Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Captainant
Captainant

Ok, here's some 9/11 jokes brought to you by our president's actions and record regarding 9/11: 1) On 9/11 itself Trump was on the phone with a TV station hours after the buildings collapsed to b

Doris
Doris
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

the reason that this is so dangerous in today's climate - is fucking social media. not that long ago, you heard a story on the news, on the radio, from a friend or family member.  maybe you read

Posted Images

bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13,136

Posted
Posted

Wait... is someone going to argue that Donald Trump wouldn't like to round people up and kill them without due process? Does one of you want to seriously put forward an argument that Donald Trump thinks the rule of law is very important and loves the structure of government and law enforcement? Does anyone want to argue that he even knows how any of that shit works?

Barack fucking Obama, the most milquetoast decorum-bot conceivable by the human mind, had no problem with the extrajudicial murder of basically whoever the fuck he wanted overseas via drone and funding opposition groups. Someone wants to argue Trump is MORE circumspect than Obama?

This is the guy who thinks putting kids in diapers into concentration camps is a good way to deter people from crossing the border illegally and he's not even 2 years into his first term. He sees Nazis murdering people in the streets and publicly calls them "very fine people". He called for the execution of innocent young men in NY and remains unapologetic about it.

This woman's crime is speaking the obvious truth in an uncomfortable way while everyone is trying to DECORUM in the face of absolute madness.

This is what breaking "political correctness" actually looks like; when you strip the mask off when speaking to/about the powerful.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Quote

NBC News has long insisted the Weinstein exposé wasn’t ready to run on air or online, contrary to Farrow’s claims that it was. Farrow’s story, which ultimately ran in The New Yorker, was part of a series that ultimately won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, earned him in the prestigious George Polk Award for National Reporting, and garnered near-universal praise from his colleagues.

The Daily Beast has uncovered new details of how the process went awry, including alleged threats from NBC, back-biting inside the network about who was truly responsible, and a previously unreported ultimatum by Weinstein’s attorneys.

According to multiple sources familiar with the matter, NBC News general counsel Susan Weiner made a series of phone calls to Farrow, threatening to smear him if he continued to report on Weinstein.  

Being progressive is like being an Aggy. From the inside, you can't explain it, from the outside, you can't understand it.

But seriously, to be progressive is to believe in moral relativism, or, on a personal level, it is to have no morality at all. So for those of us who still have morals, this is of course no surprise at all.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,662

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Being progressive is like being an Aggy. From the inside, you can't explain it, from the outside, you can't understand it.

But seriously, to be progressive is to believe in moral relativism, or, on a personal level, it is to have no morality at all. So for those of us who still have morals, this is of course no surprise at all.

Conservatism is aggy. Trying to argue otherwise is silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,364

Posted
  • Author
Posted
46 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Being progressive is like being an Aggy. From the inside, you can't explain it, from the outside, you can't understand it.

But seriously, to be progressive is to believe in moral relativism, or, on a personal level, it is to have no morality at all. So for those of us who still have morals, this is of course no surprise at all.

 

Okay I’ll bite:

Can you describe what progressives are or what they want to do?

Can you explain what the progressive movement has to do with the corporate corruption described in the article you posted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23,364

Posted
  • Author
Posted
49 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Being progressive is like being an Aggy. From the inside, you can't explain it, from the outside, you can't understand it.

But seriously, to be progressive is to believe in moral relativism, or, on a personal level, it is to have no morality at all. So for those of us who still have morals, this is of course no surprise at all.

 

Okay I’ll bite:

Can you describe what progressives are or what they want to do?

Can you explain what the progressive movement has to do with the corporate corruption described in the article you posted? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,414

Posted
Posted
On 8/30/2018 at 8:19 PM, Thetexashammer said:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-nbc-threatened-ronan-farrow-if-he-kept-reporting-on-harvey-weinstein

Being progressive is like being an Aggy. From the inside, you can't explain it, from the outside, you can't understand it.

But seriously, to be progressive is to believe in moral relativism, or, on a personal level, it is to have no morality at all. So for those of us who still have morals, this is of course no surprise at all.

Conservatives who dismiss the basic human rights of refugees, promote polluting industries, discriminate against minorities, favor tax cuts over the common good, and defend Kremlin-backed politicians are the least "moral" amongst us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkleton

Turkleton 145

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Conservatives who dismiss the basic human rights of refugees, promote polluting industries, discriminate against minorities, favor tax cuts over the common good, and defend Kremlin-backed politicians are the least "moral" amongst us.

