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

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Minimize all you want....it was an unneeded swipe at Romney just because they could.

We should all have that swipe.

I swipe left when GreenWay's profile comes up.

tGreenWay wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Minimize all you want....it was an unneeded swipe at Romney just because they could.

Did you read the piece? Do you still believe it was a swipe?

Yes and yes. Why drag him into it at all?

think of this article the next time you want to post about the "lockstep" right wing media....

Death of a F***ing Salesman

He has had a middling career in real estate and a poor one as a hotelier and casino operator but convinced people he is a titan of industry. He has never managed a large, complex corporate enterprise, but he did play an executive on a reality show. He presents himself as a confident ladies’ man but is so insecure that he invented an imaginary friend to lie to the New York press about his love life and is now married to a woman who is open and blasé about the fact that she married him for his money. He fixates on certain words (“negotiator”) and certain classes of words (mainly adjectives and adverbs, “bigly,” “major,” “world-class,” “top,” and superlatives), but he isn’t much of a negotiator, manager, or leader. He cannot negotiate a health-care deal among members of a party desperate for one, can’t manage his own factionalized and leak-ridden White House, and cannot lead a political movement that aspires to anything greater than the service of his own pathetic vanity.

Dear Dipshit,

Many at the NR, and several conservative intellectuals at universities and think tanks, have been opposed to Trump from the start. You have been critical of all of them for not kissing the ring.

Signed

Turtleneck

I can't get enough.

LooseGoose wrote:There are stupid asses on all sides, you can't judge by the stupidest asses.

The good old days when Loose thought there were stupid assholes on both sides. Now, per Loose, there are just stupid assholes on one side.

I love that gif travis

Did you guys hear about this?


Fox "News" breaks British Bias Rules

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:There are stupid asses on all sides, you can't judge by the stupidest asses.

The good old days when Loose thought there were stupid assholes on both sides. Now, per Loose, there are just stupid assholes on one side.

Full troll mode. Sad.

The media is giving up its place in our democracy

Whatever side you’re on in the debate over journalism these days, you’re not going to like some of what I have to say. Let’s start with a basic fact. President Trump is engaged in the most direct, sustained assault on the free press in our history. Since early in the campaign, he has done everything he could to delegitimize the media — attacking us institutionally and individually. And I think his purpose is clear: a concerted campaign to raise doubts over whether we can be trusted when we report critically about his administration.

According to the Trump Twitter Archive, between Jan. 10 and the end of October, Trump tweeted about “fake news” 141 times. One stands out. On Feb. 17, the president tweeted this: “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy. It is the enemy of the American People!” And that was precisely his point. If we report negatively about something he’s doing, we are hurting the country.

Reince Priebus, then the White House chief of staff, was my guest on “Fox News Sunday” two days later. When I asked him about the president’s tweet, he complained that, yes, we covered what Trump did, but that “as soon as it’s over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies.” I answered: “You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama. He whined about Fox News all the time. But he never said we were the enemy of the people.”

I believe some of my colleagues — many of my colleagues — think this president has gone so far over the line bashing the media, that it has given them an excuse to cross the line themselves, to push back. As tempting as that may be, I think it’s a big mistake.

We are not players in the game. We are umpires, or observers, trying to be objective witnesses to what is going on. That doesn’t mean we’re stenographers. If the president — or anyone we’re covering — says something untrue or does something questionable, we can and should report it.

But we shouldn’t be drawn into becoming players on the field, trying to match the people we cover in invective. It’s not our role. We’re not as good at it as they are. And we’re giving up our special place in our democracy. There’s enough to report about this president that we don’t need to offer opinions or put our thumb on the scale.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-assaulting-our-free-press-but-he-also-has-a-point/2017/11/17/b3b8ec24-c8b2-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.19e832cdbade

Media is covering some stories but never discount the effect of a segmented media.

Look what happened yesterday in AL where the governor said she was supporting Moore because he’s going to vote the right way. A sitting governor supporting a candidate who was removed from office as Alabama Supreme Court’s Chief Justice for defying Federal Law.

Stuff like this was at the heart of the last Civil War and some of Alabama Republican leadership is going down the same path.

Don’t depend in on any leadership
from this White House unless it directly helps Trump’s business and private finances.

Woke up a little before 6:00 deliberately to go running in the snow.

