Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Varmint

Liberal Media Bias

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Higgs said:

Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News

Pretty clear now that the two main social networking sites, twitter and Facebook, are both heavily left leaning.  Unfortunately the only thing I see coming down the road to rectify the situation is alternative sites for Conservatives, just like what happened with the media.  America is becoming more and more divided by the day.

I don't see that with Twitter. What is trending at any given time is a reflection of what people are talking about, and it seems like there have are plenty of hashtags that appeal to the conservative crowd or that are Trump friendly. And I have seen a half dozen negative Hillary hashtags trending in recent weeks.

It is true that the demographics for Twitter tend to be with younger people with the highest represented group 25-34 years old. http://www.statista.com/statistics/192703/age-distribution-of-users-on-twitter-in-the-united-states/ So it stands to reason that if it indeed leans left that is just a reflection of the high percentage of younger people who tend to be more liberal

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity is under attack. It's about time to take Christmas back. Let's take Twitter back from the left. Let's take over Facebook. Unless it is right leaning, it is bad for America. The chickens are coming home to roost y'all. This country was founded on the bible and it's about time the rest realize that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Higgs said:

Once again you miss the point.  Amazing.  You're consistent at least.

 

The point that you complain a lot?  i got that.

Facebook is not the news media...neither is twitter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walking Boot said:

Twitter, Google, and Facebook should all be taken over by the government and regulated like utilities. They're no different from the electric company or the phone company.

I think it's arguable sites like those, and even FBGs, should be moderated in a content neutral fashion, with maybe some extreme exceptions, because they do serve a function as a public forum.

eta - However in reality newspaper editors and journalists have been doing this for years anyway.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

 

The point that you complain a lot?  i got that.

Facebook is not the news media...neither is twitter.

In today's world I would consider them news media.  There really isn't too much distinction between entertainment and news anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Walking Boot said:

Twitter, Google, and Facebook should all be taken over by the government and regulated like utilities. They're no different from the electric company or the phone company.

SMALLER GOVERNMENT! LESS REGULATION!!

Unless it's something I don't agree with. In that case, regulate the ever living he$$ out of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think it's arguable sites like those, and even FBGs, should be moderated in a content neutral fashion, with maybe some extreme exceptions, because they do serve a function as a public forum.

eta - However in reality newspaper editors and journalists have been doing this for years anyway.

I can't envision even one scenario where this thought works as well as you think it may.  Forget the fact that these are all for profit businesses, just the idea of regulating public forums in a way that can remotely be considered neutral screams nightmare for the hosts.  Say goodbye to chat rooms throughout the internet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dutch said:

I can't envision even one scenario where this thought works as well as you think it may.  Forget the fact that these are all for profit businesses, just the idea of regulating public forums in a way that can remotely be considered neutral screams nightmare for the hosts.  Say goodbye to chat rooms throughout the internet.

 

Obama proposed this at one point.

One of his other ideas was to get rid of anonymous accounts, so you'd have to post everything, everywhere, under your real name, instead of "dutch".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Boot said:

 

Obama proposed this at one point.

One of his other ideas was to get rid of anonymous accounts, so you'd have to post everything, everywhere, under your real name, instead of "dutch".

Thank god we don't have an Imperial Presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dutch said:

Thank god we don't have an Imperial Presidency.

No one nor no thing stopped him from doing it, he just changed his mind. Like all our laws, they exist solely at his whim.

Which is why I'm so looking forward to changing regulations and tax policy daily in the Trump Administration. We were never at war with Eastasia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So a snap of the fingers and Big O can shut down the net?? Hmm, learn something new everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's bash ESPN, shall we?  More lousy liberal bias.  Steven A. smith skates, while my buddy Curt Schilling gets fired.  Awful.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/09/fired-espn-commentator-curt-schilling-bashes-outwardly-bigoted-and-intolerant-network-cites-these-examples/

"The only irony in this for me is that a company that is outwardly bigoted and intolerant is calling itself inclusive,” Schilling told host Dan Patrick. 

