Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
Well Supremecists, KKK, American Nazis no because they aren't nazis.
Real NAZIS - put a bullet in their brains. But as the Nazi party died Spring 1945, they would be 90+ now...
This guy was a Nazi feth (alright, neo-Nazi feth) through and through, though. He just hasn't done anything because, like most Nazis, he's a spineless coward.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
On the one hand, I believe that violence in lieu of speech is wrong, even against Nazis (assuming the nazis are being peaceful, or about as peaceful for any group that advocates genocide).
On the other, to see that Nazi feth get punched and then completely wuss out did my heart good.
Well Supremecists, KKK, American Nazis no because they aren't nazis.
Real NAZIS - put a bullet in their brains. But as the Nazi party died Spring 1945, they would be 90+ now...
This guy was a Nazi feth (alright, neo-Nazi feth) through and through, though. He just hasn't done anything because, like most Nazis, he's a spineless coward.
Not a Nazi. Shoot Nazis
Just a nazi. Point and laugh at them nelson style. HAH hah!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
A Nazi is a Nazi is a god damn fething Nazi. This pussyfooting around letting human gak stains run their fething mouths is bs. People expect folks to smack their kids in the mouth when they say nasty gak so why do these racist cock gobblers get a free pass?
lonestarr777 wrote: A Nazi is a Nazi is a god damn fething Nazi. This pussyfooting around letting human gak stains run their fething mouths is bs. People expect folks to smack their kids in the mouth when they say nasty gak so why do these racist cock gobblers get a free pass?
Are you trolling or serious?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
Zywus wrote: It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
That's because the saying is "never again", not "never again, unless stopping the Nazis would require hurting anyone".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.”
— Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.”
Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.”
Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....”
— Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.”
— Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.”
— CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.”
— Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.”
— Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.”
— New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.”
— USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.”
— New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.”
— Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins."
— Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo."
— Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"...
Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way."
— MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama."
— NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck."
— National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?"
The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'"
— Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that."
— NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists."
— Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
There's a difference between negative stories themselves compared to how it's spun.
Ya know... the bias towards a certain ideology or group.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
No.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:30:57
And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
I am sick and tired of nasty people getting a pass on being ugly to each other because 'Free Speech'. I get it, you can say anything you want, but if you make a joke about a VW bugs ashtray you shouldn't be surprised if you find your lip bloody. You wanna act like a piece of human garbage, you go right ahead, don't expect a lick of sympathy from me if someone teaches you some damn manners.
I live in a rural backwards hellhole, I know firsthand you ain't reaching these people with kind words and good intentions.
More of these scumbags deserve being taught to think before they run their mouth.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:35:04
Gordon Shumway wrote: And he is still using "the media" to point out how bad "the media" is. The hypocrisy is amazing. Hey, Whem, point out how badly "the media" was indebted to Obama without quoting a media source.
Now you're being dense and playing the gotcha game.
I am sick and tired of nasty people getting a pass on being ugly to each other because 'Free Speech'. I get it, you can say anything you want, but if you make a joke about a VW bugs ashtray you shouldn't be surprised if you find your lip bloody. You wanna act like a piece of human garbage, you go right ahead, don't expect a lick of sympathy from me if someone teaches you some damn manners.
I live in a rural backwards hellhole, I know firsthand you ain't reaching these people with kind words and good intentions.
More of these scumbags deserve being taught to think before they run their mouth.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
That said, you're more the free to respond in a non-violent manner. Go ahead and let 'em know what you think....
It's really the price we need to pay to enjoy freedom of expression.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:37:37
So your proof that the press was soft on Obama are stories covered by the press?
Now who's underhanded here?
Furthermore, many in the industry admits there's bias:
Spoiler:
“There is no doubt that the press failed to scrutinize this program [ObamaCare] at the time of passage and during the context of the President’s re-election. I think any reporter who would argue otherwise would be putting their head in the sand.” — Time/MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin on FNC’s The O’Reilly Factor, November 21, 2013.
Buzzfeed’s Michael Hastings: “The presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day, when they’re near him, they lose their mind sometimes. You know, they start behaving in ways that are juvenile and amateurish. And they swoon.” Host Martin Bashir: “And, of course, you don’t.” Hastings: “Oh, I do. No, I do, I do, I do. Oh, I totally, oh, man....” — Discussing Hastings’ book about the 2012 presidential campaign on MSNBC’s Martin Bashir, January 24, 2013.
“So many [reporters and editors] share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of the Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in the Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.” — Outgoing public editor Arthur Brisbane in his final New York Times column, August 26, 2012.
“Ultimately journalism has changed....Partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.” — CBS Corporation Chairman and CEO Les Moonves as quoted in a June 7, 2012 Los Angeles Times story by Robin Abcarian and Kathleen Hennessey.
