What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Liberal Media Bias (1 Viewer)

ShamrockPride said:
However, there are multiple leaks out how Hillary has been working hand in hand with the media.
Click to expand...
What do you call what FoxNews does? Or Breitbart -- literally working with the Trump campaign.  CNS. Newsmax. WeeklyStandard.  Beck/Limbaugh/Savage/InfoWars. etc. etc. etc.

They just don't do it good enough. *They don't have as many people watching/clicking.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
What do you call what FoxNews does? Or Breitbart -- literally working with the Trump campaign.  CNS. Newsmax. WeeklyStandard.  Beck/Limbaugh/Savage/InfoWars. etc. etc. etc.

They just don't do it good enough. *They don't have as many people watching/clicking.
Click to expand...
I call Fox entertainment. I always have. Each time I see one of their people on a late night show, they're always talking up their show's cable ratings (especially Bill O). No way a true news network is concerned with ratings. Paying attention to ratings to me, display a wish for viewers. When you want viewers (especially leading ratings, like Bill always brags about), you need entertainment and fictional/embellished story elements. So I've never considered Fox a "news network".

 
ShamrockPride said:
I call Fox entertainment. I always have. Each time I see one of their people on a late night show, they're always talking up their show's cable ratings (especially Bill O). No way a true news network is concerned with ratings. Paying attention to ratings to me, display a wish for viewers. When you want viewers (especially leading ratings, like Bill always brags about), you need entertainment and fictional/embellished story elements. So I've never considered Fox a "news network".
Click to expand...
you might...but sadly many people I know (my own mother included  :bag: ) take Fox News as gospel. I'm generally a republican and fox's slanted coverage even makes me sick. 

 
ShamrockPride said:
I call Fox entertainment. I always have. Each time I see one of their people on a late night show, they're always talking up their show's cable ratings (especially Bill O). No way a true news network is concerned with ratings. Paying attention to ratings to me, display a wish for viewers. When you want viewers (especially leading ratings, like Bill always brags about), you need entertainment and fictional/embellished story elements. So I've never considered Fox a "news network".
Click to expand...
You understand that makes you an outlier and not germane to this cryout regarding bias?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
What do you call what FoxNews does? Or Breitbart -- literally working with the Trump campaign.  CNS. Newsmax. WeeklyStandard.  Beck/Limbaugh/Savage/InfoWars. etc. etc. etc.

They just don't do it good enough. *They don't have as many people watching/clicking.
Click to expand...
But according to most liberals all of those you mentioned are slanted to the right. So you admit Hillary has been working hand in hand with the MSM and does it better than the right?

 
Quez said:
Donna Brazille needs to be fired asap.  Giving a candidate debate questions ahead of time is ridiculous.  HRC ran right over Bernie and all his basement dwelling supporters.
Click to expand...
Now imagine Trump gets questions ahead of time from Bannon. I'm not sure it would help him present himself any better in a debate, but the mass hysteria in the press if that happened would be unprecedented. I don't see eye to eye with Bernie politically, but respected him. But, he fell right into line and is a fart in the wind at this point. Trump still fights with Paul Ryan. Just a total circus on the right with Trump giving ample ammunition with consistency.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Life has a liberal bias. So of course everything else follows suit.

Like Comedians/Comedy.  There is a reason why comedy slants liberal and incredibly poignant and funny. Where as conservative comedy sucks monkey balls.
Click to expand...
Lisa Montgomery Kennedy has some funny stuff on her show. But she's a Libertarian, not a Republican.

 
 
jonessed said:
I think CNN has final gone all-in.  These are their top stories right now.



Ana Navarro: I'm voting for Clinton



Obama turns campaign dynamo




Lawmaker: Trump claim was way off



John Oliver really regrets this



FBI clears Clinton -- again



Opinion: The FBI did damage



Virginia county is warning to GOP



GOP strategist: Clinton will win



Ghost of Al Gore haunts campaign



Clinton leads in new NH, PA polls



Five states consider legalizing pot



Senator slams new Trump ad



Janet Reno dies at 78



A banker's descent into depravity
Click to expand...
It's possible that CNN is all in.   It's also possible that the GOP is headed to an epic beat down, and the news merely reflects that.  We'll see soon enough.  

