Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

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]

Okay, I recognize that Stephen L. Miller name. If he thinks something I will think the opposite. Just totally an internet troll with zero credibility. Nasty person.

He's no David Frum or Anne Applebaum that's for sure.

 

[SaintForLife]

The hack Chuck Todd as well.

 

[MT15]

It's not just one man. the article I posted above:

Former NPR vice president for news and ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin tweeted, "I know Uri. He's not wrong."

Your stance on Trump isn’t reality based. You deny basic facts about Hunter’s laptop. You promote baseless conspiracy theories. You repeat Russian propaganda. You lie about Joe Biden. You insult me and others repeatedly. Sometimes you get insulted back, so that last one is somewhat mitigated.

I’m not going to read something you recommend. There are consequences for the way you conduct yourself on this board. That’s just the way it is.

I did go look up NPR’s ethics and accuracy guidelines. I don’t rely on any one source anyway, but I’m good with what they are doing.

 

[MT15]

The hack Chuck Todd as well.

Do you think there might just be a little bit of a difference between a guest going rogue, and actually hiring someone you know is a liar?

Oh, snap! Do you think that’s Chuck Todd, lolololol.

 

[MT15]

He's no David Frum or Anne Applebaum that's for sure.

No, he’s got no resume at all that I can tell. Just a troll. Oh and he has a podcast.

 

[SaintForLife]

Your stance on Trump isn’t reality based. You deny basic facts about Hunter’s laptop. You promote baseless conspiracy theories. You repeat Russian propaganda. You lie about Joe Biden. You insult me and others repeatedly. Sometimes you get insulted back, so that last one is somewhat mitigated.

You said: I don’t care what one man’s opinion is.

I show another former NPR employee agreed with him and you shift to Trump.

I’m not going to read something you recommend. There are consequences for the way you conduct yourself on this board. That’s just the way it is.

Lol. You wouldn't read it either way. It exposes your sacred media as partisan Democrats.

I did go look up NPR’s ethics and accuracy guidelines. I don’t rely on any one source anyway, but I’m good with what they are doing.

Of course you are good with what NPR has been doing. It lines up with how you always complain about how the media should cover Trump.

Why in the world would you be good with this?

The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.

 

[SaintForLife]

Do you think there might just be a little bit of a difference between a guest going rogue, and actually hiring someone you know is a liar?

Oh, snap! Do you think that’s Chuck Todd, lolololol.

Nope. Read it slower

 

[SaintForLife]

No, he’s got no resume at all that I can tell. Just a troll. Oh and he has a podcast.

And you post things from David Rothkopf who does a podcast for the oppressive UAE.

 

[MT15]

And you post things from David Rothkopf who does a podcast for the oppressive UAE.

Your guy has no soul, no conscience. David Rothkopf is a good man.

 

[MT15]

You said: I don’t care what one man’s opinion is.

I show another former NPR employee agreed with him and you shift to Trump.


Lol. You wouldn't read it either way. It exposes your sacred media as partisan Democrats.

Of course you are good with what NPR has been doing. It lines up with how you always complain about how the media should cover Trump.

Why in the world would you be good with this?

The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.

So, knowing what we know now, they were correct to squelch the story. It (the files the NY Post had) contained nothing pertinent to Joe Biden, it was obtained through Rudy and Steve Bannon, it was obviously altered after the date the actual laptop was taken in by the FBI. It was obviously released in close proximity to the election, even though they supposedly had it for months, hoping that MSM would run with it before anything could be checked out.

The NY Post and the political dirty tricksters refused an independent analysis of the files, and the FBI wouldn’t / couldn’t comment. When you cannot verify the story, when the only source is the NY Post and they refuse to allow verification, you don’t run the story. The NY Post makes shirt up. Rudy and Bannon are complete weasels and not to be trusted.

You and all the simps for Trump are just angry it didn’t work.

So no, I don’t care one bit about your stories. As far as I know your two sources are simps for Trump and they’re also mad it didn’t work.

 

[SaintForLife]

How delusional must one be to think a current senior editor at NPR and a former Vice President at NPR are simps for Trump?

I guess that's what you have to tell yourself when you are in denial about the media not being partisan hacks.

 

[MT15]

How delusional must one be to think a current senior editor at NPR and a former Vice President at NPR are simps for Trump?

I guess that's what you have to tell yourself when you are in denial about the media not being partisan hacks.

There are people who support Trump in almost every media outfit. They’re just people, and lots of them are Republicans, whether they support Trump or not. Your post makes zero sense. You are the one saying the media are partisan hacks - so it isn’t possible these two could be Republicans?

 

[MT15]

This could have gone in the RWNJ thread as well as here.

