Leftist corporate media is lying: a daily diary

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

where was the MDL war chant party on Presidential standards when Bill Clinton was sticking cigars inside vulnerable  young interns in  the oval office 

 

Probably in diapers. It happened in the 1990s. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

The Bill Clinton comparison Is relevant to questions asked, but you are right, this thread is about the fake news coming out of the Leftist mainstream media.

 

 

 

Bringing Bill Clinton in this discussion is relevant if you're living in the 1990s.  Why not just bring Jane Fonda as well and move all the way back to the 60s! LOL. 

 

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

Subtitle of this thread :  Apples and Oranges.

 

No comparison to the original banana.

 

 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, JimandChristy said:

Another deflection. What Bill did was wrong and in the end it caught up with him by being impeached. 

What Trump did was also wrong, so just say it was wrong.

 

You know people are desperate when they have to bring Bill Clinton into any conversation. LOL.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

i do wonder whatever happened to nb's letter system though. with all these 'clinton did it' comments ya'll got some alphabet soup brewing.

It was terminated by Mod decree dear. 

[jg121783 3,921]

Here is the leftist media lie of the day to add to the thread. For once it isn't CNN:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/nyt-issues-correction-on-claim-that-intel-agencies-agreed-russia-attempted-to-help-trump-win-election/

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

16 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Here is the leftist media lie of the day to add to the thread. For once it isn't CNN:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/nyt-issues-correction-on-claim-that-intel-agencies-agreed-russia-attempted-to-help-trump-win-election/

 

 

If one were to guess, that would be the logical 2nd or 3rd choice of guessing whodunit.

Edited June 30, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

Here is the leftist media lie of the day to add to the thread. For once it isn't CNN:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/nyt-issues-correction-on-claim-that-intel-agencies-agreed-russia-attempted-to-help-trump-win-election/

 

 

The report was issued by the OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE wich represents  17 agencies. Is this a lame attempt to say that their report did not implicate the Russians just because the airforce did not issue a unique report? 

[Póg mo 1,749]

RWNJs, what do the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy and the liberal media all have in common? Answer: They are all figments of your imagination. 

 

http://fair.org/home/as-democratic-voters-shift-left-liberal-media-keep-shifting-right/

 

As Democratic Voters Shift Left, ‘Liberal Media’ Keep Shifting Right

 fair.org/home/as-democratic-voters-shift-left-liberal-media-keep-shifting-right/

 

By Adam Johnson

 

In the past few years, the Democratic Party’s rank and file have shifted left on major issues. From healthcare to legalization of drugs to taxes, the heart of the party has grown more progressive—and, in many instances, overtly socialist in nature. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal, up from 39 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2001.

The Daily Beast (6/8/17) reported that MSNBC–“once considered the “liberal” cable-news outlet”–continued its “conservative hiring spree.”

In contrast, nominally liberal media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have drifted rightward. On Wednesday, MSNBC announced it had hired torture-supporting, climate-denying, anti-Arab racist Bret Stephens, a recent hire at the New York Times opinion page. Stephens—whose very first article at the Times had to be corrected due to his misunderstanding of basic climate science—will be an “on-air contributor” for both MSNBC and NBC.

This pickup continues a conservative hiring spree at MSNBC, including former George Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, old-school conservative Washington Post columnist George Will, and former Fox News stars Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (though Van Susteren’s show has already been canceled due to comically low ratings).

Despite their ratings going up as their marquee liberal firebrands rail against Donald Trump on a day-to-day basis, MSNBC has decided not to double down on this approach, but rather is populating its 24-hour broadcast with an increasing number of Bush-era also-rans and ex–Fox News personalities. At the same time, the New York Times has added the far-right Stephens to its coveted and influential list of full-time columnists—joining fellow #nevertrump conservatives David Brooks and Ross Douthat.

As notable as their outreach to the right is these outlets’ resolute resistance to introducing any new voices to the left of the party’s corporate center. Forty-three percent of Democratic voters backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, yet the New York Times and MSNBC editorial teams don’t have one vocal Sanders supporter. Some, certainly, are sympathetic to him, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, and the Times’ Charles Blow. But none openly back him in the way Paul Krugman, Gail Collins and Joy-Ann Reid (FAIR.org, 4/20/17) openly spin for his more centrist primary opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Indeed, MSNBC’s Reid spends an unhealthy amount of time on Twitter dragging the Vermont senator for being inadequately obsequious to the corporate wing of the party.)

Obviously, sitting around waiting for corporate-owned media to embrace subversive left political commentary—or even Sanders’ brand of soft European-style social democracy—is a fool’s errand, and one should be under no illusions this will ever happen. But the lack of any effort to represent a major sector of their audience is still worth pointing out. If the media were “all about the clicks” or “the views,” a major network would jump at the chance to at least have one token leftist to appeal to this underserved demographic. Yet they keep going in the other direction, hiring more right wingers without any apparent marketing reason to do so.

Shaping ideology and public opinion is less about the voices we hear, and more about those we don’t. The range of debate is set by liberal gatekeepers like the Times and MSNBC, and it’s clear, with each additional hire, the Overton window at these institutions won’t budge one inch to the left, regardless of how much their consumers do. One is left to conclude that MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing so precisely because of it.