Btw, I can't fathom why you'd include several of those headlines as evidence of liberal bias.  I mean, seriously, Janet Reno dying is evidence of liberal bias?    

 
The Future Champs said:
Btw, I can't fathom why you'd include several of those headlines as evidence of liberal bias.  I mean, seriously, Janet Reno dying is evidence of liberal bias?    
Click to expand...
He's just taking a representative snapshot of all their stories, with the point being that like 9 or 10 of the 14 could be viewed as pro-Clinton.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Future Champs said:
It's possible that CNN is all in.   It's also possible that the GOP is headed to an epic beat down, and the news merely reflects that.  We'll see soon enough.  

Btw, I can't fathom why you'd include several of those headlines as evidence of liberal bias.  I mean, seriously, Janet Reno dying is evidence of liberal bias?    
Click to expand...


The Future Champs said:
Btw, I can't fathom why you'd include several of those headlines as evidence of liberal bias.  I mean, seriously, Janet Reno dying is evidence of liberal bias?    
Click to expand...
Because he included ALL of CNNs headlines.  By including them all it allows us to see 2/14 aren't biased.  I can't fathom how you couldn't fathom this.

 
Gr00vus said:
He's just taking a representative snapshot of all their stories, with the point being that like 9 or 10 of the 14 could be viewed as pro-Clinton.
Click to expand...
Janet Reno planned her death for today cause she knew CNN would report and Clinton would benefit.

 
Godsbrother said:
Janet Reno planned her death for today cause she knew CNN would report and Clinton would benefit.
Click to expand...
Exactly! If I were George Snuffleupagus I'd be very worried right now - they need something for tomorrow's headlines.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The real question Republicans are asking though is, "did Janet Reno vote?" And, if she did, her vote should not count. 

 
The Future Champs said:
It's possible that CNN is all in.   It's also possible that the GOP is headed to an epic beat down, and the news merely reflects that.  We'll see soon enough.  

Btw, I can't fathom why you'd include several of those headlines as evidence of liberal bias.  I mean, seriously, Janet Reno dying is evidence of liberal bias?    
Click to expand...
I just posted all of them for full disclosure.

 
Walking Boot said:
Nightline caught editing a quote to say the opposite of its meaning.

At least they apologized.

Ari Fleisher's actual quote: "It looks to me if the ball was dropped on Saturday, Sean recovered it and ran for a 1st down on Monday."

ABC News edited it down to: "It looks as if the ball was dropped on Saturday."

The intended meaning was clearly that if it was dropped, the recovery was made. The chopped up quote just seems to imply he's saying it definitely was a mistake and nothing about Spicer's recovery.
Click to expand...
:lmao:  Such dishonest bastards.

 
I can't even believe this is a point that needs to be proven. 

Working the refs? My God, the refs were bought and sold like the WWF.  

 
And in the Fake News department... 

Who lied today about the entire upper level management of the State Department "resigning"?  (Turns out is was 4 people and they were all canned by Trump) :lmao:

a. Huffington Post

b. CNN

c. MSNBC

d. All of the above?

 
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/01/26/fake-news-media-reports-state-dept-mass-resignation-officials-actually-fired/

Fake News: Media Reports State Dept. ‘Mass Resignation,’ Officials Actually Fired

Today’s Fake News freakout began with a buzzing swarm of headlines about “mass resignations” by the “entire senior level of management officials” at the State Department resigning in some stunning act of protest against President Trump.

Before long, we learned we were talking about four people, and they did not resign, they were fired.

“The State Department’s Entire Senior Management Team Just Resigned,” gasped the Washington Post, prompting a ripple of secondary headlines across mediaspace. Some of those headlines were a bit more cautious, such as the Jerusalem Post reporting that the State Department team resigned “in a possibly coordinated walkout.”

