I think people mix selective reporting and quality of reporting. Sure CNN and MSNBC select to emphasize stories that appeal to a left leaning viewer profile, but with a few exceptions their opinions typically don't get caught up in conspiracies or push information that's obviously or most likely not accurate.

Fox's news division is decent on quality though certainly still selective to a right leaning audience. But their opinion side is so entrenched in pushing conspiracies there's really nothing else in the mainstream media like it. Sean Hannity is not the inverse mirror of Rachel Maddow...

https://youtu.be/yYBrFBWCzbU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How can you challenge me on how Bias does not change the truth. ? your the one who thinks it changes Truth its your case to prove ..



BIAS CANT CHANGE WHAT COLOR THE SKY IS OR HOW GRAVITY WORKS ...or the words spoken or written by Trump. ITS THAT SIMPLE

Bias presents alternative facts or attacks facts presented based solely on appearance, social back ground or party affiliation.... but to say only Main stream media does it , is a bias statement its self .. so what is non main stream media whats the new standard for the opposite of main stream ?

and most op eds are Bias reguardless of the source .. they are not News ?

https://youtu.be/yYBrFBWCzbU
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John, is what you are saying about truth and bias like this from Psychology Today?
People want to believe others despite evidence to the contrary. This is a normal reaction because, in general, people tend to believe others. This phenomenon, referred to as Truth Bias, allows society and commerce to run efficiently. Absent Truth Bias, people would spend an inordinate amount of time checking information provided by others. Truth Bias also serves as the social default. Relationships with friends and business colleagues would become strained if their veracity were constantly questioned. Faced with minor discrepancies in a story, people tend to excuse away inconsistencies because they want to believe the person who is telling the story. Truth Bias provides liars with an advantage because people want to believe what they hear, see, or read. The effect of Truth Bias is stronger if the person telling the story is a close friend, a spouse, or our children. Truth Bias diminishes when people become aware of the possibility of deception. The best defense against Truth Bias is judicious skepticism.

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao: :rotflmao:

sure he is, he’s just a lot less masculine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've watched a fair share of both of them. Maddow is about three times smarter and very well researched. That doesn't mean she's always right but (aside from bridgegate) I've never really seen her push conspiracy theories and flagrant falsehoods which is pretty must the bulk of Hannity's program today.

you’re talking about the same Maddow who made a complete ass of herself in front of her entire audience (11 bitter Maoists) with trumps tax return, and who predicted a Hilary rout on election night? and who says that people
who are pro life, are opposed to women’s health? yes, a genius.

hannity is a buffoon, so is she. they are the exact mirror image of each other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

'dirty media'...this is troubling


CNN is being accused of attempting to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury after the far-left cable channel (and six other anti-Trump outlets) requested the jurors’ names and home addresses.


And so, on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

As Bre Payton at the Federalist points out, “Publicly outing the names and home addresses of jurors is considered ethically questionable, as outlined in this guidance sheet on the topic from the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

A complete fabrication posted from the Bastion of Bias the right loves

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...manafort-jury/

sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news_opi..._jurors_public —

A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Another example of these pesky Facts blowing up another lie from the right

huh?

Really weird, what is the complete fabrication that he speaks of. The two articles he links don't tell us what the fabrication is.

Presenting the suggestion that asking for or going to court for Jury information..




on Thursday, CNN, along with six other far-left media outlets (the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP) sued for the release of the names and home addresses of all of the Manafort jurors, a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented.


What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.

Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True


Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.


List of jurors in Boston Marathon bombing trial released

Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial

huh??

I'm not sue how her tax return story was in any way misleading, yes it was over hyped but the returns did confirm some Trump hypocrisy. It wasn't a nothing story.

A lot of people thought Hillary was going to rout trump.

Yes, that's exactly what they're trying to do, initiation into the Deep State don't you know? :huh:

BuzzFeed is liberal but I've never heard anyone -- aside from Trump and Hannity -- claim the others are far left.

Even the judge said a thirsty press is a good thing. You don't know if they're going to out anyone, it's a matter of public record once the proceedings are finished. The Judge will likely shield them until it's done which would be the right move.

we know that you have remarkably selective hearing...sight...memory

Stop trying... didn't you know only the enemy of the people AKA code for anyone not on trumps junk.. Have ever asked for the names of jurors ...

Its disturbing and almost unprecedented. and almost True!!! can you believe the nerve of the press to ask such a question

43 percent of Republicans saying he “should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.”

Funny this ^^^^ isn't seen as disturbing and unprecedented. why is that ???

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.

And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.

There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".

BOSTON — A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Judge George O'Toole Jr.'s ruling Monday came more than three months after a federal jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) in the deadly 2013 attack and voted in favor of the death penalty.


