Journalism

Political Journalists Have Themselves to Blame for Sinking Credibility

Sloppy work creates self-inflicted wounds.

|

"Our record as journalists in covering this Trump story and the Russian story is pretty good," legendary reporter Carl Bernstein recently claimed. Pretty good? If there's a major news story over the past 70 years that the American media has botched more often because of bias and wishful thinking, I'd love to hear about it.

Four big scoops recently run by major news organizations—written by top reporters and, presumably, churned through layers of scrupulous editing—turned out to be completely wrong. Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and others reported that special counsel Robert Mueller's office had subpoenaed President Donald Trump's records from Deutsche Bank. Trump's attorney says it hadn't. ABC reported that candidate Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn't (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story claiming that K.T. McFarland, a former member of the Trump transition team, had acknowledged collusion. She hadn't. Then, CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published. It wasn't.

Forget your routine bias. These were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits and analysts, all of whom are feeding frenzied expectations about Trump-Russia collusion that have now been internalized by many as indisputable truths. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists, we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask: Why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes is prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn't there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Maybe the problem is that too many people are working backward from a preconception. Maybe newsrooms have too many people who view the world through an identical prism—which is to say they believe he stole the election with the help of Russians. And perhaps the president's constant lashing out at the media has provoked some newsrooms to treat their professional obligations as a moral crusade rather than a fact-gathering enterprise.

For instance, the CNN reporters who wrote the DNC story, Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb, contend they had two sources who told them Donald Trump Jr. was offered encryption codes to look at hacked DNC emails. They both must have lied to them about the same date on the same email. CNN says that the duo followed "editorial process" in reporting the piece. This brings three lines of questioning to mind.

First: Do news organizations typically run stories about documents they've never authenticated? If so, what other big stories over the past few years have been run based on unauthenticated documents? Can they point to a single story about the Obama administration CNN has written using a similar process? What part of CNN's editorial guidelines deals with this sort of situation?

Second: Why would two independent sources lie about a date on the email to Trump Jr. if they didn't want to mislead the public? And how independent could they really be? How many stories regarding the Russian-collusion investigation has CNN run from these same sources?

Three: If sources lie to you, why not burn them? There may be good reasons to avoid exposing a dishonest source. Perhaps it will scare away legitimate whistleblowers. Perhaps reporters want to preserve relationships with people like Adam Sch—er, with those in power—because they may help on other stories in the future. And at the end of the day, you're in contest for information. But these people have put the reporters' reputation—even their jobs—in danger. Moreover, they have engaged in a serious abuse of the public trust and an abuse of power. Who knows how many of these mistakes, spread over numerous outlets, came from the same sources? This seems newsworthy.

When honest mistakes are found, the reflex of many political journalists has been portraying themselves as sentinels of free speech and democracy. Often they will attempt to do this by contrasting their track record on truth with that of Donald Trump. Yes, Trump is a fabulist. His tweets can be destructive. And maybe one day Robert Mueller will inform us that the administration colluded with Russia. What it has not done up to this point, however, is undermine the ability of the press to report stories accurately. Trump didn't make your activist source lie.

The fact that many political journalists (not all) have a political agenda is not new (social media has made this fact inarguable), but if they become a proxy of operatives who peddle falsehoods, they will soon lose credibility with an even bigger swath of the country. They will have themselves to blame.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

253 responses to “Political Journalists Have Themselves to Blame for Sinking Credibility

  1. Unbiased? Hah! The only people they are fooling are themselves and their fans.

    I remember some analysis of political donations by government employees — 95% went to Democrats. The percentage for “journalists” was similar.

    And they wonder why their ratings are dropping and why they have such low reputations.

    1. (lol) Why were YOU so easily bamboozled by this OBVIOUS Fake News?

      Left – Right = Zero

    2. Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
      Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com

    3. You can earn more than $15,000 each month from you home, and most special thing is much interesting that the job is to just check some websites and nothing else. Enjoy full time and money freedome, also an awesome career in you life…. ?
      just click the link given belowHERE??? http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. EXPOSED! David Harsanyi — a FAKE NEWS Trumpster! More “unbiased journalism” by Reason?

    Four big scoops …. turned out to be completely wrong.

    (LOL)

    ?. and others reported that special counsel Robert Mueller’s office had subpoenaed President Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. Trump’s attorney says it hadn’t.

    OMG
    Was a German bank subpoenaed? Ask Trump’s attorney!!! A 16-year-old proofreader would have caught that. But only the dread MSM is sloppy??

    ABC reported that candidate Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know).

    If Harsanyi has no clue, then it’s … completely wrong!

    The New York Times ran a story claiming that K.T. McFarland, a former member of the Trump transition team, had acknowledged collusion. She hadn’t.

    AGAIN no source.
    Here’s the actual story

    CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published. It wasn’t.

    Retracted within hours.
    When will Reason retract Harsanyi’s latest nonsense?

    His bias is more shameful than anything “reported” here

    1. Go fuck off, you lefty Osama Obama yo momma the llama mofo mofo mufaletta mama piece of crap.

      1. Go fuck off, you lefty Osama Obama yo momma the llama mofo mofo mufaletta mama piece of crap.

        Typical Trumpster bulllying!! Even to assuming I’m a lefty!
        Here’s the web archive of my published political writing. Look especially to my “libtard” views on taxes and healthcare. (lol)

        1. Oh hi Mikey! Are you back for another rap battle?

          1. There can’t be “another” one because there was never a first one.

            1. There was, and you lost.

              1. I can’t lose if I never competed.

                1. I can’t lose if I never competed.

                  This is an unequivocally false statement.

                  1. I can’t lose if I never competed.

                    This is an unequivocally false statement.

                    Can one also WIN by NOT competing?
                    HOT DAMN! I just beat Tiger Woods at golf!!!

                2. In fact, you lose automatically if you don’t compete.

                  1. In fact, you lose automatically if you don’t compete.

                    Thanks for confirming the wackiness of you and your fellow bullies!

                    .

                    1. Well, so much for good natured ribbing. You truly have no sense of humor.

                    2. You truly have no sense of humor.

                      I’m laughing at your lame excuse!
                      You had REVERSED your original screwup — because you were called out as a liar.,

                      There can’t be “another” one because there was never a first one

                      There was, and you lost.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7063566

                      Pathetic

                    3. Yes, you are pathetic, and lame, and have a single-digit IQ.

                    4. Yes, you are pathetic, and lame, and have a single-digit IQ

                      Speaks for itself..

          2. Reason was so much fun and peaceful until this tool showed back up. He sucks the fun out of life

            1. As badly as folks who brag about feeding live humans into woodchippers?
              While also being a snowflake?

              1. The woodchipper reference is from the movie Fargo, so no one was “bragging” about doing that. Again, showing your ignorance and complete lack of a sense of humor. Wherever you came back from, please return and leave us to our childish humor and sophomoric dick jokes.

              2. brag about feeding live humans into woodchippers
                Oh wow, seriously?
                Marge Gunderson wept.

                1. Just above your head is the proof.
                  (laughing)
                  And his LAME excuse.
                  He had logged on to launch over a dozen assaults against me — most are as infantile as this one.
                  Thugs LIVE for attacks and insults. Remember 6th grade, that guy who’d say “shit” then giggle?

                  (Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a serial stalker — not Fancylad, the woodchipping sicko)

                  1. Go back to DemocraticUnderground, miserable cuss.

                    1. Bend over, Finrod, this is getting JAMMED up your ass. (smirk)

                      Go back to DemocraticUnderground, miserable cuss

                      Typical conservative retard, This is a link to the web archive of my published political writing.

                      http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

                      Check the ones on Taxes, Health Care and Federalism … rock solid proof that you’re SUCH an adsshole. (lol)

                      Now THREE bullies … they travel in a pack, like wild dogs/

                      (Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a serial stalker — a typical conservatard)

      2. I am literally giddy with anticipation of Hihn’s response to “Osama Obama yo momma the llama mofo mofo mufaletta mama piece of crap.”

        1. “I am literally giddy with anticipation of Hihn’s response to “Osama Obama yo momma the llama mofo mofo mufaletta mama piece of crap.”

          Thanks!
          I jammed it up DD’s ass and twisted — just as I called out Harsanyi.
          But only DD earned abject ridicule. Sad.

