Never any media bias - well maybe just a little. All the time.

LooseGoose wrote:

The New York Times in 2012 RE: Mitt Romney


The New York Times in 2016 RE: Donald Trump

LooseGoose wrote:

The New York Times in 2012 RE: Mitt Romney


The New York Times in 2016 RE: Donald Trump

DWags wrote:CNN Lib
Fox Con
Det news Con
Det Freep Lib


Is this really what we're trying to prove?

Newspapers have always slanted things their way, ever since William Randolph Hurst wanted to start a war with Spain, hell, even before that.

Is this really what we're talking about?

LooseGoose wrote:

DWags wrote:CNN Lib
Fox Con
Det news Con
Det Freep Lib


Is this really what we're trying to prove?

Newspapers have always slanted things their way, ever since William Randolph Hurst wanted to start a war with Spain, hell, even before that.

Is this really what we're talking about?

I love you Wags therefore I must argue with you so we can have hot makeup sex.

With both the Republican and Democratic conventions now concluded, it’s time to judge the news media on how fairly they covered the two parties. Media Research Center analysts looked at various aspects of coverage, all of which demonstrate that journalists obviously favored the Democratic gathering.

By a 12-to-1 margin, journalists spent far more time deriding the Republican convention for its negativity, even as their reactions to Democratic speakers were consistently positive and often enthusiastic. Cable news had its own unique biases: MSNBC carved out time on each night of the GOP convention for interviews with top Democratic officials, but — despite promises to the contrary — aired no such interviews with Republicans during the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.

LooseGoose wrote:

The New York Times in 2012 RE: Mitt Romney


The New York Times in 2016 RE: Donald Trump

LooseGoose wrote:Condemning Republicans, Cheering Democrats: The Media’s Biased 2016 Convention Coverage

With both the Republican and Democratic conventions now concluded, it’s time to judge the news media on how fairly they covered the two parties. Media Research Center analysts looked at various aspects of coverage, all of which demonstrate that journalists obviously favored the Democratic gathering.

By a 12-to-1 margin, journalists spent far more time deriding the Republican convention for its negativity, even as their reactions to Democratic speakers were consistently positive and often enthusiastic. Cable news had its own unique biases: MSNBC carved out time on each night of the GOP convention for interviews with top Democratic officials, but — despite promises to the contrary — aired no such interviews with Republicans during the Democratic convention. Meanwhile, CNN devoted more than an hour of airtime during the Democratic convention to airing 18 party-produced videos, but only included three such videos during the GOP convention.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:He just owned you goose. I missed you TN.

The_Dude wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:He just owned you goose. I missed you TN.

How so?

When Daleiden was indicted on political charges, here’s how the New York Times covered that story. On page 1. Above the fold. The first column. “Texas Charges Abortion Foes in Video Case,” the headline read. The 1,213-word story was written by Manny Fernandez, with Erik Eckholm contributing reporting.

The next day the New York Times editorial board weighed in. “Vindication for Planned Parenthood,” was their verdict.

That same day, Jackie Calmes wrote a “news” story headlined “Indictment Deals Another Blow to G.O.P. Campaign Against Planned Parenthood.” It was breathless right out of the gate:

On July 26, the judge cleared Daleiden of all charges. The New York Times did not put its story on page one. It did merit some 800 (rather boring) words on page 18. No editorial was published about Daleiden’s “vindication.” No concern trolling about blows to the Planned Parenthood narrative. No puffy profiles of the attorneys who fought the political indictments.

Okay, so what about the Washington Post?

According to Lexis-Nexis, the first two stories were posts about the indictment. The next day’s abortion-friendly story by Danielle Paquette was on page A3. The indictments were given prominent play in the Post’s Daily 202 newsletter. Paquette wrote a detailed “explainer” of the charges. The editorial pages featured Paul Waldman’s “Once again, Republicans go too far on abortion” column. Danielle Paquette and Sandhya Somashekhar teamed up for “Anti-Planned Parenthood filmmakers to turn themselves in.” When Merritt turned herself in, Somashekhar wrote a story on that. When Daleiden turned himself in the next day, Somashekhar wrote that up, too. Paquette wrote up a Planned Parenthood-friendly piece that mentioned the indictments a few days later.

