CNN, NBC and Washington Post worked with DNC to influence election, new WikiLeaks emails show

I disagree. At one time our media was very respected and though they may have had biases, they reported fairly.

 

You may certainly be right but when do you suppose the changes in media attitudes began?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/pulitzer-winning-lies/article/4040

And of course there was Walter Cronkite who was more than just a newsreader and became a propagandist.

 

There were a few in my lifetime that you would never guess their political affiliation.

I believe it's Shepard Smith on Fox that's a pretty solid liberal, but you would never know it from the way he reads the news.

 

I agree it was not that biased but the media has always been in the tank for the left. That's the raison d'etre of Fox which does afford some fairness and balance although they have their shills, too. But I've never heard of Fox arranging questions etc for the right.

It's one reason I've occasionally espoused just drafting Congress etc from the public rather than bothering with elections. That gets rid of the media bias on both sides and takes the money out of the equation. It also over time insures a true representative nature and cross section of the public serving. Just do it like jury selection.

 

yes, he's a liberal and it's often obvious. It shouldn't be though. My understanding was that his role was as a newsreader.

 

This is funny. Jimmy79 says news used to be fairly respected and slightly biased and the first thing you do is pull a link from a heavily biased News organization.

 

This is a debate board so we can expect some disagreements along the way.

Where did you find the bias in the article I posted? Your just saying it was biased doesn't cut it.

 

Arguing against the Weekly Standard being biased is like arguing against Fox News being biased. They themselves consider themselves a heavily conservative biased news source. Also the article you put up has been going on since the 80's. It is poorly written because it gives the reader hardly any background and it fails to mention that some of Walter Duranty's critics were from the Times itself. Also what does that news-story have to do with what was being said.

 

I could only read a few sentences before I broke out laughing - the use of the term fascism, numerous grammatical and spelling errors tell me this was a low-brow effort.
I love the website - while it claims "unbiased" - the list of topics are all right-wing crap.
I'll wait to see if the purported emails are genuine.

 

Good, perhaps this will drive another 10-15% of the population to completely distrust these sources and finally rid them of their power.

Everyone who isn't insanely partisan already knew this, however it is good to see on paper

 

The "site" listed in the OP is an amateurish RW Fever Swamp Propaganda Blog.

 

It "smelled" fishy.
Never heard of it.

 

So you are not familiar with Walter Duranty and his history with the NYTimes.

In that case you could have Googled another site, less biased if you choose, and you'd discover much the same thing. Being Conservative does not mean the facts are incorrect, only the opinions arising from those facts may be different. The same is true of all political beliefs.

That an article on a subject has been around for a while doesn't make it any less true.

 

Well for starters, In The Grand Days Of TV Journalism ala Walter Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, Eric Severaid, and Edward R. Morrow - the patron saint of them all
News areas were separate departments unto themselves in a TV network.
They had the latitude to practice, "journalism".
Today's network news areas are some little box on a big corporate chart.
Probably in the entertainment area where ratings are the priority. Not ethical journalism.

My question is how did The Washington Post degenerate from a once very respectable news source to the tabloid rag it is today. New owners?

Maybe we could still have a Free Press while
criminalizing publishing unsubstantiated falsehoods as factual news.
Still free to publish them as an editorial or opinion or letter to the editor.
Just not as "news". A fine compatible with circulation.


Moi

r > g

Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

Guys read everything you can on Ben Franklin the media's been manipulating elections since the 1700's

 

This is what the democrat media complex has become.

Its been this way for some time-they were just caught red handed.

 

I suppose, then, that the real issue of collusion between the media industrial complex and the DNC will be overshadowed while that same media industrial complex churn out more and more Russia stories to cover over their, now obvious, collusion and their attempt to use their privileged position to effect a national election. This truly looks terrible for the liberal media. But hey, it's awesome TV. I turn on maddow now and then just to see the tears.....

 

Sorta like collusion, and oppostion research?

 

Endorsing a candidate is not the same thing as working behind the scenes as an "impartial" participant in the process while actually doing everything can to help one candidate beat another.

.

 

'Draining the swamp' includes much of the MSM and they're not going down without a struggle. Nonetheless inroads are being made largely via Trump tweets and his direct attack on 'Fake News'. It seems only Donald Trump would dare attack the media the way he's been doing and getting such positive results at the same time.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news

 

C'mon you don't really expect anyone to believe those sweet snowflakes listed above were actually COLLUDING to throw the election? I suppose you think they might have tried rigging it as well. And I'm guessing you probably also think they're harboring illegals in their sanctuary cities across the U.S. just so they can obtain their future votes too right? If so, you're right on all the above.

But here's the thing...THEY ARE ABOVE THE LAW so it won't matter what crimes are found to be true. No one will call for an investigation which should be obvious by now to anyone really paying attention. The fact they didn't go after Hillary for selling 20% of America's uranium to Russia for donations to her bogus money laundering foundation and discussing top secret information over an email server that she probably sold to benefactors outside the U.S. as well as having committed dozens of other crimes just as serious against this nation, then why would they care about this latest crap?

 

Correction...the DNCC Democratic National Crime Committee

 

It certainly was a crime to treat the election as over and Hillary the winner before the election.
What of those polls? Many by CNN, Washington Post, NBC.

Besides the lie, they hoped for the "Bandwagon" effect. Vote for the winner.
Why people bandwagon I do not know, but it happens.

On election night I did not watch returns until near 9 PM California Center of The Universe Time.
I just did not want to suffer hours of Hillary won, and Hillary is the projected winner. etc.
So I waited and was so very happy to see Hillary had not won and was not the projected winner.

How could all those polls have been so wrong and who is investigating it?

Moi

r > g

Make Pay Its' Fair Share!​

 

Yet this isn't about just endorsing candidates.....is it?

 

All the following could easily be indicted for committing serious felonies against this nation if anyone cared to conduct an actual investigation. Obama, loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John Podesta, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazille, and James Comey among others.

Beyond that Robert Mueller who is conducting this latest ongoing witch hunt who is a good friend of Comey's should be told to either recuse himself or be disbarred. New laws should be enacted stating that all media outlets like CNN and journalists alike should have to be licensed and take some type of oath to tell the truth akin to what doctors do when they take the Hippocratic oath. Then if found colluding with one party over another and/or spreading fake news, they should be stripped of their licenses to practice journalism for a certain period of time. If they continue to do this and receive numerous offenses, they should lose their license permanently and get possible jail time. No more anonymous sources should be allowed either.

Bet that would stop most of this crap.