    2. Holy shitballs.

      1. He’s back from gamboling.

    3. If Harsanyi has no clue, then it’s … completely wrong!

      Yeah, it is completely wrong, as ABC News themselves acknowledged when they corrected the story and suspended Brian Ross.

      Retracted within hours.

      And still no explanation.

      1. Umm, you’ve falsely intermixed my points 1 and 4.

        And still no explanation.

        This isn’t one of your better days.

        “We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday. The reporting conveyed by Brian Ross during the special report had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process,” ABC said in a statement. “As a result of our continued reporting over the next several hours ultimately we determined the information was wrong and we corrected the mistake on air and online.”

        Was that not reported by Breitbart, Infowars or Fox? Google these words (in quotes): “We deeply regret and apologize for the serious error we made yesterday”

        I got 3500 listings of the apology and explanation having been reported.
        Any guess on when Trump will apologize for his now-over-1100 proven lies?

        1. So, Mikey, you here to battle with raps again?

        2. Um, no. You’re the one who is confused. CNN has not offered an explanation for why they falsely reported about hacked DNC emails being offered to Trump. That was my point, and it still stands.

          1. CNN was my point #4. You cited it immediately after quoting the ABC News event.

            And you’re also wrong about CNN.
            Your corrected claim about CNN is also wrong.
            Like I said, this isn’t one of your better days.

            1. You SF’ed your link.

              1. You SF’ed your link.

                THANKS!
                His corrected claim about CNN is documented as a falsehood here (corrected)

          2. Um, no. You’re the one who is confused. CNN has not offered an explanation for why they falsely reported about hacked DNC emails being offered to Trump

            P.S. STILL falsely intermixing my point #1 with my point #4.

            What you cited by me was ENTIRELY about ABC.

    4. Harsanyi’s point is if a reporter makes an assertion with poorly researched evidence that turns out to be incorrect, then it is bad reporting, or worse, opinion masquerading as reporting.

      1. That’s why he’s wrong. Laughably wrong. Per your own statement.
        And Harsanyi’s falsehoods are far worse than the ones he so falsely accuses others of,.
        https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7063130

        Are you as demanding on Trump’s now-over-1100 proven lies? (Many downright laughable)
        You forgot to add that “they” refuse to accept he was elected.
        Conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories. Sad.
        .

        1. The evidence the stories were based on was incorrect, which means the stories had no proof. The lack of proof does not by itself make the assertion indisputably wrong, but it does mean it has no current support other than wishful thinking.

          1. I appreciate your retraction. But this new version may be even wackier.

            REPEAT:
            Are you as demanding on Trump’s now-over-1100 proven lies? (Many downright laughable)
            Conspiracy theories on top of conspiracy theories. Sad.

            1. 1100 proven lies
              Who’s been proving them? NASA? Harvard Medical? The Pope?

              REPEAT:
              Never forget, caps-lock is cruise control for cool.

              1. Stupid aggression #2 by dumbass.

                1100 proven lies

                Who’s been proving them? NASA? Harvard Medical? The Pope?

                (snort) I was wrong.

                President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days

                Not reported in your Breitbart/Infowars universe, but here’s a list of all the other fact-checkers, chump.

                I’ll repeat your dumbfuckery, as additional ridicule for all your revenge aggressions here.

                1100 proven lies

                Who’s been proving them? NASA? Harvard Medical? The Pope?

                My tone and boldface to enhance my ridicule of the bully stalking me down the entire page.

                It’s the only way he and Trump can feel manly. (smirk)

          2. Don’t feed the animals, they become dependant on the attention. They ruin fun. Yes, I’m speaking of Michael Hihn – funsucker in chief

            1. Brags about feeding humans into woodchippers.
              While confirming his aggression mentality.
              .

              1. Notably, the word is not the thing.

                1. Did anyone say otherwise?

                2. The bird is though. The bird is the word

              2. I don’t think the word brag means what you think it means Michael. I’m not aggressive at all. The irony of you calling anyone else aggressive is glaring.

                1. Bend over. Jamming it up you ass AGAIN! (smirk)

                  I’m not aggressive at all. The irony of you calling anyone else aggressive is glaring.

                  (smirk)
                  Scrolling back six comments to expose the psychotic liar and bully (AGAIN)

                  I’m speaking of Michael Hihn – funsucker in chief

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064104

                  This is how the poor sap feels manly.
                  While PRAISING the feeding of live humans into a woodchipper
                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064963

                  Assault #4 as the bully seeks his revenge all down the page with serial aggressions.

                  Behold the self-righteous (with tiny hands) (sneer)

                  Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a cowardly stalker.

                  1. Could you please stop bolding your trolling? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can’t be that demented. Or are you just getting lonely in your dementa ward and trying to manufacture new companions? Seriously, cut it out!

                    1. Let’s try boldface for the integrity challenged
                      “Posted in defense of multiple aggressions by a cowardly stalker.”.

                      EVEN WITH BOLDFACE YOU CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AGGRESSION AND DEFENSE … THAT is why I do it! (snort)

                      Or are you just getting lonely in your dementIa ward

                      Q. What kind of person labels self-defense as “dementia?”
                      A. Only other bullies. They travel in a pack, like wild dogs. It’s their Entitlement Mentality.
                      (They’re ENTITLED to bellow and bluster, which is what playground bullies “grow up” to become)
                      (Or run for President!)

    5. The problem is that the media reported these stories as fact without confirmation. If it was reported that the bank records had been subpoenaed without also including the Trump lawyers denial, then that is an error. Likewise the reporting on the Flynn contact by Brian Ross was clearly wrong because he had reported that the contact was made during the campaign which caused much mistaken elation on the Left (Joy Behar gleefully dampened her Depends on “The View” on Friday over this, and then had to correct herself on Monday). The e-mails story was reported as a fact from sources, and was actually wrong in that it had the incorrect date. Wouldn’t you think a professional news reporter, if told that an e-mail had stated something, would not demand to see that e-mail before reporting the story? One would think that if the media is so concerned about Trump’s accusations of “Fake News”, it would make a greater effort to be correct. Instead, with each error, more people start thinking, “Well, maybe Trump is right, they are all lying”.

      1. Trumpsters are EAGER to be brainwashed, manipulated and bamboozled!!.

        If it was reported that the bank records had been subpoenaed without also including the Trump lawyers denial, then that is an error

        Ready? ….. (laughing)
        THE LAWYER DENIED IT BEFORE IT WAS PUBLISHED???

        “Well, maybe Trump is right, they are all lying”.

        Only his base, and you just showed how brilliant they are. .

        Now go back to Breitbart/Infowars to swallow more nonsense.

        1. Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Fuck off, slaver

            One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker/thug… because it was jamme up his ass here.

            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

            (sneer)

  3. “And perhaps the president’s constant lashing out at the media has provoked some newsrooms to treat their professional obligations as a moral crusade rather than a fact-gathering enterprise.”

    And if you think that’s an accident, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. I STILL think Obama played the ‘Truthers’ to make them look even more ridiculous. And Trump is doing the same thing to the media. If they don’t stop going into frenzy every time he tweets something negative about them, he’ll nose-lead them for eight years.

    1. “I STILL think Obama played the ‘Truthers’ to make them look even more ridiculous.”

      I agree. In fact I think the truther movement was started by someone in Obama’s camp. Obama won that battle by a score of 100-0. If we ever figure out who orchestrated it we should put them in charge of the CIA.

      1. 100 -1. Let’s not forget that the number one truther won the presidency.

      2. Don’t you mean “Birthers”?

        I believe that originated with Clinton’s oppo research against Obama.

    2. So ,… the Truther insanity was OBAMA’s fault!
      (Typical excuse for Trump’s psycho bullshit)

      1. Sorry; “Truthers’ , ‘Birthers” , two sad, deluded groups that frankly strike me as so similarly stupid that I get them confused.

        Also the die-hard ‘Never FDR’ twits who went to their graves SURE that Roosevelt masterminded Pearl Harbor.

        There’s conspiracy theory, and there’s PATHETIC conspiracy theory…

        1. He masterminded social security and the welfare state. That’s infinitely worse than anything that happened at pearl harbor.

          1. The thing is, a conspiracy is hardly necessary to explain Pearl Harbor. Both the FDR administration AND the Military establishment were racist; they expected an attack by the Japanese, they just expected it to be on the Philippines.

