russian interfered with the election in order to help trump, trump welcomed that help, and in fact asked for it publicly, and it has been proven through the meuller report that Russia responded to trump asking for help, and started to do what he asked for within hours of him asking.. all of this is fact. what part of that isn't "an agreement to defraud a 3rd party", and what part is a conspiracy theory? just because the made up definition of "collusion" by the right, requires a secret conspiratorial cabal doesn't make it so.

what argument do you need made? attacking the press is authoritarian, history has shown this.

also project veritas is trash, they have been shown to edit videos as well named said, and their work(propaganda) has been debunked thoroughly.

There was a special counsel appointed by the Republican appointed DOJ to investigate connections between the Trump campaign and the interference into the 2016 election by the Russian government. You think the media was supposed to ignore this?

Several things wrong with this. First, no, China doesn't represent as grave a threat to future peace as Nazi Germany. While China does have ambitions to take over Taiwan, it otherwise doesn't have the same kind of expansionist goals as the Nazis. It is more interested in exerting power over other countries through economic pressure.

Second, you tsk tsk the media for cheerleading against Trump's trade war with China (an inaccurate picture of what the press has actually done here), but say nothing about how this trade war is supposed to actually change China from being a "creepy dictatorship." In fact, economists generally view lower tariffs as a good thing for a country's economy, so Trump raising tariffs on Chinese goods has likely led to less economic growth for the US. Maybe someday something good will come of this, but not so far.

Indeed, it is more accurate to say the Trump's administration has helped China's goal of regional dominance. By rejecting the TPP, which was supposed to unite the ASEAN countries within the American economic system in the Pacific (along with Japan and Australia), Trump has decreased American influence and lowered American stature in the Asia Pacific and caused many of these countries to look more towards China as the economic power of the future in their region.

I can accept your criticism of the news organizations and will agree that you, a private citizen, can use any terms you wish.

However, when you have

1) been elected President of the U.S.,
2) Swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and;
3) are the subject of the story alleging you have illegal ties with Russia

you don't get a pass for repeatedly using the language popularized by Soviet dictators when jailing and killing their political opposition. You get **** on, just like he deserves.

Actually, "Lügenpresse" was a term Germans popularized.

When you read the specific conditions that Mueller put on himself then the "no collusion no obstruction" idea falls apart. Mueller specifically looked into collusion as it pertains to the hacking of emails. He didn't look into the coordination of a publisher and a campaign. So the Russians hacked the emails, hand it off to Assange and from there anything Trump does with Assange is legal. They can coordinate the release of email batches for campaign events, etc and we know they did. But that's all legal. So you have a nearly complete circle of Trump asks Russia to do something, Russia does it, hands it off to a 3rd party, and the campaign coordinates with that 3rd party.

On the obstruction charge Mueller said it was Congress who decides the obstruction charge. So Mueller was never going to say there was obstruction. He just laid out the evidence and any person can certainly infer obstruction from the evidence.

Tooth -

The guy on that video does medical news for CNN. He's not exactly in the thick of the political journalism. If the bigwigs are interested in the narrative, probably it's because they think it gets attention (it does) because it is important (it is).

No "smoking gun" means no grateful email from Trump to Vlad, I guess, but everybody knows about the many contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, and of course the situation continues to develop as transparency inches on.


Trump saying CNN or NYTimes is fake or unreliable, fine - good even. But he doesn't say CNN or NYT - he says "the press is the enemy of the people". That is a terrifying position for the chief executive to have.

all of this

On the abortion debate itt - are people actually believing that Democrats enjoy murdering babies, don't care about babies, or in any way want to encourage third-trimester or partial-birth abortions?!

this

there is a critical difference, in terms of policy analysis/critique, between kids sometimes being incidentally separated from their parents (someone brought up parents committing crimes) and kids being intentionally, systematically targeted for separation

i dont want to put words in anyone's mouths, but yes, i believe they do think that. also that one virginia governor something, something out of context, something..

Trump calling his own campaign slogan "magnificent" and painting it (his slogan) as a victim is also really scary.

it should be obvious to everybody that partial birth abortion is a terrible decision to be faced with, mentally & physically


a woman endures drastic changes to her physiology and psyche for 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 months, and then at the end decides "you know what, actually, **** it"

and the doctors who commit their careers to bringing life into the world line up to encourage the greatest individual sin/crime humanity has to offer



in order to decry the lack of empathy (committing this type of abortion) in good faith, one has to have a staggering lack of empathy themself

It’s pretty rich of you to state the bolded in one sentence, and then accuse the media of gaslighting in the next sentence.

Of April 5, Trump said: “The press is doing everything within their power to fight the magnificence of the phrase, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! They can’t stand the fact that this administration has done more than virtually any administration in its first 2yrs. They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”

In other words, what you wrote is blatantly false.

Do you believe that the NYT or the Washington Post is more likely to misstate facts, or even worse, fabricate facts than Fox or Breitbart? Id be interested in your answer either with respect to reporting generally or reporting that is specific to the Trump administration.

No. But this seems like whataboutism.

And I would say that if we are non-ironically comparing the NYT to Breitbart as journalistic entities, this in itself is a pretty big condemnation of how far the NYT has fallen.

i dont think we are comparing nyt to breitbart at all. i just think its an attempt to see exactly how far off the reality bridge people are..

if people even think fox news is on par with NYT or WaPo then that is pretty telling they aren't completely grounded in reality. fox news has repeatedly allowed their prime time hosts to spew false narratives and hate.

I was not suggesting any sort of equivalence between the NYT and Breitbart. Nor am I guilty of whataboutism, as I have no desire to steer the conversation away from a discussion of the accuracy of the news reporting of the NYT.

I asked the question for purely selfish reasons. I have no interest in debating the accuracy of news reporting, or the legitimacy of Trump’s attacks on the media, with someone who believes that Breitbart reports the news as accurately, or more accurately, than the NYT or the Post.

Exactly this.

There's gonna have to be a rule against dipping or this whole thing is gonna get out of hand.

Ok, fair enough.

I personally don't think accuracy is the main problem of CNN and the NYT. I do think they are too invested in their opposition to Trump, and this has compromised their journalistic integrity.

Fox News NEWS programs are way more accurate than CNN and the MSNBC and sometime the NYT

Fox News prime time hosts are NOT hosting news programs. They are hosting commentary programs, and are as biased and inaccurate as their competitors

but shepahard smith at 3, or bret bair at 6, or even shannon breen at 11 are more accurate news shows than the rest of cable tv ainec

see we already caught one in the not connected to reality trap.

https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-Fox-News



mets, what are you basing this on besides feelings?

Your question is interesting and very telling. Firstly, to answer your question, I do not know. I suspect that (non-editorial) Fox News and the NYT are about equivalent as far as "mistating and fabricating" goes. But your question is irrelevant since it doesn't get to the heart of what bias is. There's this (truly bizarre) modern belief that stating objective facts is sufficient to overcome claims of bias. This would be a howler to our forbears and it's a bit said that we'd declined so much in basic philosophical sophistication. Journalistic bias comes in many forms:

1. Getting facts wrong/mistating/outright fabricating facts (you covered this)

2. The choice of facts and stories that get told. To give an obvious example, the media barely reported on Obama locking up children but massively reported on Trump mostly continuing the practice, including using a 2014 photo (!!!!) of children locked in cages and blaming Trump for it. This is extreme bias against Trump. If Trump does 50% of things well, and 50% of things badly, and the media spends 95% of its time reporting the bad things for Trump and 25% for Obama, that is extreme political bias even if every fact is correct, and the media rightly deserve to get called "fake news" and "the enemy of the people" for inserting their extreme bias in what they report

3. The choice of writers and pundits. We already know the media leans hard left - 28% are Democrats and 6% are Republican, not even close to representative of the population. This changes the philosophy with which items are reported.

4. The use of language and especially adjectives. Trump "rants" about something, Obama "speaks" about it. Language about Trump is often highly charged, dismissive, choosing the negative adjective for actions that don't require it to report the story.

5. Taking the side of Trump-bashing when there's doubt. The Russia collusion story is a classic example. Any sane journalist would come down on the side of "it's probably bull****" as the CNN producer did.

6. Letting critical items go unchallenged while positive statements get challenged. An example is giving a hard grilling/skeptical faces to people who said the Russia narrative was nonsense, while letting pass (now proven false) claims from various pundits that Trump/Russia collusion was a real thing and the president was likely to be indicted by the Muller report.

So basically I think your view of the media is naive as demonstrated in your questioning. The media has heaps of ways of expressing extreme bias and thus presenting an entirely "fake news" image of a president while sticking to facts.

I would love to find a news acuracy report statistic in the Jussie Smolett and the Convigton kids cases. Probably Fox News stands better there than the other msm channels.