Ok, fair enough. I haven't seen what you are describing, but then I don't really watch TV too much any more. I'll go ahead and assume you are telling the truth. But here's the difference. Fox News pretty much admits that it's partisan. NBC/ABC/CBS still like to pretend that they are objective. This incident shows that NBC, at least, is not.
I can tell you that if you can think of a way to control the media, IE money and lucrative job opportunities, interviews, and contacts, (threats if they need it) then these offers have been made and are used to manipulate puppets in the mainstream media. It is the real world. The world most people don't want to accept as true because they've been juvenilized.
So you don't have to assume I'm telling the truth...Fox's Hannity Speaks Onstage at Trump Campaign Rally Have you seen MSNBC? They're not the ones using "Fair and Balanced" as their tag line. If you didn't know they leaned left, then I'm not sure what else to tell you.
Not sure how you go about maintaining relationships. But if you're running a news organization and you have a source that is doing you favors all the time by giving you tips, giving you interviews, giving you background, and then they ask you for a little favor that is easy to accommodate, you think it is unreasonable to give them a little consideration? Next time you call them looking for a quote, they're going to hang up on you. I think the journalist here, who of course was still at liberty to say no and publish anyway, is dumb to think it would work any other way. That the source you're accommodating is the DNC doesn't make it any different than if it was anyone else. This is hardly a case of catch-and-kill for your numerous infidelities with pornstars.
Of course MSNBC is a liberal/progressive/Orange Man bad network. I don't think they've ever pretended otherwise. I realize there is some relationship between NBC and MSNBC, but I thought the NBC attempted to differentiate themselves: ie, NBC is straight news (supposedly); MSNBC is the opinion network. Also, I didn't think MSNBC used Fair and Balanced; I thought that was Fox News. And you still haven't addressed my statement that you are admitting that NBC is biased; although I suppose that was part of your "pretzel" comment.
I'm thinking you didn't listen to the Podcast in question. The primary date was going to get reported by some other blogger; for some reason, the NBC didn't want this second blogger to scoop the first blogger (IIRC). Why.....I don't know. The "relationships" question is too large to get into here; but it does also bring up the changing nature of journalism. (ie, it's increasingly P4P) But if I was a journalist or blogger (and there might be a huge difference as to repercussions, depending on which one), I would tell the NBC lady to hang fire. What she was asking for was quite .....well, I'll say "lame." She was asking the blogger to hold off publishing the dates of Democratic primaries. Here's a question: how did those dates get out in the first place? Whose fault is that? Why is it such a bid deal if a blogger reports them? Why is this blogger being "punished" when the other one isn't? Again, it seems to me that you didn't listen to the podcast.
To be sure, the issue of "access journalism" is a real and growing issue. In the old days, NBC/ABC/CBS could be more or less counted on to be straight news -- no spin, no commentary (with a few exceptions). Now, those organizations like to act like they are they same as they were 30-40 years ago, but they are clearly not. And that was the "explosive" message of this Timcast. It would be fine (to me) if these news organizations just came out and said, "Hey, we have a point of view now. We've changed." But they don't do that. They pretend to represent the interests of middle America. But increasingly, they don't; and it's becoming increasingly clear.
This is true. I generally don't watch any multimedia stuff in posts; I also hate podcasts in all forms and situations; I'm a reader. Also, I can't take seriously anyone talking about news while wearing a hat or beanie. So, I read the hotair.com and fox articles as a (maybe poor) proxy. So maybe there's something I'm missing. Maybe I would have a different view if I did click Play on that video... I guess we'll never find out. They probably did favors for political parties in the old days too. I'm familiar with more than one presidential affair scandal that miraculously dodged journalistic scrutiny.
1) Not sure how anyone can credibly chime in on this one without having listened to the source that brought the news to the public. 2) "Also, I can't take seriously anyone talking about news while wearing a hat or beanie..." This has to be discrimination of some sort, LOL. More seriously, I don't watch videos on YT -- I listen to them while I'm doing household stuff, usually. Isn't it the thought(s) that count? I mean, seriously? How different is it to judge someone by their headware than their hairstyle? Regular tie or bowtie? Manner of dress? It's the ideas that count. I mean, I prefer to read rather than watch, just like you; but there is a place for listening while you do mundane tasks. That's what I do in many cases. Multi-tasking. I pretty much don't go anywhere without the I-phone and the Bluetooth speaker. Oh, and the press corps ignoring JFKs and LBJs affairs are one thing...NBC News carrying water for the Democrat party is another.