        2. Understood, Birthers and Truthers.

          Regarding Pearl Harbor.
          1) We had imposed an embargo on their oil imports. An embargo is an act of war.
          2) American pilots were shooting down Japanese planes over China. (the Black Sheep Squadron),
          3) There were so many ships at Pearl, because they had been moved closer to Japan, from San Diego.

          Japan is at war with China. We’re maintaining an embargo on Japan, shooting down their war planes, and we LOOKED like a pending naval attack. Why else would they attack Pearl — in the opposite direction of an ACTUAL war they were in?

          There’s conspiracy theory, and there’s PATHETIC conspiracy theory.

          Our current President specializes in the latter. And it’s indeed pathetic to blame FDR ALONE for Pearl. We were (essentially) begging for it. Note the similarities,

          We stuck our nose into the Sino-Japanese War, which was none of our business, and suffered Pearl Harbor. We stuck our nose into a 1000+ year hostility in the Middle East, which was also none of our business, and suffered 9/11.

          1. I have long objected to the (common) use of the word “Unprovoked” to describe the Japanese attack on Pearl. Now, ask me if we SHOULD have been provoking them. I’m sorry to all the isolationists out there, but the Nanking massacre was an act of barbarism, and needed to be addressed. From both a moral and a practical point of view, it was in our best interests to try to reign in Japan’s Imperialism.

            But we should have had a more realistic estimate of their capabilities. Yes, the Pearl attack stretched their abilities to the limit. But even a less successful raid would have been a maser stroke, if we had reacted the way the Japanese (who are/were also racist) expected us to.

            Oops. on both sides.

            The Islamofools really, REALLY need to have a long talk with the Japanese about how unpleasant life can get when you piss off the United States. Because if they ever succeed in doing so (and 9/11 was a pinprick) it won’t be good for ANYONE concerned.

            1. So … you share responsibility for Pearl Harbor. And take the wrong side in the Middle East.
              WE are now the Redcoats.

              1. No. The middle east mess is simple. Not simple to solve, but simple at its roots. Islam has always had a ‘terrorist’ element. When stepped on firmly, it retreated to the him and mostly bothered its immediate neighbors. When NOT stepped on firmly is has made an international nuisance of itself.

                Everything else is flumdiddle that embellishes on that main point. Also; I’m not saying it will be RIGHT for us to turn Mecca into a large glass line crater, just that it’s likely to happen. And that the aftermath will not be good for EITHER the Islamopests OR us.

                1. I KNEW you were TOTALLY ignorant of the region.
                  And a raging Islamophobe..

                  When stepped on firmly…

                  We libertarians call that self defense.

                  1. Fuck off, slaver. You can barely spell ‘libertarian’.

                    1. Fuck off, slaver

                      So very adult. (snort)
                      One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… because it was jamme up his ass here.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

          2. “2) American pilots were shooting down Japanese planes over China. (the Black Sheep Squadron)”

            No, that was the Flying Tigers – not the Black Sheep Squadron.

            1. However ‘Pappy’ Boynton (sp?) was in both….

              1. Pappy Boyington was his name.

              2. No, that was the Flying Tigers – not the Black Sheep Squadron.

                THANKS! I googled for Boyington and grabbed the first name that looked familiar.

                Tip of the hat to Schofield also.

                1. Mark it down everyone: Michael Hihn admitted he was wrong!!!!

                  It’s like bizarro world today

                  1. Mark it down everyone: Michael Hihn admitted he was wrong!!!!

                    I always do. Fucks the minds of stalking bullies like you.
                    As you commit your third aggression on this page (so far).
                    Stalkers be aggressors.

                    1. You are NEVER wrong though, so your statement is inherently false. See: every Michael Hihn post ever, where you argue how right you are

                    2. Aggression #6 (just today) by the stalking bully

                      See: every Michael Hihn post ever, where you argue how right you are

                      Now punishing me for jamming it up his ass AGAIN (what he replies to here)

                      The thug who PRAISES feeding live humans into a woodchipper!
                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064959

                      HOW MANY MORE ASSAULTS DOES HE DESPERATELY NEED BEFORE HE FEELS MANLY?

                    3. Fuck off, slaver.

                    4. Fuck off, slaver

                      So very adult. (snort)
                      One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… REVENGE for jamming it up his ass here.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582
                      (sneer)

        3. FDR was courting an excuse to declare war. He already had us in an undeclared naval war with Germany. Pearl Harbor was not the excuse he wanted, though.

        4. I know some Birchers who were both Truthers & Birthers.

  4. Do news organizations typically run stories based on documents they haven’t authenticated? Clearly. And clearly Rathergate taught them absolutely nothing.

    1. It taught them that no one is paying attention to stories that contradict their world view.

  5. Putin is controlling Trump’s Brain

    News at 11!!!

    1. No one is controlling Trump’s brain, absolutely nobody.

      1. Even Trump can’t control it!

  6. I’m a big believer in the media protecting the anonymity of sources, but I do see some merit in adding the caveat that such protection is forfeit if it can be proven definitively that the source lied.

    1. It’s the reporter and the news organizations responsibility to confirm their sources. If they publish something bogus, they need to take the fall.

      1. As they all did. When will Trump do likewise for his FAR more numerous worse falsehoods and wackydoodles?

  7. I disagree in some regards. News organizations have to cover an insane amount of bull crap and cover up coming from the White House.

    The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama. If 99% of their reporting is correct…. that is still a much much higher percentage that what comes from the White House.

    Second, where is Fox Noise in the mix here? Although they are not critical of the president, they still consistently push false narratives, conspiracy theories and propaganda from the WH. They are OBSESSED with Hillary Clinton.

    I agree that there were some things she did that were unethical and maybe illegal…but good golly. Let the Justice Department handle it and move on! If the Trump led justice department doesn’t do anything…. nothing will ever come of it.

    1. “The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press.”

      Since the administration of Woodrow Wilson, at the latest. And in recent decades the Media have consistently fought back…when there was a Republican administration. When there was a Democrat they COULD be lead to expose some of the more egregious lies, if their feet were held to the fire.

      And often they have reported the Democrat establishment’s narrative with little or no scrutiny. Which is how they are beclowning themselves now. Is there something shady between Trump and the Russians? Maybe. Kind hard to tell, what with the amount of unsupported bullshit being spouted by a Democrat establishment anxious to duck responsibility for what an awful candidate they nominated. There appears to have been a pretty certainly shady connection between the Russians and Hillary, and it’s instructive how little attention the Media wants to pay to it.

      But the problem isn’t the bias. All news media is biased. The problem is the idiotic notion that unbiased media is even possible. The Mainstream Media should admit they are the Democrat Establishment News services and have done with it. And Fox should admit THEIR bias. And while we’re at it, let’s do away with PBS’s reporting, as the notion that a government supported news service would be somehow LESS biased than corporate ones is amazingly stupid.

    2. The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama

      LOL

      1. Because those presidents and THEIR press secretaries were fonts of integrity and full disclosure. They never said blatant shit like “We have to invade Iraq because they were responsible for 9/11” or “If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

        1. SATIRE!!!
          No comparison to Trump’s proven lies, over 1,600, averaging 5.5 per day for the past 300 days,
          He did say he could shoot somebody to death on Fifth Avenue, in broad daylight, with witnesses, and not lose a single supporter! His base even accepts so blatant an insult!!! .

          1. A few posts above you said the lie total was 1100 (because you have no life and read/listen to everything Trump says). So which is it?

            Also, how does it feel knowing that someone as mindless as Trump is living 24/7 Rent Free in your head? Think about that for a second

            1. A few posts above you said the lie total was 1100 (because you have no life and read/listen to everything Trump says). So which is it?

              (laughing)
              1) I said I was wrong AGAIN! President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days

              2) And linked the PROOF of how crazy you are.

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064963

              By the The thug who PRAISES feeding live humans into a woodchipper!
              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064959

              because you have no life

              ME? (snort)
              NOW SEVEN ASSAULTS AS MY AGGRESSOR LOGS ON FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF LAUNCHING OVER A DOZEN NEW ATTACKS …

              HOW MANY MORE ASSAULTS DOES HE DESPERATELY NEED BEFORE HE FEELS MANLY?

              This is your Trumpster on meth

              1. Fuck off, slaver.

                1. Fuck off, slaver

                  So very adult. (snort)
                  One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… REVENGE for jamming it up his ass here.

