You knew the news was rigged, but could not prove it

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

until now


ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney


ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary


ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

Just one BIG happy family.

[Tom]

Bunch of inbreds.

[NJ Stinks]

Doesn't smell like a conspiracy to me.

Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe the vast majority of the media is not buying what the far right is selling. And hasn't for a long time.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

until now


ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.

CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney


ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary


ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

Just one BIG happy family.

one big happy "crime" family

[Tom]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Doesn't smell like a conspiracy to me.

Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe the vast majority of the media is not buying what the far right is selling. And hasn't for a long time.

No, not at all.
Especially after the DNC emails prove otherwise.

It is not the job of a fair press to buy in, only to report the news.
That clearly is not happening.

I would expect mostie and the other two to not see it, but you are far better than that.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/50013-2/

Easy to rig an election says Princeton Professor.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Doesn't smell like a conspiracy to me.

Did it ever occur to you guys that maybe the vast majority of the media is not buying what the far right is selling. And hasn't for a long time.

Everything occurs to people who think for themselves. That is why suspicion of the liberal media is so obvious because they only provide one view despite what the proof says.

You would know it, too, if you weren't so locked in with the bias from the left. I used to be a big fan of the New York Times -- until 2004. I used to argue with people who complained by saying -- "Who cares what they say on the editorial page!" But an edition in 2004 during the Bush-Kerry campaign brought me to my senses. There were pro-Kerry articles on the front page, and throughout the paper. You would not have even known Bush was running. But the best was their Letters To The Editors. Must have been a dozen letters and not one was pro-Bush.

Since then I have paid close attention. Only those who are hard core Democrats could miss it, it is so obvious.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Tom

I would expect mostie and the other two to not see it, but you are far better than that.

Once again you are wrong.

I both admire and look up to both Mostpost and Hcap precisely because they see with such clarity.

[NJ Stinks]

Originally Posted by Jess Hawsen Arown

Everything occurs to people who think for themselves. That is why suspicion of the liberal media is so obvious because they only provide one view despite what the proof says.

You would know it, too, if you weren't so locked in with the bias from the left. I used to be a big fan of the New York Times -- until 2004. I used to argue with people who complained by saying -- "Who cares what they say on the editorial page!" But an edition in 2004 during the Bush-Kerry campaign brought me to my senses. There were pro-Kerry articles on the front page, and throughout the paper. You would not have even known Bush was running. But the best was their Letters To The Editors. Must have been a dozen letters and not one was pro-Bush.

Since then I have paid close attention. Only those who are hard core Democrats could miss it, it is so obvious.

Newspapers and other media do lean left for the most part. Mainly because most journalists/op-ed writers do not wish to promote/endorse the beliefs of the far right.

At least a newspaper like the Washington Post employs conservative writers like George Will and Jennifer Rubin. Murdoch's New York Post does not employ even one liberal writer.

[horses4courses]

The Right has a hard time with anyone possessing a brain and an opinion.

[reckless]

The question to be answered is this ...

when WikiLeaks releases more information from Hillary Rodham Clinton's hacked private server and the world learns that CNN knew her server was hacked by enemies of the USA years ago but said and reported absolutely nothing about this security breach to curry favor, will it be the end of CNN as a viable news organization?

[davew]

Originally Posted by reckless

The question to be answered is this ...

when WikiLeaks releases more information from Hillary Rodham Clinton's hacked private server and the world learns that CNN knew her server was hacked by enemies of the USA years ago but said and reported absolutely nothing about this security breach to curry favor, will it be the end of CNN as a viable news organization?

?? is the National Enquirer a viable news organization ??

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by reckless

The question to be answered is this ...

when WikiLeaks releases more information from Hillary Rodham Clinton's hacked private server and the world learns that CNN knew her server was hacked by enemies of the USA years ago but said and reported absolutely nothing about this security breach to curry favor, will it be the end of CNN as a viable news organization?

is there many people that think they're viable now? I don't think there's enough to matter. It's pretty telling when Fox continues to blow their doors off. Hell even more liberals get their news from Fox than all other sources combined. That ought to tell you just how viable the other sources are.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

Newspapers and other media do lean left for the most part. Mainly because most journalists/op-ed writers do not wish to promote/endorse the beliefs of the far right.

You are missing the point.

If you are in the media you are "theoretically" supposed to divorce yourself from your personal politics and report both sides of the story equally and fairly. Then the public is supposed to decide for themselves based on the facts.

The reason right wing talk radio and Fox are so popular is because for years people on the right that worked diligently to get both sides knew that the media was extremely biased to the left. So when viable alternatives became available, they all flocked to the same sources and gave them great ratings. The left has so many alternatives, the ratings on an individual level for each remain poor.

So now, instead of having a "media" that's doing its job, we have left wing media (which is pretty much every network, newspaper, television show, movie, etc...) and right wing media (which is talk radio, Fox, a handful of newspapers, and a couple of financial sources).

Even worse is news for libertarians. We have a handful of blogs and investors that make guest appearances on financial TV to tell everyone how screwed up our economy is.

Pretty much no one is getting unbiased news unless they watch news from all sources all day long (including foreign). But no one has the time to do that. If the mainstream media was actually doing its job, we'd probably be less divided.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

You are missing the point.

If you are in the media you are "theoretically" supposed to divorce yourself from your personal politics and report both sides of the story equally and fairly. Then the public is supposed to decide for themselves based on the facts.

The reason right wing talk radio and Fox are so popular is because for years people on the right that worked diligently to get both sides knew that the media was extremely biased to the left. So when viable alternatives became available, they all flocked to the same sources and gave them great ratings. The left has so many alternatives, the ratings on an individual level for each remain poor.

So now, instead of having a "media" that's doing its job, we have left wing media (which is pretty much every network, newspaper, television show, movie, etc...) and right wing media (which is talk radio, Fox, a handful of newspapers, and a couple of financial sources).

Even worse is news for libertarians. We have a handful of blogs and investors that make guest appearances on financial TV to tell everyone how screwed up our economy is.

Pretty much no one is getting unbiased news unless they watch news from all sources all day long (including foreign). But no one has the time to do that. If the mainstream media was actually doing its job, we'd probably be less divided.

That's one thing for which we need to give props to Rush Limbaugh. Before he became a national presence, all of talk radio was liberal. There was NO alternative. (Actually in NYC, there was Bob Grant, but he wasn't national and while his views were RIGHT on the money, his demeanor was nasty.)

Limbaugh hit the scene with a pleasing tone (he did not scream at people to "get off my phone" like Grant did) and as people said, "Here is someone who says what I think." People stopped listening to left wing nonsense as their ratings fell off the table. Only conservative talk shows drew ratings. Whenever a liberal show or network(remember Air America?) started up, people stayed away in droves. They could not draw flies.

IMO, Limbaugh started getting too full of himself and became tough to listen to. Meanwhile, those of you who have shunned CNN for their extreme liberal bias, you might want to check them out. I find them a lot more fair and balanced than back in the Ted Turner days.