As it turns out, that “walkout” was coordinated by the Trump administration:

 Follow

Jim Sciutto ✔@jimsciutto

Breaking: Four top @StateDept Mgmt officials all fired by Trump admin, part of effort to "clean house" - officials tell @eliselabottcnn

12:50 PM - 26 Jan 2017

From CNN’s full story on the matter:

All four, career officers serving in positions appointed by the President, submitted letters of resignation per tradition at the beginning of a new administration.

The letters from the White House said that their resignations were accepted and they were thanked for their service.

The White House usually asks career officials in such positions to stay on for a few months until their successors are confirmed.

“Any implication that that these four people quit is wrong,” one senior State Department official said. “These people are loyal to the secretary, the President and to the State Department. There is just not any attempt here to dis the President. People are not quitting and running away in disgust. This is the White House cleaning house.”

“These positions are political appointments, and require the President to nominate and the Senate to confirm them in these roles. They are not career appointments but of limited term,” said State Department spokesman Mark Toner. “Of the officers whose resignations were accepted, some will continue in the Foreign Service in other positions, and others will retire by choice or because they have exceeded the time limits of their grade in service.”

The “entire senior management” team suffering this “mass” obliteration consists of Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond, Ambassador Gentry O. Smith of the Office of Foreign Missions, and most notably Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, who tried to drag the FBI into Hillary Clinton’s cover-ups.

Kennedy has also been accused of playing a role in the Benghazi disaster, although the State Department’s internal review “downplayed” his role in the “decision-making that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi,” as the Washington Examiner recalls. The Examiner also notes his “you can’t fire me, I quit” retirement was announced yesterday, so treating it like big news today is somewhat disingenuous.

The Trump campaign said that Kennedy had to go, and called (in vain, of course) on Hillary Clinton to speak out against him, as well. This is not some shocking walkout by a defiant Resistance speaking truth to power – it is President Trump fulfilling a campaign promise on his fourth day in office.

Also, while most news reports described the four outgoing officials as holding their offices under both Republican and Democrat administrations, to promote the impression they were nonpartisan fixtures of the bureaucracy who just couldn’t handle the arrival of President Trump, that is really only true of Kennedy, and he was only in position for two years before the Obama administration began. Joyce Barr was appointed in 2011, while Michele Bond and Gentry Smith were appointed in 2015.

The Hill reports that these four joined “a number of other officials who have departed since President Trump took office last week,” but goes on to cite only two names: Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security Gregory Starr, who retired, and Bureau of Overseas Building Operations Lydia Muniz.

CNN notes that Starr only came out of retirement in 2012, and planned all along to retire at the end of the Obama administration, even if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election.

The American Foreign Service Association also shot down the narrative about mass resignations: While this appears to be a large turnover in a short period of time, a change of administration always brings personnel changes, and there is nothing unusual about rotations or retirements in the Foreign Service. Indeed, both are essential to the development of a steady stream of experienced leaders ready to assume critical roles at State.

“Given the talent available in our diplomatic corps, we expect that the new Secretary will have no trouble finding the right people at State to fill out his senior leadership team,” the AFSA added, referring to Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, who still awaits a final confirmation vote.

The New York Daily News falsely implied Tillerson’s visit to the State Department on Wednesday actually prompted the “walk-outs” that didn’t happen, adding another prime clipping to the day’s scrapbook of Fake News.

All of these folks are entitled to their opinions, just like anyone else, and if they are profoundly displeased by the election of Donald Trump, they are free to say so. The American people are equally entitled to wonder if the State Department should have so many partisan officials, and to look back on the long record of scandals and cover-ups in the Obama State Department as justification for a vigorous house-cleaning.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Social media and the internet are making the big 3 obsolete. Not sure why anyone still bothers to go on the Sunday morning shows.  Everything is editorialized, including the way a story is presented, and people see through it. 

 
This is frankly  a no-brainer.