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582
                  (sneer)

    3. “I disagree in some regards. News organizations have to cover an insane amount of bull crap and cover up coming from the White House.”
      Well, they’d do better if they didn’t generate their own insane amount of bull crap and cover up.

      “The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama. If 99% of their reporting is correct…. that is still a much much higher percentage that what comes from the White House.”
      Speaking of an insane amount of bull crap, you’re doing just fine on your own.

      “Second, where is Fox Noise in the mix here? Although they are not critical of the president, they still consistently push false narratives, conspiracy theories and propaganda from the WH. They are OBSESSED with Hillary Clinton.”
      Fox “Noise”. How………….juvenile.

      “I agree that there were some things she did that were unethical and maybe illegal…but good golly. Let the Justice Department handle it and move on!”
      So news organizations are only supposed to cover politicians YOU don’t like?
      Buzz off.

    4. “The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama”

      Ha! Ha! Ha!

      1. Ha! Ha! Ha!

        So you have SOMEHOW convinced yourself that Bush and Obama averaged 5.5 proven lies per day — 1,600 this year. So far.

        1. Your life must be one depressing moment after another.

          Michael Hihn: calculating insignificant math in his head every day

          1. BEND OVER … UP YOUR ASS AGAIN! (smirk)

            1) President Trump has made 1,628 false or misleading claims over 298 days
            2) And I linked the PROOF of how crazy you are.
            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064963

            Now EIGHT revenge assaults by the thug who PRAISES feeding live humans into a woodchipper!
            https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064959

            HOW MANY MORE ASSAULTS DOES HE DESPERATELY NEED BEFORE HE FEELS MANLY?

            1. Fuck off, slaver.

              1. Fuck off, slaver

                So very adult. (snort)
                One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… REVENGE for jamming it up his ass here.

                https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582
                (sneer)

  8. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama.

    Are you for real?

    1. He is not for real. He’s peddling a false narrative for partisan sake. Any real journalist would point out that FOX and the right are just as, if not worse, when it comes to peddling bad stories. And it does not take a PhD in history to see that this stuff has been happening for decades. Nope, just like CNN Reason publishes this crap because it gets ratings and scores points for their side.

      1. Oh? Presidents have been telling over 1100 proven lies every 18 months or so … FOR DECADES?
        Like those space aliens being held in Roswell, NM?

        1. OMG! I can’t believe you wrote that shit! You’re so STUPID, YOU BULLY!!!!1111!!!!!!!~~!!!!!!

          UP – DOWN equals SHIT FUCK BALLZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

          1. BEST F*KE EVAH!

      2. Any real journalist would point out that FOX and the right are just as, if not worse, when it comes to peddling bad stories.

        I’ve heard this said repeatedly.

        im not a fan of *any* of the presitige news-media; but please share with me your top 3 examples of Fox, et al of “The right”, knowingly pumping falsehoods, just so we’re clear on how incredibly obvious this is

        1. Like all media, the uniformed confuse the news content and the opinion content.
          Fox “News” does very little news reporting but a ton of opinion, and has more wackos than MSNBC and CNN. combined.

          Fox is the best on actual news — on Shep Smith alone (at a time of day when “nobody” is watching TV).


          1. Like all media, the uniformed confuse the news content and the opinion content.

            I think most big media outlets like to help confuse people on that distinction.

            1. Wrong. Again. Only Fox does that.
              In fact, the news and editorial.opinion departments are often in sharp conflict. Like Shep Smith at Fox who blows away the opinion shows regularly. So does Chris Wallace, who I just watched SAVAGE the GOP tax “reform” — but he’s less frequent than Shep.

              Here’s two major stories,
              1) The 2008 crash was caused by Bill Clinton pressuring banks (and Fannie Mae) into a big increase in subprime mortgages.

              2) Assets and income have declined for the middle class, because fewer people are in it.

              Those are both from the New York Times — who also PREDICTED a major mortgage bailout from CLINTON’S action — when they first reported it..

              Here’s one from the Wall Street Journal NEWS: Income tax revenues DID NOT “skyrocket” after the Reagan tax cuts. There was a large revenue increase, but that was from SIX INCREASES (phased in) in the FICA tax.

              Income tax revenues. by 1990, had increased a TOTAL of $5 billion for all those years COMBINED (chump change) And all the revenue growth came from the Capital Gains Tax, as the stock market recovered from a 70% crash. Personal and corporate revenues had not increased revenues by the end of the decade.

              NEWS.

          2. Hahahahahahahaha.

            I consider myself on Team Red and even I admit Fox is full of shit more often than not.

            Did you know the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary?

            1. Hahahahahahahahaha
              I said the “actual news”

              Did you know the word ‘gullible’ isn’t in the dictionary?

              Hahahahahaha
              Merriam-Webster (smirk)

              One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… REVENGE for jamming it up his ass here.

              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

    2. Are you for real?

      As of this moment, SIX commenters have ignored the word consistently.

      1. Obama consistently kept his administration as opaque as possible, so he’s not totally wrong.

        1. Not even close to the context — regarding the Trump White House: “The WH has consistently and blatantly lied to the press. It wasn’t like this under Bush or Obama.”

          FACT. Domestic Dissident was totally and absolutely wrong. (hiding behind a partial quote, which also ignored context.)

          1. Oh, so now we are arguing context and “partial quotes”….

            Yawn.

            Yes I know, I’m a bully blah blah blah aggression complex blah blah blah

            1. Read it again, dumbass

              Yes I know, I’m a bully blah blah blah aggression complex blah blah blah

              Actually, a sick fuck who logs on for the SOLE purpose of launching over a dozen NEW aggressions (all jammed up his ass)?

              Answer: A psycho who PRAISES feeding live humans into a woodchipper!
              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7064959

              This is his tenth.
              HOW MANY MORE ASSAULTS DOES HE DESPERATELY NEED BEFORE HE FEELS MANLY?

              1. Fuck off, spammer.

                1. Fuck off, spammer

                  So very adult. (snort)
                  One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… because it was jamme up his ass here.

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

                  And here!

                  https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066256

                  Bullies gotta bully. Haters gotta hate.

      2. As long as they’re ignoring the word consistently consistently…

  9. Left, right, and center really define a spectrum, if you will. They’re more relative terms, really, and what they mean depends on who you ask.

    Lots of people think the media is biased to the left.
    Some people think the media isn’t biased at all.
    A few people think that Fox news is biased to the right, but nothing else is.

    And that doesn’t tell you anything about media bias!

    1. The idea that ANY news media is or can be unbiased is amazingly stupid. Even with the much more relaxed news cycle of 19th century newspapers, there was damn little time to check stories, and reporters and editors had to make decisions on the fly. This decisions would be made from personal POV and experience. What’s different is that we have since bought the lie that unbiased news is a possibility. The narrative goes that when there were two or more profitable major papers in any city of size, bias was acceptable, but since that has changed it is now the Duty of Good Journalists to be unbiased.

      Horsepucky.

      Read Mencken. He makes it clear that in his day, in cities with two or more major papers, one paper was profitable. That paper supported the incumbent administration, got the local government printing contracts, and made money. Any other paper lost money, and was supported by some opposition hopeful with a fortune. There may have been a few exceptionally large cities that actually supported two or more major papers, but they were rare.

      The lie that unbiased news is possible has discouraged other POVs from starting their own media and presenting their own narratives. Look at the hullaballoo the very existence of Fix News causes! It’s high time we dropped the fairy tale and started accepting that all media is biased. Even celebrated it.

      1. “What’s different is that we have since bought the lie that unbiased news is a possibility.”

        EXACTLY. 1,000% this. I get the impression, when reading the comments from some of the complainers on the right, that they really want some sort of Walter Cronkite figure saying “and that’s the way it is” but from some hypothetical completely objectively neutral position. That can’t ever happen. People have to read multiple sources and construct their understanding of the world by synthesizing divergent views. There isn’t ever going to be one “unbiased” gatekeeper of all knowledge that will “tell it like it is”.

        1. And I don’t know if the lie is a conscious attempt by the Political Left to capture the news media, or if it’s simply the natural consequence of Reporters reinventing themselves as Professional Journalists (wouldn’t a journalist be somebody who keep a diary, professionally?) and the natural egomania that comes from taking a college degree in something that used to be catch as catch can. Either way, it needs to die.

