What else has liberal media lied about the past 10 years?

[Luvnit2]

The left leaning liberal news networks were equally exposed when Joe Biden's health was exposed during the debate. They obviously covered for him versus covering him. Can they be trusted when busted on National TV of their political bias? There are journalists, they are supposed to be neutral in politics. Then there are opinion-based hosts like Hannity and Maddow who claim they are not journalists, but political news show hosts who lean right or left.

Those covering the white house were exposed as left leaning by covering for Joe Biden for years. They did cover Clinton almost 25 years ago, but times have changed since then.


"History will be a harsh judge indeed for one of the greatest failures of journalism in our nation’s recent pas

The country is now in great trouble. The public has been lied to by its government and its free press. Foreign nations, both friends and foe, know that our president is mentally unfit for office, and that there is no one in charge in the White House. The very foundations of the American system have been replaced by sand and mist, leaving questions about, yes, re-election, but also fundamental doubts about our national security and our commander in chief."

What else have they covered up or done to help Democrats stay in power? I am talking CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO and NYT all were complicit covering for Biden. How can they be trusted as a worthy news source moving forward?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-hating-white-house-media-betrayed-voters-hiding-bidens-alarming-condition-now-could-backfire

Trump-hating White House media betrayed voters by hiding Biden's alarming condition, and now it could backfire
Press covered President Clinton, but covered for President Biden

In 1991, when I was just a few years into my career as a journalist, I experienced a stroke of life-changing professional luck. The 1992 presidential campaign was ramping up, and a host of eager candidates were vying to take on President George H.W. Bush, who was running for his second term.

I was a 20-something off-air political reporter for ABC News, waiting to find out which candidate I would be following on the campaign trail. I would remain embedded with my designated candidate for the duration, until he (no shes were running) lost, dropped out or won the whole shebang.

Naturally, I was hoping for someone interesting, someone who would go far in the race, or at least, someone who would make a little news.


WHERE ARE THE JOES? SCARBOROUGH, BIDEN LAY LOW AFTER EMBARRASSING DEBATE

Would it be the populist Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin? The idiosyncratic former California Gov. Jerry Brown? The Republican conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, launching a hell-for-leather anti-Bush challenge? The commonsense former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas?

ABC’s assignment desk handed out our roles. I was tasked to cover the governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton.

What followed was a fascinating year that took me to nearly every continental state in America. I saw in granular detail the inner workings of a fledgling campaign, and watched it grow. I witnessed the power and wisdom of American voters, and what it took to earn their support. I apprehended the need to go out in the field, away from hermetic news offices in New York and Washington, D.C., to see firsthand the house parties and rope lines, debate spin rooms and local newscasts, the rallies large and small.
I observed the young Bill and Hillary Clinton as they fought back from tabloid scandal, primary losses, bad news cycles, embarrassing gossip and malignant rumors, until they finally vanquished Bush, Ross Perot and a handful of their own demons and skeletons to nab the brass ring.

Out on the Clinton trail, I also observed some of the greatest political reporters of the modern era, up close and in action.

As Bill Clinton became the hot topic, the besmirched Icarus, the Comeback Kid, the frontrunner, the Democratic nominee and eventually, the president-elect, more and more reporters of note, rising young stars and prize-winning legends, crowded onto the bus to cover his stratospheric rise.

I spent time with them, shared meals and conversation, watched their off-the-cuff interviews with the principals and the staff. I learned from them. I respected them. They were civilians and citizens, individuals with specific experiences and personal beliefs, but they remained impartial, prudent and fair. They told the facts, even as they draped their words with detail and poetry. They cataloged mundane, day-to-day events, while keeping an eye on history. They felt beholden to the American people and took that responsibility seriously, distilling and explaining policy positions, clarifying spin and staying direct and detached, all while holding the powerful accountable to the public interest.

As reporters, they had intimate access to a person who would end up being the leader of the free world. Who was he? What were his thought processes? What were his failings, and his strengths? How would he lead if elected? Was he resilient? Honest? Thin-skinned? Brave? Nimble? Wise? Those questions might be impossible for anyone to answer in full. But they had to try. It was an admirable goal, vital to the health and future of the United States, and a tacit promise to the American voters who counted on skilled journalists to report the truth without bias.

The media’s conspiracy of silence was intended to keep Donald Trump from returning to the White House for a second term. It is ironic that the deception and hypocrisy may be what in fact leads Trump straight back to the Oval Office.

When Bill Clinton was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1993, I moved to the off-air White House beat. The ABC White House correspondent was Brit Hume, and, in our tiny booth, I received an invaluable tutorial in how to cover a shambolic administration with grace, coherence and aplomb.

