Remember when neutral "journalists" were unbiased?

Not anymore! http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-exposed-journalists-in-clintons-corner/

CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood is the most prominent journalist who is cozy in the emails with the Clinton camp. The CNBC anchor is also the one who should arguably be the most embarrassed.

Harwood in several emails to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta showers Hillary in praise. Harwood in one email to Podesta says “[Hillary] was good here” after an event and in another describes her as “pretty strong.”

Worse than just showing his love for Hillary, Harwood in the emails helps the campaign. The CNBC anchor describes a story he is writing about Hillary as one “she wants.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/hills-shills-leaks-have-exposed-journalists-in-clintons-corner/#ixzz4MtrBOqDU

LOL Harwood was a debate moderator!

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/11/gop-debate-moderator-john-harwood-boasted-democrats-handling-trump/

LOL Think CNBC will take action against this fool?

Remember when you thought Trump would win a debate and his numbers would get better?

Journalists have never been unbiased. They're humans after all. Perhaps better would be "Remember when journalists were honest"? They used to be Democrat newspapers, Whig newspapers, Republican newspapers, Communist newspapers, etc. They were open and honest about their viewpoint.

LooseGoose wrote:Journalists have never been unbiased. They're humans after all. Perhaps better would be "Remember when journalists were honest"? They used to be Democrat newspapers, Whig newspapers, Republican newspapers, Communist newspapers, etc. They were open and honest about their viewpoint.

This, although papers on their Editorial pages have rarely tried to mask their political bend. As for bias-free individual journos, that's a more modern-day creation. Historically, eporters and their papers were pretty explicit with their beliefs. I practiced journalism when it was only acceptable to be bias free, and that's how I prefer it. I'd be mortified to work in a newsroom that wittingly and willingly manufactured truths to satisfy its political bent, even if I worked for a lefty mag like, say, Mother Jones. Contrary to what you and Bee line to believe, most journalists want to get it right. And btw, the last newsroom I worked in had more Connies than Libs.

Edit, But you're right, no person can be entirely bias-free. Every story choice, every word spoken/written, has an inherent bias and someone, somewhere, will take issue with it.

Jesus. Yellow journalism got us into the Spanish American war. Why is this a revelation 125 years later.

tGreenWay wrote:Contrary to what you and Bee line to believe, most journalists want to get it right.

I'm not sure I'll go with "most", maybe "many". Reading the Hills emails may convince others of that.

So far we've seen that CNN passed Hills a question(s) prior to debates with Bernie. Harwood from CNBC and a debate moderator was an unabashed Hills cheerleader in email. Politico and the New York Times giving her campaign veto power over stories and quotes used within stories. NBC sitting on the "pussy" tape for months until they could use it for maximum damage. It goes on and on.

I realize they hate Trump more than most R's - so do I. But he is having the cleansing effect of bringing the biases out into the wide open.

Dumbfuck wrote:Remember when neutral "journalists" were unbiased?

No

LooseGoose wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:Contrary to what you and Bee line to believe, most journalists want to get it right.

I'm not sure I'll go with "most", maybe "many". Reading the Hills emails may convince others of that.

So far we've seen that CNN passed Hills a question(s) prior to debates with Bernie. Harwood from CNBC and a debate moderator was an unabashed Hills cheerleader in email. Politico and the New York Times giving her campaign veto power over stories and quotes used within stories. NBC sitting on the "pussy" tape for months until they could use it for maximum damage. It goes on and on.

I realize they hate Trump more than most R's - so do I. But he is having the cleansing effect of bringing the biases out into the wide open.