“I think that the media is as divided on this issue [of gay marriage] as the Obama family — which is to say not at all. And so he’s never going to get negative coverage for this....When you have almost the entire media establishment on your side on an issue in a presidential campaign, it’s very hard to lose politically.” — Mark Halperin on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, May 10, 2012.
“Are reporters biased? There is no doubt that — I’ve worked at the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and worked here at Politico. If I had to guess, if you put all of the reporters that I’ve ever worked with on truth serum, most of them vote Democratic.” — Politico's Jim VandeHei during C-SPAN's coverage of the GOP primaries, March 13, 2012.
“No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House.” — New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann, January 27, 2012.
“When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine.” — USA Today founder Al Neuharth in his August 19, 2011 column.
“If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I’m pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea.” — New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller in a column for the paper’s June 19, 2011 Sunday Magazine.
“You guys talk about her [Sarah Palin] a lot, we write about her a lot, yet if you talk to any single reporter at any media organization that we’re aware of, I don’t think that anyone thinks she can be President or should be President.” — Politico executive editor Jim VandeHei, a former Washington Post political reporter, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, June 14, 2011.
"The mainstream press is liberal....Since the civil rights and women's movements, the culture wars and Watergate, the press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite — well-educated men and women who tend to favor abortion rights, women's rights, civil rights, and gay rights. In the main, they find such figures as Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Pat Robertson, or Jerry Falwell beneath contempt....If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins." — Longtime Washington Post political reporter Thomas Edsall in an October 8, 2009 essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, 'Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism.'
"I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for [Barack] Obama. I did. There are centrists at the Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo." — Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell in her November 16, 2008 column.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "The media has been really, really biased this campaign, I think....Is the media just in love with history here, Mark, do you think?"... Time's Mark Halperin: "I think mistakes have been made and people will regret it....If Obama wins and goes on to become a hugely successful President, I think, still, people will look back and say it just wasn't done the right way." — MSNBC's Morning Joe, October 28, 2008.
"If you were going to events during the primaries, what you saw was that the executive editors and the top people at the networks were all rushing to Obama events, bringing their children, celebrating it, saying they were, there's this part of history....The American people are smart, they can see this. That's why Obama's on every magazine cover.... There's no question in my mind the media has been more supportive of Senator Obama." — NPR's Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday, October 26, 2008.
"Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck." — National Journal columnist Stuart Taylor, September 20, 2008.
Host Howard Kurtz: "Are journalists rooting for the Obama story?" The Politico's John Harris, referring to when he worked at the Washington Post: "It wouldn't surprise me that there's some of that....A couple years ago, you would send a reporter out with Obama, and it was like they needed to go through detox when they came back — 'Oh, he's so impressive, he's so charismatic,' and we're kind of like, 'Down, boy.'" — Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, January 13, 2008.
"From a reporter's point of view, it's almost hard to remain objective because it's infectious, the energy, I think. It sort of goes against your core to say that as a reporter, but the crowds have gotten so much bigger, his energy has gotten stronger. He feeds off that." — NBC reporter Lee Cowan in an MSNBC.com video about the Obama campaign posted January 7, 2008.
"If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists." — Seattle Times Executive Editor David Boardman in an August 15, 2007 e-mail to his staff, posted by Poynter.org.
And he still has had more negative coverage than both his opponents, and adversaries coverage during his terms.
Are you walking back your argument from "no adversarial press" to "not adversarial enough for your liking"?
This would be 100% accurate if you were born in 2008 and did not live through previous administrations.
Frazzled review of overall press coverage: worst to best: This is a completely scientific review and 100% accurate. Further its the best review ever done after bigly levels of number crunching.
Worst: Reagan. The media HATED Reagan with the white hot passion of thousand suns. They would run daily homeless stories the moment he was elected. Bush II: for 12 months after 9/11 they were very positive. before no. After Iraq heck no. Justified coverage...maybe Bush I last year. painted as inept and uncaring about recession even though helped said recession and recession was over. Clinton 1st Half. Initially loved (saxaphone guy) but deteriorated. Clinton 2nd H: Clinton got it right and distracted the media and he (Morris) played them like a master conductor with the plan of a new issue/news a day. Bush I first 3 years. Media liked him overall and treated him like THE ADULT IN THE ROOM.
I've never seen the media lose their minds like they did over Trump. Part of the media was cray cray over Obama but its spread to all the media is cray cray over Trump. Clinton: first 6 years
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:45:21
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: The petty argument is not about the size.
The actual argument is about the lie.
Eh? I thought Spicer et. & el. were arguing it's the largest crowd ever...
Did they walk that back?
No, Whem'. The point is that they lied about something so insignificant, and obviously, not what the lie was. And that they then talked about keeping the media "in check" (or whatever the phrase was)... because they called them out on such an obvious lie.
Remember what Spicer actually said: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."
Snopes won't call it false instead calling it unproven.