As my career continued, I worked mostly in liberal newsrooms, and saw plenty of obvious pro-Democratic media bias, although it was rarely acknowledged. When I endeavored to call it out, or correct the imbalance, I was falsely accused of right-wing leanings, or of professional treachery. The constant undercurrent of bias was troubling, to be sure. Most of my colleagues seemed in denial about it, and oblivious to how their predilections were alienating about half of America.

Journalistic anti-Republican bias has, of course, escalated in the Trump era.

How did one of America’s most essential bulwarks, a strong and fair political press, crumble and decay?

Maybe it was the advent of the internet, which shifted datelines into ether, and replaced concrete deadlines with the necessity of now. Headlines and live streams were posted in seconds, and then evaporated without opportunity for reflection or analysis. Maybe it was social media, which placed untrained, inexperienced influencers and bloggers on the same nebulous platform as veteran professionals. Maybe it was the collapse of TV ratings and magazine ad sales that led to smaller budgets for travel and research. Or maybe it was just laziness and corner cutting, the lures of likes and clicks, that have so far defined our 21st century ethos.

BIDEN PUTS HIS FATE, AND MAYBE THE NATION'S, IN THE HANDS OF HUNTER

Maybe it all changed because of the coarse complexities of the Clinton administration, or the visceral tragedy and fear of 9/11 and the policy confusion of the subsequent Gulf War. Maybe it was the glamorous cool of Barack and Michelle Obama that dazzled so many frumpy members of the press corps.

Certainly, it worsened with the polarizing presence of Donald Trump, which excreted an epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome to all four corners of the Dominant Media, and generated such hatred of and derision towards the 45th president that many reporters not only became overtly biased against him but practically bragged about being agents of "The Resistance."

However, nothing compares to what I have witnessed in the five years since Joe Biden launched his successful presidential bid in 2019.

I was surprised when Biden decided to run for president again, his third attempt at competing for the White House. It was not his chronological age of 77; many of us know plenty of septuagenarians who are vital, mentally sharp, physically industrious and fully lucid.


But not Joe Biden.

Biden was an old 77, in body and mind. In November 2017, when I was on Nantucket Island for the Thanksgiving holiday, I attended a question and answer and book signing event for Biden’s new memoir, "Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose." Some politicians publish memoirs before commencing a presidential bid to introduce themselves to the voting public. Some politicians publish memoirs at the end of their career, to say goodbye. I assumed this was the latter, as well as an effort for Biden to try to earn some post-Obama administration cash; Biden famously often complained that he was one of the least financially flush political figures in Washington.

Joe Concha on Biden media fanfare in full effectVideo
Biden spoke to a room full of friendly local year-rounders and summer residents, many of whom had known him personally for years. I was taken aback by what I witnessed. The fire had left Biden’s eyes. He rambled strangely, repeatedly lost focus, misunderstood questions, missed cues. After the Q&A, a decidedly awkward, meandering affair, Biden greeted a select group of audience members backstage, to sign books, take photos and say hello. I watched as he struggled to maintain the simplest of small talk, on occasion failing to recognize old friends and supporters, men and women who had known him well for decades.

Well, that’s the end, I thought. Biden’s swan song. I considered it fortunate for his family that his political career had ended, and had arguably ended well, with two terms as Obama’s vice president, where he had acquitted himself with relative dignity and exited on a career high of civility, spirit, and decorum.

And then he ran for president.

There were many factors that enabled Biden to win first the nomination, and then the general election in 2020. Obama intervened during primary season to clear Biden’s path, encouraging Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to drop out, not just to help Biden, but to prevent the firebrand Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee. The COVID pandemic kept Biden comfortably tucked away in his Delaware basement for much of the general election, social distancing his way to victory. Trump himself labored under the unfamiliar pressures of a pandemic presidency, unable to charm or convince a weary nation that he could continue the job at hand.

But a leading factor in Biden’s 2020 presidential victory was the press.

placeholder
Large swaths of the political media decided that any substantive criticism of Biden would contradict their shared goal of getting Trump out of the White House. They stopped doing their jobs and became activists instead of reporters. They willingly betrayed their responsibilities to the public and the requirements of an open society.

Any journalist from a left-leaning press outfit who offered up concern over Biden’s health or questioned his general competence as a potential president was bullied and ridiculed on social media or live on the air, even threatened with cancelation, by Biden’s staff, by Democratic operatives and by fellow reporters. The coverage of Biden overall throughout the campaign was muted, vague and insubstantial. By contrast, coverage of Trump was largely aggressive, hostile and hyperbolic. Trump, of course, deserved intense scrutiny, but the imbalance was clear to anyone who wished to see it.

