Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[RumTumTugger]

Sorry to burst your bubble of ignorance, but actually I don't generally get any information from the MSM, as I don't trust them. Instead I follow a wide variety of alternative news sources. My favorites include: Secular Talk, TYT, Last Week Tonight, Reddit, The Daily Show, The International Business Times, Digg, The Intercept, Buzzfeed, and The Majority Report. I do occasionally see an article or clip from a MSM source when some other source happens to link to them.

I like to stay well-informed about US politics, and have generally listened to US political news/podcast/opinion pieces for multiple hours everyday for the last several years, because I like to be listening to something while I'm working, or when gaming.

But a problem that I see happen with a lot of conservatives in the US who reject the MSM is that they turn around and embrace what I would call "anti-fact anti-knowledge" news sources, that give a lot of false 'facts' and a whole lot of indoctrination, and end up making the hearer a lot more ignorant than someone who's watched no news at all. Various surveys have, for example, shown that the people who watch Fox news know less basic facts about world events than people who say they don't watch news. The Tea Party was born out of an anti-fact bubble, where people watched/listened to so much false news (Rush Limbaugh etc) and got their heads so full of anti-facts that their understanding of the world was completely different to reality. A lot of people on the Left assumed that the Tea Partiers must be racist, and that that was why they hated Obama so much, but reporter after reporter who went in and talked to them came back and said, "no, racism isn't what's driving these people, what's driving them is a complete misunderstanding of facts about the world." A lot of these people genuinely believed things like the idea that Obama wasn't going to step down after his presidency, and was genuinely seizing power to make himself a dictator, was going to confiscate everyone's guns by force etc, and genuinely thought he was doing this because he was a Muslim who hated America. I think conservatives in the US need to be particularly careful not to fall into the trap of the right-wing-media-bubble of anti-knowledge that is quite prevalent outside of the MSM, because the anti-fact right-wing-media-bubble is pretty large in the US.

reddit, Buzzfeed etc. And you have the gall to accuse others of getting their information from "anti-fact anti-knowledge" news sources. give me a break. I'd say pot meet kettle But the tea party you describe is nothing like true tea party. What those reporters you mentioned did is interview the FRINGE and base their view of the tea party on that instead of digging for the truth and actual facts about the movement and what they wanted. who now is being content with "anti fact, anti-knowlege" news sources? it isn't me. or most of the conservative on this board

Nope, doesn't happen. The MSM has pro-establishment pro-corporate pro-false-neutrality bias, and an anti-anything-outside-the-two-parties / anti-Sanders bias. I would love to see them call out Republican idiocy, but unfortunately they don't. CNN, in particular, is full of ignorant talking heads who say essentially "well the Democrats say X and the Republicans say Y. But we're not capable of working out who's right, so we'll just discuss the fact that they're both making accusations for the next hour."

Yes it does Starlight I've lived all my life in the united states looked all the news sources I could and time and again the True mainstream media gave democrats a pass and put the republicans in the wrong even when they weren't.

Agreed, but the problem is that they equally treat anything the Republicans choose to do as equally valid. Because both parties pay the media a lot of money for their political ads, and in exchange the media treats anything either party says or does as valid. The consequence of this is that US politics gets steadily worse because the media no longer acts as a watchdog that calls parties out for their misbehavior and instead just acts as their agent for press releases.

American politics is going downhill because of low information folk who are content with getting their news from buzzfeed, reddit true MSM etc and getting their so called facts from Wikpedia.

I think the dems were scared of being seen as using the deaths of Americans on 9/11 as a political football. They instead wanted to be seen as rallying the nation together in a time of crisis to support decisive American action.

Yes they did support for a little while but it didn't last long

But frankly I think that 9/11 should have been investigated a lot more thoroughly, especially since it has become clear just how much Bush was warned about the imminent Al Qaeda attacks and the fact that he and Cheney both fled D.C shortly after those warnings to go to remote parts of the country for one of the longest presidential vacations in history. And Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had been part of PNAC in 1997 that had called for a US invasion of Iraq and noted that it would take a long time to get the US public on side So I think that people in the Bush administration were probably content to let 9/11 happen after being warned about it by the CIA, because they saw the political potential of it. They weren't exactly panicking:

The only testimony Bush ended up giving was secret testimony to the Republican-appointed 9/11 report chairman, with Cheney accompanying him to make sure he didn't say anything out of line.

I'm not generally big on conspiracy theories... this is probably the only one I believe in fact (unless you count Clinton's emails / the Clinton Foundation, or my general opinion that the MSM is untrustworthy due to being run by large media conglomerates). I think the dems did themselves a huge disservice by not investigating 9/11 further. But that's part and parcel of their terrible, terrible, political strategies they've followed over the last 30 years.

so much fail in this one but what can you expect of someone who gets his news and information from the likes of reddit, buzzfeed, Wikipedia etc...