When asked to elaborate, Schilling cited a memo that was sent out to ESPN employees asking them not to discuss political issues. He noted, however, that when other on-air personalities made anti-Republican or or anti-conservative comments, no punishment resulted:

They sent out memos, “Listen, we want our sports people on-air talent to stick to sports, stay away from politics and the other stuff.” … The next thing, Stephen A. Smith tells the world Robert Griffin can’t play quarterback for the Redskins because he is black, not because he sucks, which it was because he sucks. Then you got [Dan] Le Batard and you got Tony Kornheiser comparing the Tea Party to ISIS. So, I think what the memo meant to say was, “If you’re not liberal and you’re not a Democrat, do not stray from sports.” … The other thing that really jumped out at me was people would talk — you know, the green room where everybody hangs out, it’s the ESPN version of the locker room — a lot of times people would be like, they would come up to me and whisper, “Hey man, I’m with ya, I’m a Republican,” as if we were the secret card-carrying members of some group that couldn’t be, the “those who shall not be named.” The inclusiveness is inclusive as long as you are pointing in the same direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, matuski said:

The whining is at a fever pitch.

Nice Red Sox reference. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Let's bash ESPN, shall we?  More lousy liberal bias.  Steven A. smith skates, while my buddy Curt Schilling gets fired.  Awful.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/09/fired-espn-commentator-curt-schilling-bashes-outwardly-bigoted-and-intolerant-network-cites-these-examples/

 

 

I'm no ESPN expert but Schillings role there was to give color commentary for a baseball game. These other guys are like ESPN's Hannity / O'Reily. They are supposed to say funny, controversial stuff to get clicks.

Schiling's job was to talk about baseball in game scenarios. He was actually good at it I thought. If he wants to talk politics or give hot takes about bathroom laws he should have gotten hired for a different job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facebook is a private company, but if they are curating their trending topics based on political ideology and putting things on the list that are not actually trending and passing them off to the consumer as simply the trending topics, then that is misleading and false advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The General said:

I'm no ESPN expert but Schillings role there was to give color commentary for a baseball game. These other guys are like ESPN's Hannity / O'Reily. They are supposed to say funny, controversial stuff to get clicks.

Schiling's job was to talk about baseball in game scenarios. He was actually good at it I thought. If he wants to talk politics or give hot takes about bathroom laws he should have gotten hired for a different job.

The memo went out to everyone - sports talk show hosts, color commentators, everyone.  Guys like Stephen A. smith can be controversial and push the envelope without getting political.  Sports is controversial enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disney is liberal?  Honda

Also, not really a media company as much as its an entertainment one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BigSteelThrill said:

Life itself has a liberal bias. 

Interesting comment.  How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Interesting comment.  How so?

Peoples actions.  They tend greatly to be liberal when left to their own devices... trying to make people adhere to your concepts; conservative. Usually happen to the youngest the worst.

So when life itself tends to be liberal - when other people aren't forcing you into something - you will often have very overtly liberal outcomes. It resonates towards the current situation you have here.

Edited by BigSteelThrill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

The memo went out to everyone - sports talk show hosts, color commentators, everyone.  Guys like Stephen A. smith can be controversial and push the envelope without getting political.  Sports is controversial enough.

There is a huge difference in what ESPN wants Stephen A Smith to do and Schilling. That's pretty obvious. We are also hearing only Schillings take on this. The guy kind of likes to run his mouth, very Trump like actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The General said:

There is a huge difference in what ESPN wants Stephen A Smith to do and Schilling. That's pretty obvious. We are also hearing only Schillings take on this. The guy kind of likes to run his mouth, very Trump like actually. 

That would make sense if what Schilling said was while announcing a game.  That didn't happen.  He tweeted something on his own time, under his own name.  SAS and the others expressed their views on the air and nothing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I :wub: Schilling's takes on evolution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Higgs said:

That would make sense if what Schilling said was while announcing a game.  That didn't happen.  He tweeted something on his own time, under his own name.  SAS and the others expressed their views on the air and nothing happened.

Disagree. He is a public figure and he knew his twitter or facebook stuff is going to get out. He already got attention for some dumb meme he posted awhile back and was certainly warned. I'm no media expert but people hate watch Stephen A Smith, that's his schtick. Baseball color guy is supposed to be somewhat likable and BS about what is happening and why on the field. People want to enjoy listening to that guy, Schilling is boorish and loves to talk about himself. 

I listened to that DP interview with Schilling, have heard him on that show a few times. He's a great interview. He's an opinionated guy and would be good on some politics show even if you don't agree with his opinions.

This victim stuff though is a bad look.

Edited by The General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The General said:

Disagree. He is a public figure and he knew his twitter or facebook stuff is going to get out. He already got attention for some dumb meme he posted awhile back and was certainly warned. I'm no media expert but people hate watch Stephen A Smith, that's his schtick. Baseball color guy is supposed to be somewhat likable and BS about what is happening and why on the field. People want to like that enjoy listening to that guy, Schilling is boorish and loves to talk about himself. 

I listened to that DP interview with Schilling, have heard him on that show a few times. He's a great interview. He's an opinionated guy and would be good on some politics show even if you don't agree with his opinions.

This victim stuff though is a bad look.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ESPN's policy of it's sport talent not interjecting their politics, either on the air or off.  I turn on sports to escape all that crap.  The point of this discussion is that ESPN doesn't administer that policy fairly.  They arbitrarily decide what is offensive, and invariably those decisions reveal the liberal bias that everyone acknowledges exists within that organization.  How does Tony Kornheiser get to say on the air that the Tea Party is like ISIS - and not get any punishment - while Curt Schilling gets fired for putting on his private Facebook page that people with penises shouldn't be allowed in the women's room - a position that is probably supported by the majority of Americans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schill's a great guy by the way.  Got to know him pretty well at SOSH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Higgs said:

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with ESPN's policy of it's sport talent not interjecting their politics, either on the air or off.  I turn on sports to escape all that crap.  The point of this discussion is that ESPN doesn't administer that policy fairly.  They arbitrarily decide what is offensive, and invariably those decisions reveal the liberal bias that everyone acknowledges exists within that organization.  How does Tony Kornheiser get to say on the air that the Tea Party is like ISIS - and not get any punishment - while Curt Schilling gets fired for putting on his private Facebook page that people with penises shouldn't be allowed in the women's room - a position that is probably supported by the majority of Americans?

I didn't know anything about the Kornheiser thing you are referencing, looked it up and he was interviewing Howard Fineman on his radio show and made some analogy about ISIS and the Tea Party in reference to them trying to tear apart the traditional, old school Republican party. Apparently he dabbles in politics on this show, I don't listen. Don't know why else he would have Fineman on. Apparently he wasn't on PTI around that time and some were guessing it was for this stuff. He had been suspended for making fun of Hanah Storm's clothes a couple of years before so they have smacked him around a bit. I remember him apologizing quite a bit after that.

Maybe they were sick of Schilling posting political stuff? He had his odd, little evolution rant. He posted the of Hitler with the Muslims commentary which he got suspended for. 

Maybe they value Kornheiser more as an employee?

Again, Schilling was a color commentator, those guys are a dime a dozen. 

 

Edited by The General

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rove! said:

Facebook is a private company, but if they are curating their trending topics based on political ideology and putting things on the list that are not actually trending and passing them off to the consumer as simply the trending topics, then that is misleading and false advertising.

 

I can't remember ever seeing a Facebook ad, now that I think about it. I've certainly never seen one promising to give me the straight scoop on politics.

Anyway, Facebook Dislikes Conservatives, and That's OK.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is ok, they just need to state as such instead of letting people think they are just getting some purely algorithmic data feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the government needs to regulate Facebook and Twitter. There is no reason why these companies should be trending any kind of agenda. These companies have a higher responsibility to the public than what they are showing. We need more government to suppress views of companies unless they are churches and/or Koch related. Enough of this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I can't remember ever seeing a Facebook ad, now that I think about it. I've certainly never seen one promising to give me the straight scoop on politics.

Anyway, Facebook Dislikes Conservatives, and That's OK.

It's proabaly my fault, but you're  interpreting my post too literally.  In many industries in this country there are rules regarding packing and labeling of products to ensure that corporate enterprises are not putting false or misleading information on their product.  When they put the label "Trending" on the front page of their product, that are misleading consumers by not advising them that the topics are curated.  I don't think the FTC would cover this specifically, but it seems to violate the spirit of the idea that consumers should not be misled.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The General said:

Yeah that is some gold: SCHILL ON DARWIN

LIBERAL BIAS.. General Tso informed us Schilling is legit.  Just more proof the liberals are out to get us.

Edited by matuski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add on:

 

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ftc-machinima-settle-deceptive-marketing-complaint/

 

there are similarities to this incident 

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with YouTube network Machinima over allegations that the company contracted popular YouTubers to create paid advertisements under the guise of unbiased, independently produced video content.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ftc-machinima-settle-deceptive-marketing-complaint/#ixzz48RTPmZ7s 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it, I will no longer get my news from Facebook trending topics (are any of these anything other than bogus clickbait anyway?), YouTube, or ESPN.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2016 at 0:50 PM, squistion said:

I don't see that with Twitter. What is trending at any given time is a reflection of what people are talking about, and it seems like there have are plenty of hashtags that appeal to the conservative crowd or that are Trump friendly. And I have seen a half dozen negative Hillary hashtags trending in recent weeks.