After Biden won the White House, his staff became even more opaque and secretive. Biden was shielded from the press, rarely sitting for interviews and avoiding press conferences to a farcical degree. He relied on notecards and teleprompters for even the most elementary appearances. He took long vacations followed by weekends at the beach. He skipped important events at world summits and made embarrassing faux pas at important meetings.

Reporters were not allowed to communicate with Biden’s physician or see his full medical records, a standard element of White House coverage that has caused drama in every previous administration, but has rarely been refused.

MSNBC host gushes over Biden's 'historically successful' leadership following disastrous debateVideo
His team obfuscated and intimidated, denied what was visible to all. Troubling raw video feeds were deemed "cheap fakes." Biden, they said, was in the prime of life, regularly outworking his younger advisers and sharp as Canadian Cheddar.

And the friendly media let them get away with it all. Not every story of every conspiracy of silence in the various newsrooms is exactly the same. Editors, anchors, executive producers, beat reporters — all have played different roles in different news organizations to simply black out the truth. The White House press corps was not gaslit by Biden’s aides. They were intimidated and co-conspirators in equal measure.

This is not to suggest that every media element and news outlet lied unabated. There were some gentle forays into medical analysis and concern. The New York Times published a few prominent articles that prodded the sleeping giant, although such stories were always hedged and couched, and made a point of comparing Biden favorably to Trump. And then the paper’s journalists were stridently rebutted and ridiculed by the administration.

placeholder
Late night comics, generally liberal in nature, actually did more than our nation’s biggest newsrooms to hold Biden accountable, sometimes poking fun at Biden’s elderly stumbles, and at the absurdities of the White House pushback.

The RNC and Red Media, meanwhile, often went too far with accusations of dementia, especially during the first two years when Biden’s decline was less acute, spouting extravagant diagnoses and conspiracy theories. When such coverage veered into obvious fraudulence, the other tribe was granted another layer of camouflage.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Biden was not as far gone as the Reds claimed, nor as hale as the Blues pretended. He had good moments and bad, lucid mornings and cloudy afternoons. He needed rest and calm, and comfortable conditions, and then was usually able to perform adequately, for brief periods. This produced enough video clips for the friendly press and the White House to hide behind, and claim all his days were good. Biden’s first chief of staff, Ron Klain, was masterful at managing both Biden’s schedule and his pals in the press corps.

But the presidency is a 24/7 job, with daily stresses and unforeseen crises. It is not part-time. It cannot be scheduled around a hazy old man’s care routine and frailties.

Several months ago, a few weeks after Biden’s respectable showing at the State of the Union, sources began to let me know that the president was worsening precipitously. His mental condition was waning, and he was painfully frail. Meetings with him were at times pitiful and scary. His team, said my sources, were both in denial about the state of the campaign and his capability for future governance, and also shoring up their conspiracy of silence, with talking points, scare tactics and false promises for the media.

Those desperate missives became wishy-washy excuses in the newspapers and stertorous lectures on cable news.



The media’s conspiracy of silence was intended to keep Donald Trump from returning to the White House for a second term.

It is ironic that the deception and hypocrisy may be what in fact leads Trump straight back to the Oval Office.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(07-04-2024, 03:33 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The left leaning liberal news networks were equally exposed when Joe Biden's health was exposed during the debate. They obviously covered for him versus covering him. Can they be trusted when busted on National TV of their political bias? There are journalists, they are supposed to be neutral in politics. Then there are opinion-based hosts like Hannity and Maddow who claim they are not journalists, but political news show hosts who lean right or left.

Those covering the white house were exposed as left leaning by covering for Joe Biden for years. They did cover Clinton almost 25 years ago, but times have changed since then.


"History will be a harsh judge indeed for one of the greatest failures of journalism in our nation’s recent pas

The country is now in great trouble. The public has been lied to by its government and its free press. Foreign nations, both friends and foe, know that our president is mentally unfit for office, and that there is no one in charge in the White House. The very foundations of the American system have been replaced by sand and mist, leaving questions about, yes, re-election, but also fundamental doubts about our national security and our commander in chief."

What else have they covered up or done to help Democrats stay in power? I am talking CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO and NYT all were complicit covering for Biden. How can they be trusted as a worthy news source moving forward?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-hating-white-house-media-betrayed-voters-hiding-bidens-alarming-condition-now-could-backfire

Trump-hating White House media betrayed voters by hiding Biden's alarming condition, and now it could backfire
Press covered President Clinton, but covered for President Biden

In 1991, when I was just a few years into my career as a journalist, I experienced a stroke of life-changing professional luck. The 1992 presidential campaign was ramping up, and a host of eager candidates were vying to take on President George H.W. Bush, who was running for his second term.

I was a 20-something off-air political reporter for ABC News, waiting to find out which candidate I would be following on the campaign trail. I would remain embedded with my designated candidate for the duration, until he (no shes were running) lost, dropped out or won the whole shebang.

