Hillary's Troubles Solidify

[Starlight]

Reporters should report facts. Done properly, that often involves hard work.

And, yes, keep their opinions to themselves.

I crossposted an edit to my post above. Have a look at my new final paragraph and then tell me what it means to "report facts".

[Cow Poke]

I crossposted an edit to my post above. Have a look at my new final paragraph and then tell me what it means to "report facts".

I say report facts, and you post 3 "opinion" items, and want me to comment on "reporting facts" based on following opinions?

[rogue06]

Good research, Rogue.
However, it gets no "Amen" from me because of its unfair bias.
Yes, the media, the MSM anyway, has long been biased to the Left. You have to go back to the 1940's to find a bias to the Right. But in the last half of the 20th Century the liberal mainstream bias was blatant and unapologetic. They were right, convinced they were right, and that was that.
The early 21st Century MSM is still at heart biased to the Left. But they preserve the fiction of impartiality by presenting the news from both sides. They present the "right" side, their liberal side, and they give equal time to the "wrong" side, the conservative side. That's what's different.
And quite often the "wrong" side, the Right side, is truly, clearly wrong, anti-science being the most awful. By presenting both sides the current populace is allowed to continue believing wrong things that the MSM should be correcting them about.
On the other hand I'm going to get deluged with hate mail by exposing the wrongness of much of the liberal bias of the media. We're deluged with "Political correctness" about things where "correct" is wrong. Most notably there are incorrigible differences between the races that nothing can or should be done about. That's enough for LilPix to fire 100 salvoes at me.

Don't really care whether you deign to give me an amen or not. Hope that's okay with you.

As for the anti-science remark... I kinda addressed that in another thread not quite a week back

The press likes to portray the Democrats as the party of science but the fact is that the left can be just as anti-science as anyone on the right can be. Some of the things that the radicals in the environmentalist movement support not only have no scientific backing but fly directly in the face of scientific findings.

And while you can find anti-vaccine hysteria on both sides, again it is more prevalent on the left and the places with the most loopholes allowing exemptions from vaccination are most often found in decidedly Democrat dominated areas -- which, "coincidentally" is also where we also find the most outbreaks. As an article in the Washington Post notes:

Source: Vaccine deniers stick together. And now they�re ruining things for everyone.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Also, according to various polls, Democrats are far more likely to believe that we are being monitored by UFOs and the government is concealing it. They also are more likely to believe in things like fortune telling and astrology.

The same goes with things like GMOs, fracking, nuclear power and some of the stuff taught in women's studies and racial/ethnics studies classes. I well remember how in the latter example some professor at a prestigious university back in the 1990s was teaching that some blacks used to have wings and would fly around the pyramids until white people came along and in a fit of envy and racial hatred killed off the blacks with wings. If that isn't woo, I don't know what is.

A little over a year ago a study published (The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science) in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science by researchers from Ohio State found that both conservatives and liberals are less likely to trust the scientific results where those results doesn't align with their political views.

While it appears that conservatives are more likely than liberals to be distrustful this difference is attributed to how the media covers the debates. The authors noted that the type of media coverage can politicize what was for the most part previously a non-partisan issue and create distrust noting how the media went out of its way to highlight Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential primaries who questioned the need for vaccinations creating a perception that Republicans oppose vaccinations.

Also the research showed that Republicans actually defer to scientists more than Democrats, with climate change and evolution being important exceptions.

The point is that both sides have their anti-science factions and to pretend otherwise is factious.

[rogue06]

Rogue06, I don't really disagree with the observation that most of the people working in MSM are liberal on social issues.

But as any libertarian will tell you, that's not the same as being pro-democrat...

A couple more quotes from members of the MSM...

• "It would be on "FrontlineBoston Globe" and now frequent contributor and guest on MSNBC, on the "Leher News Hour" on PBS during the first week of the "Filegate" scandal, in response to the question: "Do you agree with the Republicans when they say that if it was a bunch of Republicans, everyone would be all over them like a blanket?"

• "Oh, my God. Are you kidding? That George W. Bush was a crybaby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed president. You know, you could just hear the personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious." --Howard Fineman, while Newsweek's Chief Political Correspondent and Deputy Washington Bureau Chief, admitting that things would have been very different if the 2000 post-election results were reversed and Bush was contesting a Gore victory.

• "Having spent time in...both the Hillary and the Trump bubble, I will tell you that...the reporters who are following around Hillary -- a lot of them are Hillary fans. They're just in awe of her. They're very patient with her....with the Trump people, it's a feeding frenzy...[they] are the most aggressive ones; the ones who they hope will dig up the one piece of dirt that will -- you know, kill the Trump monster" --David Martosko of the Daily Mail

• "No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House." --New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann

• "The mainstream press is liberal.... [T]he press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite.... If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins." --Thomas Edsall veteran Washington Post political reporter in an essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, called "Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism."

Washington PostWashington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

And on writing about the New York TimesTimes

Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith

The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama. Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

Washington Monthly
Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they are conservative I guess) made the following suggestion: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."^[1]

Jonathan Stein then with Mother JonesMother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington PostThe Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign. After all it wasn't uncommon for them to portray him as some sort of Messiah figure.