          1. Anyone who says “Political Left” has at least conveyed his severe bias up front.

            1. This statement says a lot more about you then it does about C.S.P.

              1. Also true for anyone who says “The Political Right.” But you spotted my total nonpartisan independence without that!

                And it’s not me running around, PROUD to be an aggressor.

            2. There is a Political Left. There is a Democrat Establishment (and there is a good deal of overlap between those groups). There is a social Left, which is not the same thing as the Political Left; the Political Lefts is drawn to political solutions, the social Left to social solutions, and the two are not the same (though again, there is overlap). All of there groups exist, and anyone who pretends that they do not is either a fool, or wants to fool me.

              Saying that they exist is not the same as saying that they are The Illuminati.

              The same can be said for the Political/ Conservative Right, the Religious Right. The Libertarian Right, Left, and Center. They are not completely monolithic , but each ground acts to further agendas, and should be recognized as a social and political force.

              1. Saying that they exist is not the same as saying that they are The Illuminati

                Allow me to clarify. Applying negative stereotypes to an entire group is — by definition — bigotry.

                Or tribalism — your presumption that the Right is not just as bad, as are libertarians.
                You must not know many. And you’ve now confirmed my point.

                It’s common to confuse the vocal and visible leaderships with their rank and file. Example: most Christian conservatives have no problem with the FACT of Separation, because they know their own denomination was persecuted. Two-thirds of Catholics support gay marriage, roughly the same for white mainline Protestants. Pew Research

                Also: Very few fiscal liberals are New Dealers, or Welfare Statists. Most just want to be sure that nobody gets left behind. Fairness.

                Those two both support their leaderships ONLY because they see nobody else defending their core values — like the manufactured hysteria about a War on Christmas, or on Christianity
                Political manipulation as it’s always been practiced. Create a devil, and then protect against your faux threat. .”The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”

                1. Fuck off, bigot.

                  1. Fuck off, bigot

                    So very adult. (snort)
                    One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… because it was jamme up his ass here.

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

                    And here!

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066256

                    Bullies gotta bully. Haters gotta hate.

        2. Walter Cronkite was one of the original purveyors of bias. Why would the right want him as a model?

        3. Anyone who doesn’t follow both the liberal and conservative media will NEVER know that their tribe is as full of shit as the opposing tribe. There is no light, so deep in a partisan cave.

    2. I think a reasonable way to measure bias is to listen to people’s opinions on the purported bias.

      NPR fans say NPR is neutral and Fox is biased

      Fox fans say Fox is neatral and NPR is biased

      I think that gives you a pretty good reading that they are both biased in the way the opinions indicate.

      1. I think NPR is hilarious. A government supported news source that is supposedly The Real Truth. Can you say ‘Pravda’? I suppose it’s a silliness that we caught from the British and their BBC, and it says something wonderful about NPR, the BBC, the British, AND us that both networks have occasionally been government funded news sources with distinct anti-government biases.

        All news sources are biased. They have to be. Nobody can process all the news there is, or even all the facts about any one story. Oh, you say you can process all the RELEVANT facts? Who decides? See? Bias.

        I was so disappointed in Fox news when I heard their slogan. It should have been “You’ve heard their side, this is ours.”

        1. Can you say ‘Pravda’?

          Yes!
          It rhymes with locks.

          RELEVANT facts? Who decides? See? Bias.

          Uhh, no. You can deny objective facts as much as you want, but the universe does not disappear when we close our eyes.

    3. And that doesn’t tell you anything about media bias!

      Well, actually, what “lots of people think” about media bias is one way of measuring media bias, and it’s pretty consistent with other measures of media bias: statistical text analysis, sentiment analysis, topic analysis, political identifications of journalists, political donations by journalists, party affiliation of journalists, party affiliation of the demographics that journalists come from, party affiliation of readership, to name just a few.

      Of course, the corrupt, biased state of journalism is no more news than that politicians are corrupt perverts and frauds. The difference is that in the early 21st century, (1) we are becoming more conservative and intolerant of such behavior, and (2) the Internet has destroyed the oligopoly a few media corporations used to have on disseminating information.

      1. (2) the Internet has destroyed the oligopoly a few media corporations used to have on disseminating information.

        I think you misspelled temporarily disrupted.

        1. Just a few goolebookter bans from achieving purity of message.

      2. You can add as contributors-to-the-corruption journalism departments and media academics, many of whom proffer to their wide-eyed wannabe journos the idiotic notion that media has become MORE concentrated than it was when ABC, NBC, CBS, WaPo and NTY had true media cartel.

        Of course this is rooted in tired anti-capitalism from a bunch of old greybeards/ponytails who refuse to retire. Blame the corporations for monopolistic behavior.

  10. Do news organizations typically run stories about documents they’ve never authenticated?

    Yes. All the time.

    If sources lie to you, why not burn them?

    Most likely, because they are fabrications or legal covers for media-contrived propaganda.

    Why would two independent sources lie about

    See above.

    1. media-contrived propaganda

      Okay, this is an example of the crap I was talking about.

      Do you REALLY believe that the straight media – not partisan media, but mainstream media outlets – deliberately concocts “propaganda” that they know is false, in order to hurt Republicans?

      See that seems like a completely batshit crazy position to me. Since it is much more believable, and doesn’t require belief in grand conspiracies, to simply say that their natural partisan bias leads them to making mistakes more often than they should when the story is one that they would like to be true (i.e., anti-Republican). Yes, most of their mistakes are against one side only. But it’s not a conspiracy, it is natural human bias.

      1. I think the “mainstream media outlets” deliberately push false stories in order to achieve their own ends. That has a tendency to be anti-Republican and pro Democrat, but it’s not really a necessity to the process. More important is that they kill stories that are counter to their narratives.
        eg. “Hands up don’t shoot”; Treyvon Martin; Trump-Russia-Collusion; Hilary has a 98% chance of winning…

        We could go on to other stuff, like their decidedly pro-immigrant stance on all things.

        A lot of this is multifaceted, IMO and is at least in part motivated by the fact that they can get more viewers / more clicks.

        1. Hilary has a 98% chance of winning.

          Are you not aware that she won the popular vote? There are no surveys on the Electoral College, where we won by 80,000 votes in three states COMBINED.

          Fox is just as crazy.

      2. That somehow makes it worse that they create fantastical narratives spun out of their wishful thinking and honestly believe they are true.

        The openly dishonest man at least knows the truth in his own head.

        1. “That somehow makes it worse that they create fantastical narratives spun out of their wishful thinking and honestly believe they are true”

          WE ALL DO THIS. Because we are all flawed biased human beings. It doesn’t make us sinister or terrible people. It just makes us people.

          1. The difference is, that journalists are supposed to be professionals and try to police that tendency. Just like we believe that a cop should have the impulse control to not to beat up someone who is verbally abusing them.

      3. “Do you REALLY believe that the straight media – not partisan media, but mainstream media outlets – deliberately concocts “propaganda” that they know is false, in order to hurt Republicans?”

        After Rathergate, do you REALLY believe that they don’t? Do you also believe in the Easter Bunny?

        Look, to take an example from a completely different society, I have watched BBC spokespeople say with a straight face that studies showed that wind farms to not kill unusual numbers of birds. I not that the BBC is an organ of a government that, at that time, had made a politically expensive commitment to wind farms. There are no such studies.

        An unbiased media is impossible.The Mainstream Media is unusually awkward about it bias, however.

        1. JournoList.
          Podesta email leaks
          etc, etc

          Or… just watch the news

          How many “local stations” actually report the exact same mundane phrase pushed by their corporate overlords? And somehow it’s hard to believe that there isn’t some hand behind every single major media company pushing the exact same anti-republican news.

          1. You just tore down all of Jeff’s heroes, you monster.

          2. Lazy TV personalities reading from the same script is not the same as a purposeful conspiracy to brainwash people and push a narrative. You do get this, right?

            If there is a conspiracy, then start giving some DIRECT EVIDENCE for this conspiracy, not this indirect suppositional nonsense. Who are the conspirators? What is your DIRECT EVIDENCE for this conspiracy – again, not among opinion writers or partisan media, but mainstream straight news outlets – to push a deliberate narrative that purposefully harms Republicans?

            My explanation makes gobs more sense and doesn’t insist on the existence of some vast conspiracy.

        2. You do realize that Dan Rather didn’t actually forge the memos, right?

          1. I realize that Dan Rather presented, as fact, a narrative supported by memos that would not have passed the most superficial vetting. Oh, I suppose they could have been more obvious fakes, if they were (say) on Snoopy stationary……

            1. So … you claim that two events … 13 years apart .. PROVE media bias.
              How about your own?

              1. I do not have to prove meds bias. All media will be biased. Period, dot. I show examples of media using extraordinarily lax standards to promote a narrative, which then blew up in their face.

                1. I do not have to prove media bias.

                  That’s been quite obvious.

            2. He wanted to believe a claim that was true, even though it wasn’t, because of partisanship or because of animus agianst Bush. Yes. That is wrong. But it is not the same as actually concocting the story himself. That is the difference.

              1. If he had halfway done his job, he would have caught that the documents could not stand up to scrutiny. Either he deliberately closed hid eyes to the problems, or he was ostentatiously stupid.

                Or, of course, both.

                1. No conspiracy. It’s also the pressure of deadlines, which is much more severe with the Internet.

                  1. If the pressure of deadlines was all that was going on, then he would have quickly retracted when it was called into question within about 4 hours of the first broadcast.

                    Or at least broadcast as widely the analysis that called the memos into question.

                    1. Umm, that’s what happened. Not reported by Breitbart, Infowars, WND or Fox..

                  2. Yeah, “the pressure of headlines”, that was it. It had NOTHING to do with a Presidential election just weeks away. That’s why there is no such thing as a “October Surprise” in elections.

                    If you are going to report something that would potentially destroy a person running for President just weeks before the election. To me, you better damn well be sure your evidence is spot on and air tight. And his was so laughably weak and easy to disprove that to argue anything else but a malicious bias is idiotic.

                    1. Umm,. the election was MANY months earlier. … nearly a year!
                      Now …. wipe the egg off your face. And READ a thread so you know WTF is being talked about.

                      Why are Trump and his cult such WHINERS?

                    2. This is 2004 we’re talking about, clueless fuckhole.

                    3. This is 2004 we’re talking about

                      Umm, a COMPARISON between 2004 and 2016, chump.,

                      clueless fuckhole

                      So very adult. (snort)
                      One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… because it was jamme up his ass here.

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

                      And here!

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066256

                      Bullies gotta bully. Haters gotta hate. Stalkers gotta stalk.

        3. I can’t believe people don’t see it! The whole WalkAway movement started because networks
          stopped trying to hide the bias. I was probably 12 when my parents told me never to believe news on TV…lol.
          It’s so much worse now than it was then.

          If anyone cares about real news, they cannot get it from the TV. It’s getting a lot more difficult to get it online now too. I don’t know if an unbiased media is impossible, but I know we will never see one.

      4. These are the same goobers who say the Mueller probe is biased because … it’s not all Republicans.

        1. I think the few times I’ve heard the claim that the Mueller probe is biased isn’t because they aren’t all Republicans, but rather that it’s because those who are Democrats have connections to those being probed. Admittedly, Mueller got rid of those people as soon as he found out how deeply they were compromised (or at least the appearance of them being compromised) so that is at least one point to his credit.

          Of course, I have heard a few pundits accuse the probe of being partisan because of the Democrats specifically which does imply that their problem with the probe is that there are Democrats there at all. Those people are obviously stupid though, so if one takes them seriously it says much the same about the listener.

          Ultimately, though, I’m still unclear on what crime specifically Mueller is investigating. As in what specific Federal statute.

          1. His mission was clearly stated at the start. The actual appointment.

            Despite the non-stop bullshit on Fox “News” Mueller was NOT appointed to investigate Trump, AND he was given an open hand. His mission (summarized)

            -Investigate the Russian interference, including any links or coordination with the Trump campaign staff

            -Any matters that arise or may arise directly from the investigation.

            -Any other matters within the scope of the applicable laws

            -Prosecute any federal crimes arising from the investigation – at Mueller’s sole discretion.

            The Fox commenters are screeching that Mueller has exceeded his appointment. They’re full of shitt, like all theiir hysteria. But their loyal followers swallow anything (same as Bernie’s), It was well known at the start that Mueller had an open hand.

            Russian interference in our elections is a serious matter! ANY collusion is secondary to that. Duh.

            1. What about investigating any links or coordination with the Clinton campaign. If we don’t want to be partisan.

              1. HILLARY CONSPIRED … WITH THE RUSSIANS … AGAINST HERSELF??

                Moar whataboutism!

                Psst, it was not reported in your Fake News, but the dossier your tribe is pissing about was created by A REPUBLICAN … in the primaries … to kill Trump’s candidacy.
                Then sold AGAIN … same purpose … which is NOT conspiracy or obstruction.

                You b suckered, probably often.

          2. The only “Republican” on Mueller’s team is Mueller himself. I suggest you look up Robert Mueller and Anthrax. That’s only one of the cases he worked on. That story will lead you to more.
            He didn’t only hire all Democrats for the special counsel. He hired Democrat donors, activists, former employees of Democrat politicians. He hired Peter Strzok who has since been fired because of his biased text messages. He texted his girlfriend that Trump supporters smelled bad. When his girlfriend worried Trump could be elected, Strzok texted that he had an insurance policy and he would stop it. There were something like 35,000 texts like that.
            Why would Mueller only hire prosecutors that hate Trump? Isn’t that odd to you?

    2. Not only are news orgs using documents that were never authenticated…
      The FBI used a dossier funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton to get FISA warrants
      to spy on Carter Page (a low-level participant of the Trump campaign).
      By getting those warrants, they could then spy on Trump.
      Sounds like crazy, conspiracy theory, doesn’t it?
      It’s not. These are facts but the Democrat House has no interest in outing
      corrupt members of the FBI and DOJ.
      Several of those who were involved have already been fired: James Comey, Andrew McCabe,
      Peter Strzok, Lisa Page. Bruce Ohr is under investigation.
      This should scare everybody! When the FBI uses unverified, campaign propaganda to get a warrant, the country is in trouble.

  11. Between what the MSM says and what The Donald does (despite what he says), I’m hoping the LP doesn’t run a decent candidate in 2020; I’d really like to vote for The Donald next time. [kicks Never Trump sign under the sofa].

    1. I hope you’re serious. It’s really sad because we can see the economy improve, the jobs grow, we no longer have a war with North Korea hanging over our head. I don’t think they’ll ever give up their nukes, but at least they stopped threatening us. They released 3 American prisoners thanks to Trump.
      Even if I didn’t like Trump, I would think what they’re doing is wrong.
      There is no evidence of Russian collusion. The special counsel investigation is backwards. Normally a special counsel is hired when a crime has been committed. This counsel was hired to find a crime. All this because Democrats and the establishment don’t like the man who won the election.
      If they would succeed and remove Trump from office (they won’t), there would be no point in anyone voting anymore.
      It would mean the people don’t choose the president. Politicians and lobbyists do.

  12. Okay yes, the media is biased.

    But holy shit does the right go absolutely apeshit about it. They hate the media more than they hate Hillary or illegals.

    And a lot of grifters on the right realize this and publish misleading clickbaity stories about MEDIA BIAS that serve only to gin up anger and outrage and clicks and bucks. And the cynical side of me sometimes thinks that the demagogues on the right deliberately want to scream FAKE NEWS at everything negative about them, regardless of its merit, so as to destroy trust in the media as an exercise in achieving power.

    So YES the media is biased, YES they get some big stories wrong most likely out of a desire to want to believe that they are true (because they are anti-Republican) rather than going the extra mile of fact-checking, but I am not going to cast my lot in with the charlatans of the right. They all deserve a big heaping dose of blame.

    1. “But holy shit does the right go absolutely apeshit about it.”

      *sigh*

      I have watched this for literally DECADES. I first noticed it in the 1070’s. It’s the deflecting effect of the lie that media CAN be unbiased.

      1. Holy shit, Methuselah!

        1. I THOUGHT Schofield sounded like a Saxon name.

      2. “I have watched this for literally DECADES. I first noticed it in the 1070’s. It’s the deflecting effect of the lie that media CAN be unbiased.”

        Interesting… are you aware of a significant amount of lying when reporting the battle of Hastings? LOL (sorry, I couldn’t resist)

        1. I’m sorry too. My fingers are fungers all too often, and I’m a lazy proof-reader at best.

    2. Oh sure they lie and are biased but I won’t hold them accountable because I agree with their bias.

      See? You really didn’t need that many words.