Naturally, I was hoping for someone interesting, someone who would go far in the race, or at least, someone who would make a little news.


WHERE ARE THE JOES? SCARBOROUGH, BIDEN LAY LOW AFTER EMBARRASSING DEBATE

Would it be the populist Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin? The idiosyncratic former California Gov. Jerry Brown? The Republican conservative commentator Pat Buchanan, launching a hell-for-leather anti-Bush challenge? The commonsense former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas?

ABC’s assignment desk handed out our roles. I was tasked to cover the governor of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton.

What followed was a fascinating year that took me to nearly every continental state in America. I saw in granular detail the inner workings of a fledgling campaign, and watched it grow. I witnessed the power and wisdom of American voters, and what it took to earn their support. I apprehended the need to go out in the field, away from hermetic news offices in New York and Washington, D.C., to see firsthand the house parties and rope lines, debate spin rooms and local newscasts, the rallies large and small.
I observed the young Bill and Hillary Clinton as they fought back from tabloid scandal, primary losses, bad news cycles, embarrassing gossip and malignant rumors, until they finally vanquished Bush, Ross Perot and a handful of their own demons and skeletons to nab the brass ring.

Out on the Clinton trail, I also observed some of the greatest political reporters of the modern era, up close and in action.

As Bill Clinton became the hot topic, the besmirched Icarus, the Comeback Kid, the frontrunner, the Democratic nominee and eventually, the president-elect, more and more reporters of note, rising young stars and prize-winning legends, crowded onto the bus to cover his stratospheric rise.

I spent time with them, shared meals and conversation, watched their off-the-cuff interviews with the principals and the staff. I learned from them. I respected them. They were civilians and citizens, individuals with specific experiences and personal beliefs, but they remained impartial, prudent and fair. They told the facts, even as they draped their words with detail and poetry. They cataloged mundane, day-to-day events, while keeping an eye on history. They felt beholden to the American people and took that responsibility seriously, distilling and explaining policy positions, clarifying spin and staying direct and detached, all while holding the powerful accountable to the public interest.

As reporters, they had intimate access to a person who would end up being the leader of the free world. Who was he? What were his thought processes? What were his failings, and his strengths? How would he lead if elected? Was he resilient? Honest? Thin-skinned? Brave? Nimble? Wise? Those questions might be impossible for anyone to answer in full. But they had to try. It was an admirable goal, vital to the health and future of the United States, and a tacit promise to the American voters who counted on skilled journalists to report the truth without bias.

The media’s conspiracy of silence was intended to keep Donald Trump from returning to the White House for a second term. It is ironic that the deception and hypocrisy may be what in fact leads Trump straight back to the Oval Office.

When Bill Clinton was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1993, I moved to the off-air White House beat. The ABC White House correspondent was Brit Hume, and, in our tiny booth, I received an invaluable tutorial in how to cover a shambolic administration with grace, coherence and aplomb.

As my career continued, I worked mostly in liberal newsrooms, and saw plenty of obvious pro-Democratic media bias, although it was rarely acknowledged. When I endeavored to call it out, or correct the imbalance, I was falsely accused of right-wing leanings, or of professional treachery. The constant undercurrent of bias was troubling, to be sure. Most of my colleagues seemed in denial about it, and oblivious to how their predilections were alienating about half of America.

Journalistic anti-Republican bias has, of course, escalated in the Trump era.

How did one of America’s most essential bulwarks, a strong and fair political press, crumble and decay?

Maybe it was the advent of the internet, which shifted datelines into ether, and replaced concrete deadlines with the necessity of now. Headlines and live streams were posted in seconds, and then evaporated without opportunity for reflection or analysis. Maybe it was social media, which placed untrained, inexperienced influencers and bloggers on the same nebulous platform as veteran professionals. Maybe it was the collapse of TV ratings and magazine ad sales that led to smaller budgets for travel and research. Or maybe it was just laziness and corner cutting, the lures of likes and clicks, that have so far defined our 21st century ethos.

BIDEN PUTS HIS FATE, AND MAYBE THE NATION'S, IN THE HANDS OF HUNTER

Maybe it all changed because of the coarse complexities of the Clinton administration, or the visceral tragedy and fear of 9/11 and the policy confusion of the subsequent Gulf War. Maybe it was the glamorous cool of Barack and Michelle Obama that dazzled so many frumpy members of the press corps.

Certainly, it worsened with the polarizing presence of Donald Trump, which excreted an epidemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome to all four corners of the Dominant Media, and generated such hatred of and derision towards the 45th president that many reporters not only became overtly biased against him but practically bragged about being agents of "The Resistance."

However, nothing compares to what I have witnessed in the five years since Joe Biden launched his successful presidential bid in 2019.