I won't bother trying to change your mind because I know I can't. It doesn't matter that I stand by my assessment that most want to get the story right. Not many; most. All I can do is share with you my own personal experiences based on 33 years of being around, then a part of, several newsrooms. I grew up in them. Climbed on huge rolls of newsprint when I was four. My old man started as a reporter, became an editor, then publisher, and, finally, an owner. Of our family's closest friends growing up , one was a tv news anchor, the other an owner of more than a dozen small town papers, both weeklies and dailies, along with a couple of tv stations. All three of those men were Conservative Republicans to their marrow. Highly active in their Party. No way they'd let me or any reporter get away with anything but the truth. No fucking way. That was true after I left for other positions, too. Management and lead anchors were all hardcore Conservatives. It's a myth that newsrooms are all Liberal. Of course they exist there and they're likely a majority, but there is input from both angles from what should be covered all the way down to selecting, switching, or deleting value-laden words.
What's much more true is that the messenger takes the blame when people don't like the message. At this stage in my life, I usually agree with the sentiment that reality has a liberal bias. I also know there usually isn't one big Truth, but many small truths. And that's why Rupert and Roger started FNC; so those who don't like one truth can get a different, more satisfying version.

tGreenWay wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

I'm not sure I'll go with "most", maybe "many". Reading the Hills emails may convince others of that.

So far we've seen that CNN passed Hills a question(s) prior to debates with Bernie. Harwood from CNBC and a debate moderator was an unabashed Hills cheerleader in email. Politico and the New York Times giving her campaign veto power over stories and quotes used within stories. NBC sitting on the "pussy" tape for months until they could use it for maximum damage. It goes on and on.

I realize they hate Trump more than most R's - so do I. But he is having the cleansing effect of bringing the biases out into the wide open.

I won't bother trying to change your mind because I know I can't. It doesn't matter that I stand by my assessment that most want to get the story right. Not many; most. All I can do is share with you my own personal experiences based on 33 years of being around, then a part of, several newsrooms. I grew up in them. Climbed on huge rolls of newsprint when I was four. My old man started as a reporter, became an editor, then publisher, and, finally, an owner. Of our family's closest friends growing up , one was a tv news anchor, the other an owner of more than a dozen small town papers, both weeklies and dailies, along with a couple of tv stations. All three of those men were Conservative Republicans to their marrow. Highly active in their Party. No way they'd let me or any reporter get away with anything but the truth. No fucking way. That was true after I left for other positions, too. Management and lead anchors were all hardcore Conservatives. It's a myth that newsrooms are all Liberal. Of course they exist there and they're likely a majority, but there is input from both angles from what should be covered all the way down to selecting, switching, or deleting value-laden words.
What's much more true is that the messenger takes the blame when people don't like the message. At this stage in my life, I usually agree with the sentiment that reality has a liberal bias. I also know there usually isn't one big Truth, but many small truths. And that's why Rupert and Roger started FNC; so those who don't like one truth can get a different, more satisfying version.

I think you're right that in the past there were more conservative newsrooms. But surveys done over the last 20-30 years show roughly a 90-10 split (at least at the BIG dailies) Dem to Rep split. I really don't know what caused that shift, but something did.

I really don't mind it, in the past I've known that reading the DetNews I was going to get a more conservative slant than from the Freep. Neither paper really denied that reality. And on television PBS/ABC/CBS/NBC was sort of the Left to Right spectrum back in the old days. Huntley - Chancellor - Brokaw (at least in his early days) were more conservative than Cronkite or Jennings.

On cable MSNBC has always been left of CNN which is left of FOX. What drives me crazy is people acting like Fox's news division is some radical right wing organization. Have they ever watched Shep Smith? I quit watching television news 10-12 years ago and really don't miss it. I see maybe 10 hours worth per year and it's more than I can take. Everything is either negative shit being highlighted or 2-6 people screaming at each other.

I read stuff from all over from Media Matters to Mother Jones to Daily Kos to Vanity Fair to National Review to the Federalist. It's always interesting to get 2-3 takes on the same story then decide which seems most likely to be true. I really feel sorry for those that get their news from one source and think that's the way it is, it VERY RARELY is.

So I'm not really disputing your version of what you know, I would be curious if you have an opinion on why newsrooms turned so liberal (at least in personal donation and voting habits) over the last 20-30 years.