This post is priceless. This is what the lefties do so well. Create lies and than attack the lies. The truth is simply not a value of the left.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim Tom Pinch

Jim Tom Pinch 120

Posted
Posted
On 9/1/2018 at 8:02 AM, bolverk said:

Conservatives who dismiss the basic human rights of refugees, promote polluting industries, discriminate against minorities, favor tax cuts over the common good, and defend Kremlin-backed politicians are the least "moral" amongst us.

Do you mean refugees or illegal aliens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure where best to put this but since this attention whore is always on TV now I'm  putting it here.

An Open Letter to Mr. Brennan

 

Charles S. (Sam) Faddis, Senior Partner with Artemis, LLC is a former CIA operations officer with thirty years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations in the Middle East, South Asia and Europe. He has worked against the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet and has extensive firsthand experience with their methodology and tactics. His last assignment prior to retirement in May of 2008 was as head of the CIA's terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction unit. He took the first CIA team into Iraq in the Summer of 2002 in advance of the invasion of that country and has worked extensively in the field with law enforcement, local security forces and special operations teams. Since retirement, he has written extensively and provided training to a wide variety of government and private entities. Sam appears regularly on radio and television.

Stop Pretending 
Published on May 24, 2018

 
Dear Mr. Brennan,

I understand that you are a political opponent of the current President of the United States. I understand that you are an American citizen, and you have the right to freedom of speech. I encourage you to utilize that right. I encourage you to speak your mind. I encourage you, as I do all Americans, to be heard.

I implore you, however to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever. 

None of this is true.

You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad. You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have never heard a shot fired in anger.

You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered this trade either. 

In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.

While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story. 

Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.

All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally opposed to President Trump and his agenda.

There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation. They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied yourself.

It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.

As CIA Director for Barack Obama you:

-Presided over the Iran nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to escape from decades of containment and set the Middle East on fire.

-Watched while Russia annexed Crimea and then reestablished itself as a hostile force in the Middle East.

-Dithered and tinkered with organizational wiring diagrams at Headquarters while China annexed and fortified the entire South China Sea.

The extent to which you are tied directly to the Clintons, Barack Obama and the Democratic Party is clearly evident in the emotional nature of your recent commentary. Ever since this president was elected there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him. This has been an unprecedented attempt to undermine the stability of the republic in order to achieve partisan political advantage. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart. Now as the Mueller investigation collapses of its own weight and the extent of this conspiracy is beginning to become clear you are in evident panic. You should be.

You are free to do as you wish politically. Stop representing to the American people that there is anything else at play. You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,662

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

I'm not sure where best to put this but since this attention whore is always on TV now I'm  putting it here.

An Open Letter to Mr. Brennan

 

Charles S. (Sam) Faddis, Senior Partner with Artemis, LLC is a former CIA operations officer with thirty years of experience in the conduct of intelligence operations in the Middle East, South Asia and Europe. He has worked against the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet and has extensive firsthand experience with their methodology and tactics. His last assignment prior to retirement in May of 2008 was as head of the CIA's terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction unit. He took the first CIA team into Iraq in the Summer of 2002 in advance of the invasion of that country and has worked extensively in the field with law enforcement, local security forces and special operations teams. Since retirement, he has written extensively and provided training to a wide variety of government and private entities. Sam appears regularly on radio and television.

 

 

That's just good old fashioned irony right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

And to save everyone the trouble of having to read or watch the media the next week here is what they are going to say.

If Florence kills a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia Trump will be considered too incompetent to handle large natural disasters.  If Florence does not kill a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia than that will be proof Trump is racist against Puerto Ricans.

 

Please do not give me any credit for my ability to predict the future here.  Anyone paying attention to the media with a brain the size of a walnut can do this.  This is as easy as solving a two piece jigsaw puzzle.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BLKNSTY

BLKNSTY 289

Posted
Posted


If Florence kills a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia Trump will be considered too incompetent to handle large natural disasters. 

If Florence does not kill a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia than that will be proof Trump is racist against Puerto Ricans.
 
 


On point a - we already do, 3,000 ppl died in PR ago and not only does he fail to acknowledge it, he deflects, and for some reason thinks it’s okay to arbitrarily give himself an A+ in his response.