I was surprised when Biden decided to run for president again, his third attempt at competing for the White House. It was not his chronological age of 77; many of us know plenty of septuagenarians who are vital, mentally sharp, physically industrious and fully lucid.


But not Joe Biden.

Biden was an old 77, in body and mind. In November 2017, when I was on Nantucket Island for the Thanksgiving holiday, I attended a question and answer and book signing event for Biden’s new memoir, "Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose." Some politicians publish memoirs before commencing a presidential bid to introduce themselves to the voting public. Some politicians publish memoirs at the end of their career, to say goodbye. I assumed this was the latter, as well as an effort for Biden to try to earn some post-Obama administration cash; Biden famously often complained that he was one of the least financially flush political figures in Washington.

Joe Concha on Biden media fanfare in full effectVideo
Biden spoke to a room full of friendly local year-rounders and summer residents, many of whom had known him personally for years. I was taken aback by what I witnessed. The fire had left Biden’s eyes. He rambled strangely, repeatedly lost focus, misunderstood questions, missed cues. After the Q&A, a decidedly awkward, meandering affair, Biden greeted a select group of audience members backstage, to sign books, take photos and say hello. I watched as he struggled to maintain the simplest of small talk, on occasion failing to recognize old friends and supporters, men and women who had known him well for decades.

Well, that’s the end, I thought. Biden’s swan song. I considered it fortunate for his family that his political career had ended, and had arguably ended well, with two terms as Obama’s vice president, where he had acquitted himself with relative dignity and exited on a career high of civility, spirit, and decorum.

And then he ran for president.

There were many factors that enabled Biden to win first the nomination, and then the general election in 2020. Obama intervened during primary season to clear Biden’s path, encouraging Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar to drop out, not just to help Biden, but to prevent the firebrand Bernie Sanders from becoming the nominee. The COVID pandemic kept Biden comfortably tucked away in his Delaware basement for much of the general election, social distancing his way to victory. Trump himself labored under the unfamiliar pressures of a pandemic presidency, unable to charm or convince a weary nation that he could continue the job at hand.

But a leading factor in Biden’s 2020 presidential victory was the press.

placeholder
Large swaths of the political media decided that any substantive criticism of Biden would contradict their shared goal of getting Trump out of the White House. They stopped doing their jobs and became activists instead of reporters. They willingly betrayed their responsibilities to the public and the requirements of an open society.

Any journalist from a left-leaning press outfit who offered up concern over Biden’s health or questioned his general competence as a potential president was bullied and ridiculed on social media or live on the air, even threatened with cancelation, by Biden’s staff, by Democratic operatives and by fellow reporters. The coverage of Biden overall throughout the campaign was muted, vague and insubstantial. By contrast, coverage of Trump was largely aggressive, hostile and hyperbolic. Trump, of course, deserved intense scrutiny, but the imbalance was clear to anyone who wished to see it.

After Biden won the White House, his staff became even more opaque and secretive. Biden was shielded from the press, rarely sitting for interviews and avoiding press conferences to a farcical degree. He relied on notecards and teleprompters for even the most elementary appearances. He took long vacations followed by weekends at the beach. He skipped important events at world summits and made embarrassing faux pas at important meetings.

Reporters were not allowed to communicate with Biden’s physician or see his full medical records, a standard element of White House coverage that has caused drama in every previous administration, but has rarely been refused.

MSNBC host gushes over Biden's 'historically successful' leadership following disastrous debateVideo
His team obfuscated and intimidated, denied what was visible to all. Troubling raw video feeds were deemed "cheap fakes." Biden, they said, was in the prime of life, regularly outworking his younger advisers and sharp as Canadian Cheddar.

And the friendly media let them get away with it all. Not every story of every conspiracy of silence in the various newsrooms is exactly the same. Editors, anchors, executive producers, beat reporters — all have played different roles in different news organizations to simply black out the truth. The White House press corps was not gaslit by Biden’s aides. They were intimidated and co-conspirators in equal measure.

This is not to suggest that every media element and news outlet lied unabated. There were some gentle forays into medical analysis and concern. The New York Times published a few prominent articles that prodded the sleeping giant, although such stories were always hedged and couched, and made a point of comparing Biden favorably to Trump. And then the paper’s journalists were stridently rebutted and ridiculed by the administration.

placeholder
Late night comics, generally liberal in nature, actually did more than our nation’s biggest newsrooms to hold Biden accountable, sometimes poking fun at Biden’s elderly stumbles, and at the absurdities of the White House pushback.