During the investigation about 9/11 it came out that the Clinton administration had in place a policy that made it virtually impossible for them to get information about what was coming because they choose to ignore intelligence coming from certain countries they felt had wrong internal polices.

No President Bush nor Vice President Cheney did not run from Washington taking a long vacation becuase htey knew what was coming, they were going about the business of running the country. President Bush was not hiding he was out in public at a school when the planes hit. but I guess you don't know about that since reddit, buzzfeed etc didn't tell you did they.

Sounds like reasonable grounds for one investigation, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't need eight investigations to discover. And yes, they've found that there were signs Muslims around the world were getting more agitated and diplomatic staff around the world were feeling more threatened, and so they'd taken various steps to try to increase security generally. But it isn't surprising that there was eventually an attack and someone eventually died... like many did at Muslim hands under Bush. If Republicans are truly concerned in general about security levels at consulates, they probably shouldn't prune all the federal budgets so vigorously.

What you were not told by buzzfeed reddit etc is that the Obama administration had warning signs from actions being taken by and information from the British they ignored. the TRUE non factual not news MSM choose to ignore those facts and keep accusing the republicans of playing politics when they were trying to get to the truth of the something the True MSM can't let happen if they can stop it because it would put democrats in a bad light so they demonize those trying to get the truth like they have time and again.

And Starlight don't go there about Republicans cutting federal budgets it is the democrats that decimated our military capability to the determent of the men and women who are serving. not giving someone as much of an increase as they wanted is not cutting. Unlike what the Democrats tried with the military budget they actually did try to decrease spending there.

[Starlight]

reddit, Buzzfeed etc. And you have the gall to accuse others of getting their information from "anti-fact anti-knowledge" news sources. give me a break.

....
and getting their so called facts from Wikpedia like you have.

No President Bush nor Vice President Cheney did not run from Washington taking a long vacation becuase htey knew what was coming, they were going about the business of running the country.

They got the timing of the attacks wrong by a few weeks, so even their extra-long vacations had ended shortly before it actually went down.

[RumTumTugger]

They got the timing of the attacks wrong by a few weeks, so even their extra-long vacations had ended shortly before it actually went down.

You might want re read my post looks like you replied before edited it for clarification purposes I"ll wait to see your reply to my edited version before saying anything else about your biased view gotten from biases sources about President Bush and Vice president Cheney and 9/11

[Starlight]

I"ll wait to see your reply to my edited version before saying anything else

Okay, then let me reiterate that I find your (and others here) wikipedia denalism hilarious. It's an encyclopedia that contains the generally-accepted facts about the world. While any particular article can be edited by a person who is biased, rejecting the whole notion of wikipedia as a source because you dislike the whole idea that there are generally-accepted facts about the world and want to reject the idea of facts as a liberal conspiracy, and instead have your own special set of anti-facts that you like to cling to, is an example of the general problem.

who now is being content with "anti fact, anti-knowlege" news sources? it isn't me. or most of the conservative on this board

It absolutely is the conservatives on this board. That is one of the major problems a lot of conservatives here have: They reject the general facts about the world that everyone else in the world accepts, and instead construct their own special set of facts that they've heard from dubious-right-wing-"news"-sources.

That problem repeatedly rears its head on this board, because a lot of conservatives here think they know things about certain subjects, and then it turns out that what they know is not only wrong, but is systematically wrong in such a way that makes it difficult to correct because it is so comprehensively wrong that there is no easy place to start.

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, then let me reiterate that I find your (and others here) wikipedia denalism hilarious. It's an encyclopedia that contains the generally-accepted facts about the world. While any particular article can be edited by a person who is biased, rejecting the whole notion of wikipedia as a source because you dislike the whole idea that there are generally-accepted facts about the world and want to reject the idea of facts as a liberal conspiracy, and instead have your own special set of anti-facts that you like to cling to, is an example of the general problem.

It absolutely is the conservatives on this board. That is one of the major problems a lot of conservatives here have: They reject the general facts about the world that everyone else in the world accepts, and instead construct their own special set of facts that they've heard from dubious-right-wing-"news"-sources.

That problem repeatedly rears its head on this board, because a lot of conservatives here think they know things about certain subjects, and then it turns out that what they know is not only wrong, but is systematically wrong in such a way that makes it difficult to correct because it is so comprehensively wrong that there is no easy place to start.

It's okay, starlight. The feeling's mutual.

[Cow Poke]

That problem repeatedly rears its head on this board, because a lot of conservatives here think they know things about certain subjects....

YEAH!!!!! They're a REAL PAIN to those of us who really do!