      1. But I don’t agree with their bias, Skippy. That is what you don’t get.

        I don’t agree with their bias, and I don’t agree with the claims, made by many on the right, that it is some sort of deliberate conspiracy to destroy Republicans.

        1. They aren’t trying to destroy Republicans necessarily, but they are trying to get Trump impeached both inside the government and inside most big-name media outlets and they DO NOT CARE how much collateral damage might be incurred. They are literally willing to burn their credibility to the ground in order to impeach Trump. Not all media, obviously, but I suspect that those outlets are willing to burn through Journalists to put these stories out there.

          If one of those journalists goes a little ‘too far’ for the public, the outlet just cuts off that head (who then goes and gets a job at another outlet) and says ‘oops, we’re unbiased again now!’ and moves along onto the next attack angle.

          It’s not like most media outlets are surviving on their own merits, they’re supported by billionaires who are willing to take a loss to get their message out there. Some outlets function as lobbyist firms only instead of reaching out to Congress they reach out to the public, and you can put a dollar value on that.

          1. “They are literally willing to burn their credibility to the ground in order to impeach Trump.”

            Really? You think they have a conscious desire to impeach Trump? I think they are reporting on stories that their audience wants to hear, and to the extent their audience consists of left-of-center Beltway types, they are going to be reporting on sensationalistic Trump stuff. CNN (IMO) gives too much attention to the Trump Russia investigation not because they want Trump to be impeached over it, but because their audience is more interested in that than on, say, what the new tax rates are going to be.

            I also find it hard to believe that so many people think that the media is purposefully anti-Republican when they were such big cheerleaders for Bush’s Iraq War.

            1. So aside from all of the twitting. The severe slant to the coverage. The continied massive botching of important stories (did you even bother to read the article?). The massive differential in political affiliation. Aside from all of that you conclude that because they supported intervention in iraq jist like a majoritu of democrats did at the time and jist like they supported in libya after, that, that is conclusive proof that they aren’t biased.

              The logic is impeccable.

              1. I agree that they slant their coverage. I agree that they don’t do enough fact-checking, in part because of their bias. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY ARE BIASED. This is different than hypothesizing the existence of some coordinated conspiracy.

                1. So it’s back to the handshake. As long as they don’t conspire you’re “not going to cast your lot in with the charlatons on the right.” I mean those righties were asking for it with their short skirts and all.

                  1. I’m not going to join in with their delusions and conspiratorial nonsense, no. When they wish to join the rest of us in reality, then we can have a sober discussion about media bias.


            2. Really? You think they have a conscious desire to impeach Trump?

              Yes. Obviously. Recall that we are currently on impeachment attempt #2, with another likely to come soon.

              1. And, I can guarantee you that literally every left-of-center (whatever the fuck THAT means) is actively digging for dirt to impeach Trump with that as their explicit goal.

                You’d think after a year they would have something actionable, yet nope. They don’t. So they continue to throw as much shit as possible in the hope that something, anything, sticks.

                Please note that much the same was done to Obama by ‘right-of-center’ outlets. That doesn’t mean everything Obama did was above board, it just means that partisans are going to partisan. That said, I don’t think those ‘right-of-center’ outlets were ever under the impression that they were going to impeach Obama. I imagine some hoped for that but it was never to the same scale that we’re seeing now from the left. Or, at the very least, it was never as successful. Recall there have now been two attempts to impeach Trump without any evidence of anything at all.

                Do you reckon if Republicans had done that to Obama that the media would have said ‘well, I don’t know, maybe Obama did something to deserve it so why not try?’ That is what most of them appear to be saying about Trump. Hilarity ensues?

              2. So you think straight news reporters at mainstream outlets – not the opinion writers, and not the partisan writers at partisan outlets – are intentionally trying to get Trump impeached? Wow.

                1. Uhh, yes? Why else would they run with so many stories using factually untrue information that has repeatedly gone in the same partisan direction? Especially regarding the case that Democratic lawmakers are using as their basis for their repeated attempts to impeach?

                  I mean, you can blow as much smoke as you want but it is what it is. If an outlet only vet’s stories that disagree with their narrative you have a problem.

                  it provides those networks with just enough cover that they can say it wasn’t the outlet, but rogue actors within it. With the frequency of heads being rolled, I’d say those ‘rogue actors’ are more like sacrificial lambs.

                  1. … and Obama is a damn Muslim from Kenya. It’s ALL part of the master conspiracy financed by George Soros!!

                    1. Muslim, that would require Obama to believe in a higher power than himself.

                    2. That was ridicule, Slick. So is this.

            3. They had a conscious desire to impeach W, let alone Trump.

        2. What was journolist? What was thrush allowing clinton editorial privilege? You can always try to hide behind “well that doesn’t rise to the level of CONSPIRACY” but when the bias is this blatant no honest person can conclude it isn’t intentional.

          1. Then who are the conspirators? How EXACTLY does this conspiracy work? Do the reporters from NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc., have secret teleconferences every day to coordinate their messaging and narrative propaganda?

            1. Holy shit. Have you honestly never heard of the JournoList? And how did I know you would try to weasel your way out by playing the conspiracy card? It’s literally in the post you are replying to.

            2. Reporters from CNN? There are no “reporters” on CNN. Most of their staff were politicians before they worked for CNN. Same thing at MSNBC. Van Jones was Obama’s green Czar. Jake Tapper worked for a bunch of Democrat candidates. Chris Cuomo’s brother is the governor of New York. Joe Scarborough was a congressman. Chris Matthews worked for Tip O’Neal. George Stepanopoulas calls himself a journalist and his degree is in political science. He worked for Bill Clinton.See a pattern yet?
              These are just off the top of my head.
              As for the “secret teleconferences”….Haven’t you ever heard a montage of anchors using the exact same verbiage when they report a story? They can’t even change the words a little bit to make it look less obvious. This happens ALL the time. https://youtu.be/PStpvviPgxk

            3. Reporters from CNN? There are no “reporters” on CNN. Most of their staff were politicians before they worked for CNN. Same thing at MSNBC. Van Jones was Obama’s green Czar. Jake Tapper worked for a bunch of Democrat candidates. Chris Cuomo’s brother is the governor of New York. Joe Scarborough was a congressman. Chris Matthews worked for Tip O’Neal. George Stepanopoulas calls himself a journalist and his degree is in political science. He worked for Bill Clinton.See a pattern yet?
              These are just off the top of my head.
              As for the “secret teleconferences”….Haven’t you ever heard a montage of anchors using the exact same verbiage when they report a story? They can’t even change the words a little bit to make it look less obvious. This happens ALL the time. https://youtu.be/PStpvviPgxk

          2. I mean, shit, wapo fact checkers actually just played the game of ‘oh sure it may be a fact but that doesn’t make it .’ What do you call that level of dishonesty?

            1. I call it reporters who are being overly harsh on a Republican because of their intrinsic left-wing bias.

              I don’t believe it is part of some coordinated conspiracy among reporters to tear down Mike Pence.

              See the difference?

              1. Whst is so magical about the word conspiracy to you?

                1. Well, as I said from the outset,

                  “I don’t agree with the claims, made by many on the right, that it is some sort of deliberate conspiracy to destroy Republicans.”

                  Do you think it is a conspiracy? Do you think there is active coordination between reporters in order to thwart and destroy Republicans? If not then we are on the same page. I agree that reporters are biased. I have never claimed otherwise. In that sense the right is correct. But they go TOO FAR with their criticism, drifting into la-la land.

                  1. You’re the one who brought up fringe conspiracy thinking. Your entire original post was deflection from the issue. Which came first: the blatant dishonesty of the media or the conspiracy thinking (and lest we forget JournoList WAS a real thing).

                    1. I think in most cases, it goes too far to call the media “blatantly dishonest”. Yes there are actual examples of fraud or plagiarism. But – lest I remind you, as just an example – Dan Rather himself didn’t actually forge the TANG memos. He was wrong to believe in them so fervently, and likely he was blin.ded by his own bias into believing them when he would have been more skeptical if the memos had been directed against someone else. So the media doesn’t actually concoct the rumors or the fraudulent documents, but they do amplify the ones that fit their biases. The unequal amplification of particular stories is wrong. I agree with you there. But can we talk about this issue without accusing the media of bad faith or evil intent? Trump says that the media is the “enemy of the people”. That kind of discourse on the subject is not helpful and IMO completely wrongheaded. They are not “the enemy”.