I'm pretty sure the Manafort jury is still deliberating

ben shapiro played a clip today, of a new york times employee who was on msnbc, and she said that while
trump isn’t rounding people up and slaughtering them, “he’d like to”. so who declared war on who, exactly? wdmso, you tell me, who started this war between trump and the media?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here, a columnist for the new york times was on msnbc, and she said that Trump would like to round up people and slaughter them.

go ahead spence, tell me i’m taking it out of context, that what she really meant to say was, something else, something brilliant and harmonious.

i’m not sure it’s a big stretch to say this deranged, vindictive bitch is the enemy of the people. because if what she said had a speck of truth to it, we’d be justified in taking up arms against Trump. at a minimum , she doesn’t deserve the significant protections we give the press. these people have large audiences and a lot of influence, they have a responsibility to use it wisely. they aren’t coming close to living up to that responsibility. the foundation of journalism needs to be the truth, and if they want to bash trump, there’s plenty of truthful ways to do that. but that’s not good enough for these maniacs.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/ny...mp-round-kill/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now I see where your style of prose comes from.
Kinda the pot calling the kettle black if you look at Crowder and that NYT reporter

forget about me for a second. is this new york times reporter being grossly irresponsible, or not? how far off is trump when he calls her the enemy of the american people? you can’t answer that by saying that i’m a jerk as well. this thread was started to bash trump because he attacks the press. i’m not saying trump has handled this ( or anything really) with class, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. the issue at hand is the false claim

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury or that the request was a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented. when it clearly is not new

So you're saying that Crowder and the NYT reporter are alike. Style aside, does that also mean that they are both right or that both are wrong. It doesn't make sense that both can be right since their opinions are diametrically opposed. If both are wrong, then Jim is right about the NYT reporter.

The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?

This link is not about possible pending court case or the issue of privacy.. and that was not the Idea floated in the story ..

... the issues is very clear a request for the names of those seated is not outrageous or intimidation or disturbing and almost unprecedented. as claimed by the link provided .. thats it


But Truth isnt Truth either a breitbart reader on the interview with chuck todd

"what show were *you* watching? He made Chuck U. Toad look like a moron.

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149168]Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. which is why they are asking for names and addresses now?

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury(yes) or that the request was a move that is both disturbing(yes) and almost unprecedented(yes).

[/QUOTE

MANAFORT TRIAL

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict
Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said the ongoing deliberations favor his client.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.

“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial that would have publicly identified the jurors.

Ellis denied the motion, telling the courtroom that jurors were "scared” and “afraid.” As a result, Ellis said, he didn’t “feel right” releasing the names of the 12-person jury.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/17/2018 10:37 AM EDT Updated 08/17/2018 05:42 PM EDT

I think she was drawing on Trump's wannabe tyrant-ism and the abhorrent treatment refugees and migrants have suffered as Trump is rounded them up en mass and broken families with little concern that they are human beings. Clumsy and full of hyperbole but as evidence the press is the enemy doesn't really hold up...

talk about hyperbole....geez

Yes its called Normal! to request such information AKA precedent


Can you support how this isn't a false claim or how the request is an attempt to intimidate the jury or how that would even happen

[QUOTE=scottw;1149172]when they ask means nothing ... unless you wear a tin foil hat

And do you know who are making theses threats ?? I know i don't

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149180]crazy leftists obviously....

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

this is a good example....

ICE detained a man while he was driving his pregnant wife to the hospital. He was taken when they stopped for gas. :hs:

"My husband needs to be here," Maria del Carmen Venegas said. "He had to wait for his son for so long, and someone just took him away." :huh:

Joel Arrona Lara, 36, was detained at a gas station in San Bernardino, California, while he and his wife were on their way to the hospital for her cesarean section. He reportedly had been living in the U.S. illegally for 12 years. :wavey:

Mr. Arrona-Lara was brought to ICE’s attention due to an outstanding warrant for his arrest in Mexico on homicide charges. :kewl:

this prompted democrats everywhere to call for the abolition of ICE

yeah...next thing you know Antifa is camped out on your yard...but that would give CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP something to cover...

Here is another example
KISSIMMEE, Fla. — The wife of an Iraq War veteran wiped away tears and held her young daughters as she said goodbye to her family at Orlando International Airport on Friday morning — not knowing the next time they would all be together.

Alejandra Juarez, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico more than 20 years ago, had pleaded publicly for President Donald Trump to stop her deportation. But a letter delivered to the White House this week by members of Congress wasn't enough to keep her with her husband, a naturalized American citizen, and their two American-born daughters.
There is an immigration policy for members of the military and their families called “parole in place” to “recognize the important sacrifices made by U.S. Armed forces members, veterans, enlistees, and their families." The Citizen and Immigration Services website says they provide “discretionary options such as parole in place or deferred action on a case-by-case basis.”

The Juarezes received a call Tuesday from their attorney saying ICE agreed to review her most recent “parole in place” application. But they have rejected her previous three applications, according to Stars and Stripes.

“I love this country. This country has given me great things because we have worked hard. But the America we are living in now is getting full of hate,” Juarez said.

She checked in regularly with immigration authorities during former President Barack Obama’s administration, and says she was always told she is not a criminal and has nothing to worry about.

Now, under Trump’s immigration policy, few exceptions are made for unauthorized immigrants — even in cases when a crime has not been committed.

Alejandra Juarez, who entered the United States illegally from Mexico more than 20 years ago,

She checked in regularly with immigration authorities during former President Barack Obama’s administration, and says she was always told she is not a criminal and has nothing to worry about.



no doubt...

Pete, what makes her more deserving than any other woman on either side of the border who either wants to come her or is already here illegally? Shouldn't they have the opportunity to come here illegally/stay here illegally...marry someone in the service(or not) or have a couple of kids on US soil? Laws for everyone don't work when everyone wants special treatment all of the time