So now the leaks are important?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.
Only because you don't understand the concept of professionalism.When nearly every journalist is a liberal every story they cover is tainted.
Leaks are getting a lot of coverage, but they are basically confirming what we already knew that Hillary is a politician.
Compared to grab the pussy, they are just boring.
When nearly every journalist is a liberal every story they cover is tainted.
When nearly every journalist is a liberal every story they cover is tainted.
Same every election - the liberal news outlets claim to have just received the negative material that has existed for decades. Not buying it.NBC News sat on it for a whole four days while they talked to their lawyers (as the parent company has been previously sued by Trump) for an ok while simultaneously taping a segment relating the news. They thought they could break the story when they wanted but somebody at NBC got fed up with the delay and leaked to the WP who promptly stole NBC's thunder. I don't see collusion just two different corporate structures at work weighing potential litigation risk , one overly beaurcpatic and cautious (NBC) and one that doesn't give any fucks (WP).
That first bit is an oft-repeated lie. Fox News is the #1 cable news station. Far more people get their news from the alphabets. It certainly is a Republican outlet though.Only we've just seen data showing that Fox News is the top TV news network in the US... and the channel hasn't been shy about admitting that it's a Republican mouthpiece.
That and it's easy to claim a liberal bias when the news doesn't go your way. What would your vision of an untainted media entail? Bring up discredited accusations against Clinton again? Try to revive the email claims when the government won't press charges? Pretend that Trump doesn't say offensive and demonstrably false things almost constantly? Sorry, but it's Trump that's losing the election for Trump, not the press.
Same every election - the liberal news outlets claim to have just received the negative material that has existed for decades. Not buying it.
That first bit is an oft-repeated lie. Fox News is the #1 cable news station. Far more people get their news from the alphabets. It certainly is a Republican outlet though.
When nearly every journalist is a liberal every story they cover is tainted.
Yep! So can you show me how your preferred news sources are staffed by independents? Do you think that right wing media is biased? Do you think a contributor or a writer for right wing media working for the trump campaign means that they right wing media is unbiased?
That first bit is an oft-repeated lie. Fox News is the #1 cable news station. Far more people get their news from the alphabets. It certainly is a Republican outlet though.
That was my point, that (using your numbers) 20% of the population get right-slanted news from Fox News but 80% get left-slanted news from ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC/MSNBC. There is no point in claiming that Fox News is some sort of influence because in the overall scheme of things, they are simply preaching to the choir. I'm pretty conservative and even I don't watch it. (Although I would if I were available when Shep Smith or Brett Bair (sp?) were on, it's just that when I am available to consume TV news, Fox is all annoying echo chamber in pretty pole dancer packages.)You're both right. FoxNews channel is the #1 cable news station, but I am pretty sure they still carry the highest viewership ratings of all news programs. The main distinguishing feature between them--as a cable news network--and the alphabets is that viewership for any given news program, and TV news overall, is way down compared to the halcyon days when you and your parents cozied up to an evening with Murrow or Cronkite like a dependable 80% or so of the TV viewers would.
Fox's claims are dubious in the sense that they use their viewership as some metric for a changed political demographic or even strangely, "claiming that the majority of people think like we do because we are the most popular." That is John Conner level thinking. Back when there were only 3 stations to choose from (maybe 4?), ratings needed to own a good 40%+ share for any given program to be considered successful, and *I think* that was on the low end. I love Lucy owned something like an 80%+ share for their time slot, iirc. Murrow/Cronkite were no different.
Today, Fox wins out with something like 20% of the audience, but of course that is because of massive dilution with choice. It certainly is no metric for claiming that they have a majority share of the public opinion, that they are the most trusted--but they are the most watched. These days, when looking at 24 hour news viewership, it simply seems to mean that they are "the most entertaining," a distinction that they are very proud to carry.
Well, when caught using private servers for official government business the Bushies did turn over all the RNC servers and all the backup tapes to the National Archives so that they could determine which emails were official business and should be preserved, even though that gave the National Archives people access to all the RNC's political and personal emails on those servers. Compare that to Hillary Clinton who, when caught using a private server for ALL her official business, hired professionals to wipe the data and physically destroy the media, then gave printed versions of selected emails. Sometimes selectively edited selected emails. In honesty and accountability, the Bushies are head and shoulders above the Hildabeast.Hey, I want to know when the RNC and the Trump campaign are going to release all of THEIR internal emails. You know, to prove to us how they don't scheme and play games behind the scenes.
That was my point, that (using your numbers) 20% of the population get right-slanted news from Fox News but 80% get left-slanted news from ABC/CBS/CNN/NBC/MSNBC. There is no point in claiming that Fox News is some sort of influence because in the overall scheme of things, they are simply preaching to the choir. I'm pretty conservative and even I don't watch it. (Although I would if I were available when Shep Smith or Brett Bair (sp?) were on, it's just that when I am available to consume TV news, Fox is all annoying echo chamber in pretty pole dancer packages.)
Well, when caught using private servers for official government business the Bushies did turn over all the RNC servers and all the backup tapes to the National Archives so that they could determine which emails were official business and should be preserved, even though that gave the National Archives people access to all the RNC's political and personal emails on those servers. Compare that to Hillary Clinton who, when caught using a private server for ALL her official business, hired professionals to wipe the data and physically destroy the media, then gave printed versions of selected emails. Sometimes selectively edited selected emails. In honesty and accountability, the Bushies are head and shoulders above the Hildabeast.
The liberal media is pulling out all the stops trying to influence the election.
They will fail.
lol See right below you.I'm never surprised when you assert things you know aren't true. The media, the hard drives, on Clinton's server were not physically destroyed but rather turned over to the FBI. You know this to be true yet you claim otherwise.
The only reason that the National Archives got the Bushies' emails is because of the Presidential records act of 1978. It doesn't apply to department heads like the SoS.
lol See right below you.
There are tons of Russian leaks, FOIA, etc revealing info on Clinton, if you want to read it, which most people don't. Trump won't even release his tax returns and we are only finding out that he is a sex offender who likes to grab pussy without consent in the final weeks before the election. Maybe if right wing media was doing actual journalism, instead of obsessing with Hillary, the Republicans would have a better nominee.