And when the charges were dropped?

Well, when the first charge was dropped, the Washington Post put it in national news round-up provided by the Associated Press. “CALIFORNIA: Man charged with 3 weapons violations; TEXAS: Charge against activist dropped; more pending.” Seven sentences explaining the dropped charges followed.

When the final charge was dropped, the Post put it in the same national news round-up. “TEXAS: Last charges dropped in antiabortion sting.” A whopping 10 sentences followed. Whereas the original indictments had been tweeted out to the Washington Post’s 7 million followers, there was no mention of the charges being dropped.

LooseGoose wrote:Media Quiet About Dismissed Charges Against Planned Parenthood Whistleblowers

When Daleiden was indicted on political charges, here’s how the New York Times covered that story. On page 1. Above the fold. The first column. “Texas Charges Abortion Foes in Video Case,” the headline read. The 1,213-word story was written by Manny Fernandez, with Erik Eckholm contributing reporting.

The next day the New York Times editorial board weighed in. “Vindication for Planned Parenthood,” was their verdict.

That same day, Jackie Calmes wrote a “news” story headlined “Indictment Deals Another Blow to G.O.P. Campaign Against Planned Parenthood.” It was breathless right out of the gate:

On July 26, the judge cleared Daleiden of all charges. The New York Times did not put its story on page one. It did merit some 800 (rather boring) words on page 18. No editorial was published about Daleiden’s “vindication.” No concern trolling about blows to the Planned Parenthood narrative. No puffy profiles of the attorneys who fought the political indictments.

Okay, so what about the Washington Post?

According to Lexis-Nexis, the first two stories were posts about the indictment. The next day’s abortion-friendly story by Danielle Paquette was on page A3. The indictments were given prominent play in the Post’s Daily 202 newsletter. Paquette wrote a detailed “explainer” of the charges. The editorial pages featured Paul Waldman’s “Once again, Republicans go too far on abortion” column. Danielle Paquette and Sandhya Somashekhar teamed up for “Anti-Planned Parenthood filmmakers to turn themselves in.” When Merritt turned herself in, Somashekhar wrote a story on that. When Daleiden turned himself in the next day, Somashekhar wrote that up, too. Paquette wrote up a Planned Parenthood-friendly piece that mentioned the indictments a few days later.

And when the charges were dropped?

Well, when the first charge was dropped, the Washington Post put it in national news round-up provided by the Associated Press. “CALIFORNIA: Man charged with 3 weapons violations; TEXAS: Charge against activist dropped; more pending.” Seven sentences explaining the dropped charges followed.

When the final charge was dropped, the Post put it in the same national news round-up. “TEXAS: Last charges dropped in antiabortion sting.” A whopping 10 sentences followed. Whereas the original indictments had been tweeted out to the Washington Post’s 7 million followers, there was no mention of the charges being dropped.

On her MSNBC show on Thursday, host Andrea Mitchell bemoaned the Obama administration’s “unforced error” in sending Iran $400 million at the exact same time American hostages were released from Tehran in January. She was puzzled by the decision: “...they never explained that this other money was going – the $400 million. It’s unrelated to the nuclear deal. Why do it on the same day?”

Washington Post political correspondent Anne Gearan was equally baffled: “It's a mystery why, exactly. They didn't need to do it that day, there was nothing in particular forcing their hand that we know of to do it that day.” She avoided the possibility of the White House paying the money as ransom for the hostages.

While Mitchell and her guests wrung their hands over the “impression” and “optics” of the obvious ransom payment, on FNC’s Special Report Wednesday night, columnist Charles Krauthammer cut right to the substance of the scandal:

...of course the Justice Department objected; it was illegal. They had to print the money here, ship it over to Switzerland, turn it into Swiss francs and Euros and ship it over to Iran. If a private company had done this, this is called money laundering. The CEO would be in jail right now

.

After hyping “campaign chaos” for Donald Trump on Thursday’s NBC Today, co-host Savannah Guthrie turned to Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd and freely admitted the glaring media double standard in covering the presidential race: “And what irritates so many Republicans is that if it were any other candidate running against Hillary Clinton, this would be a pretty rough patch for Hillary Clinton given some of the items in the news.”

Todd agreed: “An incredibly rough patch.” He proceeded to list all of the Clinton controversies and scandals that the press have ignored: “Whether it's the current state of the economy, anemic growth. Whether it is her insistence again that somehow [FBI] Director Comey let her off the hook on e-mails when – and she sort of reinterpreted what Comey said in a way that was misleading. Throw in the discomfort for many on this Iran deal.... never mind we just started air strikes in Libya because ISIS is there.”

He concluded: “The point is, in the last five days this could easily have been Hillary Clinton's worst five days post-convention and instead the exact opposite and it's all due to Donald Trump's lack of self discipline.”

LooseGoose wrote:Still waiting for factual counter-arguments.

Not going to happen because the media bias is ongoing and they really don't even hide it.

MSNBC Baffled by ‘Mystery’ of ‘Coincidental’ Iran Payoff

On her MSNBC show on Thursday, host Andrea Mitchell bemoaned the Obama administration’s “unforced error” in sending Iran $400 million at the exact same time American hostages were released from Tehran in January. She was puzzled by the decision: “...they never explained that this other money was going – the $400 million. It’s unrelated to the nuclear deal. Why do it on the same day?”

Washington Post political correspondent Anne Gearan was equally baffled: “It's a mystery why, exactly. They didn't need to do it that day, there was nothing in particular forcing their hand that we know of to do it that day.” She avoided the possibility of the White House paying the money as ransom for the hostages.

While Mitchell and her guests wrung their hands over the “impression” and “optics” of the obvious ransom payment, on FNC’s Special Report Wednesday night, columnist Charles Krauthammer cut right to the substance of the scandal:

.

Or this one.....

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Still waiting for factual counter-arguments.

Not going to happen because the media bias is ongoing and they really don't even hide it.

MSNBC Baffled by ‘Mystery’ of ‘Coincidental’ Iran Payoff






Or this one.....

We're all so angry!!!!!!!

LooseGoose wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

We're all so angry!!!!!!!

Why on earth would you be angry when your team benefits from the bias?

LooseGoose wrote:I've heard on and on this afternoon about Trump supposedly trying American citizens in Guantanamo Bay.   It's amazing how upset the press seems to be about that.

I'm pretty sure we've already heard more about that than we've heard for the past years about Obama killing American citizens with drones without the benefit of ANY trial.

Which would you choose?   To be erased by drone or tried on an American military base?   Thought so.    

Where's the press braying over the Obama killings?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:I've heard on and on this afternoon about Trump supposedly trying American citizens in Guantanamo Bay.   It's amazing how upset the press seems to be about that.

I'm pretty sure we've already heard more about that than we've heard for the past years about Obama killing American citizens with drones without the benefit of ANY trial.

Which would you choose?   To be erased by drone or tried on an American military base?   Thought so.    

Where's the press braying over the Obama killings?

Wut?

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Wut?

I just read his post for a second time. Wow. 

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:



I just read his post for a second time. Wow. 

Since no links were provided I did some quick research. No clue what he's saying about Guantanimo Bay. CNN, Fox, ABC, BBC, and even MSNBC doesn't have shit. And as far as I can tell he's talking about a drone strike in Yemen in 2009. So uh... yeah. 

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Wut?

I just read his post for a second time. Wow. 

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:



I just read his post for a second time. Wow. 

You need to pay better attention to the news before calling me a whacko....or do you support the government being able to execute you without a trial? And of course the Trump thing only got 39,000 "news" hits in one day so that was pretty obscure.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

You need to pay better attention to the news before calling me a whacko....or do you support the government being able to execute you without a trial?    And of course the Trump thing only got 39,000 "news" hits in one day so that was pretty obscure.

I don't watch the mainstream news or much news at all goose. You should try it - maybe you won't be such a sheep.

LooseGoose wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:



I just read his post for a second time. Wow. 

You need to pay better attention to the news before calling me a whacko....or do you support the government being able to execute you without a trial? And of course the Trump thing only got 39,000 "news" hits in one day so that was pretty obscure.