Flipped it to Fox News (on purpose - just to see what they were whining about). Their lead story at the top of the hour was Hillary Clinton and they talked about her for 11 minutes.

The mainstream media loves them some Hillary Clinton [lolz].

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Woke up a little before 6:00 deliberately to go running in the snow.

Flipped it to Fox News (on purpose - just to see what they were whining about). Their lead story at the top of the hour was Hillary Clinton and they talked about her for 11 minutes.

The mainstream media loves them some Hillary Clinton [lolz].

Well of course Hills is out there doing her best to undermine our democracy by questioning the validity of the election.....you remember when she said that would be the worst thing ever if Trump did that after he lost?

And then there's this for those that came on here talking about how those stupid voters voted against their best interests...you know, getting more government aid and all. Maybe they just wanted jobs?

Why no one is talking about Trump’s game-changing deal.

Bad news travels fast. Good news, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to travel at all.

Last weekend in Beijing, as part of his 12-day trip to Asia, President Trump announced that the US and China had signed an $83.7 billion deal to create a number of petrochemical projects in West Virginia over the next 20 years.

If the agreement holds tight, it is an economic game changer for the state.

And yet, speaking to the locals here, you wouldn’t even know it had happened.

“I am surprised I heard nothing about it on the national news, nor in my local paper and newscasts,” said Jerald Stephens, 67, a West Virginia native and union rep, who has been a keen observer of local politics for as long as he can remember.

LooseGoose wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:Woke up a little before 6:00 deliberately to go running in the snow.

Flipped it to Fox News (on purpose - just to see what they were whining about). Their lead story at the top of the hour was Hillary Clinton and they talked about her for 11 minutes.

The mainstream media loves them some Hillary Clinton [lolz].

Well of course Hills is out there doing her best to undermine our democracy by questioning the validity of the election.....you remember when she said that would be the worst thing ever if Trump did that after he lost?

And then there's this for those that came on here talking about how those stupid voters voted against their best interests...you know, getting more government aid and all. Maybe they just wanted jobs?

Why no one is talking about Trump’s game-changing deal.

Bad news travels fast. Good news, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to travel at all.

Last weekend in Beijing, as part of his 12-day trip to Asia, President Trump announced that the US and China had signed an $83.7 billion deal to create a number of petrochemical projects in West Virginia over the next 20 years.

If the agreement holds tight, it is an economic game changer for the state.

And yet, speaking to the locals here, you wouldn’t even know it had happened.

“I am surprised I heard nothing about it on the national news, nor in my local paper and newscasts,” said Jerald Stephens, 67, a West Virginia native and union rep, who has been a keen observer of local politics for as long as he can remember.

1. What has Clinton recently done to undermine our democracy? That is a serious question. I am out of the loop on what Clinton does these days.

2. As for the bilateral trade deals with China, they were widely covered in the news. Not hearing about Trump's Asia trip, and what took place during that trip, is an indictment of individual political apathy more than the media's failure to adequately cover the trip.

3. What are the "game changing" benefits you imagine from this deal? The deal is spread out over 20 years, and exists as a memorandum of understanding right now. There is no formal legal commitment from either side on this deal, or any of the U.S.-China deals Trump talked about in his speech. I do not want to understate the significance of $250 billion in deals. Credit is due to Trump, but I am also withholding my praise to some extent.

5. I am interested in what concessions Trump was able to get from China on trade. Trump was hard on China during the campaign, so I am curious what concessions he came away with on his visit with Xi. Can you speak to any potential concessions?

4. Trump's Secretary of State was not as impressed as others. Tillerson said,


5. Does it make you nervous to see so much Chinese investment in U.S. industries? Does that give China, a rival power to the U.S., too much power in directing the further development of American industries? I recently posted an article that mentioned China's investment in Silicon Valley, and the extent to which it can direct the growth and distribution of new technologies through that investment.

5. From my perspective, multilateral trade deals are often better than bilateral trade deals. Can you explain how, in this case, bilateral deals are better? This is especially true for a superpower like the U.S. Multilateral deals better serve our export industries and capitalize on our economic advantages. They also play on our strength and serve our strategic interests. Could I not argue that this makes the U.S. look weak because the U.S. was not able to leverage its power to facilitate the convergence of national interests of multiple states, and instead has to settle for bilateral deals?

