The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just in the U.S. But in this country, 85% of journalists are registered Democrats – that’s just a fact. No one is registering Democrat when they’re really a Republican. So, the facts are on the side that you just stated: most journalists are Left, or liberal, or Democrat, or whatever word you wanna give it. How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage? When they simplify it all and there’s no gray. There’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not — there’s something wrong.


Lara Logan
https://www.dailywire.com/news/43679/cbs-lara-logan-just-exposed-leftist-media-bias-ben-shapiro

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

I wasn't going to limit it to the major outlets becasue most people consume "news" from alternative sources these days. I would concede that the Gray Lady probably tries a lot harder to be accurate as compared to the Huffington Post.

I can't vouch for HuffPost and the fact that people get their news from a facebook page titled RealNoBiasNewsForRealPatriots.com is a major problem. But if we're talking about the broad topic of journalistic ethics, we should probably limit the scope of the discussion to traditional new orgs. The kinds of places where, when you see an A1 headline, you tend to believe it.

I'd list the following under that standard:

NYT
Wall St Journal
Wapo
AP
Reuters
The Guardian
NPR
LATimes
CSPAN
CBS/NBC/ABC
Maybe even Politico and The Hill


I would not include in that list:

Fox News
MSNBC
HuffPost
Washington Times
National Review
The Intercept
Mother Jones
Drudge
Weekly Standard
The Federalist
Daily Kos
Even CNN

On that list I only believe the WSJ.

Can you name one Republican reporter the NYT employs? LOL.

W H O C A R E S

David Brooks

Posted by bronxcheer on 2/20/2019 2:47:00 PM (view original):
David Brooks

Oh, stop it. David Brooks is le pinhead extraordinaire.

Posted by tangplay on 2/20/2019 2:37:00 PM (view original):
W H O C A R E S

I DO

Why else would I post it? LOL

The New York Times had repeatedly proven it has ZERO interest in being factual and several of their employees (or former employees) have verified as much. b_l blinded by stupidity, as always. In this particular instance, thanks for reposting his drivel, as I needed a good laugh after shoveling snow.

Posted by all3 on 2/20/2019 3:10:00 PM (view original):
The New York Times had repeatedly proven it has ZERO interest in being factual and several of their employees (or former employees) have verified as much. b_l blinded by stupidity, as always. In this particular instance, thanks for reposting his drivel, as I needed a good laugh after shoveling snow.

Thank you. I completely agree.

Posted by all3 on 2/20/2019 8:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bagchucker on 2/20/2019 4:39:00 AM (view original):
when you tax consumption you hurt the consumer and the poor

tax wealth not consumption

wealth not just land

wealth not just income

wealth: the more you got the more we are gonna require. step up to the plate rich patriot

and i want a big damn death tax so you can't sluff it all off to your retarded kids

make them earn it like you did

Not surprisingly, I couldn't disagree with this more. Honestly, it sounds like something b_l would post.
Maybe we should elect Robin Hood POTUS while we're at it.
Today's topic is?

i am a big fan of robin hood

the archer who takes from the rich and gives to the poor

a highwayman for sure

king donald's lowlier than thou bane

jesus's muscle

the true christian soldier

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/20/2019 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

I wasn't going to limit it to the major outlets becasue most people consume "news" from alternative sources these days. I would concede that the Gray Lady probably tries a lot harder to be accurate as compared to the Huffington Post.

I can't vouch for HuffPost and the fact that people get their news from a facebook page titled RealNoBiasNewsForRealPatriots.com is a major problem. But if we're talking about the broad topic of journalistic ethics, we should probably limit the scope of the discussion to traditional new orgs. The kinds of places where, when you see an A1 headline, you tend to believe it.

I'd list the following under that standard:

NYT
Wall St Journal
Wapo
AP
Reuters
The Guardian
NPR
LATimes
CSPAN
CBS/NBC/ABC
Maybe even Politico and The Hill


I would not include in that list:

Fox News
MSNBC
HuffPost
Washington Times
National Review
The Intercept
Mother Jones
Drudge
Weekly Standard
The Federalist
Daily Kos
Even CNN

On that list I only believe the WSJ.

Can you name one Republican reporter the NYT employs? LOL.

Bret Stephens is a conservative.

Is he? Or is he a RINO. A never Trumper and a contributor on MSNBC.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/20/2019 4:34:00 PM (view original):
Is he? Or is he a RINO. A never Trumper and a contributor on MSNBC.

He regularly writes the dumbest ****, so yeah, he's a real conservative.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 1:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/20/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2019 8:13:00 PM (view original):
If you are temporarily poor, it is misfortune and bad circumstances. If you are permanently poor, you are bad with money.

strikeout, while I agree many poor people are just bad with money, to lump all poor people like that is wrong. Some of them just don't have enough money to be bad or good with.

If they go through life without enough money to be bad or good with it then they didn't make choices that put them in a situation to earn money. America has more than enough opportunity to go around. People just have to take advantage of the opportunities.

I think it is not always that simple. Just my opinion. Not everyone has access to the same opportunities.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/20/2019 2:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

I wasn't going to limit it to the major outlets becasue most people consume "news" from alternative sources these days. I would concede that the Gray Lady probably tries a lot harder to be accurate as compared to the Huffington Post.

I can't vouch for HuffPost and the fact that people get their news from a facebook page titled RealNoBiasNewsForRealPatriots.com is a major problem. But if we're talking about the broad topic of journalistic ethics, we should probably limit the scope of the discussion to traditional new orgs. The kinds of places where, when you see an A1 headline, you tend to believe it.

I'd list the following under that standard:

NYT
Wall St Journal
Wapo
AP
Reuters
The Guardian
NPR
LATimes
CSPAN
CBS/NBC/ABC
Maybe even Politico and The Hill


I would not include in that list:

Fox News
MSNBC
HuffPost
Washington Times
National Review
The Intercept
Mother Jones
Drudge
Weekly Standard
The Federalist
Daily Kos
Even CNN

On that list I only believe the WSJ.

Can you name one Republican reporter the NYT employs? LOL.

These days, I think most people tend to believe the news outlets that usually agree with their point of view. That is sad.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:29:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

If you are saying that Journalism never had integrity, then I agree with you. It didn't die because journalistic integrity was never born.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying plenty, if not most, journalists go out of their way to be ethical.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between the journalist and the editor/producer/grand poobah paying the bills. The journalist may have integrity when doing the legwork. The end product (what we read or see) is probably not exactly what the journalist submitted and has been modified to fit a particular agenda by the not-so-integrity-driven axe grinders.

(gomiami1972 alt ID)

If we're limiting this discussion to reputable organizations like the NYT or Wapo, then no, I don't think that's true at all.

WaPo is the essence of this topic. They slandered a teenager. How can you call them reputable?