On point b - trump is a racist and a bigot. Hurricane/no hurricane.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://www.dailywire.com/news/35764/norm-macdonald-told-not-show-jimmy-fallon-fallon-ben-shapiro?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Norm MacDonald Told Not To Show Up To Jimmy Fallon. Fallon Said Macdonald Made His Senior Producers Cry. Yes, Really.

by Ben Shapiro
September 12, 2018

On Tuesday night, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon announced that it would no longer host comedian Norm Macdonald “out of sensitivity to our audience and in light of Norm Macdonald’s comments in the press today.” What, exactly, did Macdonald say? He said that he was glad that the #MeToo movement had “slowed down a bit.” He continued:

It used to be, ‘One hundred women can’t be lying.’ And then it became, ‘One woman can’t lie.’ And that became, ‘I believe all women.’ And then you’re like, ‘What?’ Like, that Chris Hardwick guy I really thought got the blunt end of the stick there.

From there, Macdonald observed that the #MeToo movement had created a perverse set of incentives: by failing to allow people to apologize, come clean, make restitution, and return to their careers, they’d made it more likely that people wouldn’t admit to guilt at all. He then added:

Well, Louis [C.K.] and Roseanne [Barr] are the two people I know. And Roseanne was so broken up [after her show's reboot was canceled] that I got Louis to call her, even though Roseanne was very hard on Louis before that. But she was just so broken and just crying constantly. There are very few people that have gone through what they have, losing everything in a day. Of course, people will go, "What about the victims?" But you know what? The victims didn't have to go through that.

 

But Fallon won’t have him on. Now, remember, NBC is the same network that covered up Harvey Weinstein’s sexual abuse allegations. But they won’t have on Macdonald to clarify. Why not? Because, reportedly, Macdonald made members of the Late Show staff cry. No joke. According to Macdonald:

Jimmy came back in. “Can I talk to you buddy?” And he said, he was very, very broken up about it, he didn’t want this, he said, “I don’t know what to do.” I said, “You think I shouldn’t do the show.” “People are crying.” I said, “People are crying.” “Yeah,” he said, “senior producers are crying.” I said, “Good Lord, bring them in and let me talk to them. I didn’t even know I had the capacity to make people cry. So I felt so bad from that comment. Jimmy said, “Come back whatever you want but I think it will hurt the show tonight.” I said, “Jimmy, I don’t want to hurt your show. That’s the last thing I want to do is hurt your show.”

People were crying about Macdonald’s comments? This is just the latest proof that at major shows and websites and publications across the country, editorial judgment is no longer about the judgment of the editors, but about the fuss lower-level staffers can make. We’ve seen this with regard to Bari Weiss at The New York Times; we’ve seen it with regard to Kevin Williamson at The Atlantic; we’ve seen it over and over again. Just so long as some on staff are upset with any given decision, higher-ups will reverse themselves.

In any case, this is idiotic. Macdonald isn’t just a comedian, he happens to have a long track record of saying politically incorrect things. If Fallon wanted to grill him on the comments, he’d have every opportunity to do so. Instead, we’ll just get more walls and boundaries on conversation, accompanied by a tears.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,662

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

And to save everyone the trouble of having to read or watch the media the next week here is what they are going to say.

If Florence kills a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia Trump will be considered too incompetent to handle large natural disasters.  If Florence does not kill a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia than that will be proof Trump is racist against Puerto Ricans.

 

Please do not give me any credit for my ability to predict the future here.  Anyone paying attention to the media with a brain the size of a walnut can do this.  This is as easy as solving a two piece jigsaw puzzle.

 

What will Fox say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

Who the fuck cares?  I don't base my views on Fox.  I base them on observing the world around me.  Fox is one drop of rain in the rain gauge.  I'll watch whatever network is prioritizing covering what is going on involving the actual storm over the politics that the storm will be used to justify.  If you lived in Houston last year would you have preferred to watch a network focusing on what effect Harvey was having in Houston or a network focusing on what effect Harvey was having in Washington D.C.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18,662

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

Who the fuck cares?  I don't base my views on Fox.  I base them on observing the world around me.  Fox is one drop of rain in the rain gauge.  I'll watch whatever network is prioritizing covering what is going on involving the actual storm over the politics that the storm will be used to justify.  If you lived in Houston last year would you have preferred to watch a network focusing on what effect Harvey was having in Houston or a network focusing on what effect Harvey was having in Washington D.C.?

Where do you get your news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,502

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

And to save everyone the trouble of having to read or watch the media the next week here is what they are going to say.

If Florence kills a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia Trump will be considered too incompetent to handle large natural disasters.  If Florence does not kill a lot of people in North Carolina and Virginia than that will be proof Trump is racist against Puerto Ricans.