LooseGoose wrote:

You guys keep swallowing all the shit these turds are feeding you.

Loose, you love to point out when people do not answer your questions. Could you answer my questions. I do not want to swallow turds, Loose. Help me out.

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

You guys keep swallowing all the shit these turds are feeding you.

Loose, you love to point out when people do not answer your questions. Could you answer my questions. I do not want to swallow turds, Loose. Help me out.

Nah, I ask questions that are ignored all the time. No idea how many times I've asked for links and not had it happen.

Weird I just watched a CNN interview with Lavar Ball and it sure seemed to me like the guy doing the interview was challenging the shit out of Lavar and basically backing up Trump.

#FakeNews

Just demand links or respond with name calling or a barage of masturbating emoticons.

Link on the thread where Goose was bitching about government involvement of a couple who were both receiving state and Federal aid because they were intellectually challenged and were having children.

When asked how that meshed with the conservative mantra of being self sufficient the OP went silent.

Connies here love to throw bombs and act like a victims when they get tossed back.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Weird I just watched a CNN interview with Lavar Ball and it sure seemed to me like the guy doing the interview was challenging the shit out of Lavar and basically backing up Trump.

#FakeNews

didn't watch it (obviously) but the mainstream media got the sexual predator elected. Why should they develop a conscience now?

DEMOCRAT NEWS NETWORK: CNN Fails To Report These 24 Democrat Sex Scandals All of the Democrat sex scandals that CNN has failed to report on have made news in 2017, with 19 of the 24 making news within the last month.

As sexual misconduct allegations continue to rock liberal Hollywood, the mainstream media establishment, and politicians of both political parties, at least the Democrats can count on CNN to eschew reporting about dozens of sexual allegations on members of their party.

To be fair, it is worth noting that CNN has reported on a couple of the big Democrat sex scandals currently receiving major media attention on other news networks, specifically the scandals involving Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

When CNN is not busy giving President Donald Trump 93% negative coverage, covering for Islamic terrorists, botching gun reports, or being sued by over 200 African-Americans for racial discrimination, they are busy covering for Democrats across the United States by not reporting on scandals.

Below are 24 recent Democratic sex scandals that CNN has failed to report on their website (documentation showing CNN did not cover the scandals is provided at the bottom of this report).

I'm thinking about starting a thread titled:

Never any bias by Goose when reporting on media bias - well, maybe just a little. All the time.

Thoughts?

Or change this one to “whatabout”

I can find cases of harassment, assault, and exploitation by Republicans that have went underreported. What is the point?

If a person is trying to use the physical harassment, assualt, and exploitation of others to make a political statement, that person is disgusting. It takes a real coward to simply not say these things are wrong. I am not pointing my comments at Goose, but instead all of the people playing these political games. If that is your agenda, I will say it in this thread, too. Go fuck yourself.

LooseGoose wrote:

DEMOCRAT NEWS NETWORK: CNN Fails To Report These 24 Democrat Sex Scandals All of the Democrat sex scandals that CNN has failed to report on have made news in 2017, with 19 of the 24 making news within the last month.

As sexual misconduct allegations continue to rock liberal Hollywood, the mainstream media establishment, and politicians of both political parties, at least the Democrats can count on CNN to eschew reporting about dozens of sexual allegations on members of their party.

To be fair, it is worth noting that CNN has reported on a couple of the big Democrat sex scandals currently receiving major media attention on other news networks, specifically the scandals involving Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

When CNN is not busy giving President Donald Trump 93% negative coverage, covering for Islamic terrorists, botching gun reports, or being sued by over 200 African-Americans for racial discrimination, they are busy covering for Democrats across the United States by not reporting on scandals.

Below are 24 recent Democratic sex scandals that CNN has failed to report on their website (documentation showing CNN did not cover the scandals is provided at the bottom of this report).

This seems like truly fair and balanced reporting.

The mainstream media didn’t care about Puerto Rico until it became a Trump story
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/27/the-mainstream-media-didnt-care-about-puerto-rico-until-it-became-a-trump-story/?utm_term=.000ad3f25448

When the media did finally start paying attention, it was sparked by political controversy stemming from tweets by Trump criticizing San Juan’s “nasty” mayor, while almost completely ignoring the dire humanitarian situation in Puerto Rico. TV coverage has fallen dramatically since Trump visited the island on Oct. 3, even though the situation on the island is still dramatic. Some are comparing Puerto Rico’s crisis to the situation of another poor community populated by another racial minority: Flint, Mich., where residents have been struggling for years to obtain clean drinking water.

