Media collusion with the Clinton campaign is not good for our Democracy

[michal1980]

CNN sharing townhall questions with clinton?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/r...ed-cnn-town-hall-questions-with-clinton-camp/

NYT gives clinton veto power over quotes
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/

WashPost spiking bad news about podesta?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/w...iked-info-about-podesta-conflict-of-interest/

All this smoke and fire, and the libs think that the lmsm is still somehow untainted. 90% of washington media votes for dems: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

 

[michal1980]

This is inaccurate, for much of the campaign Trump's coverage was overwhelmingly positive according to empirical research into it.

research by liberals trying to prove they dont have a liberal bias? LOL so gullible.

 

[Perknose]

research by liberals trying to prove they dont have a liberal bias? LOL so gullible.

BOO!

Hahahahahahahaha.

Omg, look behind you, it's a libruhl! Quick, into the bunker!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

CNN sharing townhall questions with clinton?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/r...ed-cnn-town-hall-questions-with-clinton-camp/

NYT gives clinton veto power over quotes
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/

WashPost spiking bad news about podesta?
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/w...iked-info-about-podesta-conflict-of-interest/

All this smoke and fire, and the libs think that the lmsm is still somehow untainted. 90% of washington media votes for dems: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

what the actual fuck will you not fall for, gullible boy wonder?

 

[fskimospy]

research by liberals trying to prove they dont have a liberal bias? LOL so gullible.

Ah yes, the old circular reasoning. Declare the media biased and then when presented with contrary evidence declare that evidence biased too. Now you never have to reconsider your opinion!

 

[rudder]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/

That is frequently true with literally every campaign and political party ever. They give up some control over what they write in exchange for information and access. This is true for democrats, republicans, and everyone else.

How naive are you?

 

[pauldun170]

Long time know it all stepping in here.
Negative news about Trump happens because Trump is an over the top stupidity generator and has been for 1/4 century.

Cooperation between the media and the subjects they report on is normal give and take.
Editorial staff make the call and at no point in history has there been a clear separation between Media and the subjects they report on.
Whether its Clinton staff working with NYT or RNC working with FoxNews.
If Trump wasn't an old one track fool, he could have fostered better relationships instead of having idiots trying to craft messages from the huge bowls of shit he serves up.

 

[zinfamous]

All negative though. You think our news organizations colluding with a political campaign is a good thing?

How is it the media's fault that everything that comes out of Trump's butthole-sized mouth is completely negative? He has had nothing but a free, unrestrained platform wrg to the media feeding video of Trump just saying stuff.

This truly is a case of hate the playa, not the game.

 

[michal1980]

BOO!

Hahahahahahahaha.

Omg, look behind you, it's a libruhl! Quick, into the bunker!

How is pointing out reality scary? why are you in such denial that liberals run most of the media in the USA? shouldn't you embrace it?

 

[zinfamous]

How is pointing out reality scary? why are you in such denial that liberals run most of the media in the USA? shouldn't you embrace it?

oh right--you're that guy that is posting links to DailyCaller.

 

[michal1980]

Ah yes, the old circular reasoning. Declare the media biased and then when presented with contrary evidence declare that evidence biased too. Now you never have to reconsider your opinion!

I presented evidence the media is biased, you? nope nothing. When most of the journalists are liberal what do you expect the bias to be? You'd deny the sky is blue if a republican said it was.

 

[michal1980]

oh right--you're that guy that is posting links to DailyCaller.

ahh, is that not on your approved list of news outlets? Should we only be limited to news outlets ran by liberals before you belive them?

PS the links came from many different places, including the Washington times which should that 90% of Washington journalists vote for Dems. Only a tru believer will at that news claim that journalism is un-biased.

 

[jackstar7]

The persecution is strong here.

 

[pauldun170]

Reminder

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...gs-top-all-cable-networks-for-first-time.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/1/fox-news-most-watched-cable-news-channel-159th-mon/

Newspapers
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html

FoxNews and Wall Street Journal right at the top.