[RumTumTugger]

Okay, then let me reiterate that I find your (and others here) wikipedia denalism hilarious. It's an encyclopedia that contains the generally-accepted facts about the world. While any particular article can be edited by a person who is biased, rejecting the whole notion of wikipedia as a source because you dislike the whole idea that there are generally-accepted facts about the world and want to reject the idea of facts as a liberal conspiracy, and instead have your own special set of anti-facts that you like to cling to, is an example of the general problem.

That is just it Starlight wikpedia can and has been edited by people with an ax to grind and an opinion they want to say is fact and I as a Thinking human being refuse to let them get away with that I'm not saying there is a conspiracy I'm laughing at your hypocrisy in relying questionable sources like wikpedia, buzzfeed, reddit etc. while falsely accusing those you disagree with of doing so.

It absolutely is the conservatives on this board. That is one of the major problems a lot of conservatives here have: They reject the general facts about the world that everyone else in the world accepts, and instead construct their own special set of facts that they've heard from dubious-right-wing-"news"-sources.

Opinions are not facts we aren't rejecting facts but the opinions of those like you. Sorry to burst your bubble Starlight but your opinions aren't facts.

That problem repeatedly rears its head on this board, because a lot of conservatives here think they know things about certain subjects, and then it turns out that what they know is not only wrong, but is systematically wrong in such a way that makes it difficult to correct because it is so comprehensively wrong that there is no easy place to start.

that describes you Starlight when you try to say your opinions are facts that need to be accepted. like your statement above. that statement is nothing but your opinion. How arrogant you are in thinking that your opinions are facts

[Bill the Cat]

100% of dems vote against corruption, and 100% of Republicans vote for it. .

Sorry, but that is plain bull crap. They each vote for their OWN brand of corruption.

[Bill the Cat]

Nah, something approaching 90% of the Clinton 'scandals' have had no merit at all.

More like the information was well hidden and the Clinton cartel was well-connected.

[rogue06]

What a ridiculously stupid thing to say.

LOL. The problem is pretty much the opposite. The MSM treats anything the Republicans do as valid, even when it isn't. The MSM has a massive bias towards neutrality and treating everything like it's 50-50: "Republicans say X, Democrats say Y, who can really know the truth?" In reality, over the last 30 years, the Republicans have acted incredibly stupidly and the media has failed to call them out on it, because it treats anything they do as inherently valid.

So instead of reporting "Republicans have started an eighth investigation into Benghazi. When will these idiotic conspiracy theorists stop gratuitously wasting tax-payer money? When will they stop using the deaths of US soldiers for partisan political purposes? Can't they learn a thing or two from the democrats who were content to let there be only one 9/11 investigation despite Bush letting the worst terrorist attack in US history happen under his watch?" the media instead gets excited that there's a Benghazi investigation and reports it every time some new and stupid accusation comes out of the mouths of Republican congressmen.

Some of those in the MSM quite openly admit to a liberal bias.

I'll never forget how then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted to liberal bias on the now defunct Inside Washington show on PBS saying that it was worth up to 15 points For John Kerry in his bid to be president in 2004^[1]

Speaking of Newsweek this little gem from USA Today founder Al Neuharth from a 2011 column is worth noting:

"When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine."

Here are just a few of a whole lot of such admissions that I collected over the years:

• ABC World News Tonight

• Power Lunch

• "Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me." -- Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter (who was also an Executive Vice President of the CBS Broadcast Group)

• 60 Minutes

• The Note

• New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent and proud Democrat in a 2004 column asking, "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"^[2]

• ^[3]

• "Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck." -- Stuart Taylor while at National Journal and now Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the liberal Brookings Institution

I should add that recently during a panel discussion at the left-leaning POLITICO's Playbook Breakfast with the New York Times'Dallas Morning NewsUnvarnished Truth?: Perception of bias undermines media

NewsweekNewsweek live on the Upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias."

This seems inevitable when several polls of reporters covering national news and politics, bureau chiefs and editors consistently found that self described liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by between 7 and 12 to 1 in the newsroom (depending on when the poll was conducted) but all show the gap widening in recent years with at least 90% voting Democrat in elections.













1.2.3.

[Adam]

Good research, Rogue.
However, it gets no "Amen" from me because of its unfair bias.
Yes, the media, the MSM anyway, has long been biased to the Left. You have to go back to the 1940's to find a bias to the Right. But in the last half of the 20th Century the liberal mainstream bias was blatant and unapologetic. They were right, convinced they were right, and that was that.
The early 21st Century MSM is still at heart biased to the Left. But they preserve the fiction of impartiality by presenting the news from both sides. They present the "right" side, their liberal side, and they give equal time to the "wrong" side, the conservative side. That's what's different.
And quite often the "wrong" side, the Right side, is truly, clearly wrong, anti-science being the most awful. By presenting both sides the current populace is allowed to continue believing wrong things that the MSM should be correcting them about.
On the other hand I'm going to get deluged with hate mail by exposing the wrongness of much of the liberal bias of the media. We're deluged with "Political correctness" about things where "correct" is wrong. Most notably there are incorrigible differences between the races that nothing can or should be done about. That's enough for LilPix to fire 100 salvoes at me.