It is true that the demographics for Twitter tend to be with younger people with the highest represented group 25-34 years old. http://www.statista.com/statistics/192703/age-distribution-of-users-on-twitter-in-the-united-states/ So it stands to reason that if it indeed leans left that is just a reflection of the high percentage of younger people who tend to be more liberal

Twitter is better than Facebook, but they still censor things. They suppress trending hashtags and shadow ban people regularly.

 

 

Edited by Dignan_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time before there is a Foxnews version of all of these things imo. And I don't think that is a good future for anybody.

Except Google. They seem to be doing a good job with their algorithm and making the same rules apply to everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rove! said:

It's proabaly my fault, but you're  interpreting my post too literally.  In many industries in this country there are rules regarding packing and labeling of products to ensure that corporate enterprises are not putting false or misleading information on their product.  When they put the label "Trending" on the front page of their product, that are misleading consumers by not advising them that the topics are curated.  I don't think the FTC would cover this specifically, but it seems to violate the spirit of the idea that consumers should not be misled.

 

If you'd asked me a week ago, I probably would have guessed that the "Trending" topics were determined strictly by artificial intelligence. But it would have been just a guess, and I wouldn't have been that surprised to learn that there's a bit of human intelligence involved as well. It seems to me that a humanless-algorithm should be able to figure out what's trending, but without having written such an algorithm myself, I can't rule out the possibility that human input would be helpful. I certainly do not consider it misleading in any way for Facebook to use human input.

Given the human input, it's not surprising that there was some human bias. Facebook should try to guard against that, and perhaps they didn't do as good a job of it as they should have, but I don't see how anything they did was "misleading" in any legally relevant sense. First, no media source has a legal obligation to be unbiased even if portrays itself as unbiased -- which is why Mother Jones and World Net Daily are allowed to exist, and why Fox News is allowed to use the tagline "Fair and Balanced." And second, it's not like Facebook was trying to be biased. It wasn't their official policy or anything. It's just what happens when you let humans make decisions now and again. The job market is tough enough without prohibiting humans from participating in commercial decision-making.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Group that helped sell Iran nuke deal also funded media

WASHINGTON (AP) — A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group's annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets.

The Ploughshares Fund's mission is to "build a safe, secure world by developing and investing in initiatives to reduce and ultimately eliminate the world's nuclear stockpiles," one that dovetails with President Barack Obama's arms control efforts. But its behind-the-scenes role advocating for the Iran agreement got more attention this month after a candid profile of Ben Rhodes, one of the president's top foreign policy aides.

In The New York Times Magazine article, Rhodes explained how the administration worked with nongovernmental organizations, proliferation experts and even friendly reporters to build support for the seven-nation accord that curtailed Iran's nuclear activity and softened international financial penalties on Tehran.

"We created an echo chamber," said Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, adding that "outside groups like Ploughshares" helped carry out the administration's message effectively.

...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7044e805a95a4b7da5533b1b9ab75cd2/group-helped-sell-iran-nuke-deal-also-funded-media

 

- I enjoy NPR, I listen to it every morning pretty much, but I don't think it ever occurred to me they were taking donations from groups in the same way that commercial news sites and stations take money from advertisers. Apparently they do.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved Obama's guy just coming out and telling the truth like it is... "all these 'journalists' are 20-something kids with no experience. We give them a press release and the names of two guys on our side as 'experts', and they run with it, thinking they're doing 'research'. Retype our words and submit it as their work."

 

 

F'ing millenials screwing it all up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Walking Boot said:

Loved Obama's guy just coming out and telling the truth like it is... "all these 'journalists' are 20-something kids with no experience. We give them a press release and the names of two guys on our side as 'experts', and they run with it, thinking they're doing 'research'. Retype our words and submit it as their work."

 

 

F'ing millenials screwing it all up.

That has almost been entirely ignored here. That whole story is incredibly horrible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal...

 

- How does one become a "surrogate" of the White House, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

"It is common practice for foundations to fund media coverage of underreported stories," Ploughshares spokeswoman Jennifer Abrahamson said. Funding "does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want it to."

Ploughshares has funded NPR's coverage of national security since 2005, the radio network said. Ploughshares reports show at least $700,000 in funding over that time. All grant descriptions since 2010 specifically mention Iran.

"It's a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation," NPR said in an emailed statement. "As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests."

