You are so right. That's why the media never covered the email scandal, the Benghazi scandal, or anything like that. If only the media had covered those things. But you won't find any articles about any of that on the internet. No news networks ever covered it. They just ignore it.
CNN.com has featured the DNC CEO resignation with headlines linking to Assange's interview about having more on the Clinton campaign most of this day. Until Trump says something so outrageous as to warrant a lot of coverage, expect CNN to ride this story. ( Which would have been the story all weekend if Trump were fit for office. ) Hardly, ignored.
Now that you put that in such a big font, I see the error of my ways, you must be right. I guess the font just hasn't been big enough until now. I'm outraged. Outraged I tell you!!!
As long as you realize all the "news" sites are not real journalism. A real news story with integrity written by a real journalist would not editorialize their headline and story. Let's look at an example from the page above. "Trump Stumbles on Ukraine" That is an opinion based on editorial bias. A real headlines would say something like "Trump says that Putin 'Is not going to Ukraine'". That is a factual statement and a factual quote. You would then read the article and make your own decision on whether Trump "Stumbled". You may agree with Trump and think that he is right or not. Doesn't matter. CNN is also really bad (read: Anderson Cooper) at editorializing with questions as the leading headline, on TV and print. You've heard of leading a witness in a courtroom: this is what lots of TV talking heads do, and its really against any journalistic integrity out there. Headline before cutting to commercial break: "Is Monsanto killing you with their genetically modified crops? You decide." It is a question presented as a statement that TECHNICALLY is not editiorialized because it is a valid question. The problem is that it LEADS the viewer to automatically assume that Monsanto is killing you with GMOs despite what the actual facts or the story says. Again, Anderson Cooper is the worst I've seen at this ever. Bill O'Reilly does too, but his show is an editorial show anyways, while Anderson Cooper presents himself as a journalistic anchor. CNN is terrible at this. Fox News is bad on the other side too. It is because news has become biased click bait so they can survive.
Okay so why didn't CNN cover this? She is after all running for leadership of free world. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E_J1yRCLS2A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> If Trump did this it would be CNN's top story for the day. CNN is biased against trump. Just admit it. It is so obvious.
Fox News is biased against hilary. Just admit it. It is so obvious. No ****ing **** news sources are biased.
For the record. I loathe CNN. They have all the sensationalism, don't get beat to a story so don't really research the story, or don't be left out of a story so if everyone else is covering, we will too without actually researching whether or not it is correct. But as for your example, I don't think it's up for question that Trump stumbled. He did stumble. Not knowing that Russia had already gone inside Ukraine is a stumble. That really isn't up for readers to interpret. It's a major world event that's happened, and even thought GOP platform was changed regarding that very situation, Trump wasn't aware of the events. It isn't really editorializing to say he stumbled.
Because while she is a candidate, her reading a stage direction rather than following it, doesn't have an affect on anyone. If Trump humiliates a mother, or insults Gold Star patriotic families like the Khan's that's different.
Jokingly telling someone to take a crying baby out does? Come on man. I'll admit fox caters to right wing viewers. Why can't you admit CNN is also biased.
Yeah, humiliating the mother in front of the room and cameras does have an effect. CNN is biased and I listed the biases that they have which are far and above more important to them than any political leanings.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What media bias? <br>Via <a href="https://twitter.com/piersmorgan">@piersmorgan</a> <a href="https://t.co/Xql7DDHoz3">pic.twitter.com/Xql7DDHoz3</a></p>— Mike Cernovich (@Cernovich) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/760613580081430528">August 2, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Donald Trump has conducted more attacks his own candidacy than any media organization has done and can possibly do. If he had simply done the not only decent but also strategically rational thing in reaction to Mr. Khan's comments, something like what GWB did with Cindy Sheehan's protest, 95% of the negative story about him would not have happened. Even a "rigged" media would not have had the opening to go after him as they did. His stupid questioning about why Mrs. Khan didn't speak got the whole back and forth started, this got the Khans to respond, and forced GOP leaders to distance themselves from him, then Team Hillary and Obama jumped in and now we got this Trump won't endorse Ryan and McCain thing going. And now here is Trump surrogate suggesting that an Obama policy might have been responsible for Captain Khan's death in 2004. You know, back when Obama was an Illinois state senator. <blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Katrina Pierson just blamed Obama and Clinton for changing the ROE that "probably" cost Cptn Kahn his life <a href="https://t.co/b9IPIWozt4">pic.twitter.com/b9IPIWozt4</a></p>— Greg Pollowitz (@GPollowitz) <a href="https://twitter.com/GPollowitz/status/760605283324264448">August 2, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> I mean... Jesus Christ. If Hillary Clinton was paying her opponent to intentionally mishandle his campaign and tank his PR for a week, the GOP nominee could not have done more than Trump to help Hillary.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/oreillyfactor">@oreillyfactor</a>: "Mr. Khan's point of view received nearly 50 times more coverage from the establishment media than Ms. [Pat] Smith."</p>— Fox News (@FoxNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/760626909336043520">August 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Yes, because Hillary Clinton was not stupid enough to keep the matter going in the news. She didn't question Ms. Smith's motivation or religion, didn't b**** about why she has the right to defend herself against Mrs. Smith's "vicious attack." This is Donald Trump just now, keeping the **** storm going again while Bill O'Reilly was trying to help him out by giving him an opportunity to put the matter to rest: <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">VIDEO: Trump on why he had right to attack Khan <a href="https://t.co/WDcCABAnlL">https://t.co/WDcCABAnlL</a></p>— Eddie Vale (@evale72) <a href="https://twitter.com/evale72/status/760630556556230656">August 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
There is a huge difference in both speeches. Hillary had a part in Ms. Smith's son death. Donald Trump has nothing to with the death of Khan's son death and also they are not a target of any of Trump's policies. Trump was attacked by someone for no reason.
Man, Trump just keeps this story in the news. How is somebody making such a huge mistake supposed to make a good President. Why does the Drumpf keep bringing it up? The media would have definitely moved on by now, had not Donald kept this going.
It doesn't matter if you think there is a reason for the Khans to attack Trump or not. Most of us see a reason: Trump's rhetoric is insulting to immigrants and Muslims and Trump is in league with white nationalists who are both offensive and dangerous. Besides, freedom of speech gives citizens every right to speak out for or against political candidates. 90% of the **** storm, however, has to do with Trump's handling of the Khan's criticism. He can disagree with them-- but do it in a classy, respectful way like GWB did with Cindy Sheehan and Hillary did with Ms. Smith. Then, while you still get criticized, mostly by the opposing party, you don't get attacked by politically neutral actors like the VFW and force fellow GOP candidates like McCain and Ryan to distance themselves from your ass.
I disagree with the OP, but I also disagree with all of those on here who immediately put down any chance that it's unintentional bias. This isn't CNN, but take a look at what The New York Times public editor had to say about Hillary's interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday: http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/hillary-clinton-fox-email-interview-liz-spayd-public-editor/?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FElizabeth%20Spayd%20(Public%20Editor)&action=click&contentCollection=public-editor®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection&_r=0
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">So there's a lot going on here. <a href="https://t.co/8U29ED03My">pic.twitter.com/8U29ED03My</a></p>— Daniel Drezner (@dandrezner) <a href="https://twitter.com/dandrezner/status/760639525865521152">August 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> My God.
