^^Again, I never referred to their reporting on Trump. Reading is fundamental.

^That is a good assessment

8/23/2016 1:46:00 PM

i wasn't @'ing you

8/23/2016 2:50:52 PM

I'd love to know the percentage of people who complain about the MSM who actually watch the MSM

because I watch the nightly news on a regular basis, and they don't treat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves at all

8/23/2016 7:01:21 PM

i watch cbs evening news and cnn all the time and its incredibly pro establishment. They give trump all the airtime but also criticism. The criticism of hillary is the typical prepackaged criticism you would expect from the establishment republicans. trustworthiness etc.

8/23/2016 7:52:46 PM

Umm, yeah, the amount of abuse being heaped upon Trump is unprecedented. There are plenty of good articles that have come out in the last month in normal publications (ie not breitbart or the like) about how a lot of journalists have abandined even the pretext of balance.

Now, some of this is deserved because he's such a shitshow, but to say that the MSM isn't decidedly on board for Clinton is absurd.

8/23/2016 7:57:19 PM

He and his supporters have treated print media like dogshit from day one. Why shouldn't they?

Also, Fox News is part of the MSM..

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 8:08 PM. Reason : X]

8/23/2016 8:08:28 PM

I'm not surprised, but from an ethics standpoint the idea of balance and not making every piece of reporting an editorial is and has been the standard and should remain so. Trump is awful, has openly shit on them (as you point out), but that does not mean they get to abandon their responsibility as the 4th estate. They should be adversarial to both candidates, and at the moment they are not.

I don't mean to imply that both are equally bad or both say as many easily falsifiable things, but at the moment only Trump is really being called to account.

8/23/2016 8:13:09 PM

Trump lies at a much higher rate is the issue. Almost everything he says is a lie on the trail.

Clinton has consistently lied about emails and her foundation and I don't think she has been let off lightly on those two things at all. Sure, if you only read HuffPo or watch MSNBC you may think so but the AP, WaPo and WSJ for example have all reported extensively on those.

The truth is she is basically invisible on the campaign trail (I'd assume by design) and doesn't say much controversial or worth noting. If Trump starts to act like a human being, which is doubtful, I suspect she will have to and we will see more reporting about it.

[Edited on August 23, 2016 at 8:21 PM. Reason : Journal]

8/23/2016 8:20:43 PM

Quote :

"Now, some of this is deserved because he's such a shitshow"

some?

8/23/2016 8:24:49 PM

Almost zero coverage of johnson and stein. They won't be credible until they start covering the parties that don't sponsor them.

8/23/2016 8:31:02 PM

Third party coverage is a legit gripe. Especially Johnson. I see him polling at 10%+ and barely a whisper.

8/23/2016 8:35:27 PM

Quote :

"Umm, yeah, the amount of abuse being heaped upon Trump is unprecedented."

Have you listened to the fucking guy talk? He does this shit to himself.

Quote :

"at the moment only Trump is really being called to account."

There are PLENTY of articles about Hillary's emails/foundation shit/lack of press conferences/health shit/etc. Take the blinders off dude.

8/23/2016 9:15:14 PM

Quote :

"Trump lies at a much higher rate is the issue."

Yup.

8/23/2016 9:35:49 PM

You know, it's possible to hate Trump and feel like he's quite probably the worst candidate in modern american history (we had worse pre-civil war) and still feel that the press is failing in a significant way and may have changed in such a substantial way that they may never actually cover things in a balanced way ever again.

That's really my main concern with the way the media is behaving right now. Trump may have actually broken the media.

8/23/2016 9:55:24 PM

^^Whoever made that chart is probably mostly pregnant, or half alive.

8/23/2016 11:07:20 PM

wait, people think Politifact isn't a biased cesspool of misinformation?

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

8/23/2016 11:51:25 PM

cool link to an opinion piece from 3 years ago that in no way supports your claim that Politifact is a cesspool of misinformation

well done

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 12:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2016 12:38:44 AM

^^ you need to reread that oped using some critical thinking skills. Despite being old, it's misrepresenting the analysis and making a conclusion that's not supported.

It's not hard to see how republicans, which openly reject science of climate change and evolution, would tend to say things that aren't factual. It's in the GOP DNA to internalize inaccurate beliefs.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 12:39 AM. Reason : ]

8/24/2016 12:39:03 AM

^^^ Got sidetracked while reading that by the link to check out their political cartoons of Obama.

Thought they'd be interesting but they were the same old big ear caricatures you'd see on The_Donald.