The RNC and Red Media, meanwhile, often went too far with accusations of dementia, especially during the first two years when Biden’s decline was less acute, spouting extravagant diagnoses and conspiracy theories. When such coverage veered into obvious fraudulence, the other tribe was granted another layer of camouflage.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Biden was not as far gone as the Reds claimed, nor as hale as the Blues pretended. He had good moments and bad, lucid mornings and cloudy afternoons. He needed rest and calm, and comfortable conditions, and then was usually able to perform adequately, for brief periods. This produced enough video clips for the friendly press and the White House to hide behind, and claim all his days were good. Biden’s first chief of staff, Ron Klain, was masterful at managing both Biden’s schedule and his pals in the press corps.

But the presidency is a 24/7 job, with daily stresses and unforeseen crises. It is not part-time. It cannot be scheduled around a hazy old man’s care routine and frailties.

Several months ago, a few weeks after Biden’s respectable showing at the State of the Union, sources began to let me know that the president was worsening precipitously. His mental condition was waning, and he was painfully frail. Meetings with him were at times pitiful and scary. His team, said my sources, were both in denial about the state of the campaign and his capability for future governance, and also shoring up their conspiracy of silence, with talking points, scare tactics and false promises for the media.

Those desperate missives became wishy-washy excuses in the newspapers and stertorous lectures on cable news.



The media’s conspiracy of silence was intended to keep Donald Trump from returning to the White House for a second term.

It is ironic that the deception and hypocrisy may be what in fact leads Trump straight back to the Oval Office.

They forget it.

Sad times.

[Luvnit2]

(07-04-2024, 04:37 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: They forget it.

Sad times.

I know a lot of people hate Sean Hannity. He said in 2007 or 2008 I believe "journalism is dead".

Again, an accurate account by an employee of Fox News. 

For years Fox has added viewers at the expense of CNN and MSNBC. The left wants you to believe it has nothing to do with content. It is like saying I will never go to that restaurant again after getting raw chicken served to you. They left because they did. not like the product, they were seeing through the lies to prop up Democrats.

Fast forward and now we have white house reporters admitting they ignored anything good on conservatives because of their hatred of Trump.

I have said it for a long time and think it is truer now than ever, Democrats became the party of hate. Why did liberals stop having conversations and making any attempt to see a point of view different from their own? Conservatives are many. things, but nowhere close to the level of hatred spewed by liberal media as they attempted to brain wash people (cult like) to only think as a liberal and to hate everything conservative.

I know a lot of conservatives and liberals. Not all liberals are far left, and they can have an intelligent conversation with anyone. I know far right conservatives whose views I do not agree as well. But the common thread of the middle of both parties in my opinion is they believe in God; they believe in donating to church and to organizations. They want to contribute and be a good person.

I don't hate liberals, never will. I just don't agree with their politics. The far left seems to take it up several notches with anyone who supports Trump. They hate the man. Hate is a state of mind that never heeds great results. It may be more dangerous to the individual who hates than the person or group they are hating on. I hope as we all reflect on the privilege we have to live in a free country today on Independence Day, we find peace within our hearts, we find forgiveness for our neighbors and our enemies and we never forget the ultimate sacrifices that were made so we can voice our opinion, so we can ge free.

[SunsetBengal]

As a man who studied Mass Communications, which was Journalism heavy, I can safely say that in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished the news changed from being "the news" to "news entertainment intended to gather eyeballs and advertising revenue". Reporters and Anchors were forced to tell the straight facts, with a straight face, it was boring and people tuned it out as white noise. Now, it's a free for all of opinion mixed with actual news reporting and the result is a very polarized audience that chooses the side that presents their personal "side" the best.

That in itself is fine, the problem lays in that most of the networks that broadcast news programming are owned by companies with views that lean left. Prior to Rupert Murdoch creating the Fox News Network things were literally one sided. In order to have truly "fair and balanced" reporting and supporting opinion being presented, their should be an equal number of presenters from each side (which pains me to say, as I truly believe that this Nation is lacking additional choices politically). However, I do feel that the left leaning conglomerates that own the bulk of broadcast network news agencies need to be held to anti trust and broken up. That would at least allow for a more even playing field in terms of the duopoly that this Country currently operates under politically.

[Luvnit2]

(07-04-2024, 06:38 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: As a man who studied Mass Communications, which was Journalism heavy, I can safely say that in 1987 when the Fairness Doctrine was abolished the news changed from being "the news" to "news entertainment intended to gather eyeballs and advertising revenue". Reporters and Anchors were forced to tell the straight facts, with a straight face, it was boring and people tuned it out as white noise. Now, it's a free for all of opinion mixed with actual news reporting and the result is a very polarized audience that chooses the side that presents their personal "side" the best.

