Shameless democrat 'owned' news media

 Post Reply    Back to Forums
1–23 out of 23 messages
Author Message

newscred Posted - 1/10/2014 2:12:20 PM | show profile | flag this post

When the nation's news media sees democrat scandals like the use of the IRS to sway a national election, the lack of accountability for the deaths in Benghazi, the AG being complicit in the gun running to Mexico that resulted in deaths there and here, and other overt wrongful actions by the dems and their boss...NOTHING HAPPENS. The media may mention it in passing but doesn't really look into it. However, when a republican is associated (not necessarily involved) with something like the bridge event, the media will use every dishonest and misleading headline possible to skewer that republican. Which is why I feel the media lives up to its common perception of being the tool of Obama and the democrats. After all, the internal makeup of most newsrooms is very liberal. And the modern news employee is not bound by the ethics of news as it was once taught; personal opinion seeping into stories use to be verboten. Not any more.

By the way, isn't news as practiced by most just a regurgitation of what's fed to them by a few sources; merely passing along the party line as given them by those sources? When was the last time a newsroom you know actually look into the stories they receive and question what's being spoon fed to them? News reporting is merely that...reporting what someone else says has happened. In today's world there's a lot of dissemination of propaganda as opposed to true reporting of the facts.


etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/10/2014 3:17:17 PM | show profile | flag this post

I don't think that's quite right, newscred...

there has been plenty of coverage of the IRS, Fast and Furious and Benghazi issues -- but no one, left or right wing media, Congress, independent investigators -- have been able to show a connection between the issue and a deliberate act or inaction by a political figure.

However, there was a "smoking gun" in the form of emails that linked the Christie administration to the deliberate act of closing access to the GW Bridge -- and that it was politically motivated.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 1/10/2014 3:38:51 PM | show profile | flag this post

*** When was the last time a newsroom you know actually look into the stories they receive and question what's being spoon fed to them? ***

Um, today.

You appear, and have appeared for the past year, never to have been in a newsroom, let alone to have worked in one.

It must be frustrating for you to know so much about what you've never learned about or done.

cruster Posted - 1/10/2014 8:20:21 PM | show profile | flag this post

zzzzzzzzzz

Another groundless, the media is "in the tank, carrying water, in bed with" Obama and the dems posted by our favorite discredited news critic.

It's the facts you don't like newscred. The fact that all the scandals you are hoping for aren't really scandals at all.

Poor you.



VTexan Posted - 1/10/2014 8:50:25 PM | show profile | flag this post

Google Benghazi Cover Up

About 4,920,000 results (.24 seconds)

This thread is, like so many others, bogus, stupid, unfounded and idiotic.

"Other than that, I agree with it completely" he said unconvincingly.



mpdodgson Posted - 1/11/2014 1:06:21 PM | show profile | flag this post

The funny keeps coming.

newscred (among others) is still convinced the president personally had his hand in everything from Benghazi to the IRS to Gunrunner.

But the whole 'Bridgegate' has nothing to do with Christie himself. So imagine my chuckle when the Fox Star Billo offered his opinion on all of this: "O’Reilly’s still giving Christie the benefit of the doubt. O’Reilly insisted, “I don’t think he’s a brazen liar” and said it was obviously just “bad staffers,”....

"Bad staffers". We'll remember you said that Bill.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/13/2014 9:54:16 AM | show profile | flag this post

When it comes to "bad staffers"...

let's remember that one of those people has been with Christie since he moved into the Governor's Mansion.

Bridget Anne Kelly (yes, her name was BRIDGEt) was fired because "she lied to me," to quote Christie.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fired-aide-christies-team-start-21481121



beenthere Posted - 1/13/2014 11:33:48 AM | show profile | flag this post

By the way, isn't news as practiced by most just a regurgitation of what's fed to them by a few sources; merely passing along the party line as given them by those sources?

Yes, it is.

When was the last time a newsroom you know actually look into the stories they receive and question what's being spoon fed to them?

MSM does not investigate anything. Ever. They simply repeat press releases.
_______

This goes for CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al. It is not a left wing/right wing/Democrat/Republican issue. Facts are facts period. And no one is bothering to check/verify/research any of them, regardless of which team you root for. Just recite/repeat, recite/repeat. Nod, smile and accept. Don't think.



etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/13/2014 11:46:15 AM | show profile | flag this post

Seriously?

"When was the last time a newsroom you know actually look into the stories they receive and question what's being spoon fed to them?"

The last time was today.

It is the alternative or politically leaning news media that takes spoonfed info. They have a preconceived idea of how they want a story to turn out and focus on information that leads to that conclusion.

Real newsrooms, the "Mainstream Media," actually goes out and gathers news, questions sources and investigates.

cruster Posted - 1/13/2014 12:11:18 PM | show profile | flag this post

They simply repeat press releases

Funny how this is repeated whenever the right doesn't like what is being reported.

"Oh they're biased. They're just repeating talking points. They're just reading a press release."

Unless Fox News claims Santa Claus and Jesus are white.

Newscred didn't like the result of a comprehensive investigation, so he fell back on his complete and total lack of experience as a journalist and dismissed the investigation with a wave of his bitter hand.

Indubitably egregious.


beenthere Posted - 1/13/2014 12:32:45 PM | show profile | flag this post



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/cenk-uygur-campaign-quote-approval_n_1679982.html
___
Excerpt:

The New York Times reported on Monday that it is now standard for senior officials to have veto power over any quotes that are attributed to them in an article, and that they sometimes edit and massage quotes until they are satisfied with them.