8/24/2016 6:23:40 AM

So how did that site figure out which 50 statements from 2007 to analyze for each candidate? Seems pretty scientific!

I mean, I guess if you believe Hillary tells the truth all the time you'd buy that graph..

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM. Reason : Bernie has never lied!]

Palin tells the truth more than Obama..

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

8/24/2016 10:38:52 AM

I was actually going to ask how they chose what statements to check. I don't think the fact checks themselves are biased but it's fairly obvious they can cherry pick what they check.

Don't get me wrong, there is no doubt that Trump lies more than any candidate in the history of politics but this dumb meme is pointless..

8/24/2016 10:58:58 AM

It says they've graded more than 50 statements for each person since 2007, not "50 statements exactly". How do you know they're not just using all of the statements they've graded total?

8/24/2016 11:23:56 AM

Because I'm sure they've made well over 50 statements in 9 years.

8/24/2016 11:32:04 AM

What? How does that indicate that they aren't using all their available data? Does Politifact grade every single statement made by everyone or only ones that meet certain criteria? It's not so crazy to think that one or two of the ppl on that list have only been graded 50 times by Politifact

Update...quickly checking the TOTAL numbers on Politifact for a few of the ppl on this list and they line up with the image. So either they are using total numbers or have picked 50 statements from each that are representative of the whole Politifact database.

Now, the next argument you could make would be that Politifact picks more true statements to analyze from democrats as a whole than they do for republicans, but quite frankly if that's your argument the burden of proof is on you.

[Edited on August 24, 2016 at 11:42 AM. Reason : asdf]

8/24/2016 11:34:51 AM

You're getting way ahead of yourself. How about for starters, Politifact lists all of the statements they've "graded" for each candidate, and gives the public some semblance of an explanation for how they choose which statements to grade. All we have ITT is a graphic with zero source data. And I believe 80% of the politicians are republicans. Why not have like 20 R's and 20 D's on the list, for example?

8/24/2016 2:00:47 PM

Its kinda sad how reluctant the liberals are to question such a blatantly biased graph. The fact that the chart essentially says "Republicans lie, democrats don't" should have been a tip off of bias for anyone with basic cognitive function. Naturally I wouldn't expect much more from team HillDawg.

Any Google search with a conservative rebuttal has plenty of examples of how Politifact's process was bullshit.

Quote :

""If a Republican Schools Commissioner says an annual standardized test takes "less than 1 percent of the instructional time," and the actual figure is between 0.26 percent and 0.9 percent of annual class time, a serious fact-checker wouldn't make a different claim and check that instead. But that's precisely how PolitiFact found the Republican commisioner's statement False"."

8/25/2016 1:37:34 PM

Yeah man - that just proves that Killary lies as much as our alt-right saviour #MakeAmericaGreatAgain #TCOT

8/25/2016 1:40:57 PM

No, it proves you should apply a basic level of scrutiny to all political media, especially the ones that support your beliefs.

The people criticizing Fox New's bias are the same ones blissfully unaware of how there is blatant spin and bias in every anti-Trump piece they fap it to. There are echo-chambers on both sides, and if you are oblivious to it then you're partially to blame for the current dumpster fire of an election that relies on our populace being uninformed and easily influenced by the media.

8/25/2016 3:14:50 PM

It's hard to take you seriously when you talk about people masturbating to news media.

8/25/2016 3:24:34 PM

Quote :

"The people criticizing Fox New's bias are the same ones blissfully unaware of how there is blatant spin and bias in every anti-Trump piece they fap it to. There are echo-chambers on both sides, and if you are oblivious to it then you're partially to blame for the current dumpster fire of an election that relies on our populace being uninformed and easily influenced by the media."

....or....you could call out Fox News's bias AND recognize the bias in anti-Trump pieces too. Hillary could be a crook AND Trump could be a complete fucktard. One does not necessarily negate the other.

8/25/2016 3:28:49 PM

^^ k

^ Never suggested they were mutually exclusive. The "Fox News is biased" thing is common knowledge, but it isn't common knowledge that the majority of self-declared "objective" media sources are left-leaning. People know to apply scrutiny to Bill O'riley but then you have college-educated adults that are posting "Derp a derp Trump lies but Clinton doesn't" graphs and are none the wiser.

8/25/2016 3:51:29 PM

Do you feel that Hillary Clinton lies at the exact same rate as Donald Trump?