That in itself is fine, the problem lays in that most of the networks that broadcast news programming are owned by companies with views that lean left. Prior to Rupert Murdoch creating the Fox News Network things were literally one sided. In order to have truly "fair and balanced" reporting and supporting opinion being presented, their should be an equal number of presenters from each side (which pains me to say, as I truly believe that this Nation is lacking additional choices politically). However, I do feel that the left leaning conglomerates that own the bulk of broadcast network news agencies need to be held to anti trust and broken up. That would at least allow for a more even playing field in terms of the duopoly that this Country currently operates under politically.

Good stuff Sunset.

I would add while conservatives move to Fox and NY Post and growing network OAN and Democrats move too CNN, MSNBC on the cable side and mainstream CBS, NBC, ABC and WAPO and NYT, their bases keep the financially solvent. Just like elections, Independents searching for the truth may abandon the liberal networks they used to trust. It is the Independents who can force less biased coverage by the left leaning or right leaning news sites.

Money speaks volumes. I am not sure CNN and MSNBC want to be a 100% liberal leaning format and keep losing viewers. I only mention these 2 as Fox has been building their audience for years.

[StoneTheCrow]

*they

[hollodero]

(07-04-2024, 05:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I know a lot of people hate Sean Hannity. He said in 2007 or 2008 I believe "journalism is dead".

Again, an accurate account by an employee of Fox News. 

For years Fox has added viewers at the expense of CNN and MSNBC. The left wants you to believe it has nothing to do with content. It is like saying I will never go to that restaurant again after getting raw chicken served to you. They left because they did. not like the product, they were seeing through the lies to prop up Democrats.

Fast forward and now we have white house reporters admitting they ignored anything good on conservatives because of their hatred of Trump.

I have said it for a long time and think it is truer now than ever, Democrats became the party of hate. Why did liberals stop having conversations and making any attempt to see a point of view different from their own? Conservatives are many. things, but nowhere close to the level of hatred spewed by liberal media as they attempted to brain wash people (cult like) to only think as a liberal and to hate everything conservative.

I know a lot of conservatives and liberals. Not all liberals are far left, and they can have an intelligent conversation with anyone. I know far right conservatives whose views I do not agree as well. But the common thread of the middle of both parties in my opinion is they believe in God; they believe in donating to church and to organizations. They want to contribute and be a good person.

I don't hate liberals, never will. I just don't agree with their politics. The far left seems to take it up several notches with anyone who supports Trump. They hate the man. Hate is a state of mind that never heeds great results. It may be more dangerous to the individual who hates than the person or group they are hating on. I hope as we all reflect on the privilege we have to live in a free country today on Independence Day, we find peace within our hearts, we find forgiveness for our neighbors and our enemies and we never forget the ultimate sacrifices that were made so we can voice our opinion, so we can ge free.

I cannot disagree with all that much, plenty of your critizisms are valid, and I can live with mentioning God. The only issue for me is that very similar things take place on the other side too. And that is the part I don't understand, how you seem to have little sensitivity for that, eg. how you can keep praising FOX. They do the same things MSNBC tries to do, even more effectively, but at least as reprehensible and partisan in their practices. And the same holds true for many of your other grievances, they could just as well be mirrored. Would one switch out conservatives and liberals/right and left/democrats and Trump in your post, it would ring just as true to me. It's not just one side that's the problem, it's both.


In the same sense, I see you hating Biden just as much as other people hate Trump. Just a mirror.

[Luvnit2]

(07-04-2024, 10:03 PM)hollodero Wrote: I cannot disagree with all that much, plenty of your critizisms are valid, and I can live with mentioning God. The only issue for me is that very similar things take place on the other side too. And that is the part I don't understand, how you seem to have little sensitivity for that, eg. how you can keep praising FOX. They do the same things MSNBC tries to do, even more effectively, but at least as reprehensible and partisan in their practices. And the same holds true for many of your other grievances, they could just as well be mirrored. Would one switch out conservatives and liberals/right and left/democrats and Trump in your post, it would ring just as true to me. It's not just one side that's the problem, it's both.


In the same sense, I see you hating Biden just as much as other people hate Trump. Just a mirror.

Please attempt to not derail threads. By all means, start your own thread with your own articles if you believe it happens on the other side as well. I don't see Fox blatantly lying, but we know for a fact now liberal has and have refused to cover the Democratic POTUS, they covered for him.

As for your Biden comment, I feel bad for the Biden the man who is being manipulated by the media, his wife and son Hunter. I don't hate the man, I hate his policies and using our DOJ as a weapon against conservatives.

I wish him well after he leaves office, hopefully sooner than later.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(07-04-2024, 05:46 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I have said it for a long time and think it is truer now than ever, Democrats became the party of hate. Why did liberals stop having conversations and making any attempt to see a point of view different from their own? Conservatives are many. things, but nowhere close to the level of hatred spewed by liberal media as they attempted to brain wash people (cult like) to only think as a liberal and to hate everything conservative.