 

 

- Hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Walking Boot said:

Loved Obama's guy just coming out and telling the truth like it is... "all these 'journalists' are 20-something kids with no experience. We give them a press release and the names of two guys on our side as 'experts', and they run with it, thinking they're doing 'research'. Retype our words and submit it as their work."

 

 

F'ing millenials screwing it all up.

It comes down to their pre-existing bias. The Obama administration gives them info and they don't think to really double check validity because it falls into line with their own beliefs. If a conservative tries the same, they are on the march to discredit it anyway possible because it has to be wrong since it is contrary to their own beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 1:12 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

 First, no media source has a legal obligation to be unbiased even if portrays itself as unbiased -- which is why Mother Jones and World Net Daily are allowed to exist, and why Fox News is allowed to use the tagline "Fair and Balanced".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chadstroma said:

Liberal media bias? Never.

Well, it certainly explains all the news coverage Trump has gotten...Oh, wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Top White House official Ben Rhodes said in a recent interview that he created a pro-Iran “echo chamber” with “outside groups like Ploughshares” at the center of the spin operation.

Rhodes’ operation, which was staffed by other top officials in the White House National Security Council, ignited a media firestorm and has led to congressional investigations, including calls for President Barack Obama to fire Rhodes.

Emails viewed by the Free Beacon show that NPR—which received $100,000 from Ploughshares in 2015 and has been taking money from the group since at least 2012—cancelled a 2015 interview with Pompeo while featuring others, including Iran deal supporters.

NPR told the Associated Press last week that it “had no record of Pompeo’s requests” for an interview. However, the Free Beacon has viewed two separate email conversations between NPR producers and Pompeo’s office.

NPR said Monday when reached by the Free Beacon that it had in fact been in contact with Pompeo’s office.

“The pieces are coming together on President Obama’s machinations in selling the Iran deal. As Obama administration officials admit to misrepresenting reality on the deal, it is clear that the American people have been played,” Pompeo, a member of the House intelligence committee, told the Free Beacon on Monday. “Specifically, recent statements and financial documents raise serious concerns about the integrity of the Ploughshares Fund, NPR, which is partly tax-payer funded, and the entire nuclear deal debate.”

 

...

An NPR producer contacted Pompeo’s office on Aug. 4, 2015, to schedule an interview with the lawmaker, according to an email viewed by the Free Beacon.

“We’d like to do this but not live tomorrow morning. Can we schedule a tape time for tomorrow morning or Thursday to air in Friday’s show? This will give us more time to figure out better audio options as well,” NPR producer Kenya Young wrote to Pompeo’s office, according to a copy of the email.

“Let’s aim for Thursday morning at 10am Eastern,” Young wrote later in the day. “I’ll assign a producer in the morning who will get in touch with you, confirm a time, and set up an engineer to tape sync the interview in Kansas. Thanks for reaching out. You’ll hear from someone on my team in the morning.”

NPR decided to nix the interview the following morning.

Vince Pearson, a producer with NPR’s Morning Edition, informed Pompeo’s office on Aug. 5, 2015, that the interview was now off the table.

“I’m writing to say that we will have to pass on the interview with Congressman Pompeo,” Pearson wrote. “The show managers have decided that there are already too many interviews in the works this week and that we don’t have the resources to take this one on. Perhaps there will be another opportunity.”

The producer could not say why NPR had featured Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), a backer of the deal, for multiple interviews about the agreement.

NPR Morning Edition producer Kitty Eisele later declined a Sept. 7, 2015, offer to have Pompeo appear on the program, according to subsequent correspondence viewed by the Free Beacon.

“Morning Edition is a bit full on Iran at the moment. I’m glad to be in touch and hope you’ll check back with us for future conversations,” Eisele wrote to Pompeo’s office.

A NPR spokesman told the Free Beacon on Monday that it had in fact been in contact with Pompeo’s office, despite earlier statements to the AP.

“Rep. Pompeo was booked to discuss the Iran deal in August 2015, but the interview did not take place,” the spokesman said. “In the past year, other prominent Republican officials have appeared on our newsmagazines to discuss the Iran deal or were the focus of related stories about economic sanctions.” This includes Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), John McCain (R., Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte, (R., N.H.), and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.).

... NPR did not respond to follow up questions asking why it initially told the AP that it had no contact with Pompeo’s office.

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/media-outlet-funded-pro-iran-deal-echo-chamber-group-silenced-top-deal-critic/

 

- So not only did NPR promote its donor Ploughshares it also muted voices of critics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.