Emerson College Poll: more people trust Trump than the Media.

[rogue06]

Source: Breitbart

he can actually control exactly what people think. And that is our job.http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...nk-is-our-job/

© Copyright Original Source

Dude, she just comes right out and says it!

As Don Hendley aptly put it decades ago in the song "Dirty Laundry":

We got the bubble headed
Bleached blonde
Comes on at five
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash
With a gleam in her eye

[Raphael]

Source: Breitbart

he can actually control exactly what people think. And that is our job.http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...nk-is-our-job/

© Copyright Original Source

Dude, she just comes right out and says it!

In our last election we had one member of our press (Katie Bradford) saying "no matter what we talk about, no matter what we do the polls don't seem to be shifting at all" (TVNZ Breakfast 5 September 2014)
The polls were sitting in National's favour (centre right party)

[rogue06]

Last June I posted a couple things about the press and liberal bias that I'm going to re-post here since it seems pertinent

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.

And

A couple more quotes from members of the MSM...

• "It would be on "FrontlineBoston Globe" and now frequent contributor and guest on MSNBC, on the "Leher News Hour" on PBS during the first week of the "Filegate" scandal, in response to the question: "Do you agree with the Republicans when they say that if it was a bunch of Republicans, everyone would be all over them like a blanket?"

• "Oh, my God. Are you kidding? That George W. Bush was a crybaby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed president. You know, you could just hear the personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious." --Howard Fineman, while Newsweek's Chief Political Correspondent and Deputy Washington Bureau Chief, admitting that things would have been very different if the 2000 post-election results were reversed and Bush was contesting a Gore victory.

• "Having spent time in...both the Hillary and the Trump bubble, I will tell you that...the reporters who are following around Hillary -- a lot of them are Hillary fans. They're just in awe of her. They're very patient with her....with the Trump people, it's a feeding frenzy...[they] are the most aggressive ones; the ones who they hope will dig up the one piece of dirt that will -- you know, kill the Trump monster" --David Martosko of the Daily Mail

• "No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House." --New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann

• "The mainstream press is liberal.... [T]he press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite.... If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins." --Thomas Edsall veteran Washington Post political reporter in an essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, called "Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism."

Washington PostWashington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

And on writing about the New York TimesTimes

Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith

The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama. Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

Washington Monthly
Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they are conservative I guess) made the following suggestion: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."^[1]

Jonathan Stein then with Mother JonesMother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington PostThe Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign. After all it wasn't uncommon for them to portray him as some sort of Messiah figure.

Who could ever forget when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared to on MSNBC'sThe American ProspectSan Francisco Chronicle1. Let's see if the left takes that tact as Hillary keeps relying strongly on the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

[Starlight]

In our last election we had one member of our press (Katie Bradford) saying "no matter what we talk about, no matter what we do the polls don't seem to be shifting at all" (TVNZ Breakfast 5 September 2014)
The polls were sitting in National's favour (centre right party)

You kind of leave out the fact that the media were discussing the biggest political scandal of the decade that National had, and so it was entirely reasonable for a media person to comment on whether the scandal was affecting the polls.

You are being totally disingenuous if you're pretending the comment meant anything remotely like "we the press have decided to try and shift the polls because we are biased, and we're annoyed we're failing", which is what you seem to be implying.

[Raphael]

You kind of leave out the fact that the media were discussing the biggest political scandal of the decade that National had, and so it was entirely reasonable for a media person to comment on whether the scandal was affecting the polls.

You are being totally disingenuous if you're pretending the comment meant anything remotely like "we the press have decided to try and shift the polls because we are biased, and we're annoyed we're failing", which is what you seem to be implying.

Here's the thing, I don't consider what Hager published to have been scandalous.

Well, I consider Hager choosing to only publish National's interactions with Cam Slater to be scandalous, but the fact that politicians (from all parties at that point) and journalists would give him story leads and comments, was not scandalous as WhaleOil was and is still a News and Political commentary Blog.
And all the faux hand wringing about Dirty Politics when the whole thing was a dirty politics hit on National....

I consider Kim Dotcom attempting to use our electoral process as a means of keeping out of an orange jumpsuit to be scandalous.

[Starlight]

Here's the thing, I don't consider what Hager published to have been scandalous.

Sure because you're a biased political hack.

And all the faux hand wringing about Dirty Politics when the whole thing was a dirty politics hit on National....

Biased. Political. Hack.

I consider Kim Dotcom attempting to use our electoral process as a means of keeping out of an orange jumpsuit to be scandalous.

Sure. And the nation treated him as he deserved in the elections.

[Raphael]

Sure because you're a biased political hack.

Biased. Political. Hack.

As if I needed more proof you live in a bubble devoid of reality. When it was happening pretty much half the country agreed that it wasn't the big political scandal you think it was (and National nearly got enough seats to be able to govern alone which is unprecedented under MMP, let alone for a government trying for a third term at the helm.)

Sure. And the nation treated him as he deserved in the elections.

And hopefully he will be getting that orange jumpsuit now.

[Starlight]

A new poll shows more trust in the media than in Trump, with 37% trusting Trump more while 52% trust the media more:

[Sparko]

Sure because you're a biased political hack.

Biased. Political. Hack.

Congratulations! I thought Jimmy's post last week was the most ironic I have ever seen. Until this.

[Sparko]

Yeah we know how accurate polls were during the election, right Starlight?

[Mountain Man]

"And now CNN brings you an exclusive story: a new CNN poll found that viewers rate CNN as the bestest news thingy ever!"

[Sparko]

"And now CNN brings you an exclusive story: a new CNN poll found that viewers rate CNN as the bestest news thingy ever!"

--Trump said we were fake news so we made up a poll that said 84% of people say "nuh-uh! you're real news!"--

[rogue06]

Sure because you're a biased political hack.

Biased. Political. Hack.

Isn't that everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is?