Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    SaintForLife

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    7,313
    Reaction score
    3,404
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

    There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


    That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






    Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?
     
    SaintForLife said:
    ...according to how Berliner said it was at NPR.
    Click to expand...

    Berliner, the person who wrote the essay critical of NPR said this about how things are at NPR.

    In an email to CNN on Wednesday, Berliner that he rejects the notion that NPR is a “liberal disinformation machine,” as Trump stated.

    “I have not seen Trump’s comments, but the quote you cite is not the first time he has attacked the media,” he wrote. “He has done it countless times before and will no doubt do it many times again.”
    Click to expand...
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Continued...
    Click to expand...
    1713320594697.jpeg
    ming for Trump. A tradition going back to 2015.
     
    MT15 said:
    The media is definitely not in Biden’s favor. I cannot recall a single time Trump was denigrated for having a great economy.

    Click to expand...

    I noticed that

    The articles say that the great economy is bad for inflation and interest rates

    And something tells me if the economy dips the media story won't this is good for inflation and interest

    It will be doom and gloom about the economy and how this is terrible for Biden
     
    Uri Berliner is offended.

    In an April 9 essay in the Free Press, Berliner, who worked at NPR for 25 years, rapped his employer for allegedly running a newsroom fueled by progressive sensibilities that seep into a skewed on-air product. Stories on Trump-Russia, Hunter Biden and covid-19 have all suffered from acute NPRitis, he writes. And racial and identity considerations — as well as affinity groups — shape workplace culture.

    The essay triggered a bona fide media drama that concluded on Wednesday with Berliner’s resignation. On his way out, he delivered a parting shot at CEO Katherine Maher. “I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new C.E.O. whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay,” Berliner wrote on X.

    Just what had Maher done to deserve such a diss? She had published a statement pushing back against Berliner’s essay: “Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.” As NPR’s own David Folkenflik reported, Berliner took exception to that commentary.

    Which is to say, Berliner is now an expert in disparagement and umbrage. In his Free Press essay, he deplores his colleagues’ “advocacy” and alleges that it had “veered toward efforts to damage or topple [Donald] Trump’s presidency.”

    Now that is disparagement. Even in the rough-and-tumble world of journalism, slamming your colleagues for their published work — especially in another outlet — is a rare undertaking. As Berliner suggests in his essay, it was something of a last resort, considering that he had raised his concerns internally to little effect. He invited people to sample NPR’s coverage and “make their own judgment.”

    Invitation accepted. Over the past several days, I have sifted through roughly three years’ worth of NPR’s coverage of Russiagate, the effort by federal investigators and the media to discover the truth about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. Since NPR’s alleged tilt on this story serves as Exhibit No. 1 in Berliner’s onslaught — and since it’s central to the claim that the network sought to topple Trump — I chose to limit my efforts to this portion of the essay.

    And what a portion it is! The NPR Russia-Trump coverage plume under fire from Berliner consists of thousands of articles, podcasts, segments and so on. Berliner links to one. His serious allegations, accordingly, are backed by scant evidence, if any at all. It’s a lazy, summary approach to evaluating a large body of work — a feelings-based critique of the sort that passes for media reporting these days. Too often, essayists write their conclusory broadsides against this or that outlet, confident in the knowledge that their fellow ideological travelers will applaud no matter how threadbare the supporting material...........



     
    Optimus Prime said:
    Uri Berliner is offended.

    In an April 9 essay in the Free Press, Berliner, who worked at NPR for 25 years, rapped his employer for allegedly running a newsroom fueled by progressive sensibilities that seep into a skewed on-air product. Stories on Trump-Russia, Hunter Biden and covid-19 have all suffered from acute NPRitis, he writes. And racial and identity considerations — as well as affinity groups — shape workplace culture.

    The essay triggered a bona fide media drama that concluded on Wednesday with Berliner’s resignation. On his way out, he delivered a parting shot at CEO Katherine Maher. “I cannot work in a newsroom where I am disparaged by a new C.E.O. whose divisive views confirm the very problems at NPR I cite in my Free Press essay,” Berliner wrote on X.

    Just what had Maher done to deserve such a diss? She had published a statement pushing back against Berliner’s essay: “Questioning whether our people are serving our mission with integrity, based on little more than the recognition of their identity, is profoundly disrespectful, hurtful, and demeaning.” As NPR’s own David Folkenflik reported, Berliner took exception to that commentary.

    Which is to say, Berliner is now an expert in disparagement and umbrage. In his Free Press essay, he deplores his colleagues’ “advocacy” and alleges that it had “veered toward efforts to damage or topple [Donald] Trump’s presidency.”

    Now that is disparagement. Even in the rough-and-tumble world of journalism, slamming your colleagues for their published work — especially in another outlet — is a rare undertaking. As Berliner suggests in his essay, it was something of a last resort, considering that he had raised his concerns internally to little effect. He invited people to sample NPR’s coverage and “make their own judgment.”

