Yeah because this is the very first time ever a politician has used the media to attack another politician. Never ever happened before. :lol2:

 

 

Come on, LB. I know you know the game and how it goes.

 

We all assume it may happen we normally don't have the actual evidence to prove it. If this were Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes it wouldn't be as big a deal. They don't proclaim to be an unbiased journalist. When your hard news correspondents work with campaigns that's a problem.

You guys are killing me martydom and victimization must be a rush!

No victim here. Just trying to educate you on the dangers of the slippery slope of "Durantyism". Is it the same scale? No.......but it can easily lead to it. Sadly, too many folks fail to realize the dangers of it.

Let's just say for a minute that the Reporter DID work with the Clinton Campaign to attack Paul or another Candidate...do you think that is OK? Is that what journalistic integrity is all about?

 

Where is this feigned outrage for the right wing media? You really think Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Hannity and all other right wing media outlets don't coordinate attacks on the POTUS with politicians? You really think there aren't hundreds of republican politicians that don't do the exact same thing with members of the media they are friendly with? This happens all of the time. Been happening since the media became an amazing outlet of information. Without stuff like this Watergate never happens.

Let's just say for a minute that the Reporter DID work with the Clinton Campaign to attack Paul or another Candidate...do you think that is OK? Is that what journalistic integrity is all about?

 

I could care less what these news agencies on the national levels report. They all lie and manipulate it to their gullible audiences

We all assume it may happen we normally don't have the actual evidence to prove it. If this were Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes it wouldn't be as big a deal. They don't proclaim to be an unbiased journalist. When your hard news correspondents work with campaigns that's a problem.

 

Ehhhh.... If that is what you believe then yeah you'll be very disappointed in the way the media actually works. From both sides of the aisles. This is nothing.

I could care less what these news agencies on the national levels report. They all lie and manipulate it to their gullible audiences

 

"Sources say....."

Where is this feigned outrage for the right wing media? You really think Fox News, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Hannity and all other right wing media outlets don't coordinate attacks on the POTUS with politicians? You really think there aren't hundreds of republican politicians that don't do the exact same thing with members of the media they are friendly with? This happens all of the time. Been happening since the media became an amazing outlet of information. Without stuff like this Watergate never happens.

 

I was just trying to clarify if he thought it was OK or not...I never said it didn't happen or that it didn't happen on both sides. One difference is when a reporter lies or interjects themselves into the story...reporters are supposed to be neutral and just report what happens, letting the people decide what to make of it.

 

Limbaugh, Hannity and who ever else you mentioned are not Reporters, they are Political Commentators and Entertainers...no one watches them not expecting them to preach to the choir so to speak, just like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermannon MSNBC or Bill Mahr...they are Commentators and Entertainers NOT Reporters.

 

It when the actual "NEWS Wing" of the networks start misleading that IMO it crosses the line.

I was just trying to clarify if he thought it was OK or not...I never said it didn't happen or that it didn't happen on both sides. One difference is when a reporter lies or interjects themselves into the story...reporters are supposed to be neutral and just report what happens, letting the people decide what to make of it.

 

Limbaugh, Hannity and who ever else you mentioned are not Reporters, they are Political Commentators and Entertainers...no one watches them not expecting them to preach to the choir so to speak, just like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermannon MSNBC or Bill Mahr...they are Commentators and Entertainers NOT Reporters.

 

It when the actual "NEWS Wing" of the networks start misleading that IMO it crosses the line.

 

So in your opinion what crosses the line in this situation?

So in your opinion what crosses the line in this situation?

If a reporter is manufacturing or distorting facts and/or being disingenuous with there reporting. If a reporter is taking "Marching Orders" from any candidate to help spin or turn a story that is either misleading. Sometimes reporters get played and do the bidding of others and don't realize it, those people don't need to be reporters...but it is the will accomplices that IMO cross the line. Yes there are always reporters that are friendly to this candidate or that one.

 

With all of the protections in this country for them to be able to say pretty much what ever they want, there should come a responsibility to try to do it in as honest a manner as possible.

I think the point Jumper_Dad is trying to make is this: Is this acceptable? Given the world we live in( nobody trusts either side) is this acceptable. We are not trying to mislead the Russians or ISIS here, this is the American public. Is this not counter productive to our best National interest? How do you guys think we got so divided? Farmers Almanac?

If a reporter is manufacturing or distorting facts and/or being disingenuous with there reporting. If a reporter is taking "Marching Orders" from any candidate to help spin or turn a story that is either misleading. Sometimes reporters get played and do the bidding of others and don't realize it, those people don't need to be reporters...but it is the will accomplices that IMO cross the line. Yes there are always reporters that are friendly to this candidate or that one.

 

With all of the protections in this country for them to be able to say pretty much what ever they want, there should come a responsibility to try to do it in as honest a manner as possible.

 

That very rarely happens in the world of media and politicians. Behind every reporter getting the "scoop" in the political world is a politician giving them the "scoop".

I think the point Jumper_Dad is trying to make is this: Is this acceptable? Given the world we live in( nobody trusts either side) is this acceptable. We are not trying to mislead the Russians or ISIS here, this is the American public. Is this not counter productive to our best National interest? How do you guys think we got so divided? Farmers Almanac?

 

The point I am making is that this behavior has been accepted since the early days of the media. I'm amazed some of you are just now realizing how it works.

I understand what you are saying and you are correct. But what he is asking is if this is something that needs to stop, on both sides? PP92 me and you are going to have to get each side to the table and get this straight.

I understand what you are saying and you are correct. But what he is asking is if this is something that needs to stop, on both sides? PP92 me and you are going to have to get each side to the table and get this straight.

 

I think it needs to stop but it will be impossible to stop. The desire for scoops and powerful information is too strong for politicians and journalists to evade.

PP92 -- Accepted by Who ? Personally you might accept and acknowledge this traditional bias from the media but most of the goofs on the left that hang out here don't think there is a serious media bias . Yeah the right has Fox to even things out some but for decades ABC , NBC and CBS were all we had . My point is a lot of people , esp on the left , don't accept there is a huge media bias .