I know a lot of conservatives and liberals. Not all liberals are far left, and they can have an intelligent conversation with anyone. I know far right conservatives whose views I do not agree as well. But the common thread of the middle of both parties in my opinion is they believe in God; they believe in donating to church and to organizations. They want to contribute and be a good person.

I don't hate liberals, never will. I just don't agree with their politics. The far left seems to take it up several notches with anyone who supports Trump. They hate the man. Hate is a state of mind that never heeds great results. It may be more dangerous to the individual who hates than the person or group they are hating on. I hope as we all reflect on the privilege we have to live in a free country today on Independence Day, we find peace within our hearts, we find forgiveness for our neighbors and our enemies and we never forget the ultimate sacrifices that were made so we can voice our opinion, so we can ge free.

I think the hate comes from the extreme, as I work with a lot of left wing liberals, and they're mostly good people. There are a few that are a bit too far out there, but the vast majority are reasonable. I think you are accurate with the media spewing hate, because that is what gets the clicks and the only effective emotion they can channel in politics, considering what they have out there as candidates.

 It is disappointing.

[*pally*]

Everyone knows only Fox tells the truth

[Luvnit2]

(07-05-2024, 07:46 AM)pally Wrote: Everyone knows only Fox tells the truth

Fox opinion anchors are 100% conservative. They say ahead of time they are opinion based.

As for Fox News and stories, Fox does a lot of journalism and also published others who report stories. They also have a lot of true liberals on. their payroll, not fake conservatives' others employ.

Fox allows debated head-to-head with liberals ad conservatives every day.

You may hate Fox, but f you watched, you will see a news station who allows liberals to attack conservatives without interruption. They treat everyone non their programs with respect including Democratic politicians.

But no Fox is not perfect and gets things wrong.

[Dill]

(07-05-2024, 01:23 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please attempt to not derail threads. By all means, start your own thread with your own articles if you believe it happens on the other side as well. I don't see Fox blatantly lying, but we know for a fact now liberal has and have refused to cover the Democratic POTUS, they covered for him.
As for your Biden comment, I feel bad for the Biden the man who is being manipulated by the media, his wife and son Hunter. I don't hate the man, I hate his policies and using our DOJ as a weapon against conservatives.
I wish him well after he leaves office, hopefully sooner than later.

Guy who says many of your criticisms are valid is "derailing the thread" if he mentions they also apply to your news sources?

Looks like you are attempting Fox-style, one-side only editorial control over this thread. "Censorship" is a better word.

Fox never covered the Dominion suit, that I recall. Perhaps that's why you have difficulty seeing Fox (or Trump) "blatantly lying." 

Are you really unaware how the suit revealed that during the 2020 election, Fox lost viewers with accurate, real-time reporting? Tucker even wanted a reporter fired because she was telling the truth, risking Fox market share. Fox adjusted to the hemorrhaging of viewers by returning to the openly biased reporting their viewers expected.  And the suit itself came about because Fox was a platform for the wildest election lies from Sidney Powell and Giuliani. Murdoch, Hannity, and Carlson all knew these two and their minions were spewing lies, but they gave them airtime anyway, even as they mocked Trump as crazy and a danger behind the sciences. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/18/business/media/fox-dominion-defamation-settle.html

As for the thread topic, the conspiracy thesis that "the msm protected Biden and that's 'elder abuse'" illustrates a point I made on the Biden vs Trump thread about how these special conspiratorial takes on news events get spun at Fox and Newsmax and then disseminated broadly, without question, even to venues like this forum.  This conspiracy theory follows the "media coup was the real coup" theory.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2024, 01:23 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Please attempt to not derail threads.

You know, when you post your opinion on an internet board, you can expect people to chime in and give their perspective.

I particularly do not understnad your reaction since I did not even disagree with you. Yeah the liberal leaning media is awful and guilty of many things, imho most of the things you say are true. On topic enough for you?

[HarleyDog]

(07-05-2024, 06:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: You know, when you post your opinion on an internet board, you can expect people to chime in and give their perspective.

I particularly do not understnad your reaction since I did not even disagree with you. Yeah the liberal leaning media is awful and guilty of many things, imho most of the things you say are true. On topic enough for you?

Dang. This post kind of blew me away.

[hollodero]

(07-05-2024, 07:26 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Dang. This post kind of blew me away.

How so?

[HarleyDog]

(07-05-2024, 07:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: How so?

Just did. I wanted to invite you to Merica and stay a few nights. I got plenty of space, and we can drink beer and BBQ and party. Before that last post, I would be like no. I don't want to hold hands and walk around yelling at people judging them and calling them racist if they didn't agree with me.