 

[SaintForLife]

There are people who support Trump in almost every media outfit. They’re just people, and lots of them are Republicans, whether they support Trump or not. Your post makes zero sense. You are the one saying the media are partisan hacks - so it isn’t possible these two could be Republicans?

NPR has 87 editorial positions and these are comprised of 87 Democrats and Zero Republicans.

The chance that those two could be Republicans. 0 to 3%.

It doesn't matter. You will never admit the media is biased or not credible no matter what evidence you are shown.

I could have a video taped confession from the heads of all the major media companies and you would claim it a deep fake video made by Rudy, Bannon or the Russians.

 

[MT15]

NPR has 87 editorial positions and these are comprised of 87 Democrats and Zero Republicans.

The chance that those two could be Republicans. 0 to 3%.

It doesn't matter. You will never admit the media is biased or not credible no matter what evidence you are shown.

I could have a video taped confession from the heads of all the major media companies and you would claim it a deep fake video made by Rudy, Bannon or the Russians.

Party allegiance does not equal bias. People can be ethical and report things truthfully even though they actually have a political party. They are people, they have a right to have opinions. Journalists are trained to report factually and guard against opinion seeping into their reporting.

So, leaving aside the hyperbole for a minute. Let’s take a look at someone who read this piece and used critical thinking, and fact checked his claims. I wonder if you actually read the Berliner piece yourself?

 

[SaintForLife]

Party allegiance does not equal bias. People can be ethical and report things truthfully even though they actually have a political party. They are people, they have a right to have opinions. Journalists are trained to report factually and guard against opinion seeping into their reporting.

So, leaving aside the hyperbole for a minute. Let’s take a look at someone who read this piece and used critical thinking, and fact checked his claims. I wonder if you actually read the Berliner piece yourself?

You picked the chief of staff for a House Democrat to try to discredit the article saying NPR reporters are biased toward Democrats?

 

[MT15]

Here is the text of what he found that the piece got wrong. If you want links and references, go to the original thread which is linked in the post before this one.

“The first, he says, is "Russiagate." They interviewed Schiff 25 times he says, and Schiff alluded "to purported evidence of collusion" "during many of those conversations." I checked these interviews- Schiff discussed "evidence" of "collusion" once, referring to "public evidence"

Berliner goes on: "But when the Mueller report found no credible evidence of collusion, NPR’s coverage was notably sparse. Russiagate quietly faded from our programming."

This is wildly untrue. I mean, my goodness, look at this-
npr.org/2019/03/24/706…
npr.org/2019/03/24/706…

And obviously Berliner is here repeating a Republican talking point that simply is not true. It is not true that the Mueller investigation found "no credible evidence of collusion," they found insufficient evidence to charge Trump with criminal conspiracy. This claim is false.

The next "miscue" he says was not reporting on the NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020. He says "NPR turned a blind eye" and "didn't make the hard choice of transparency." This isn't true. NPR covered the story at the time and explained why they were being cautious:

Berliner says "the essential facts of the Post’s reporting were confirmed and the emails verified independently about a year and a half later" with a link to a Washington Post story. But that story says the opposite. In fact it supports NPR's 2020 decision
washingtonpost.com/technology/202…

His third point is that NPR "became fervent members of Team Natural Origin, even declaring that the lab leak had been debunked by scientists"...at NPR, we weren’t about to swivel or even tiptoe away from the insistence with which we backed the natural origin story." Guess what...

If you've read this far you're going to be super shocked to learn that this claim of rigid, unquestioning adherence to avoiding and/or taking down the lab leak theory without ever explaining why also is not true
npr.org/2021/06/03/100…
npr.org/2021/06/17/100…

Those NPR stories are good, they make a good faith effort to grapple with a difficult question. Scientists criticized the lab leak theory in 2020 for the same reason Berliner claims to have written this piece- Trump et al pushed it without evidence to advance a political agenda.

I will spare you the rest of this critical analysis of Berliners piece. But you should also know that his claim of “87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans” is also almost certainly false. Which is explained in detail farther into the thread.

So what we seem to have here, IMO, is a disgruntled employee twisting facts around and smearing his employer. And yes, due to the existence of false Republican talking points in his piece, Berliner seems certainly biased and might be a partisan Republican.

I will await the thoughtful nuanced response from SFL, who has once again subjected us to a completely biased opinion piece and claimed it is fact.

 

[MT15]

You picked the chief of staff for a House Democrat to try to discredit the article saying NPR reporters are biased toward Democrats?

If you were honest at all you would read his analysis and check out his criticisms. He gives examples, links, proof for everything he says. I will bet you will not, because you want to believe what Berliner says without doing any critical thinking or entertaining any other analysis.

You won’t touch it, I’m betting.