Team Trump got the Press (and all you) to piss and moan over it the last few days, massively diminishing the coverage of the Women's March and other issues. Pretty brilliant move really. Media shown a cookie and dove right for it, not realizing they got played. False or not, Team Trump is making the media dance like an organ grinder's monkey.
Is Entertainment Weekly a trustworthy source? They provide actual viewership numbers and Nielson ratings in the article. I'm not sure if this is an instance of semantic differences or outright lying. I don't have cable and I'm not on facebook or twitter so I'm not really exposed to stuff like press conferences in real time.
Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years
James Hibberd@JamesHibberd
Updated January 23, 2017 at 8:17am EST
Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks.
The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office.
But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).
Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.
Is Entertainment Weekly a trustworthy source? They provide actual viewership numbers and Nielson ratings in the article. I'm not sure if this is an instance of semantic differences or outright lying. I don't have cable and I'm not on facebook or twitter so I'm not really exposed to stuff like press conferences in real time.
Trump inauguration ratings second biggest in 36 years
James Hibberd@JamesHibberd
Updated January 23, 2017 at 8:17am EST
Donald Trump’s inauguration ratings were the second-highest in 36 years, according to Nielsen.
The swearing-in of the 45th president was seen by 30.6 million viewers across 12 networks.
The only inauguration over the last three decades that tops Trump’s number in the linear ratings? Barack Obama’s first inauguration back in 2009, which had a record-setting 37.8 million viewers. So Trump was down from the last new president to take office.
But before that, to get an Inauguration Day number this high, you’d have to go all the way back to Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was seen by 41.8 million viewers (Nielsen released tracking for inauguration ratings back to 1969).
Trump’s numbers are all the more remarkable considering he’s entering into office with rather low approval ratings compared to past presidents and sparked protests worldwide along with vows to not watch his inauguration.
And actually, Trump could have been seen by more viewers than either Obama or Reagan. Nielsen ratings do not account for online viewing, which has grown sharply in recent years and is far more commonplace than even four years ago. CNN.com, for example, clocked 16.9 million live streams, tying with its Election Day coverage for the site’s top event (live stream tallies are typically not apples-to-apples with Nielsen’s strict methodology of counting average viewers, but are still additive). Plus, portals like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter offered live streams as well.
In terms of linear coverage, Fox News topped all networks, averaging 8.8 million viewers for the day and peaking with 11 million viewers from noon to 1 p.m. This was the highest-rated inauguration coverage in the network’s history. While on broadcast, NBC was top ranked with 5.8 million viewers for the day.
It really is as simple as the rain. Even if it was light rain, the forecast was rain. People aren't going to go out and stand on the mall in rain when they can just sit at home and watch the inauguration on TV/Internet. I don't think his popularity is really relevant to why people didn't turn out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:43:46
Zywus wrote: It always bother me how quick and easy people gleefully cast aside any principles they normally hold as soon as there's nazis concerned I mean, I guess there's a fair bit of tongue in cheek involved for most, but it is a bit disconcerting.
That's because the saying is "never again", not "never again, unless stopping the Nazis would require hurting anyone".
If these alt right neo Nazis start to take action against people then yes they should be forcibly stopped. However, the whole "never again" concept doesn't mean that you should go out and assault somebody because you don't like their twitter feed or the what they post on the internet.
BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:46:27
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Remember the Grim Milestone that was plaster every night and newspaper during Duyba's tenure?
Nary a peep for Obama's...
I remember those with Nixon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: BTW, how is the stock market doing? My Windows keeps sending me notices (despite continually turning them off...) that the market is down "amid anxiety about Trump's policies."
Down 27 per Yahoo.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:50:34
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
There's nothing stopping you from going up to the Nazi and call out the asshattery if they expouses "we should commit genocide".
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
Time to take a trip back to San Francisco....
The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
There's nothing stopping you from going up to the Nazi and call out the asshattery if they expouses "we should commit genocide".
Well you’re no fun.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:55:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom fromspeech.
This is not a freedom of/from speech issue, it's a freedom from Nazis issue. You punch Nazis because ideas like "we should commit genocide" should not be tolerated, and should be crushed before they turn into actions.
Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:53:26
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
So... you fear the rise of Nazi Germany in our court system?
Opposed killing Hitler? WTF? We were at war with Germany!
Yeah... that's bonkers.
o.O
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/23 21:56:37
whembly wrote: The courts, and rightly so, disagrees with you.
The courts in Nazi Germany considered mass executions to be legal, so long as all the correct paperwork was done. Would you have opposed killing Hilter just because it wouldn't be legal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Cool. Following that logic I can split the skull of a commie. I like this game.
If said communist is advocating the extermination of an entire race, then yes. But I haven't seen too many of those "communists".
Are there people in the US organizing legalized mass executions that require our violent opposition? Not liking what people say in public or online isn't a reasonable justification to kill them or even assault them. That's true regardless of whether or not whembly has access to a time machine, the ability to plot a successful assassination of Hitler and the will to carry it out.
3000
4000 
