ANIMALS: Here’s How Unethical The Mainstream Media Really Are

[WrongBaldy]

I think he means Zeth Rich, the guy who was allegedly leaking information to Wikileaks and was murdered in the street near his house. It was said to be a robbery but his wallet and valuables were not stolen. The police would not release the camera footage. It definitely had a typical Clinton type smell to it where everything was fishy and the case just disappeared.

[CincyCat]

I think he means Zeth Rich, the guy who was allegedly leaking information to Wikileaks and was murdered in the street near his house. It was said to be a robbery but his wallet and valuables were not stolen. The police would not release the camera footage. It definitely had a typical Clinton type smell to it where everything was fishy and the case just disappeared.

CCF for sure. Clinton Crime Family,.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ortizer]

That's funny...

Something to think about...Dan Rather's career was ruined because he lied about something on television about GWB in 2004. He was fired in disgrace and his 30+ year reputation as a news anchor was crushed. It was a really big deal when it happened.

What a different world we live in today.

It was a bit after that.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[ravenmaniac4life]

It was a bit after that.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

Nope. 2004.

http://people.com/tv/dan-rather-defends-cbs-news-report-on-george-w-bush-that-got-him-fired/

[Ortizer]

Nope. 2004.

http://people.com/tv/dan-rather-defe...got-him-fired/

I meant the thing rating Stewart as the most trusted man in news. Apparently it was after Walter Cronkite died though, so 2009.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[JAB1985]

I think you're interchanging bias" and "lying."

Cable news has always had "bias" depending on what you watch. The problem in today's media is that the MSM outlets all over the country are legitimately lying to the American people on a pretty regular basis, and the media companies who own those networks are well aware of it. If you don't think the lies are intentional, you're not paying attention. All of the lying is to delegitimize a party and a president so that the ruling class can re-obtain political power in this country. Nothing more...nothing less.

It aint got nothin' to do with anything other than power. "They" lost it and "they" are doing everything to get it back.

For me, it bewilders me when people don't see that...don't care about it...or outright don't believe it.

MSM or conservative media, they both stretch the truth as mush as possible on a daily basis to promote their agendas. these lies are almost always rooted in stretching that truth too far to fit that agenda. Its not that Im mixing them up, its that i feel theyre connected. It bewilders me when people cant see that the other is using the same tactics as the other they hate so much. especially as to who is in power as you suggest. both get more outlandish in times when their preferred part isnt in charge.

the only times i really turn on fox or cnn on the tv (I read typically from various sources), is when something breaking comes in to see how it gets reported. not for news, but for entertainment. That slant is obvious when that happens, and usually its not even by what theyre reporting, its what they arent. omission is the biggest form of lie that the media is giving us on a more daily basis, followed by that contextual twisting, and finally the outright lies baseless in fact.

we overall agree, we just disagree when things are flipped. I believe those same things you despise now, continue.

[ravenmaniac4life]

MSM or conservative media, they both stretch the truth as mush as possible on a daily basis to promote their agendas. these lies are almost always rooted in stretching that truth too far to fit that agenda. Its not that Im mixing them up, its that i feel theyre connected. It bewilders me when people cant see that the other is using the same tactics as the other they hate so much. especially as to who is in power as you suggest. both get more outlandish in times when their preferred part isnt in charge.

JAB, I'm simply asking for evidence to prove your point that "the other side" blatantly lies. You haven't provided anything.

No worries. If you can't give me specific examples, forget it.

[ravenmaniac4life]

I think I've made my feelings known for my disdain for the press especially when it comes to what's going on in the ME regarding Israel, Iran, Palestine, and the Hamas terrorist organization.

Well, this news story is one of the craziest things I've read in a long time. The sheep have no clue what reality is...

http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/20/ny...silence-hamas/

[JAB1985]

JAB, I'm simply asking for evidence to prove your point that "the other side" blatantly lies. You haven't provided anything.

No worries. If you can't give me specific examples, forget it.

for giving me shit for posting that google search, you certainly didnt bother to read any of the findings.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

https://www.factcheck.org/tag/fox-news/

LAX pretty much summed it up in post 7. Its all how you perceive it, when someone agree with the bias, they dont even bother looking for it to be wrong. I dont see the difference in posting an article from the daily wire that points this out, or posting any one of these examples given on these websites. Its the same BS.

[blah3]

for giving me shit for posting that google search, you certainly didnt bother to read any of the findings.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

https://www.factcheck.org/tag/fox-news/

LAX pretty much summed it up in post 7. Its all how you perceive it, when someone agree with the bias, they dont even bother looking for it to be wrong. I dont see the difference in posting an article from the daily wire that points this out, or posting any one of these examples given on these websites. Its the same BS.