 

[agent00f]

ahh, is that not on your approved list of news outlets? Should we only be limited to news outlets ran by liberals before you belive them?

PS the links came from many different places, including the Washington times which should that 90% of Washington journalists vote for Dems. Only a tru believer will at that news claim that journalism is un-biased.

Just a heads up the Washington Times names itself that so dumbasses would confuse the name for real journalism.

 

[zinfamous]

ahh, is that not on your approved list of news outlets? Should we only be limited to news outlets ran by liberals before you belive them?

Nah, but there really is no reason to try and pass off blogs run by bi-polar psychonaughts as legit sources.

 

[dank69]

Speaking of collusion:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

Proof that Wikileaks is faking dirt on Clinton and proof that Trump has expedited access to the latest disinformation.

 

[Commodus]

Here's the problem with claiming a liberal bias: it assumes that the media should always offer the exact same amount of content favoring or attacking each side, as if you're handing out candy on Hallowe'en and don't want to upset the trick-or-treaters by giving someone an extra chocolate bar.

Clinton's not the one making egregiously offensive (and usually false) statements on virtually a daily basis -- Trump and Pence will lie about remarks that have been captured on video. Most of the conspiracy theories swirling around Clinton (like the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi) have been demonstrated as false. The email server debacle is about the only issue that sticks.

So no, the media doesn't inherently favor Clinton... reality favors Clinton. Trump just offers much more fodder for criticism. Think of it this way: creationists will insist that their theories get mentioned in textbooks, but that doesn't change that evolution is the only theory supported by the facts.

 

[hal2kilo]

Just a heads up the Washington Times names itself that so dumbasses would confuse the name for real journalism.

The Washington Times used to be the Washington Star which was the moderate/conservative alternate newspaper to read if you did not like the Post. Of course my parents would never let that Post rag in the house. The Star was on it's last legs when Mr. Moon (not sure if he is even a citizen) bought that paper so he could turn it into a completely conservative rag.

 

[zinfamous]

Speaking of collusion:

http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-pu...-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635

Proof that Wikileaks is faking dirt on Clinton and proof that Trump has expedited access to the latest disinformation.

That can't be right because Newsweek is a conservative/republican rag. Oh wait...it's either now a RINO rag or simple PROOF! that the vast conspiracy runs deeper than we imagined!

 

[agent00f]

The Washington Times used to be the Washington Star which was the moderate/conservative alternate newspaper to read if you did not like the Post. Of course my parents would never let that Post rag in the house. The Star was on it's last legs when Mr. Moon (not sure if he is even a citizen) bought that paper so he could turn it into a completely conservative rag.

The Times was founded independently of the Star.

 

[hal2kilo]

How this for collusion:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ump-or-face-nuclear-war/ar-AAiROc2?li=BBnbcA1

Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.

 

[senseamp]

That guy has an interesting job. It's basically to say crazy stuff to make the dictator in charge look sane.

 

[michal1980]

Here's the problem with claiming a liberal bias: it assumes that the media should always offer the exact same amount of content favoring or attacking each side, as if you're handing out candy on Hallowe'en and don't want to upset the trick-or-treaters by giving someone an extra chocolate bar.

Clinton's not the one making egregiously offensive (and usually false) statements on virtually a daily basis -- Trump and Pence will lie about remarks that have been captured on video. Most of the conspiracy theories swirling around Clinton (like the Clinton Foundation and Benghazi) have been demonstrated as false. The email server debacle is about the only issue that sticks.

So no, the media doesn't inherently favor Clinton... reality favors Clinton. Trump just offers much more fodder for criticism. Think of it this way: creationists will insist that their theories get mentioned in textbooks, but that doesn't change that evolution is the only theory supported by the facts.

When nearly every journalist is a liberal every story they cover is tainted.