Fears mount on the deplorable dirty's 'rigged election' rhetoric

[Darth Omar]

The individuals you mention all have opinion-based shows. They're supposed to render opinion.

Fox NEWS is still a campaign arm for the GOP, just as MSNBC is for Dems. You're wrong about CNN; they have more opinion shows that are slanted against Trump, but their actual news coverage is as close to the middle as a network gets. The NY Times has always been a liberal paper, just like the Washington Times is conservative.

Why do you limit your analysis to "establishment" media? I'm not even sure what that term means anymore when talk radio garners so many listeners. How many more millions need to listen to talk radio before it becomes "establishment"? It certainly isn't fringe.

Regardless, it's a whine. And you're whining about it because Trump is whining about it. And Trump is whining about it after the "rigged" media gave him $2 billion in free advertising and the GOP nomination.

I take it you're ok with this:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash
______________

It's fair to say Her Heinous has 430 journalist-surrogates in the media. Yet you whine about Trump's media exposure lol?

 

[J Craft]

Cfan castigated Americans with the term deplorable. You know cfan, Hillary called democrat voters stupid to Wall Street bankers. She definitely had voters like you in mind.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I take it you're ok with this:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash
______________

It's fair to say Her Heinous has 430 journalist-surrogates in the media. Yet you whine about Trump's media exposure lol?

I don't care who people donate to.

And I'm not the one "whining." I'm just stating a fact about the coverage Trump has gotten since he entered the campaign. To say he has sucked up all of the oxygen is really understating it. The media has made his campaign.

And you keep ignoring everything that's inconvenient to your whining - talk radio in particular, but certainly Fox & other outlets as well. Anyone can cherrypick articles like the one above. If you're determined to believe that Trump is the victim he claims he is and that "everyone is against him," that's what you're going to believe.

 

[J Craft]

I take it you're ok with this:

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash
______________

It's fair to say Her Heinous has 430 journalist-surrogates in the media. Yet you whine about Trump's media exposure lol?

Hosting a self identified liberal segment isn't what emails point to. They point to collusion.

 

[Darth Omar]

I don't care who people donate to.

And I'm not the one "whining." I'm just stating a fact about the coverage Trump has gotten since he entered the campaign. To say he has sucked up all of the oxygen is really understating it. The media has made his campaign.

And you keep ignoring everything that's inconvenient to your whining - talk radio in particular, but certainly Fox & other outlets as well. Anyone can cherrypick articles like the one above. If you're determined to believe that Trump is the victim he claims he is and that "everyone is against him," that's what you're going to believe.

You don't care who 'journalists' donate to in a campaign as long as the democrat is getting 96% of the money lol. The money is less important than the fact such a ideological disparity exists.

But as long as it's against Trump it's ok.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You don't care who 'journalists' donate to in a campaign as long as the democrat is getting 96% of the money lol. The money is less important than the fact such a ideological disparity exists.

But as long as it's against Trump it's ok.

Not sure if you're aware of this, Darth, but journalists are people. They have opinions, and they vote.

This reminds me of the studies people tried to peddle a few years back that the majority of journalists vote Democrat. I mean, so what? Do people think they're robots or something?

Every single person out there has political preferences.

 

[Darth Omar]

Not sure if you're aware of this, Darth, but journalists are people. They have opinions, and they vote.

This reminds me of the studies people tried to peddle a few years back that the majority of journalists vote Democrat. I mean, so what? Do people think they're robots or something?

Every single person out there has political preferences.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were a journalist I'd refrain from getting into politics when it's my job to cover it, as objectively as possible. They have their preferences and their right to donate to a campaign, but after giving Trump negative coverage they should admit they have an interest in Hillary winning.

 

[zappasguitar]

That is the impression people have. Again it is an impression. A perception people have on things. Given that this is the case would the onus not be on the federal govt to show that it is not so by being more transparent?

And who are these "people" that believe the election is rigged?

The claims of election "rigging" only highlight the increasing desperation from the Trump camp.

As Trumpkins see their chances of victory dwindling by the day, they ratchet up their rhetoric.

 

[zappasguitar]

I'm talking about the establishment media---like the NYT link you didn't address. That's a remarkable concession for them. There's never been anything like it, this isn't media bias business as usual. The bulk of the media is *actively engaged* in trying to affect an electoral outcome.

CNN---in the tank for Hillary. MSNBC---laughably in the tank for Her Heinous. CBS---Team Hillary. WashPO---Team Hillary. Trump has Sean Hannity on Fox News.

Krauthammer doesn't like Trump. Megan Kelly hates him. Steve Hayes manages to be a journalist and play it down the middle. And it's hard to tell the National Review from HuffPo when the subject is Trump.

CNN in the tank for Hillary?

Jeebus man, they hired Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to pump Trump on the air every day.

That ain't exactly "in the tank" now is it?

 

[Bill]

Maybe it's just me, but if I were a journalist I'd refrain from getting into politics when it's my job to cover it, as objectively as possible. They have their preferences and their right to donate to a campaign, but after giving Trump negative coverage they should admit they have an interest in Hillary winning.

Perhaps many of them believe they are being objective.. & isn't that subjective, how they define objective??

Or should you be the one to define who & what is, & is not objective??

 

[anatta]

Maybe it's just me, but if I were a journalist I'd refrain from getting into politics when it's my job to cover it, as objectively as possible. They have their preferences and their right to donate to a campaign, but after giving Trump negative coverage they should admit they have an interest in Hillary winning.

WaPo and the NYTimes are major papers. NYTime is traditionally the "paper of record" - some bias is expected, but tolerated for quality reporting.

Now with "opposion journalism" and blatant slanting of coverage they are online fish wrappings

 

[Bill]

And who are these "people" that believe the election is rigged?