Who could ever forget when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared to on MSNBC'sThe American ProspectSan Francisco Chronicle1. Let's see if the left takes that tact as Hillary keeps relying strongly on the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

[EvoUK]

I'm not envious of you guys for this election - such poor choices on both sides it must be a case of holding ones nose & voting for many of you..!

For what it is worth, I think that although both candidates are utterly dire & it's unbelievable it's come to this poor choice, I think Trump will be the slightly less damaging choice for POTUS.

The question isn't who will do damage to the U.S. Both will in their own way. The only question is who will be more effective at doing it.

The Clintons who have a massive network already in place, would probably be more effective at screwing people over using the existing political machinery.

If Trump was actually elected, as a complete outsider without any real organization behind him, I think he would be a lot less effective, and probably ground-up by the political establishment in four years.

So whilst both are shoddy choices - Clinton is the most effective disaster.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm not envious of you guys for this election - such poor choices on both sides it must be a case of holding ones nose & voting for many of you..!

For what it is worth, I think that although both candidates are utterly dire & it's unbelievable it's come to this poor choice, I think Trump will be the slightly less damaging choice for POTUS.

The question isn't who will do damage to the U.S. Both will in their own way. The only question is who will be more effective at doing it.

The Clintons who have a massive network already in place, would probably be more effective at screwing people over using the existing political machinery.

If Trump was actually elected, as a complete outsider without any real organization behind him, I think he would be a lot less effective, and probably ground-up by the political establishment in four years.

So whilst both are shoddy choices - Clinton is the most effective disaster.

Agreed to an extent. Hillary's "effective disaster" will be very targeted while Trump's is a mystery of speculation.

[rogue06]

I'm not envious of you guys for this election - such poor choices on both sides it must be a case of holding ones nose & voting for many of you..!

For what it is worth, I think that although both candidates are utterly dire & it's unbelievable it's come to this poor choice, I think Trump will be the slightly less damaging choice for POTUS.

The question isn't who will do damage to the U.S. Both will in their own way. The only question is who will be more effective at doing it.

The Clintons who have a massive network already in place, would probably be more effective at screwing people over using the existing political machinery.

If Trump was actually elected, as a complete outsider without any real organization behind him, I think he would be a lot less effective, and probably ground-up by the political establishment in four years.

So whilst both are shoddy choices - Clinton is the most effective disaster.

That is pretty much how I see it. Clinton will have many allies in Congress helping her push her agenda whereas Trump has very few. That means he will likely be less effective at screwing us up.

[Cow Poke]

That is pretty much how I see it. Clinton will have many allies in Congress helping her push her agenda whereas Trump has very few. That means he will likely be less effective at screwing us up.

And if Trump does accidentally come up with some good policy, there may actually be people to support it!

[Carrikature]

That is pretty much how I see it. Clinton will have many allies in Congress helping her push her agenda whereas Trump has very few. That means he will likely be less effective at screwing us up.

If the best we can hope for is four years of not much happening, that would reason enough to support Trump.


I'm not convinced we can count on that, though. I suspect Trump would have more support than you think.

[rogue06]

If the best we can hope for is four years of not much happening, that would reason enough to support Trump.


I'm not convinced we can count on that, though. I suspect Trump would have more support than you think.

What was it something like one Senator he got to support him before he became all but inevitable as the Republican nominee? Doesn't sound like he'll have much of a natural base in Congress from which to operate.

[JimL]

I'm not envious of you guys for this election - such poor choices on both sides it must be a case of holding ones nose & voting for many of you..!

For what it is worth, I think that although both candidates are utterly dire & it's unbelievable it's come to this poor choice, I think Trump will be the slightly less damaging choice for POTUS.

The question isn't who will do damage to the U.S. Both will in their own way. The only question is who will be more effective at doing it.

The Clintons who have a massive network already in place, would probably be more effective at screwing people over using the existing political machinery.

If Trump was actually elected, as a complete outsider without any real organization behind him, I think he would be a lot less effective, and probably ground-up by the political establishment in four years.

So whilst both are shoddy choices - Clinton is the most effective disaster.

Don't blame the chosen, blame the choosers.

[JimL]

What was it something like one Senator he got to support him before he became all but inevitable as the Republican nominee? Doesn't sound like he'll have much of a natural base in Congress from which to operate.

So your reasoning for supporting Trump is because he has so little support? So by that reasoning you would be just as content with Sanders as President, no?

[Cow Poke]

So your reasoning for supporting Trump is because he has so little support? So by that reasoning you would be just as content with Sanders as President, no?

No.

[rogue06]

Don't blame the chosen, blame the choosers.

In one case the game was so rigged it really wasn't going to matter who was voted for considering the massive number of super-delegates already pledged to her (well over 90%)

[rogue06]

So your reasoning for supporting Trump is because he has so little support? So by that reasoning you would be just as content with Sanders as President, no?

Sanders was a Congressman for 16 years and been a Senator for 10 years. By now he has many friends up on the Hill. And considering how many top Democrats (including the chair of the Democratic National Committee Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary Clinton) cannot explain any difference between a Socialist and a Democrat it would seem that he has scores of like-minded people up there willing to support his proposals.

Btw, did you know that Sanders rise in prominence was due to something that liberals now throw conniption fits over? That's right. Sanders led a filibuster against legislation supported by Obama who had previously called Republicans who opposed it "hostage takers."