                    2. I think in most cases, it goes too far to call the media “blatantly dishonest”. Yes there are actual examples of fraud or plagiarism. But – lest I remind you, as just an example – Dan Rather himself didn’t actually forge the TANG memos. He was wrong to believe in them so fervently, and likely he was blin.ded by his own bias into believing them when he would have been more skeptical if the memos had been directed against someone else. So the media doesn’t actually concoct the rumors or the fraudulent documents, but they do amplify the ones that fit their biases. The unequal amplification of particular stories is wrong. I agree with you there. But can we talk about this issue without accusing the media of bad faith or evil intent? Trump says that the media is the “enemy of the people”. That kind of discourse on the subject is not helpful and IMO completely wrongheaded. They are not “the enemy”.

                    3. “I think in most cases, it goes too far to call the media “blatantly dishonest”. Yes there are actual examples of fraud or plagiarism”

                      Like NBC’s “Dateline” rigging the gas tanks of Chevy trucks to explode.

                2. Whst is so magical about the word conspiracy to you?

                  PROOF of conspiracy by the Trump campaign is already known. Not reported by the Fake News at Fox, Breitbart, WND, etc.

          3. What you are doing, Skippy, is taking isolated data points and trying to force it into a pattern that is soothing to your worldview. That is what conspiracy theorists do. They take unrelated matters and try to impose a pattern on them, a pattern that *just so happens* to align with their preconceived ideas.

            Yes it is possible that JournoList could have been this conspiratorial tool to foist a coordinated anti-Republican message. Or, it could have been a bunch of colleagues discussing interesting matters among themselves, and since they all came from the same basic social milieu – college educated, working in big cities – they all shared roughly the same political orientation. Which do you think better passes the Occam’s Razor test?

            1. What you are doing, jeffie, is trying to weasel your way out by holding everything to an explicit conspiratorial standard. That is completely beside the point when virtually the entire journalist community behaves like a hive mind with reinforcing narratives. You desperately do not want to see this because you desperately do not want to agree with the right.

            2. Basically you’re saying it’s fine as long as they don’t have a secret handshake. See the difference?

              1. I’m not saying “it’s fine”. Where did I say that “it’s fine” that the media is biased? I’m saying that the Right frequently goes unhinged when diagnosing the problems in the media. It’s not a conspiracy to destroy Republicans, it is just general groupthink among like-minded people.

                1. I believe the correct talking point these days is “false equivalence.”

        3. The released Podesta emails suggest otherwise.

  13. Sloppy work? Err… or deliberately sloppy to advance a narrative.

    Or part of the ‘deep state’s’ efforts.

    http://original.antiwar.com/ju…..-within-2/

    Or as some imagine, a deliberate leak to catch leakers.

    These are the same journos who said US arming of ISIS was ‘conspiracy theory’ – no matter the fact ISIS seemed to be doing what neocons long dreamed of while never attacking Israel – is that right?

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..dy-reveals

  14. “Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and others reported that special counsel Robert Mueller’s office had subpoenaed President Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. Trump’s attorney says it hadn’t.”

    None of the organizations you mention have withdrawn their claim. How do you know that Trump’s attorney’s statement is accurate?

    1. Because he’s a shill for Trump. Trump’s attorney has no more relevance here than a box of rocks.
      The Deutsche Bank connection was outed month ago. Why did a bank, which is a money-laundering front for Russians, lend Trump $300 million when US banks wouldn’t lend him a dime with so many bankruptcies.
      Trump owes his entire fortune to Russia. That’s not collusion on the campaign, but piles on top of all his other corruption,

      1. Michael Hihn|12.15.17 @ 7:01PM|#
        “Because he’s a shill for Trump. Trump’s attorney has no more relevance here than a box of rocks.
        The Deutsche Bank connection was outed month ago. Why did a bank, which is a money-laundering front for Russians, lend Trump $300 million when US banks wouldn’t lend him a dime with so many bankruptcies.
        Trump owes his entire fortune to Russia. That’s not collusion on the campaign, but piles on top of all his other corruption,”

        Oh, Oh, stupid shit Mike has innuendo to pile on top of hints to show that stupid shit mike is a fucking ignoramus.

        1. The request for Deutsche Bank documents has now also been reported by those goddamn libtards at

          The Wall Street Journal!
          (sneer)

  15. Needz moat media literacy.


  16. Yes, Trump is a fabulist. His tweets can be destructive.

    See! Speech is assault! Free speech is dangerous and literally destroys things!

    /sarc

  17. Gosh… and there I was, expecting the unvarnished, objective Truth from the Nixon-subsidized looter press!

  18. It’s not the sloppy stakes, it’s the relentless propaganda.

    1. Yeah, but Fox was always that way.

  19. All these fabulist stories are doing is inoculating Trump if there is ever any significant dirt is discovered. I suspect that out of frustration and sheer rage some of these lying stories won’t be retracted even if evidence shows otherwise. The media is so obsessed with destroying Trump they don’t care if they destroy themselves in the process.

    1. “I suspect that out of frustration and sheer rage some of these lying stories won’t be retracted even if evidence shows otherwise”

      Bernie was reporting as fact that Trump admitted to ‘grabbing pussy’ when in fact he claimed ‘you could do so (if you were rich)’. Not only are the stories not being retracted, they are being spread by the same sources who claim to oppose ‘fake news’.
      I’m an old fart; I have no idea if the news, paper or broadcast when I was younger, was as dishonest as it is now. I do know that in the ’50s, I read a story about how there was no more than a 20-year supply of petroleum and reported such to dear ol’ Dad. He mentioned reading the same predictions in the ’30s, and you’ll find that the German development of synfuels was driven by the same predictions. As was prospecting in west Texas, leading to the greatest drop in petroleum costs ever recorded.

      1. BTW, those predictions of the end of gas were delivered by scientists; see “Peak Oil”, so while I’m certainly not a denialist of CC, I’m very skeptical of the catastrophists’ predictions. That con man Ehrlich has made a living from lying, and he’s not alone.
        It’s true that Nixon was such a dislikeable human that the news organizations were able to recover a but of cred, but they had failed to do so during the JFK and LBJ admins, so they got lucky and rode that rep for far longer than they had any reason to do so.
        So forgive me if I read or hear some ‘journalist’ reporting a ‘you won’t believe this’ story’ and don’t believe it.

      2. Bernie was reporting as fact that Trump admitted to ‘grabbing pussy’ when in fact he claimed ‘you could do so (if you were rich)

        Liar.
        He said he could get away with grabbing pussies because he’s famous.

  20. “Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story?”

    Trying to figure out how this would work. What if you have rumors but do not run them? Maybe the Times and Post should apologize for all the days that went by until they reported on the June 2016 meeting with Trump Jr. and the Russian lawyer? Then they can apologize for the days until they learned about all the people who were there at the meeting? Can it be said that those failures diminished the collusion story?

    1. Pay attention. It’s NOT about collusion … which is another dumbass denial for brainless Trumpsters.

      It’s about CONSPIRACY … and Donald Trump has already admitted it. (the secret meeting to share dirt on Hillary)
      And OBSTRUCTION … which Trump admitted (why he fired Comey)

      His ass is already grass. Now they’re just piling up more charges. Sorry.

      1. Fuck off, room-temperature IQ fuckwit.

        1. Fuck off, room-temperature IQ fuckwit.

          So very adult. (snort)
          One of fourteen aggressions by the conservatard stalker… because it was jammed up his ass here.

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066582

          And here!

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_7066256

          Bullies gotta bully. Haters gotta hate. Stalkers gotta stalk.

  21. “They will have themselves to blame.” Richard Nixon, actually, and Congress and the IRS are the pushers and pimps in the story. In the 24-hour span in which the Libertarian Party formed, Nixon bet correctly that government subsidies to pay for DemoGOP kleptocracy ads would not only turn the media into whores, but would attract lampreys to fasten onto the LP and try to coax the non-looter party into taking the danegeld instead of urging its repeal. The media promptly became cheaper whores. But the power of Libertarian spoiler votes comes from their integrity. That is what Nixon sought to undermine–unsuccessfully so far.

    1. NIXON IS STILL TRYING!!!!
      Who knew?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.