[One Bad Pig]

Good research, Rogue.
However, it gets no "Amen" from me because of its unfair bias.
Yes, the media, the MSM anyway, has long been biased to the Left. You have to go back to the 1940's to find a bias to the Right. But in the last half of the 20th Century the liberal mainstream bias was blatant and unapologetic. They were right, convinced they were right, and that was that.
The early 21st Century MSM is still at heart biased to the Left. But they preserve the fiction of impartiality by presenting the news from both sides. They present the "right" side, their liberal side, and they give equal time to the "wrong" side, the conservative side. That's what's different.
And quite often the "wrong" side, the Right side, is truly, clearly wrong, anti-science being the most awful. By presenting both sides the current populace is allowed to continue believing wrong things that the MSM should be correcting them about.
On the other hand I'm going to get deluged with hate mail by exposing the wrongness of much of the liberal bias of the media. We're deluged with "Political correctness" about things where "correct" is wrong. Most notably there are incorrigible differences between the races that nothing can or should be done about. That's enough for LilPix to fire 100 salvoes at me.

You're not nearly as important as you think you are.

[Adam]

Tell that to Lilpix.

[Starlight]

Rogue06, I don't really disagree with the observation that most of the people working in MSM are liberal on social issues.

But as any libertarian will tell you, that's not the same as being pro-democrat. In general, the entire Western world has drifted towards libertarianism over the last 40 years. The Right won across the board on economic issues, and Liberals won across the board on social issues.

I agree with Adam in thinking there's been a fundamental shift from around 10 years ago in terms of how the MSM acts. They got spooked by the volume of allegations from the right that they were biased, so they've made a lot of effort to remove all perceived bias. IMO this has not been a good thing, because the way they've gone about it is by deciding to avoid trying to present facts or arbitrate between the two sides, and instead they've gone for a neutrality of "Republicans think X, Democrats think Y, we have no opinion about who is right or why." Which has all the silliness of commentator at a sports game who only reports what the two teams tell him that they say the score is, and never actually expresses any view of what the score actually is, or which team might actually be better.

The ultimate stupidity of this, I think was demonstrated well recently by Anderson Cooper, who when asked who he would vote for, replied that he doesn't vote and believes journalists shouldn't vote, because voting expresses an opinion and takes sides. So... basically, he's saying that the people who are experts on politics, who are in-the-know, who actually meet the politicians and know them the best, shouldn't form any view on which politicians are better and which are worse.

Another point to consider, if the media is to be truly unbiased which of these should they follow:
1) the opinions of experts
2) the opinions of the people
3) the opinions of the Republican and Democratic parties
Take, for example, Climate Change. ~97% of scientists say it's human caused. Polls show ~49% of the American people think it is. Generally most of the politicians in the Democratic party agree it's human-caused, while most of the politicians in the Republican party either deny it's happening at all, or say they don't believe it's human-caused. So, should the media be a giant echo-chamber for the opinions the American people already have, and make sure that the views expressed on TV exactly reflect in proportion the views Americans already hold? Should they consult experts, and then inform the American people "Hey, FYI, we know you're divided on this, but actually virtually all the experts are on one side of this issue." Or should they just say "Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, who can rightly say?"

[Cow Poke]

Rogue06, I don't really disagree with the observation that most of the people working in MSM are liberal on social issues.

But as any libertarian will tell you, that's not the same as being pro-democrat. In general, the entire Western world has drifted towards libertarianism over the last 40 years. The Right won across the board on economic issues, and Liberals won across the board on social issues.

I agree with Adam in thinking there's been a fundamental shift from around 10 years ago in terms of how the MSM acts. They got spooked by the volume of allegations from the right that they were biased, so they've made a lot of effort to remove all perceived bias. IMO this has not been a good thing, because the way they've gone about it is by deciding to avoid trying to present facts or arbitrate between the two sides, and instead they've gone for a neutrality of "Republicans think X, Democrats think Y, we have no opinion about who is right or why." Which has all the silliness of commentator at a sports game who only reports what the two teams tell him that they say the score is, and never actually expresses any view of what the score actually is, or which team might actually be better.

The ultimate stupidity of this, I think was demonstrated well recently by Anderson Cooper, who when asked who he would vote for, replied that he doesn't vote and believes journalists shouldn't vote, because voting expresses an opinion and takes sides. So... basically, he's saying that the people who are experts on politics, who are in-the-know, who actually meet the politicians and know them the best, shouldn't form any view on which politicians are better and which are worse.

Reporters should report facts. Done properly, that often involves hard work.

And, yes, keep their opinions to themselves.