Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Jul 22, 2016.
Progressive journalists: Covering up for Democratic Party atrocities for a living.
That is why they are called the DMC Democrat Media Complex.
@Mr. Deez I thought at one time you downplayed this (too lazy to look it up):
Palin's Defamation Case Against New York Times Heading to Jury Trial
I didn't downplay it. I think the Times treated her like **** as they treat virtually all conservatives, but it has gotten further than I expected it to. I understand that the court initially tossed her case but that the Second Circuit reinstated it. If the courts are becoming more open to defamation actions by political figures against media defendants as our media gets nuttier and looser with facts, I celebrate that. New York Times v. Sullivan was a horse **** decision when it got handed down in the '60s, and it's an even worse decision now after seeing the horrific impact it has had on the political media. The sooner it dies, the better, and before it dies, the more it is limited or eroded, the better. **** William Brennan (the guy who authored it).
Today Biden signaled to the media that it was OK for them to stop calling the riots "mostly peaceful protests."
CNN promptly complied
Sorry, you were skeptical that it would go anywhere. To be honest, I was more wishing here than predicting.
You're right. I was definitely skeptical. The media has a very strong "I'm stupid" defense that's very hard to overcome. In fact it's worse than that. It's a "you have to prove that I'm not stupid" defense. It shouldn't be that way.
Today on the hourly news on the radio, 590 KLBJ AM, they led with this: "Donald Trump receives a failing grade...from his opponent." Well NSS. And this was Fox radio news. Hidin' Biden thinks Donald Trump is not doing a good job - this is news?
I can't watch Fox News. The Murdoch boys are too liberal.
Hate to laugh at most anyone's death but this^ is funny and ironic and ok with me
Good piece on modern media from Greenwald
"Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite
Outlets claiming to have “confirmed” Jeffrey Goldberg’s story about Trump’s troops comments are again abusing that vital term.
" ...... How could that happen? How could MSNBC purport to confirm a false story from CNN? Shortly after, CBS News also purported to have “confirmed” the same false story: that Trump, Jr. received advanced access to the WikiLeaks documents. It’s one thing for a news outlet to make a mistake in reporting by, for instance, mis-reporting the date of an email and thus getting the story completely wrong. But how is it possible that multiple other outlets could “confirm” the same false report?
It’s possible because news outlets have completely distorted the term “confirmation” beyond all recognition. Indeed, they now use it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means, thereby draping themselves in journalistic glory they have not earned and, worse, deceiving the public into believing that an unproven assertion has, in fact, been proven. With this disinformation method, they are doing the exact opposite of what journalism, at its core, is supposed to do: separate fact from speculation.
CNN ultimately blamed its anonymous sources for this error, but refused to out them by insisting that it was a somehow a good faith mistake rather than deliberate disinformation (how did multiple “good faith” sources all “accidentally misread” an email date in the same way? CNN, in the spirit of news outlets refusing to provide the accountability and transparency for themselves that they demand from others, refuses to this very day to address that question).
But what is clear is that the “confirmation” which both MSNBC and CBS claimed it had obtained for the story was anything but: all that happened was that the same sources which anonymously whispered these unverified, false claims to CNN then went and repeated the same unverified, false claims to other outlets, which then claimed that they “independently confirmed” the story even though they had done nothing of the sort........."
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite
The Media Industry
I either did miss that or forgot. Thanks.
A civil liberties union that is against anyone with differing views being able to express them. Some organization.
The ACLU has been a fraud for years. Like all free speech movements, they are for it when in the minority. Then after they obtain total power, like they have on campus' right now, they stifle all dissent.
Joseph Rosenbaum & Anthony Huber Criminal Records Explored
Why isn't the main stream media reporting this?
Documents show Jacob Blake, shot by Kenosha cops in riot-unleashing incident, has record of domestic abuse
Police: K9 Dozer Helps Subdue Man Who Pulled Gun at Bar | Local News I Racine County Eye - Racine, Wisconsin
He is an angel. The real problem besides that he is a thug is the prosecutor letting him go on what amounted to very serious charges including the DWI.
Sandman gonna get paid again. Idiots.
Teachers! Leave those kids alone!
Dave and Roger
good article if you are interested in this type of legal issue
Why is 'dark money' any worse than 'dark journalism?' | Opinion
anybody else watching this new news outlet on WGN. NewsNation. Refreshing. Haven't found it heavily biased one way or the other yet.
An update on her defamation case
'How Could We Get This Wrong?': Texts And Emails In Palin Defamation Lawsuit Show NYT Editorial Negligence
I don't buy the negligence claim by the Times. (Of course a mere negligence finding would mean the Times wins.) "I'm stupid" does win the case for them. I don't buy it. They didn't really get facts wrong. She did do the cross hairs. They made a ******** characterization of the facts by calling that "incitement," basically because they have contempt for Palin. Even though I don't like Palin much more than the Times does, I do want her to win. What they did was a friggin disgrace and a product of overwhelming partisanship and arrogance. It should be actionable.
Agree, but its so hard to prove. Since no one would ever admit it, you almost have to have an video, audio or writing. Here, it seems they found something in emails. So we will see.
I was thinking of voir dire. If I were part of a panel and they asked, I would stand and say "yes, these days, I assume malice aforethought by the media and you cant make me swear it wont be in the back of my mind." And then they would bump me. But its true, isnt it?
When the pieces of **** at NBC News hung on The Donald's every word. September 13, 2001.
poor ol Drudge
I think he must have had come kind of emotional breakdown