I agree with your point to a degree. Unlike most viewers, you understand the dog and pony show. To others what MSM says is the literal truth. Then you have some users here, who despite seeing the bias of MSM, make the excuses then call other people names because they have been callled out.
I don't think a sweeping "mainstream media" smear is conducive to discussion. Cable news is a different beast than actual reporters doing real, live journalism. People who work for outlets like the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, etc. are true professionals who care about accuracy and veracity. Maybe it's because they don't work for an outlet who has to apply "BREAKING NEWS" banners to each segment during every waking moment, but there is a difference between cable news and actual news. Blanket distrust of the media is not what this country was founded on (quite the opposite). I'll always believe reporters who know how to source information and report it accurately over a talking head or random, unaccredited blogger any day of the week.
I read the emails in question. I listen to what Donald Trump says. It's no contest. And what you're forgetting is that it's not just the media. It includes large groups of former military leaders, people in the intelligence agency, scholars worldwide, and even numerous members of the Republican party. Not to mention every single newspaper in the entire country. Now, if you're telling me that all of those groups are aligned with some global conspiracy to get Hillary Clinton elected, that's just preposterous. And for what reason? The fact that I'm even having to defend this point is ludicrous. At some point, when you have this much opposition to a candidate, you have to start asking yourself the reason. And when you have thislittle attention to the WikiLeaks, you have to start asking yourself the reason. Is the media biased? Absolutely. They are biased towards that which is newsworthy. If there were something truly scandalous in those emails, don't you think they'd be salivating at the chance to expose Clinton? Again, the Bill Cosby example, or the Woody Allen example... or, for everlong ****'s sake, the BILL CLINTON EXAMPLE- DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THE LATE 90S???????.... the media is bloodthirsty for that which makes news. The WikiLeaks are largely boring and unspectacular in their revelations- although they do need to be examined. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, emails can easily be doctored. I had it happen to me- we proved she did it. So, unless they subpoena the server from which these emails originated, you cannot take at 100% face value that these emails have not been modified. What you CAN take at face value is what Trump says and stands for. He makes it very easy. Hillary Clinton is not likeable, but she's not hateable, either. My summary from her Wall Street speeches is that she is a typical politician who has a public and private position. As if you didn't know that's how every politician is. I can't speak for everyone, but what I seek in a President is an experienced, steady, mature and intelligent leader who can appoint the most qualified people for her/his administration, make as many smart decisions as possible, and at least attempt to form coalitions on the other side to get things done. This is not just "it's because it is a Republican"- I voted for Bush in 2000 (didn't vote in 2004) b/c, quite frankly, Al Gore just came across the wrong way. And when I look back at all those who didn't win, could I be OK with: Romney? Yep. McCain? Yep. Kerry? Yep. Gore? Yep. Dole? Of course. HW Bush? Yep- was OK with him in 88, so not much changed. Perot? Hmm, not sure. Dukakis? Yep. Mondale? Yep. Carter? Yep- I was OK with him in 76, so yes Ford? Yep- same reason McGovern?Not sure- he might have been a bit too liberal I was born in 1967, so that's as far back as I'll go. I'd completely respect any of those individuals as President. What do all of those individuals have in common? It's remarkable, if you think of it- I think you could honestly say that all of them were reasonably intelligent, mature, experienced, thoughtful individuals who you could certainly respect as President. Matter of fact, and embarrassingly enough, I think you could say that about any of the R candidates this year with the exception of maybe Ben Carson. It's an utter embarrassment that Trump is even on there. Sure, Clinton has her faults- but they're also exaggerated. There's no need to exaggerate with Trump. This is not a "they both equally have faults"- if you can't see the difference between both, I feel sorry for you.
This is where you and I disagree.Omission of reporting is also a form of bias. All I see is Trump accusations, but why do the Clinton accusations get pushed under the rug? Unless anything goes to a real trial, everything should be considered an allegation. So why not report both? This morning I listened to NPR ask a Cuban why she votes for Trump, then starts naming his scandals. Where are the questions about what she feels about Clinton's scandals?
Its obvious you have your mind made up and that's fine. Hell I will even concede that between these two candidates that Hilary is more qualified. All I am asking you to do is open your eyes and see what is happening. Regardless of which side look at how MSM is reporting and taking sides when they should be bias. Look at the voter manipulation tactics, which I believe is being done on both sides, and see how outrageous they are. Look at the money being taken in from foreign donations which is in violation of our laws. This election just shows how corrupt the system has been and needs to change.
You keep saying MSM is biased- how do you explain Fox News, then? Are they not biased? Again, I certainly believe they're biased- they're biased towards sensationalist news- and Trump won't stop giving it to them. It's what people want to read. You do realize they analyze click-through rates and determine that more people want to read about Trump than Clinton, right? So, they are certainly biased- they're biased towards MONEY. Frankly, Clinton is too boring to make CNN money. Trump is a godsend for them- his click-through rates are through the roof, so they keep feeding the money machine. Truly, the bias is about $$$$$$. The problem with Trump supporters analyzing this is that they think this means Trump is more well-liked or less hated than Clinton. Guess again. I click on way more Trump articles than Clinton articles- she's boring, and he's entertaining. And he does it all to himself. No one is to blame but Trump. If you want to point the finger at bias, don't point the finger at the current President, or the future President (Clinton or Trump), point the finger at the Dead Presidents (and some non-Presidents)- namely, Washington, Jefferson (yes, he's on the $2 bill), Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, Franklin, McKinley, etc...