According to the MIT Media Lab’s analysis, the language used to discuss Maria was far more political with several mentions of “Congress,” “Senate,” “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “debt” or “tax.” Coverage of Harvey’s floods near Houston, on the other hand, focused more heavily on the storm’s toll on people, with high usage of terms like “victim” and “family.”

That disparity in coverage wasn’t necessarily because readers weren’t responding to news about Maria, either. Using a time span of one week before the storm’s landfall and one week after its end, the average number of shares for a story about Maria on Facebook was 4,530 — partly driven by stories on relief efforts by celebrities and civil society — compared with 3,553 for Harvey or 2,818 for Irma during the equivalent time span after those storms. On Google Trends, Irma garnered far more searches than Harvey but had comparatively far fewer stories in the news.

Always refuse favors, gifts, and generally anything at all from people you do not like.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/28/cnn-white-house-christmas-party-266941

The hand-wringing over the 2016 election continues more than a year later. Fake news. Russia collusion. James Comey. Wisconsin.

But two researchers, David Rothschild and Duncan Watts, took on an in-depth analysis of the mainstream media that will add to the 2016 debate. Their findings, published in the Columbia Journalism Review, focus on the New York Times’s election coverage. Their starkest discovery: “In just six days, the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all the policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.”

Watts and Rothschild analyze the Times’s election coverage more broadly, but “Hillary’s emails” stands out as one of the starkest examples. It illuminates a larger problem in the coverage: The researchers found that the Times devoted much more online and print real estate to the campaign horse race and personal scandals for both candidates than it did to their policies on topics such as health care and taxes.

Americans are dealing with the whiplash of that right now.

Watts and Rothschild compiled data for all front-page and online articles published by the Times between September 1, 2016, and Election Day on November 8. They divided those into categories: Campaign Miscellaneous; Personal/Scandal (which they broke down between Clinton and Trump); and Policy, which they broke into no details, Clinton details, Trump details, and both details. Here’s how that shook out:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/7/16747712/study-media-2016-election-clintons-emails

Bernie wanted to discuss issues and they made damned sure he didn't get on the ticket

Wall Street Journal Killed Editorial on Trump’s Mob Ties

In a short period of time, five staffers have departed The Wall Street Journal editorial page. The general cause of their departures, willing and otherwise, is known: the Journal editorial line has increasingly conformed with the pro-Trump dictates of the rest of the Murdoch media empire. (Most recently, Journal editorials, which once presented Ken Starr as the last hope to preserve the rule of law, have fomented various right-wing conspiracy theories about Robert Mueller and called for his firing.)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/12/wall-street-journal-killed-editorial-on-trumps-mob-ties.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-b

Obama wins using date is a good thing:


Trump wins using data, it's now a bad thing:

Former Fox News Analyst Lt Col Ralph Peters who resigned his job as a Security Analyst for Fox News must not know as much as some "small government" conservatives who post here.

Peters is the same guy who called President Obama "a total pussy" on Fox Business in 2015 and also said Putin had "date raped" President Obama in dealing with Putin. He's not some Democrat plant.

Here's Peters complete email to

Here's Peters' full email to his Fox news coworkers:

On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:
First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you've shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don't often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.
Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to "support and defend the Constitution," and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.
In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts--who have never served our country in any capacity--dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller--all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of "deep-state" machinations-- I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.
I do not apply the above criticisms in full to Fox Business, where numerous hosts retain a respect for facts and maintain a measure of integrity (nor is every host at Fox News a propaganda mouthpiece--some have shown courage). I have enjoyed and valued my relationship with Fox Business, and I will miss a number of hosts and staff members. You're the grown-ups.
Also, I deeply respect the hard-news reporters at Fox, who continue to do their best as talented professionals in a poisoned environment. These are some of the best men and women in the business..
So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president's favorite world leader would say, "Das vidanya."

Here's the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-news-analyst-ralph-peters.html

LooseGoose wrote:Obama wins using date is a good thing:


Trump wins using data, it's now a bad thing:

Would you like to know the difference or no? 