 

Please do not give me any credit for my ability to predict the future here.  Anyone paying attention to the media with a brain the size of a walnut can do this.  This is as easy as solving a two piece jigsaw puzzle.

 

 

20 hours ago, BLKNSTY said:

 


On point a - we already do, 3,000 ppl died in PR ago and not only does he fail to acknowledge it, he deflects, and for some reason thinks it’s okay to arbitrarily give himself an A+ in his response.

On point b - trump is a racist and a bigot. Hurricane/no hurricane.

 

These aged well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://www.dailywire.com/news/37637/nbc-sat-information-undermined-brett-kavanaugh-ashe-schow

In yet another stunning display of media bias, NBC now acknowledges that it had information that undermined the credibility of some of the women who accused then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, but didn’t report it at the time.

On Thursday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) referred celebrity lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department. Swetnick, in a sworn statement, accused Kavanaugh of drinking too much, acting aggressive toward women, spiking the punch at parties and orchestrating teenage gang-rapes. Her claims were ludicrous on their face, but the left-leaning media – eager to torpedo Kavanaugh’s nomination for fear he could be the deciding vote in overturning Roe v. Wade – ran with them anyway.

NBC was the worst offender. The network interviewed Swetnick even though it said up front it couldn’t verify her claims. This is Journalism Malpractice 101; you don’t put out possibly defamatory information you can’t verify. Of course, the media was totally okay with doing this if it meant keeping Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. They didn’t care about the consequences to his family or his reputation.

NBC interviewed Swetnick on October 1. At the time, she backtracked on her key claims regarding Kavanaugh, and undermined her own story. Once her story crumbled, Avenatti released a second sworn statement from an unnamed woman, alleging almost identical claims as Swetnick.

Yet another accuser has come forward (see sworn stmt below). She is prepared to meet with the FBI today and disclose multiple facts and witnesses. pic.twitter.com/eNsCAau6no

— Michael Avenatti (@MichaelAvenatti) October 3, 2018
That was on October 3, two days after Swetnick was interviewed by NBC, but three days before Kavanaugh would be confirmed.

NBC says it spoke to this woman two days before Avenatti released her statement, and didn’t seem to find her credible. The outlet said the woman told NBC a different story than what was presented in the affidavit.

“Referring to Kavanaugh spiking the punch, ‘I didn't ever think it was Brett,’ the woman said to reporters in a phone interview arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 after repeated requests to speak with other witnesses who might corroborate Swetnick's claims,” NBC reported Thursday night. “As soon as the call began, the woman said she never met Swetnick in high school and never saw her at parties and had only become friends with her when they were both in their 30s.”

This alleged corroborating witness then told reporters she never witnessed Kavanaugh act inappropriately toward women, but said everyone at these parties drank heavily.

NBC again contacted this woman on October 3, the day Avenatti tweeted out her statement. At this time, she told the media outlet she only “skimmed” the declaration. The next day – October 4 – she texted NBC, saying: "It is incorrect that I saw Brett spike the punch. I didn't see anyone spike the punch ... I was very clear with Michael Avenatti from day one."

She also told NBC she would never let anyone abuse women in her presence.

NBC says Avenatti confirmed to them that the woman they spoke to on the phone was the same as the one in the new affidavit, but when confronted with the discrepancies, he said he was “disgusted” with the outlet and added: "How about this, on background, it's not the same woman. What are you going to do with that?"

NBC says it received more texts from this woman disputing the sworn statement, and again reached out to Avenatti, who said he had the statement and recordings of her backing up that statement. He said the woman must have been confused by NBC’s questions.

“Roughly five minutes later, the woman sent a formally-worded text backing Avenatti,” NBC reported. “‘Please understand that everything in the declaration is true and you should not contact me anymore regarding this issue,’ the text read.”

NBC called the woman again, and again she disputed the affidavit. On October 5, she texted NBC once more, writing: "I will definitely talk to you again and no longer Avenatti. I do not like that he twisted my words."

Kavanaugh was confirmed the next day, on October 6. It is now the end of October, and we are just now hearing all of this from NBC. The outlet sat on information that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers disputed her sworn statement, presented by Michael Avenatti. This information would have called into question the statement from Swetnick, Avenatti’s other client. This also would have called into question NBC’s decision to air an interview with Swetnick, who changed her story about what she witnessed 30 years ago.

NBC sat on this information, which would have undermined some of Kavanaugh’s accusers, and is only now releasing it after Kavanaugh was confirmed and its interview was mentioned in a referral to the DOJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...