You keep trying to make this a Clinton vs Trump thing, but this is beyond that. I stated that there is bias from news networks on BOTH sides. You talk about Trump being click worthy but not Clinton's scandals? Give me a break. If you think Clinton's too boring and wont make CNN money, how do you think FOX makes their "money". Also, Time Warner owns CNN and if you look at Clinton's donors, they are top 10. So you are telling me you they spend hundred of thousands of dollars on Clinton and don't have a stake in her election?
Fox makes their money b/c there's enough of a right-wing audience to sustain one network like that. Look, you can keep making the argument until you're red in the face, but Trump is just more newsworthy. And yes, there is bias on both sides- but the level of bias towards Trump is frequently based on the completely outrageous things he says and does. Ignore it if you want, but it's a waste of time discussing this with you b/c you're going to believe what you want. But this shows your complete bias right here, which you try to deny: You talk about Trump being click worthy but not Clinton's scandals? Give me a break. Of course- you personally can't understand this b/c I believe that you're secretly a Trump supporter despite your claim to the contrary. But it's the truth- way more people are interested in Trump than Clinton. The majority of people want to read more about what Trump says or does than Clinton. I think that's undeniable. Her "scandals" are just not that interesting to the majority of Americans compared to Trump.
Clinton's scandals (Benghazi, emails, etc) have been well known for a long time. How much more can we read about her email screw up? Benghazi? Nothing really new there. Trump puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. And, almost always, with something new.
Let me get this straight, I have pointed out that the media is bias on both sides. Hell you have even admitted that other "news" networks can make money off Hilary news. I have even pointed you that CNN's owner Time Warner is a top Clinton supporter, but you won't even acknowledge that. Then you call me a Trump supporter, despite no evidence other than the fact that I don't like Clinton? Seriously? Think about that statement you just made. You see Clinton breaking the law, and you are excited about what Trump will say next. You don't think that MSM isn't influencing you in anyway?
Overreact much? I have scoured my post and nowhere do I see the word 'excited'. Clinton "breaking the law" is old news. People generally get it. Benghazi and email have been going on for months and months. There is nothing new to report on it. I don't see the media bringing up Trump's old news such as Mexico is sending the USA rapists and murderers.
You are right, I did overreact. I also get that you personally maybe done with the emails, but you shouldn't discount others who find this interesting especially due to the recent leaks. As far as media bringing up old news heres one for you http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-2013-borders-global-economy-2016-10 ....and to be fair it really does undermine his biggest stance on trade.
Bingo! When the new stuff is coming out via wikileaks IT IS getting reported on the mainstream media. You know how I know? I see it and read about it on the MSM.
Just curious, what do you think is the media treatment of the leaks from wikileaks. In your opinion is it more denial or acceptance ( I understand its based on the network)?
Overall I think the treatment (on average), is "it is what it is". I think the build up to the leaks was much more hyped up than the actual leaks themselves - at least so far.
Reading interpretation is your friend. I never said "I" am excited about what Trump says next. Quite frankly, he bores me with his stupidity. I am much more inclined to read news stories from the BBC- they're much more even-handed than the U.S. media. So, you read my statement incorrectly. And so CNN is biased towards Clinton the way Fox is biased towards Trump. And the Huffington Post is obviously in the tank for Clinton, whereas Yahoo! leans more towards Trump. Clinton has Politico and Vox, Trump has Newsmax and The Hill. MSNBC definitely favors Clinton. And AM radio is completely dominated by extreme right-wingers. I've been listening to Sean Hannity spout out the same numbers every week for the past 8 years- especially the last few ("19 million out of work, real UE at ___%, etc.). I've listened to Rush Limbaugh do his song and dance about how awful liberalism is and how it's been the single worst blight on our country's history- even worse than slavery!! And I've listened to that complete assclown Mark Levin, the only one I truly despise, put himself up as this holier-than-thou Constitutionalist who completely ignores the numerous executive orders from Reagan, Reagan and Bush (including Reagan forcing all states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose highway funding, one of the worst examples of federal govt. overreach I can remember). There's bias, for sure- but Trump has influenced a level of bias I seriously doubt we will see in 2020. It was NEVER this bad with Romney- absolutely not.
I never said you were excited for what Trump says next, that was for Bobrek (reread it). Other than that I don't disagree with anything you said in this post. My gripe is when you call out people as Trump supporters when they don't like Clinton. Also, I still do believe there is a market for Clinton scandals regardless of your opinion.
The problem I see is people reacting to the headline as opposed to reading the actual article or email. For example, there was one going around FB indicating that Podesta said "Hillary hates everyday Americans". Reading the email, the intent was that she hated using the phrase "Everyday Americans".
You know what? You are right. And I do apologize for coming across like a smartass. I have to remind myself sometimes- Discuss Without Insults. You know, DWI (well, maybe not the best abbreviation). It's hard to do, you know? I get worked up and then - splat. Again, my sincere apologies for being rude.