8/25/2016 3:57:11 PM

Quote :

"And I believe 80% of the politicians are republicans. Why not have like 20 R's and 20 D's on the list, for example?"

Because this is clearly a chart of the official party nominees from the past 2 cycles (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin, Romney, Ryan), and the major party nominees from this cycle (basically anyone who made the main stage early)? Gingrich is a notable addition as is Santorum (wasn't a true contender this cycle). The current VP candidates aren't listed either, mostly because they currently have very little name recognition.

Maybe if the Republican nomination process wasn't such a clown-car this time around the list would be more balanced.

8/25/2016 4:16:38 PM

Quote :

"The people criticizing Fox New's bias are the same ones blissfully unaware of how there is blatant spin and bias in every anti-Trump piece they fap it to. "

Sounds like mutual exclusivity to me....but keep lying to yourself.

[Edited on August 25, 2016 at 4:37 PM. Reason : Hint: use the words "Some of" or "Most of" and "In my opinion" so you won't look stupid next time.]

8/25/2016 4:35:21 PM

You deliberately excluded the first sentence of my post and now you're trying to argue about the semantics? Or are you genuinely stupid enough to think my post implied you can't criticize both candidates? Is trolling allowed in TSB?

8/25/2016 4:52:02 PM

your first sentence had no substance since you followed it up with a completely contradictory second sentence. which news outlets did you say support your beliefs, again?

if trolling wasn't allowed in TSB you'd have been banned a long time ago. keep being a #SJW though.

8/25/2016 5:24:06 PM

Quote :

""Under absolutely no circumstances can anyone critique 2 presidential candidates at the same time" -Straw Man"

There ya go, you can argue with that as much as you want.

8/25/2016 5:26:39 PM

Quote :

""Under absolutely no circumstances can anyone critique 2 sides of media at the same time" -JCE"

[Edited on August 26, 2016 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ]

8/26/2016 2:17:43 PM

Quote :

"Trump may have actually broken the media."

The media has been broken since all of us were born--if you gauge broken by how well it informs the public.

[Edited on August 28, 2016 at 11:35 AM. Reason : a]

8/28/2016 11:35:23 AM

https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/08/29/sean-hannity-speculates-kaepernick-protested-national-anthem-because-he-might-have-converted-islam/212733

8/30/2016 4:50:42 PM

should Greta Van Susteren feel shitty that she was the only woman Ailes didn't sexually harass? that's got to hurt a bit right?

9/6/2016 10:40:17 AM

as someone pointed out on Twitter, a $20 million settlement this early means that some absolutely awful shit must have happened

9/6/2016 12:47:44 PM

they also apologized and susteren is gone

$20 million is only half of what they paid Ailes though

9/6/2016 1:13:57 PM

^^all the stuff that was in the press....all of it was on tape. it wasn't a recollection by someone or a paraphrasing. he is on tape saying shit like "i think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better"

the kicker is that Fox has come out and said they're not going to make Ailes pay any of the $20M.

So Ailes gets $40M to get fired for harassment. The person he harassed gets half that. And shareholders are left to foot the $60M bill.

9/6/2016 3:54:10 PM

So where does Megyn Kelly end up? Obviously leaving FOX. Gonna get a shit ton of money.

10/26/2016 2:31:33 PM

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/15/megyn-kelly-memoir-donald-trump-roger-ailes-president-fox-news/93813154/

Kelly gets exactly 0 points for courage, but apparently ailes made advances and career threats towards her, and Trump behind the scenes was putting pressure on management to give her a hard time or fire her.

Meanwhile, Bill O Reilly, himself a sexual harasser, is telling her to STFU about sexual harassment.

Fox was critical in poisoning the well eventually allowing Trump to flourish, now they're poisoning themselves from the same well. Amazing that it took 18 years for a news organization built on eschewing ethical journalism to start to unravel.

11/16/2016 2:56:53 AM

LOL @ a hack like moron speaking to "ethical journalism".

11/17/2016 6:29:54 PM

After this election, I feel like we can no longer single out Fox for skirting the lines of ethical journalism. CNN completely sold out for this election cycle, and I really don't have much respect for them anymore.

11/17/2016 7:45:24 PM

Good point Bill, it is important to remind all of us that the last time the press was this determined they uncovered illegal activity resulting in impeachment. So....go Trump?

[Edited on January 13, 2017 at 3:35 PM. Reason : a]

1/13/2017 3:35:00 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/31/media/fox-news-justin-trudeau/index.html

2/1/2017 12:20:01 PM