Media Tracker (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,137
    Reaction score
    2,455
    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?
     
    This is yet another example. MSM doesn’t favor Biden, anyone who says that is gaslighting.

     
    This is a fair critique of a speech recently given by the NYT publisher, and the coverage we have been seeing from the NYT. Worth the read.


    “We aren’t asking the Times’s news side to “crusade for change.” We’re not asking it to abandon independence as a “peacetime luxury.” We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak.

    Reporting that Trump is a racist fanatic who would turn a democratic government into his personal fiefdom is not crusading, it’s journalism.

    Reporting (endlessly) that Biden is old without noting that Trump is deranged is not “independent” journalism, it’s just bad journalism.

    Sulzberger also defended the Times’s unremittingly hostile coverage of gender-affirming care for young people by saying critics don’t want the topic covered at all, which is not remotely true. They want it covered fairly, in a way that respects trans existence.

    And he defended the Times’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by saying it’s impossible to please everybody. “There’s no story that is more fiercely contested, more mired in competing zero-sum narratives,” he said. But he didn’t address one common concern, which is that Times coverage is generally more respectful of Jewish lives than it is of Palestinians’.”
     
    …….Yet such a case would have been devastating to any other candidate at any other moment in history. Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington, said: “He’s going to be on trial for 34 felony counts in less than three weeks and the mainstream media has barely indicated the importance of this.

    “‘Oh, it’s just a hush money trial.’ No it’s not. He’s not on trial for hush money. He’s on trial for election fraud, not just paying the hush money but deceiving the American people by concealing it as a business expense.”

    Lichtman added: “If this was anybody but Trump, any other presidential candidate on trial, it would be the trial of the century and the mainstream media would be screaming that, if the candidate got convicted, he should be bounced from from the campaign. Instead they’ve misrepresented and trivialised this case.”……..

    Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, said: “The media has clearly not learned its lesson from 2016 or 2020 on how to cover Donald Trump. This is not a conventional horse race election. There’s nothing normal about any of this so, by covering Biden and Trump equally, it minimises Trump’s considerably disturbing behaviour, comments and plans for the future.……..

     
    …….Yet such a case would have been devastating to any other candidate at any other moment in history. Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington, said: “He’s going to be on trial for 34 felony counts in less than three weeks and the mainstream media has barely indicated the importance of this.

    “‘Oh, it’s just a hush money trial.’ No it’s not. He’s not on trial for hush money. He’s on trial for election fraud, not just paying the hush money but deceiving the American people by concealing it as a business expense.”

    Lichtman added: “If this was anybody but Trump, any other presidential candidate on trial, it would be the trial of the century and the mainstream media would be screaming that, if the candidate got convicted, he should be bounced from from the campaign. Instead they’ve misrepresented and trivialised this case.”……..

    Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, said: “The media has clearly not learned its lesson from 2016 or 2020 on how to cover Donald Trump. This is not a conventional horse race election. There’s nothing normal about any of this so, by covering Biden and Trump equally, it minimises Trump’s considerably disturbing behaviour, comments and plans for the future.……..


    And yet, even when lobbed a mindblowing softball question, Dems just will NOT play hardball.

    One of Biden's campaign managers was asked on NPR why the race is so close, why does the American public think Biden's age is important while Trump's isn't?

    He went on about the Biden message, etc etc while failing to simply say "Because the media has utterly failed the American people. They choose what to cover, what to present and this is what we've gotten. They trivialize NINETY ONE FELONY counts while acting as though Biden's age in and of itself is of crucial import. Y'all dropped the ball in 2016, in 2020 and you're doing it again. In this one particular instance, I happen to agree with the cowardly simpleton who used to live in the White House, the media is the enemy of the people. They serve their corporate masters, they serve the bottom line above all and America is the less for it."
     
    It doesn't seem to be going well for the "The government is censoring right wing misinformation and conspiracy speech" contingent at the SC today. I'm slightly surprised, but we'll see what happens when the ruling comes out. @SaintForLife might be on life support over this, somebody should check on him.

    =================

    Supreme Court likely to reject limits on White House social media contacts​

    The Supreme Court seems likely to reject a Republican-led effort to sharply limit the federal government from pressuring social media companies to remove harmful posts and misinformation from their platforms.

    A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed concern about hamstringing federal government communications with social media platforms on issues such as public health, national security and elections.

    Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh, who previously worked in Democratic and Republican administrations, respectively, suggested that such exchanges were routine occurrences and did not amount to government censorship in violation of the First Amendment.

    The justices appeared ready to embrace a narrow ruling, suggesting that the two Republican-led states and individuals behind the lawsuit did not have sufficient legal grounds to sue the Biden administration. Several justices said the individuals could not show a direct link between the government’s pressure on the platforms and the tech companies’ removal of posts the government deemed problematic.
    ================

     

    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!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom