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

LooseGoose wrote:Of course this would have happened if he had a Hills shirt on.....note it was blurred on the rebroadcast, the original it wasn't.

Roark ‏@Roark__
CNN JUST censored Trump shirt of hero who saved a baby from a hot car! Wouldn't want this to go viral now would we?

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Of course this would have happened if he had a Hills shirt on.....note it was blurred on the rebroadcast, the original it wasn't.

Roark ‏@Roark__
CNN JUST censored Trump shirt of hero who saved a baby from a hot car! Wouldn't want this to go viral now would we?

In 2008, CBS requested a musician to change his Obama shirt before performing during a live broadcast. They cited federal "equal time" law as to why he was not allowed to wear the shirt.

When this was aired live, or at least during the original broadcast, his shirt was not censored.



When it was re-aired, the shirt was censored. So why not censored from the start? Could it be because of federal law?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

In 2008, CBS requested a musician to change his Obama shirt before performing during a live broadcast. They cited federal "equal time" law as to why he was not allowed to wear the shirt.

When this was aired live, or at least during the original broadcast, his shirt was not censored.



When it was re-aired, the shirt was censored. So why not censored from the start? Could it be because of federal law?

No it's part of the media conspiracy against goose's boy trump. Duh. No other possible explanation.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

No it's part of the media conspiracy against goose's boy trump. Duh. No other possible explanation.

It could be, but that just seems way too easy of an explanation. Then again, even if it was due to media bias, would it be any worse than anything Hannity does on a nightly basis?

The funny thing is, the media, for all the claims they are all in for Clinton, treat Trump with kid gloves. Nobody asks the tough questions. Nobody asks him or his surrogates to explain the contradictions in his foreign policy. Nobody asks him or his surrogates substantive policy questions at all. His party, for so long, was the party of everything that fits into the American exceptionalism narrative. Now he has tossed American exceptionalism narrative aside and nobody asks him why?  The media just talks about his 128958 off-handed comments, but nothing substantive. That is to his advantage. That is not to his disadvantage.

At the same time, this is our fault. Well, it is not my fault but it is the fault of all of those people that do not want to hear substantive political discussion. The media is giving our disengaged reality TV culture what they want.

Because of the Internet, you also have the proliferation of hyper-partisan sources that pass themselves off as news media.

It's a mess.

The Donald J. Trump Foundation appears to have illegally given $25,000 to a political organization associated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi while her office was reportedly considering joining a lawsuit involving Trump University, and to have failed to disclose the contribution in its tax return, according to an IRS complaint filed today by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

According to Florida campaign finance records, in September 2013 the Trump Foundation contributed $25,000 to And Justice for All, a section 527 political organization.  Section 501(c)(3) private foundations like the Trump Foundation, however, are prohibited from all political activity, including contributing to political organizations.  Despite making the political contribution, on its tax forms, the Trump Foundation claimed it did not transfer any money to a 527 organization or engage in any political activity and failed to report the contribution to And Justice for All.

Republican Donald Trump has so far paid $7.7 million in campaign contributions to his own companies and children, according to a filing with the Federal Elections Commission, and as the campaign transitions to the general election those payments are increasing. In May, they totaled at least $1.1 million—nearly 20 percent of all campaign spending that month—and in July, another $800,000 came into the Trump brood.

Campaign finance laws on the topic are hazy and contradictory, largely because no candidate for federal office has ever had such a sprawling business empire that could be employed for a campaign. The FEC allows candidates to rent themselves their own office space—as the Trump campaign does at Trump Tower—but bans them from collecting royalties on any memoirs purchased by the campaign. Money ultimately flows back to the candidate in both cases but the FEC has issued divergent rules.

Turtleneck wrote:Still waiting for a rebuttal to the peer reviewed studies of media bias....

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Still waiting for a rebuttal to the peer reviewed studies of media bias....

As if "peer reviewed" means anything anymore.   I can buy one of those cheaper than a politician.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

As if "peer reviewed" means anything anymore.   I can buy one of those cheaper than a politician.

Would it be safe to assume you won't believe anything that has a left leaning viewpoint no matter the evidence to support it?

In that, Jim VandeHei is hardly alone. The co-founder of Politico will soon launch a new media start-up, and discussed the state of media with Hugh Hewitt this morning. Like many, VandeHei sees an increasing number of straight-news reporters publicly aligning with Hillary Clinton — or at least opposing Donald Trump — on social media and even in their reporting. VandeHei calls it “scary,” and wonders why the media hasn’t put in more effort to discuss the ramifications of classified-information handling with those most familiar with it:

JV: You know, you and I have talked about this in the past, and I tend to be a defender of the media. And I tend to think that it’s overblown, what people think just lots of bias. I have a much different view this year, like having been starting a company and taking a little bit of a step back from looking at the politics moment by moment, particularly if you pay attention to Twitter. The number of mainstream media reporters who are out there expressing their explicit opinions, that tend to be decisively pro-Hillary and anti-Trump, to me is scary. I don’t, listen, Donald Trump gives you a lot things to fear and a lot of things to dislike. But you cannot, cannot, cannot as a reporter be taking sides in a public forum whether it’s on Twitter or whether it’s on email or whether it’s on TV.

Turtleneck wrote:Goose calls out others for lack of independent thought...gets his ideas spoon fed to him every morning with his shredded wheat.

LooseGoose wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Goose calls out others for lack of independent thought...gets his ideas spoon fed to him every morning with his shredded wheat.

lol, yeah that's me.   I'm sorry I offend you when I call out your idol.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

lol, yeah that's me.   I'm sorry I offend you when I call out your idol.

Your lack of logic on this point - not calling out Bob - is astounding.

I can play this game, too. Your silence in regards to The Dude must mean you support everything he says.

Asked if there was any chance her faintness on Sunday could be a sign of some more “serious” illness, Clinton said he did not believe that was the case.

“Well if it is, it’s a mystery to me and all of her doctors,” he said, “because frequently—well not frequently, rarely—but on more than one occasion, over the last many, many years, the same sort of thing happened to her when she got severely dehydrated.”

The bolded section is of course a pretty embarrassing slip-up: Clinton was about to say that Hillary “frequently” faints or collapses, before correcting himself to say it rarely happened.

But when the segment aired, the bolded section was edited out, cutting to a reverse shot of Rose nodding to cover up the jump:

Turtleneck wrote:Still waiting for a rebuttal to the peer reviewed studies of media bias....

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing that somehow they knew she would be a story.....

Lee Fang ‏@lhfang 19h19 hours ago
Great coincidences in campaign reporting: The Guardian & Cosmo sent reporters just before debate to profile Machado, then pubbed today.

The_Dude wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Still waiting for a rebuttal to the peer reviewed studies of media bias....

Are you willfully ignorant?

The_Dude wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Amazing that somehow they knew she would be a story.....

Lee Fang ‏@lhfang 19h19 hours ago
Great coincidences in campaign reporting: The Guardian & Cosmo sent reporters just before debate to profile Machado, then pubbed today.

Ah Machado, the chick married to a drug cartel boss, drove a murder getaway car, was a pron star, and threatened to kill a judge.

She seems...credible.

The "Daily Show" excoriated Donald Trump this week for complaining about his microphone after Monday's debate: "Donald Trump sounds like my cousin who never accepts that I kicked his ass in X-box," Trevor Noah said. "That’s what he’s doing. ‘The only reason you beat me, Trevor, is because the controller doesn’t work!' "

CNN's "Reality Check" column scoffed at the claim: "There was the bad microphone which no one, except for him, seemed to notice."

The aptly named (in this case) Mic.com interviewed an audio expert who said: "The professional audio community has largely been dismissive of the possibility of a mic problem."

Hillary Clinton even goofed on him: "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."

And yet:

On Friday afternoon, the Commission on Presidential Debates confirmed that Trump did indeed have a microphone that was at least somewhat defective.

"Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in an unfortunately brief one-sentence statement.

LooseGoose wrote:It turns out Donald Trump was right about his defective microphone. Vindication?

The "Daily Show" excoriated Donald Trump this week for complaining about his microphone after Monday's debate: "Donald Trump sounds like my cousin who never accepts that I kicked his ass in X-box," Trevor Noah said. "That’s what he’s doing. ‘The only reason you beat me, Trevor, is because the controller doesn’t work!' "

CNN's "Reality Check" column scoffed at the claim: "There was the bad microphone which no one, except for him, seemed to notice."

The aptly named (in this case) Mic.com interviewed an audio expert who said: "The professional audio community has largely been dismissive of the possibility of a mic problem."

Hillary Clinton even goofed on him: "Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night."

And yet:

On Friday afternoon, the Commission on Presidential Debates confirmed that Trump did indeed have a microphone that was at least somewhat defective.

"Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," the commission said in an unfortunately brief one-sentence statement.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:He's just keeping the libs in check. Loose is pretty center.

LooseGoose wrote:1) IF Trump lost a Billion $$'s in 1995, he wouldn't owe taxes. So why are the press headlines about him not paying taxes? Would any of you pay taxes you didn't owe?

2) Related issue - every time someone brings up the Clinton scandals from the 1990's it's "20 years old and not relevant" but all weekend was spent on Trump's tax return from 21 years ago.

3) Ivanka Trump hits the campaign trail - is closely questioned about how her father treats women. Can anyone tell when Chelsea Clinton has EVER been asked those questions???

It has been refreshing that the press is finally dropping the facade of being non partisan.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:1) IF Trump lost a Billion $$'s in 1995, he wouldn't owe taxes. So why are the press headlines about him not paying taxes? Would any of you pay taxes you didn't owe?

2) Related issue - every time someone brings up the Clinton scandals from the 1990's it's "20 years old and not relevant" but all weekend was spent on Trump's tax return from 21 years ago.

3) Ivanka Trump hits the campaign trail - is closely questioned about how her father treats women. Can anyone tell when Chelsea Clinton has EVER been asked those questions???

It has been refreshing that the press is finally dropping the facade of being non partisan.

It has been refreshing that you have finally given up thinking.