Reporters from many top media outlets -- including The Huffington Post, New York Times, Vanity Fair, Reuters and Bloomberg -- have allowed people such as Obama adviser David Plouffe and Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom to remove anything they might find unflattering. The journalists involved in the process say that, though they find the practice distasteful, it is often the only way to get the insiders into their newspapers.

___

Does this count as journalism? Being TOLD what to print?

Not last time I checked.

cruster Posted - 1/13/2014 2:39:14 PM | show profile | flag this post

Old Article, Off Topic

If you notice the tone of the article is that the quote approval is outrageous. Not standard procedure for any and all news stories about the administration, so it doesn't apply to this thread.

newscred is dismissing out of hand all articles and stories by any media organizations that don't adhere to his narrow views as biased and not to be believed.

Pathetic.

Now, are there problems with reporters getting too close to sources and now playing hardball? Yes. That's unacceptable and should be punished by reputable companies.



etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/13/2014 3:39:23 PM | show profile | flag this post

In other words...

quote approval and "being spoonfed" are two completely different things.

beenthere Posted - 1/13/2014 6:33:05 PM | show profile | flag this post


OK ES.

Here's a scenario and a question. And I am not going to spoonfeed you. You'll have to research and find facts for yourself.

Earthquakes that register above 8.0 on the Richter scale cause tremendous, far-reaching damage.

The Japan 2011 earthquake registered a 9.0 or 9.40 (I've seen both in news reports).

All of the tsunami footage shows perfectly intact roads, buildings, cars lined up in parking spaces. Cars driving on pristine roads. No earthquake damage, perfectly functioning video cameras to capture it all. Look at images of Sendei.

These are facts.

So how does a country that withstands a 9.0+ earthquake have no damage? Did every single reporter journalist etc., not look for earthquake damage in any footage whatsoever?

(P.S You have to know where the epicenter was and how far out the damage should have been to understand this. I hope you take the time to look into it.)



mpdodgson Posted - 1/13/2014 8:47:37 PM | show profile | flag this post

Seriously beenthere??

"All of the tsunami footage shows perfectly intact roads, buildings, cars lined up in parking spaces. Cars driving on pristine roads. No earthquake damage, perfectly functioning video cameras to capture it all. Look at images of Sendei. These are facts."

WHAT are you looking at??

So how does a country that withstands a 9.0+ earthquake have no damage? Did every single reporter journalist etc., not look for earthquake damage in any footage whatsoever?

"I hope you take the time to look into it.". I did. It took me and Google .33 seconds to find 42 million examples.

Let me guess. Alex Jones says the whole thing was a false flag.

etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/14/2014 9:49:04 AM | show profile | flag this post

If you're talking about the March 11, 2011 quake...

More than 15,000 people died. And all the tsunami video I saw showed massive destruction (some of the debris continues to wash up on the California coast).

Here's AP video, from Japanese TV, uploaded the same day from Sendai. http://youtu.be/k4w27IczOTk

Took me less than 30 seconds to find it. I remember seeing it the day of the disaster -- the iconic image of the waves sweeping inland, crushing the greenhouses...

On top of that, my wife consulted with Japanese public health officials on response to the associated nuclear accident that spread radiation over a pretty wide area. And I covered the evacuation of U.S. military dependents as a result of the radiation danger.

No research needed, blacked. I covered it. Nothing was spoonfed to me.

Grateful Deadline Posted - 1/14/2014 6:41:35 PM | show profile | flag this post

Maybe this is only beenthere's test to see who would be fool enough to take be bait without corroboration through news reports, international aid reports, eyewitness reports and talking with people who were in Japan on March 11, 2011

Grateful Deadline Posted - 1/14/2014 6:42:29 PM | show profile | flag this post

Maybe this is only beenthere's test to see who would be fool enough to take take the bait without corroboration through news reports, international aid reports, eyewitness reports and talking with people who were in Japan on March 11, 2011



Grateful Deadline Posted - 1/14/2014 7:12:50 PM | show profile | flag this post

On March 11, 2011, what *really* made the sea surge into our West Coast harbors, causing destruction? Perhaps is was a massive act of warning by the fearsome beasties that be roamin' the deep!

orthicon Posted - 1/14/2014 8:35:34 PM | show profile | flag this post

nah.. couldn't have been monsters of the deep..

I don't think cruiztwit, by whatever name, knows how to swim..

mpdodgson Posted - 1/14/2014 9:12:45 PM | show profile | flag this post

I actually don't want this one to go un-answered

Because it's just so damn above and beyond the pale conspiracy stupid.

"All of the tsunami footage shows perfectly intact roads, buildings, cars lined up in parking spaces. Cars driving on pristine roads. No earthquake damage, perfectly functioning video cameras to capture it all. Look at images of Sendei. These are facts."

P L E A S E tell us where you saw/heard that.


etaoin shrdlu Posted - 1/14/2014 10:07:00 PM | show profile | flag this post

This is beyond the pale...

If you're going to discount a major natural disaster, why not just tell us that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never damaged in WW II -- that it was some conspiracy to trick the Japanese into surrendering?

VTexan Posted - 1/14/2014 10:12:05 PM | show profile | flag this post

Been there--you're being hailed.

You're the one who said it. So come back and stand by your words. Not suggesting you defend anyone else, or stand by their words. They're yours. Make them make sense.

Or, of course, admit you can't.


1–23 out of 23 messages

 Post Reply    Back to Forums