---

You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). You can add comments to MSNBC’s site here (or via Twitter: @MSNBC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, ccneat said:

The report was issued by the OFFICE of the DIRECTOR of NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE wich represents  17 agencies. Is this a lame attempt to say that their report did not implicate the Russians just because the airforce did not issue a unique report? 

That was called out by me many times in chest. Many of the 17 have zero to do with that kind of Intel. Hillary told a whopper. Which as we know a whopper by a single person is way more serious than a conspiracy of lies told by a news agency. 

 

So MDL did the NYT lie when they reported it or lie when they retracted it 

Both can't be true can they.

 

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

32 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

RWNJs, what do the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy and the liberal media all have in common? Answer: They are all figments of your imagination. 

 

 

 

Don't you think calling a very broad demographic of people nut  jobs is a little offensive ?

 

Ps sorry you got MDL chest duty for the holiday weekend 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Looks like the AP is throwing in the towel on the lie also 

 

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_RUSSIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-30-17-32-29

[Póg mo 1,749]

35 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Don't you think calling a very broad demographic of people nut  jobs is a little offensive ?

 

Ps sorry you got MDL chest duty for the holiday weekend 

I didn't call anyone anything, but I'm glad you to here, that I reached my target audience

[jg121783 3,921]

7 hours ago, Póg mo said:

http://fair.org/home/as-democratic-voters-shift-left-liberal-media-keep-shifting-right/

 

As Democratic Voters Shift Left, ‘Liberal Media’ Keep Shifting Right

 fair.org/home/as-democratic-voters-shift-left-liberal-media-keep-shifting-right/

 

By Adam Johnson

 

In the past few years, the Democratic Party’s rank and file have shifted left on major issues. From healthcare to legalization of drugs to taxes, the heart of the party has grown more progressive—and, in many instances, overtly socialist in nature. Forty-seven percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents now identify as both socially liberal and economically moderate or liberal, up from 39 percent in 2008 and 30 percent in 2001.

The Daily Beast (6/8/17) reported that MSNBC–“once considered the “liberal” cable-news outlet”–continued its “conservative hiring spree.”

In contrast, nominally liberal media—or major media whose editorial line is reliably pro-Democratic—have drifted rightward. On Wednesday, MSNBC announced it had hired torture-supporting, climate-denying, anti-Arab racist Bret Stephens, a recent hire at the New York Times opinion page. Stephens—whose very first article at the Times had to be corrected due to his misunderstanding of basic climate science—will be an “on-air contributor” for both MSNBC and NBC.

This pickup continues a conservative hiring spree at MSNBC, including former George Bush adviser Nicolle Wallace, right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt, old-school conservative Washington Post columnist George Will, and former Fox News stars Greta Van Susteren and Megyn Kelly (though Van Susteren’s show has already been canceled due to comically low ratings).

Despite their ratings going up as their marquee liberal firebrands rail against Donald Trump on a day-to-day basis, MSNBC has decided not to double down on this approach, but rather is populating its 24-hour broadcast with an increasing number of Bush-era also-rans and ex–Fox News personalities. At the same time, the New York Times has added the far-right Stephens to its coveted and influential list of full-time columnists—joining fellow #nevertrump conservatives David Brooks and Ross Douthat.

As notable as their outreach to the right is these outlets’ resolute resistance to introducing any new voices to the left of the party’s corporate center. Forty-three percent of Democratic voters backed Bernie Sanders in the primary, yet the New York Times and MSNBC editorial teams don’t have one vocal Sanders supporter. Some, certainly, are sympathetic to him, such as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes, and the Times’ Charles Blow. But none openly back him in the way Paul Krugman, Gail Collins and Joy-Ann Reid (FAIR.org, 4/20/17) openly spin for his more centrist primary opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (Indeed, MSNBC’s Reid spends an unhealthy amount of time on Twitter dragging the Vermont senator for being inadequately obsequious to the corporate wing of the party.)

Obviously, sitting around waiting for corporate-owned media to embrace subversive left political commentary—or even Sanders’ brand of soft European-style social democracy—is a fool’s errand, and one should be under no illusions this will ever happen. But the lack of any effort to represent a major sector of their audience is still worth pointing out. If the media were “all about the clicks” or “the views,” a major network would jump at the chance to at least have one token leftist to appeal to this underserved demographic. Yet they keep going in the other direction, hiring more right wingers without any apparent marketing reason to do so.

Shaping ideology and public opinion is less about the voices we hear, and more about those we don’t. The range of debate is set by liberal gatekeepers like the Times and MSNBC, and it’s clear, with each additional hire, the Overton window at these institutions won’t budge one inch to the left, regardless of how much their consumers do. One is left to conclude that MSNBC and the New York Times are not veering right despite Democratic voters’ increasing embrace of left policies; they’re doing so precisely because of it.

---

You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). You can add comments to MSNBC’s site here (or via Twitter: @MSNBC). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.

[Dashinka 24,800]

12 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

Bringing Bill Clinton in this discussion is relevant if you're living in the 1990s.  Why not just bring Jane Fonda as well and move all the way back to the 60s! LOL. 

 

 

I love it, the MDL opens the door to a comparison of President Clinton and then claims it is irrelevant.  

 

MDL logic!