Actually, I think if you just read though that first item, you'd see the bias coming through. Bout the only thing 'factual' was that Kennedy didnt' actually meet with KGB. But there is compelling evidence that he did have back door contacts with the Soviets. Of course that was rated as false, because well, the guy who did the back door contact denied it. Sooooo, somehow I'm think the MSM would not be as generous in nothing happening had it been a 'close friend' of a Republican Senator who had Presidential ambitions.

[JAB1985]

Actually, I think if you just read though that first item, you'd see the bias coming through. Bout the only thing 'factual' was that Kennedy didnt' actually meet with KGB. But there is compelling evidence that he did have back door contacts with the Soviets. Of course that was rated as false, because well, the guy who did the back door contact denied it. Sooooo, somehow I'm think the MSM would not be as generous in nothing happening had it been a 'close friend' of a Republican Senator who had Presidential ambitions.

I believe they go over exactly why it was a false claim. the claim was he met with him, they fully make you aware that there was a memo saying there was an attempt to (by a 3rd party), no evidence he did. Im not seeing where this isnt factual, or misleading/bias on their part. What is not factual or able to be supported is the claim by gutfield.

[ravenmaniac4life]

for giving me shit for posting that google search, you certainly didnt bother to read any of the findings.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

https://www.factcheck.org/tag/fox-news/

LAX pretty much summed it up in post 7. Its all how you perceive it, when someone agree with the bias, they dont even bother looking for it to be wrong. I dont see the difference in posting an article from the daily wire that points this out, or posting any one of these examples given on these websites. Its the same BS.

Ok, first off...most of the "fact-checking" sites online are political in nature. Unless you KNOW what's up...I wouldn't wipe my ass with their conclusions. People like George Soros and the Koch Brothers have stakes in organizations like this which means...each "fact" should be looked into independently by the reader because they will always be leaning one way or the other.

IMO, this is all subjective nonsense. Because the Annenberg Public Policy Center determines something to be a certain way...that doesn't' make it necessarily true/false. My wife used to work for a political think-tank and there is no way in hell I would take their studies/reports at face value w/o knowing the context of their argument.

The examples I use below pretty much prove my point:


1) Sean Hannity: "The president said he’s going to bring in 250,000 (Syrian and Iraqi) refugees into this country."

This was based on a report that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States would accept up to 85,000 refugees in Fiscal Year 2016 and up to 100,000 in Fiscal Year 2017. In Fiscal Year 2015, the United States accepted nearly 70,000 refugees.

So, because that was spaced out over multiple years...it's incorrect? Lol. Ok. Give me a break.

That's 100% subjective, IMO and Hannity didn't blatantly lie.



2) Laura Ingraham: "The 90 percent statistic of supporting background checks, that's been debunked."

Here's how the question is worded when the poll is paid for by a particular anti rights group or even media outlet that commissions the polling company to produce the results they seek.

In order to prevent criminals, terrorists and the mentally deranged from easily obtaining firearms, do you support or oppose Legislation that requires background checks be completed on every person that attempts to acquire a firearm?

Worded that way it should be no surprise, and its not at all newsworthy that the answers would be overwhelmingly in support of such a law, perhaps even the 90 % range of support the President, Anti-Gun Groups and their shills in the media have been claiming.

Also, 9 out of 10 people favor this? Really? That's a pretty substantial amount of people. There's no way does that reflect the views of 90% of the people in this country. It reflects 90% of the people who were polled. This is why I laugh when I see poll data. It's meaningless because it depends on the group administering the poll as well as the question being asked and both are subjective in nature.

What if the question were worded like this...the results would probably be waaaaaaaaaaaaay different.

In an effort to make it more difficult for criminals, the mentally ill and possibly terrorists from obtaining weapons, do you support or oppose Legislation that would require mandatory background checks for every person attempting to acquire a firearm , even during private sales, trades or transfers amongst people that are well known to each other, such as co-workers, distant relatives, long time neighbors and or friends, even though numerous studies have shown that criminals most often obtain their weapons from black market sales and from theft then any other source ?

Worded that way, chances are better than good that you would see support for such a law plummet. For understandable reasons. Its instinctive to immediately recognize how ridiculous it would be to require that people submit to such a law, particularly when they have long established connections with the prospective purchaser or transferee, especially in light of the fact that criminals already acquire their weapons from sources that “universal background checks” would never apply to anyway.

As Ingraham stated, this particular poll was debunked. All you have to do is look into it for 5 minutes and realize it was a garbage poll meant to give "talking points" to the political party pushing the stat.



So, again...this is all subjective nonsense and...when taken in context...these 2 examples aren't blatant lies whatsoever.