Media Bias

CNN edits out Milwaukee victim's sister Sherelle Smith calling for violence in 'the suburbs' - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-milwaukee-victims-sister-sherelle-sm/)

Good catch.

First, it doesn't bother me she is saying it becuase she is hurting. She lost a brother which is tragic. At the same time I would ask her and her family, what did you do to stop your brother/son from leading a life of crime?

This guy was a flat-out dangerous piece of crap and was armed to the teeth at the time of getting killed. He made extremely poor choices which lead to his death.

His wrap sheet is quite extensive: Man killed by Milwaukee police had lengthy record (http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2016/08/14/man-shot-milwaukee-police-subject-witness-intimidation-case/88721094/)

"
Smith had been in trouble with the law dating back at least to 2011, according to arrest records released by the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office late Sunday. He was arrested or ticketed nine times in that period — for the shooting, a robbery, carrying a concealed weapon, theft, possession of heroin and more. His most recent arrest was July 22 for possession of cocaine, records show.

Last year, Smith was charged with first-degree recklessly endangering safety and with witness intimidation, but the charges were dismissed, court records show."

This guy isn't the flag bearer of any movement.

New York Times Gave Hillary Veto Power | LifeZette (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/)

clear as day, Clinton campaign allowed to pic and chose content of the media:

The email exchange also indicates that Palmieri misunderstood the terms of the agreement. She wrote that she thought the campaign would be able to pick the quotes that would be used. Leibovich responded, "I wanted the option to use all — and you could veto what you didn't want. That's why I selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd really love to use the other things I sent, too. They were all on point. Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you think you can check?"

Palmieri seemed satisfied.

"Pleasure doing business!" she wrote


sad...zero ethics and completely biased. Now ny times is suppose to be a leader in journalism...how is this appropriate? Inexcusable

New York Times Gave Hillary Veto Power | LifeZette (http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/new-york-times-gave-hillary-veto/)

clear as day, Clinton campaign allowed to pic and chose content of the media:

The email exchange also indicates that Palmieri misunderstood the terms of the agreement. She wrote that she thought the campaign would be able to pick the quotes that would be used. Leibovich responded, "I wanted the option to use all — and you could veto what you didn't want. That's why I selected the 5 or 6 I sent to you...The moose is good, but I'd really love to use the other things I sent, too. They were all on point. Sorry for mis-communique here, but do you think you can check?"

Palmieri seemed satisfied.

"Pleasure doing business!" she wrote


sad...zero ethics and completely biased. Now ny times is suppose to be a leader in journalism...how is this appropriate? Inexcusable



So do you think Trump still believes any press is good press,or just when he wants it?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-cuts-ties-with-donna-brazile-after-hacked-emails-suggest-she-gave-clinton-campaign-debate-questions-183855590.html

CNN quietly cut ties with Donna Brazile, the acting Democratic National Committee chair and a longtime contributor on the cable news network, after hacked emails published by WikiLeaks revealed that she had provided questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall and debate hosted by CNN during the Democratic primary.


Unbelievable folks. People should be upset

I know it's hard to separate the political out of the media bias question, but I am hoping anyone who replies to this will try to. (I'm also hoping SM will stop drinking, and DS will become the best owner ever)

Take this headline displayed on yahoo, and from abcnews top stories:
Jeff Sessions: Guantanamo Bay is 'a very fine place'

This opening Paragraph:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he has no qualms sending newly-captured terror suspects to the Guantanamo Bay detention center, describing it as a "very fine place."

And his actual reply to a question about whether or not he would be in favor of shutting down the facility a few paragraphs later:
"Well, I have not favored that," Sessions said. "I've been there a number of times as a Senator, and it's just a very fine place for holding these kind of dangerous criminals. We've spent a lot of money fixing it up. And I'm inclined to the view that it remains a perfectly acceptable place. And I think the fact that a lot of the criticisms have just been totally exaggerated."


My question is - do you think the headline gives an accurate summary of his statement?

Everyone knows I feel there is a distinct bias, and I believe that this type of, imo, blatant emotion molding headline plays a big part of that.

Just a discussion for a cold dreary dismal day and the day after a dismal opening to FA

This is getting ridiculous.


Trump Kicks Reporters Out Of White House Photo Op For Asking Questions (http://www.politicususa.com/2017/03/10/trump-kicks-reporters-white-house-photo-op-questions.html)

Media fair to Trump? Harvard says no. - Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html)

Harvard says it's true. Truely scary imo

Media fair to Trump? Harvard says no. - Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html)

Harvard says it's true. Truely scary imo

I agree with Harvard, it's rare to find any good Trump news coming out of any outlet that isn't Fox nowadays. The question is, what do you propose is the solution? Do you ask journalists to keep their bias out of the news they are supposed to report? Maybe they only publish reactionary pieces that are neither critical nor encouraging of Trump? Maybe we all just shut up and trust that he's got our best interests at heart? The reason we don't trust Trump is the reason right wingers don't trust the media, it's because we suspect that there are underlying motives behind everything he/they do. Only in the media's case they don't try to hide it.

Media fair to Trump? Harvard says no. - Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-trump-media-coverage-harvard-kass-0521-20170519-column.html)

Harvard says it's true. Truly scary imo


No, not at all. The artical still didn't address the fact that Trump has brought this all on himself ,it admits it's self inflicted" but doesn't go on to address it.It also doesn't address the facts in it's own numbers.Explain why FOX(the trump network as they call it) even had a majority of bad news reporting on Trump (52%)It is the press's job to question our goverment seems to me the press is doing a good job and as the circus continues we will see more of it.Does this mean it should stop just becuase it's negative???Maybe the tangerine President should act more like a President and less like a DICtator.

Well written piece supported by facts of a non political source.

Best part of article:

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump's 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

"That's a significant shift, a significant difference," says Bevan. "I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others."