I will give you an example---the developmentally delayed white guy who was kidnapped in Chicago and then tortured while being live-cast on FB. The charges come down as hate crimes. I watch CBS nightly news when I get home. While watching the CBS news, I told my two daughters to tune in and see if they notice anything missing. Sure enough the whole story goes by---they show stills from the terrible videos and the faces of the bad guys and the fact they are being charged with a hate crime, but they never mention once the statements the kidnappers made which were the reason it was a  hate crime. They totally omitted any statements about white boy or Trump supporter--not one mention, It would be like a mass death at a school, but not mentioning the method of how people died. If my 12 year old daughter can pick that up--come on!! But you better believe if this were 4 racists white guys doing this to anyone, it would still be in the news.

BTW--I think the last mention of this story on CNN was January 7th.

CNN tonight showing the immigration protests---they pan to Chicago where about 2 dozen people were in frame. "Small protest in Chicago, but we can guess a lot more people are coming" is what they said.  Huh? Is that what you hope or what?

Just report the news and let us (the people) decide. Stop trying to make the news, be part of the news or shape the news. Just tell us what happened and we can go from there.

I hate Fox news as much as I hate MSNBC---it is sad I have to go to BBC or Reuters to get my news.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester said:
This is frankly  a no-brainer.

I will give you an example---the developmentally delayed white guy who was kidnapped in Chicago and then tortured while being live-cast on FB. The charges come down as hate crimes. I watch CBS nightly news when I get home. While watching the CBS news, I told my two daughters to tune in and see if they notice anything missing. Sure enough the whole story goes by---they show stills from the terrible videos and the faces of the bad guys and the fact they are being charged with a hate crime, but they never mention once the statements the kidnappers made which were the reason it was a  hate crime. They totally omitted any statements about white boy or Trump supporter--not one mention, It would be like a mass death at a school, but not mentioning the method of how people died. If my 12 year old daughter can pick that up--come on!! But you better believe if this were 4 racists white guys doing this to anyone, it would still be in the news.
Click to expand...
There was probably a legal reason for that. Statements taken out of context might influence or prejudice a potential jury, as might selected clips from the videos. And repeating what the "bad guys" rather than show the film of them saying it has a hearsay quality to it.

Despite this being captured live on FB, the defendants are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and repeating secondhand over the air what they said could involve CBS in litigation for defamation (even if the suit was frivolous) plus have implications for the future trial and/or any appeals. I seriously doubt there was liberal media agenda or bias on the part of CBS here.

 
squistion said:
There was probably a legal reason for that. Statements taken out of context might influence or prejudice a potential jury, as might selected clips from the videos. And repeating what the "bad guys" rather than show the film of them saying it has a hearsay quality to it.

Despite this being captured live on FB, the defendants are still presumed innocent until proven guilty and repeating secondhand over the air what they said could involve CBS in litigation for defamation (even if the suit was frivolous) plus have implications for the future trial and/or any appeals. I seriously doubt there was liberal media agenda or bias on the part of CBS here.
Click to expand...
 Then explain every white officer involved in a shooting and how it is reported. 

Come on Squis, this is a poor explanation 

 
So is there such a thing as unbiased reporting?  If we can rely upon the big networks, CNN, the NYT, or FoxNews, Brietbart, then where do we go?  Where is it?

 
Courtjester said:
 Then explain every white officer involved in a shooting and how it is reported. 

Come on Squis, this is a poor explanation 
Click to expand...
:no:

And how many of those officers are charged for hate crimes? That is a different animal and distinguishes this case from those.

 
I guess people will see what they want to see. And hear what they want to hear. I don't see any agendas or hear any agendas by any major news outlets. I do see and hear an agenda by all the talking heads that say ththey same thing day in and day out. Talk, talk, talk, talk, bs, bs, bs, bs. I think people who complain about the news are not listening to the news rather they are listening to the talking heads. That is not news nor will that ever be news. Many people have no idea what news is/means anymore. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RedmondLonghorn
Principles (to live by)
Replies
43
Views
787
Long Ball Larry
Long Ball Larry
Joe Bryant
That Discomfort You're Feeling (Maybe) Is Grief
Replies
15
Views
787
ProstheticRGK
P
Ministry of Pain
The UR-IN-Nation of the Mainstream Media
2
Replies
51
Views
1K
IvanKaramazov
IvanKaramazov

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top