Liberal Media Needs to be Better to be Above Reproach

And you don't think the rest of the media panders to the left?

 

Well objectivity and facts usually have a liberal bias. Maybe that's what you interpret as "pandering" and why you would rather watch the Fox News, the original Fake News Network.

 

So does weakness and indecisiveness. Liberals would rather follow star treks prime directive and let Egypt return to a dictatorship than actually create a lasting democracy.

If Trump was around during the Arab Spring, you better believe at the very least they would have been replaced by pro-American tyrants.

 

Let's start with this then. As it indicates that despite any quibbles over individual points, we are mostly of the same viewpoint.

CNN DOES dictate a script. There have been numerous threads on this. So, the 'fine hair' is apparently just ownership, which isn't really relevant to the discussion, or the outcome.

CNN acted to sway the election throughout the entire election process. Their coverage of Trump during the primaries was actually pretty fair--because Trump is who they wanted to win, thinking that he'd be the easiest candidate to defeat (you think that happened without any discussions with Democratic leadership??). Then they completely switched during the general election, for the same reason. Every anchor or main contributor they have is liberal. Ted Turner is highly liberal---do you really think he has no sway over how HIS company covers the news?

Really? How so?

Yes, all those things have an impact. But a desire to move things in a liberal direction has been part of them, for decades. This is what caused the gap that Fox filled.

Have you read Bias? Before throwing out the expected posturing...do you have any EVIDENCE that what the book details isn't true? Again, not believing the hype...this type of bias was something that I, and many others I know, talked about for years before the book ever came out. All it did was corroborate it.

No, totally true. Let the reader's decide: Yes, questioning is the press's job. They don't do enough of that. But what they did went way beyond that, and showed a CLEAR bias. If you disagree, please link a clip showing similar treatment at ANY of Obama's conferences. If you cannot, we will assume the point is conceded.

 

All true. Essentially the MSM is falling right into Trump's trap. It has been raising their viewership (conclusive evidence of their liberal bias), but simultaneously reducing overall confidence in them. A good deal of what Trump does is designed precisely to engender a strong reaction from the press, and they willingly comply. The more they do, the less faith those in the middle have in them, as well as, of course, those on the right. All of which plays perfectly for Trump.

 

Whether or not I agree with you, CNN is one network. It isn't 40% of all local networks.

 

The problem isn't the local networks. It is the national ones.

 

I disagree - FoxNews is an example of a national network that truly practices fair and balanced coverage. Weak and degenerate liberals can't stand to see a TV station that's in the middle, so of course they attack it. What scumbag.

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/jill-abramson-ex-new-york-times-editor-rips-papers/

 

The New York Times, fox news and the washington times. Gee, what thing is not like the others.

 

here's Simon and Schuster and amazon. Hope that's more to your liking

https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Merchants-of-Truth/Jill-Abramson/9781501123207

 

good one!

 

What... they are selling her book?

 

and here's one explanation for why she was fired

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-jill-abramson-was-fired

 

I was in that Trump Bump. But, I didn't sign up because they delivered juicy anti-Trump articles. I signed up because with all the fake news stuff bouncing around, people getting their news from facebook or whatever, having a trusted brand for professional journalism suddenly became a more more important and valuable to me. It could have been The Wall Street Journal or the LA Times, but I picked NYT.

As for Ms. Abramson's opinion on the paper's editorial decisions, I don't care at all about what she thinks. Just like I won't care what their current guy thinks once he's out. Yeah, the paper generally seems to have a dim view of Trump. In my view, all decent people should be anti-Trump. I'd have a harder time with the credibility of the paper if they can look at a president who leads by bullying, who takes no advice, who has no moral compass, and then find a way to not be anti-Trump.

 

Every time I see a conservative complain about the so-called liberal media I see things like this...