The claims of election "rigging" only highlight the increasing desperation from the Trump camp.

As Trumpkins see their chances of victory dwindling by the day, they ratchet up their rhetoric.

Even his own party called him out on it, pulled that bullShit card right off the table....

That likely wont stop all of his marching morons from screaming foul....

They will take the word of a X-democrat w/ a few months experience over the word of their own party leaders & their attorneys w/ combined experiences of thousands & thousands of months, campaigns etc etc etc...

 

[Bill]

WaPo and the NYTimes are major papers. NYTime is traditionally the "paper of record" - some bias is expected, but tolerated for quality reporting.

Now with "opposion journalism" and blatant slanting of coverage they are online fish wrappings

That is the traditional mode of operation.... That is how it is done in most of the rest of the planet.....

I have heard there was be well over 600,000 "papers" in this country, mostly small, & very small..... They had no illusions of setting out someone elses views~they want a say get your own newspaper/journal or whatever...

Anyone believe fox is objective?? MSNBC is said to have issues as well.... Does that stop viewers??

WHen the two major campaigns lay out their arguments to their party members or via paid advertising to the public are they fairly stating both sides?? Or are they stating their best arguments~the others worst arguments??

I am afraid the "press/media" isn't the fourth pillar it once was...

You have a handful of Yuge corp players & everyone runs the same generic crap from ap & Reuters...

ThnX alGore for the internetz.....

 

[anatta]

That is the traditional mode of operation.... That is how it is done in most of the rest of the planet.....

I have heard there was be well over 600,000 "papers" in this country, mostly small, & very small..... They had no illusions of setting out someone elses views~they want a say get your own newspaper/journal or whatever...

Anyone believe fox is objective?? MSNBC is said to have issues as well.... Does that stop viewers??

WHen the two major campaigns lay out their arguments to their party members or via paid advertising to the public are they fairly stating both sides?? Or are they stating their best arguments~the others worst arguments??

I am afraid the "press/media" isn't the fourth pillar it once was...

You have a handful of Yuge corp players & everyone runs the same generic crap from ap & Reuters...

ThnX alGore for the internetz.....

oh great.. so we're supposed to be happy becoming a banana republic?

I get multiple sourcing -the problem is EVERYTHING is a slant. There needs to be someplace for hard news ( unfiltered/unbiased)
and that's what we used to look for.

Also note with the death of journalism comes the death of investigative reporting..if not for Wiki would we know anything about anyone?
(not just this election). how pathetic is this?

Corp news is bad enough. Syndicates like Tribune put out homogenized newz -but there are locals
and editorial writers.
The problem with the net is that everything is slanted - the newspapers used to be someplace to find hard news.
Now we don't even have any of ths

 

[Darth Omar]

Perhaps many of them believe they are being objective.. & isn't that subjective, how they define objective??

Or should you be the one to define who & what is, & is not objective??

My point is being objective is difficult enough without being monetarily invested in the outcome to an election.

It would never occur to me to do that if I were a journalist.

 

[Bill]

oh great.. so we're supposed to be happy becoming a banana republic?

I get multiple sourcing -the problem is EVERYTHING is a slant. There needs to be someplace for hard news ( unfiltered/unbiased)
and that's what we used to look for.

Also note with the death of journalism comes the death of investigative reporting..if not for Wiki would we know anything about anyone?
(not just this election). how pathetic is this?

Corp news is bad enough. Syndicates like Tribune put out homogenized newz -but there are locals
and editorial writers.
The problem with the net is that everything is slanted - the newspapers used to be someplace to find hard news.
Now we don't even have any of ths

Cos, pls, don't play the drama queen here.... If we don't vote for him the world isn't going to end, the republic & civilization will not end & once he's gone are politic will be able to peer out over the edge of the gutter again....

Everything is a slant.. Fish can figure out angles, I know a smart guy like you can

Does the rightwing radio you been listening to provide you w/ no slant or angles??

 

[tsuke]

Cos, pls, don't play the drama queen here.... If we don't vote for him the world isn't going to end, the republic & civilization will not end & once he's gone are politic will be able to peer out over the edge of the gutter again....

Everything is a slant.. Fish can figure out angles, I know a smart guy like you can

Does the rightwing radio you been listening to provide you w/ no slant or angles??

we are way past angles and slant already. We are at the point where major outlets are submitting articles to the DNC/clinton campaign before printing for correction and approval.

 

[zappasguitar]

My point is being objective is difficult enough without being monetarily invested in the outcome to an election.

It would never occur to me to do that if I were a journalist.

How precisely do you arrive at the conclusion that reproters are "monetarily invested in the outcome" of this election?

What are you saying, that Hillary will fire every reporter who doesn't write supportive puff pieces about her in the run up to the election?

 

[zappasguitar]

we are way past angles and slant already. We are at the point where major outlets are submitting articles to the DNC/clinton campaign before printing for correction and approval.

Cite please.

 

[anatta]

Cos, pls, don't play the drama queen here.... If we don't vote for him the world isn't going to end, the republic & civilization will not end & once he's gone are politic will be able to peer out over the edge of the gutter again....

Everything is a slant.. Fish can figure out angles, I know a smart guy like you can

Does the rightwing radio you been listening to provide you w/ no slant or angles??

you know what is (supposedly) the difference between hard news and "angles" ( slant). Why is that acceptable?
because we're inured to the breakdown of the 4th estate into yet another partisan agenda?

I have a problem with thousands of (internet) sources, and none of them posting news. 'newz' isn't news.

If there was an attempt at investigative reporting -how far would it get? ( nowhere) -which means government can operate
in secrecy and without accountability.

It's a sad day when we have to look for Wiki to provide accountability/transparencey