PDA

View Full Version : Media bias 2016 election



troung
27 Nov 15,, 04:02
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/26/paul-campaign-slams-cnn-says-emails-show-reporter-colluding-with-clinton-aide.html?intcmp=hpbt1

Paul campaign slams CNN, says emails show reporter 'colluding' with Clinton aide
Published November 26, 2015 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email
At left, Hillary Clinton; at right, Sen. Rand Paul (AP)

At left, Hillary Clinton; at right, Sen. Rand Paul (AP)

Rand Paul’s presidential campaign slammed CNN on Wednesday after emails were released that the campaign claimed showed a reporter “colluding” with a Hillary Clinton aide to “attack” the Kentucky senator.

The CNN global affairs correspondent, Elise Labott, already has been suspended over a separate incident – a tweet last week criticizing a House bill limiting Syrian refugees. But her communications with then-Clinton State Department official Philippe Reines turned up Tuesday in a batch of emails obtained and published by Gawker.

ADVERTISEMENT

In those January 2013 emails, Reines appears to give Labott suggestions for tweets. Phil Kerpen, president of the conservative American Commitment, first flagged the exchange about Paul.

In it, Labott shares the following tweet, in reference to Clinton’s Benghazi committee testimony, with Reines.

This was right after she asked Reines whether he was sure Paul wasn’t “at any hearings.”

The Paul campaign on Wednesday said CNN’s correspondent was working with Reines to discredit Paul, and called on the network to “address” the “bias” exhibited – particularly ahead of a CNN-hosted debate next month.

"The liberal media has taken their Clinton sycophancy to a new low. CNN needs to address this bias and lack of journalistic integrity,” Doug Stafford, Paul’s chief strategist, said in a statement. “This email revelation should give Republicans pause as to their coverage and possibility of fair treatment towards Sen. Paul during the next debate. All eyes will be on CNN's response to their employee colluding with Hillary Clinton in order to attack a prominent U.S. senator on their dime."

The campaign specifically cited a Daily Caller report that said the reporter coordinated with Reines.

A representative with CNN has not responded to a request for comment.

Kerpen said on Twitter, as he posted screenshots of multiple email exchanges, that Labott “Tweets on request!”

Another exchange from Jan. 23 showed Reines telling Labott: “I suggested a good Tweet.”

Labott asks what he suggested, and Reines responds, “Pin.”

This may have been a reference to a BlackBerry messaging system. Labott tells Reines she put her BlackBerry “near the window” and “will get back to you.”

A few minutes later, she writes, “Done.”

The tweet sent in that time period was:

zraver
27 Nov 15,, 04:55
Will the person who still thinks the 4th Estate is honest please raise their hand? The bias this election season is so blatant even the precious snow flakes are noticing, likely only because the Media won't give Sanders the time of day despite record crowds. On the right the GOP and its media allies remains totally flummoxed by Trump and Carson and dares not open the door lest Cruz slip in.

Parihaka
28 Nov 15,, 20:18
It's really not that difficult to spot.




Eye on the News
SCOTT W. JOHNSON
Truth and the New York Times
The paper of record shills for a movie that claims to exonerate Dan Rather—against all evidence.
October 12, 2015

The episode known as Rathergate represents one of the great journalistic frauds of our time. The scandal erupted from a 60 Minutes Wednesday segment rushed to air on the evening of September 8, 2004, in time to influence the approaching presidential election pitting George W. Bush against John Kerry, as it was clearly intended to do. The segment consisted of two parts that didn’t quite fit together except in their antipathy to Bush. In the first part, based on an interview with the vice chairman of Kerry’s national finance committee, Dan Rather essentially claimed that political influence had been brought to bear to secure Bush’s admission to the Texas Air National Guard as an interceptor jet pilot in 1968. In the second part, based on documents supposedly from the “personal file” of Bush’s commanding officer, Rather reported that Bush had defied an order to take a physical necessary to maintain his flight status and, among other things, thus failed to discharge his military obligations. The segment was produced and written by Mary Mapes.

In researching the story, Mapes spoke to witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the Texas Air National Guard’s personnel needs. She was told that they needed pilots at the time, and that no influence would have been necessary to secure Bush’s admission. The documents on which Rather based the second segment proved to be fabricated on Microsoft Word in the computer era, not typewritten in the early 1970s by Bush’s commanding officer or anyone else. The content and format of the documents also betrayed their fabrication. The story began to fall apart within a few hours of its broadcast. On September 20, 12 days after the broadcast, Rather extended an apology “personally and directly” to viewers for his inability to authenticate the documents.

To investigate what happened, CBS commissioned a panel chaired by former attorney general Richard Thornburgh and former Associated Press president Lou Boccardi. The report, released in January 2005, provides ample evidence that the entire segment was false and/or fraudulent. It finds that CBS News was at the least grossly negligent in airing the story. As CBS puts it, the report finds that “CBS News failed to follow basic journalistic principles in the preparation and reporting of the Sept. 8, 2004 broadcast.” Mapes was promptly fired as were three other executives with responsibility for the story. Rather stepped down from the CBS Evening News in March 2005 and was let go from the network the following year.

Both Mapes (Truth and Duty, 2005) and Rather (Rather Outspoken, 2012) have written memoirs standing by the story. Hollywood has now produced the film Truth, based on Mapes’s memoir, starring Robert Redford as Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mapes. Despite Mapes’s responsibility for perpetrating a shocking journalistic fraud, the film portrays her as a heroic figure. Mapes not only gets a stellar actress to play her, she is also portrayed as a martyr to the First Amendment and a victim of corporate cowardice. And Dan Rather gets to see Robert Redford portray him. Calling the film Truth suggests confidence that public memories have faded. The lapse of 11 years is apparently sufficient time to allow for the rewriting of history.

