-Nazis, but all American neo-Nazis are supporters of Trump.
I couldn't even get through 2 minutes of that without feeling sick to my stomach. What a bunch of despicable human beings. One would hope that any decent, intelligent President-elect would already be denouncing this kind of bulls--t and at least making some kind of attempt to bring the country together. But not Trump. Instead he appoints racist dirtbags like Steve Bannon to his cabinet and then spends all his time starting childish Twitter wars with Alec Baldwin and the cast of Hamilton. And this assclown is going to be President in a couple of months? What a gong show. Lord help us all.