No, I suspect you wouldn’t.

GRR Spartan wrote:Former Fox News Analyst Lt Col Ralph Peters who resigned his job as a Security Analyst for Fox News must not know as much as some "small government" conservatives who post here.

Peters is the same guy who called President Obama "a total pussy" on Fox Business in 2015 and also said Putin had "date raped" President Obama in dealing with Putin. He's not some Democrat plant.

Here's Peters complete email to

Here's Peters' full email to his Fox news coworkers:

On March 1st, I informed Fox that I would not renew my contract. The purpose of this message to all of you is twofold:
First, I must thank each of you for the cooperation and support you've shown me over the years. Those working off-camera, the bookers and producers, don't often get the recognition you deserve, but I want you to know that I have always appreciated the challenges you face and the skill with which you master them.
Second, I feel compelled to explain why I have to leave. Four decades ago, I took an oath as a newly commissioned officer. I swore to "support and defend the Constitution," and that oath did not expire when I took off my uniform. Today, I feel that Fox News is assaulting our constitutional order and the rule of law, while fostering corrosive and unjustified paranoia among viewers. Over my decade with Fox, I long was proud of the association. Now I am ashamed.
In my view, Fox has degenerated from providing a legitimate and much-needed outlet for conservative voices to a mere propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration. When prime-time hosts--who have never served our country in any capacity--dismiss facts and empirical reality to launch profoundly dishonest assaults on the FBI, the Justice Department, the courts, the intelligence community (in which I served) and, not least, a model public servant and genuine war hero such as Robert Mueller--all the while scaremongering with lurid warnings of "deep-state" machinations-- I cannot be part of the same organization, even at a remove. To me, Fox News is now wittingly harming our system of government for profit.
As a Russia analyst for many years, it also has appalled me that hosts who made their reputations as super-patriots and who, justifiably, savaged President Obama for his duplicitous folly with Putin, now advance Putin's agenda by making light of Russian penetration of our elections and the Trump campaign. Despite increasingly pathetic denials, it turns out that the "nothing-burger" has been covered with Russian dressing all along. And by the way: As an intelligence professional, I can tell you that the Steele dossier rings true--that's how the Russians do things.. The result is that we have an American president who is terrified of his counterpart in Moscow.
I do not apply the above criticisms in full to Fox Business, where numerous hosts retain a respect for facts and maintain a measure of integrity (nor is every host at Fox News a propaganda mouthpiece--some have shown courage). I have enjoyed and valued my relationship with Fox Business, and I will miss a number of hosts and staff members. You're the grown-ups.
Also, I deeply respect the hard-news reporters at Fox, who continue to do their best as talented professionals in a poisoned environment. These are some of the best men and women in the business..
So, to all of you: Thanks, and, as our president's favorite world leader would say, "Das vidanya."

Here's the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/business/media/fox-news-analyst-ralph-peters.html

while the deplorables will never come around, it's nice to see some people finally start to see the mainstream media for what it is.

LOL at Fortune.   Telling their readers to ignore the obvious.  Well at least the stupid asses running Dicks got to be heroes for a day or two as they fucked their shareholders.   They had to know their new friends on the left wouldn't actually shop there.  

Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc. has vowed to limits sales of guns. Its problem, however, is poor sales of everything else.

Only weeks after winning accolades from gun-control advocates for ending sales of assault rifles at its Field & Stream stores, Dick’s posted a deeper-than-expected sales decline. Its stock sank the most in four months Tuesday in the wake of the quarterly report, which reflected struggles with excess inventory and deep discounting.

The future had appeared bright after Sports Authority collapsed in 2016, leaving Dick’s as the last national chain of its kind. But price cutting by competitors and tepid demand for items like basketball shoes have hammered the stock and put pressure on profit margins.

Dick's Sporting Goods Is Tumbling – But Don't Blame Its New Policy on Guns

From March 8 to March 14 their stock rose 9.6%

They announced they weren’t selling certain guns and limiting age on February 28. Overall their stock is up 5.9% since then.

You guys. That took me like 3 minutes to figure out. Please please please please don’t listen to this world class dipshit who doesn’t bother to do his research before spouting his opinions.

Just so we’re totally crystal here I circled the down part goose is talking about. I’m sure everyone can handle reading the dates at the bottom.