Last week, the New York Times stepped in to celebrate the film, which will be released on October 16. The paper assembled a panel featuring Redford, Blanchett, Rather, and Mapes to discuss the film before an enthusiastic New York audience. New York Times Magazine staff writer Susan Dominus, moderating the discussion, gingerly attempted to inject a note of realism, but she was repeatedly brushed aside. Dominus professed herself troubled by Mapes’s having “left the door wide open for the right to drive through.” Dominus’s implicit assumption was that the authenticity of the documents was only arguably at issue; Rather dismisses her focus on the “technical” or “procedural” issues regarding the documents’ provenance and repeatedly stands by their “truth” along with the rest of the story. Rather goes back on his apology, which he implies was forced from him by CBS management. “The basic facts of the story are true,” Rather says (a redundancy, but we get the point). Mistakes were made, Rather allows, but they were “within the normal range of journalistic bungle.” Mapes is intransigent throughout.

All of which raises a simple question: What is the New York Times doing promoting the film and Rather’s and Mapes’s discredited accounts? While Rathergate lacks the historical importance of Walter Duranty’s journalistic wrongdoing as the Times’s Moscow bureau chief in the 1930s, it nonetheless should serve as an uncomfortable reminder of that shameful episode. As the Times’s man in Moscow, Duranty covered up Stalin’s terror famine in the Ukraine. Reflecting in the first volume of his autobiography on his experience working for the Manchester Guardian alongside Duranty in Moscow, Malcolm Muggeridge wrote: “If the New York Times went on all those years giving great prominence to Duranty’s messages, building him and them up when they were so evidently nonsensically untrue . . . this was not, we may be sure, because the Times was deceived. Rather it wanted to be so deceived, and Duranty provided the requisite deception material.” History repeats itself; in its own way, the Times’s celebration of Truth represents a closing of this particular circle.

Scott W. Johnson is a Minneapolis attorney and contributor to the website Power Line.


http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon1012sj.html

Gun Grape
28 Nov 15,, 23:55
Did anyone ever thing the media was unbiased?

Show me a time when they weren't. Its human nature. A reporter is going to shape the story based on his/her personality.

That is why it is important to get your news from more than one source. Fox News is biased towards the right. MSNBC is Biased towards the left. CNN has their own agenda. Its up to the consumer (Us) to gather information from many sources and form our own opinion.

Zraver, Sanders large crowds are being reported on.

I'm thinking the media is a bit apprehensive on making it the big story because back a few cycles ago Dean was experiencing the same.

With Dean the record crowds and lots of money from individual donors (grassroots) didn't do any good once the voting started. Let Sanders get some good showings in the Primaries and things will change.

Sanjac
12 Dec 15,, 03:04
My impression is that before 2008, they did pretend not to be biased. Since then, though, based on the random samples of television I see or hear about, all but Fox News seem to have gone to the extreme end of it.

Parihaka
17 Dec 15,, 19:47
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/were-all-being-pretty-quiet-about-obamas-failures-arent-we/?fb_action_ids=10208229143348595&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.VnJ5Bqu66p0.like

bonehead
21 Dec 15,, 04:26
My impression is that before 2008, they did pretend not to be biased. Since then, though, based on the random samples of television I see or hear about, all but Fox News seem to have gone to the extreme end of it.

I was tuned in to media bias in a high school class way back in the 1980's. You would read about "an event" covered by different media outlets and you had to seriously wonder if they were covering the same story. For the most part the media can get away with it because the people are lazy so they don't bother to get second opinions as it were. Then there is the human nature factor where people tend to gravitate to a media source that has a similar slant as the person.

gunnut
29 Dec 15,, 20:06
I have no problem with the media, or anyone else, being biased. Just come out and say it.

I have a problem with the media pretending to be unbiased.

There's an easy way to spot which way the media is biased toward. Look for the "endorsement" by the newspaper or TV station. I bet most large newspapers and TV networks endorse the left. These outlets also claim to be "unbiased."

Notice Fox News is more conservative than others and never claims to be "unbiased." It claims to be "fair and balanced." One can be biased yet fair and balanced.

SteveDaPirate
29 Dec 15,, 20:27
Want your US political news with less bias? Get it from another country that doesn't have as much of a stake in the outcome.

I find the BBC and Guardian to be more "fair and balanced" when covering US politics than any major American network, and much less likely to make mountains out of molehills.

gunnut
29 Dec 15,, 20:50
Want your US political news with less bias? Get it from another country that doesn't have as much of a stake in the outcome.

I find the BBC and Guardian to be more "fair and balanced" when covering US politics than any major American network, and much less likely to make mountains out of molehills.

HAHAHAHAHAHA....BBC is so far left it makes CNN looks conservative.

Sanjac
30 Dec 15,, 06:16
HAHAHAHAHAHA....BBC is so far left it makes CNN looks conservative.

I have to agree with that. At least based on my personal experience in talking to Brits, left-wing American political propaganda is far more effective in penetrating British society than it is in America. In stark contrast, Kiwis tend to scoff at the whole mess. We could speculate on why this is the case.

SteveDaPirate
30 Dec 15,, 15:44
HAHAHAHAHAHA....BBC is so far left it makes CNN looks conservative.

Well yeah, most of Europe probably would consider CNN to be conservative. The American idea of "left" is rather more centrist or even a bit right by the standards of most first world countries.

FJV
30 Dec 15,, 22:17
Actually "the media" has it's own agenda, which is part leftwing and part rightwing.
Often more of a groupthink really, rather than a deliberate thing.

If it was just one side of the dabate it would be much easier.
Then it would be clear where they stand.

What I have a problem with is that with the agenda setting and controlling the
narrative "the media" has become like a political party you never vote for, yet
always is a part of the government.