    Invitation accepted. Over the past several days, I have sifted through roughly three years’ worth of NPR’s coverage of Russiagate, the effort by federal investigators and the media to discover the truth about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. Since NPR’s alleged tilt on this story serves as Exhibit No. 1 in Berliner’s onslaught — and since it’s central to the claim that the network sought to topple Trump — I chose to limit my efforts to this portion of the essay.

    And what a portion it is! The NPR Russia-Trump coverage plume under fire from Berliner consists of thousands of articles, podcasts, segments and so on. Berliner links to one. His serious allegations, accordingly, are backed by scant evidence, if any at all. It’s a lazy, summary approach to evaluating a large body of work — a feelings-based critique of the sort that passes for media reporting these days. Too often, essayists write their conclusory broadsides against this or that outlet, confident in the knowledge that their fellow ideological travelers will applaud no matter how threadbare the supporting material...........



    Click to expand...
    The most partisan Democrat/establishment media outlet of the major media outlets is covering for NPR. What a surprise.

    Not surprisingly, the NPR CEO is part of the censorship regime.



     
    SaintForLife said:
    He's reportering on the things she's said. You can see exactly what's she's said. How does that change if it's from Rufo? Do you think Rufo lied about what she's said?
    Click to expand...
    If you assume that Rufo is lying, misrepresenting or giving the worse possible hot take on anything he posts you’ll be right a lot more than not
     
    Optimus Prime said:
    If you assume that Rufo is lying, misrepresenting or giving the worse possible hot take on anything he posts you’ll be right a lot more than not
    Click to expand...
    Okay so I take it that means you don't think what's he's reported about what she said wasn't accurate. I posted videos from her saying those things.

    She's a censorship advocate similar to Nina Jankowicz and she far left in her political opinions. She'll fit in well at NPR.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    Okay so I take it that means you don't think what's he's reported about what she said wasn't accurate. I posted videos from her saying those things.

    She's a censorship advocate similar to Nina Jankowicz and she far left in her political opinions. She'll fit in well at NPR.
    Click to expand...
    The issue is that you use the worst, most partisan sources you can find and then disparage everyone else as “partisan”. Rufo is a known far right wing activist. He admits it. He admits that he takes words and twists them around until they mean something else entirely in order to damage people he doesn’t agree with. He has zero integrity. A serious person should never believe anything he says.
     
    Can we all just take a second and make fun of SFL? This dude has spent how many pages going against NPR for their bias?

    Anyone know what the number 1 program at NPR is? Fresh Air

    That's right Terry Gross is SFL's Sean Hannity.
     
    J-DONK said:
    Can we all just take a second and make fun of SFL? This dude has spent how many pages going against NPR for their bias?

    Anyone know what the number 1 program at NPR is? Fresh Air

    That's right Terry Gross is SFL's Sean Hannity.
    Click to expand...
    Your posts sound pretty similar Katherine Maher. Are yall related?
     
    MT15 said:
    The issue is that you use the worst, most partisan sources you can find and then disparage everyone else as “partisan”. Rufo is a known far right wing activist. He admits it. He admits that he takes words and twists them around until they mean something else entirely in order to damage people he doesn’t agree with. He has zero integrity. A serious person should never believe anything he says.
    Click to expand...
    He literally posted her own tweets.
     
    MT15 said:
    And?
    Click to expand...
    So if he posted her own tweets, why does it matter who did? You obviously aren't claiming what he posted was true, but I understand the need to deflect to Russo rather than talk about a far left loon being CEO of NPR.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    So if he posted her own tweets, why does it matter who did? You obviously aren't claiming what he posted was true, but I understand the need to deflect to Russo rather than talk about a far left loon being CEO of NPR.
    Click to expand...
    You still don’t get the point. If you want to disparage people as biased then you should attempt to use unbiased sources yourself. I’m not engaging on the content of her tweets, I just don’t care about that. I didn’t point out you were using Rufo until you disparaged somebody else as biased. You shouldn’t feel comfortable using biased sources yourself if you’re going to call other peoples’ sources biased.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    The most partisan Democrat/establishment media outlet of the major media outlets is covering for NPR
    Click to expand...
    This is a hyperbolic and distorted opinion that borders on being a flat out lie.

    SaintForLife said:
    Not surprisingly, the NPR CEO is part of the censorship regime.
    Click to expand...
    This is another hyperbolic and distorted opinion that borders on being a flat out lie.

    The only thing that's not surprising is that this poster continues to post falsehoods that have been repeatedly proven to be false and that they continue to spam this board with content from people who have been shown to constantly lie.

    This person is not telling anyone the truth. They are only spreading falsehoods hoping that if they repeat the same lie enough times, then some people will fall for them.

    Don't fall for the lies. If too many people fall for the lies, it will lead to pain and suffering for over 90% of us, including the people that come here to repeat the lies. They are nothing more than cannon fodder to the people they blindly serve.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom