NYT

[atlanta cock#]

I saw an ad on the front page of the NYT online paper. It reads: "Journalism that matters. More essential than ever."

I laughed out loud. Seriously, these pompous, smug, self-absorbed a-holes still don't even understand that they are a major reason why Trump won. Their daily attacks will likely assure a Trump victory again in 2020.

 

[usernameDawg]

I saw an ad on the front page of the NYT online paper. It reads: "Journalism that matters. More essential than ever."

I laughed out loud. Seriously, these pompous, smug, self-absorbed a-holes still don't even understand that they are a major reason why Trump won. Their daily attacks will likely assure a Trump victory again in 2020.

So you think they should stop reporting news?

 

[d-dawg]

I saw an ad on the front page of the NYT online paper. It reads: "Journalism that matters. More essential than ever."

I laughed out loud. Seriously, these pompous, smug, self-absorbed a-holes still don't even understand that they are a major reason why Trump won. Their daily attacks will likely assure a Trump victory again in 2020.

I' m not sure why more big city newspapers don't just report the news without their political slant. That is all that people want, but few actually do it. It would seem like their readership would go up with a balanced approach. It seems the ownership could figure it out.

 

[usernameDawg]

I' m not sure why more big city newspapers don't just report the news without their political slant. That is all that people want, but few actually do it. It would seem like their readership would go up with a balanced approach. It seems the ownership could figure it out.

I agree. I think there are way more people in the middle, me included, and both parties seem hell bent on catering to the far right/left. The media certainly contributes to that.

 

[Onion Dawg]

I'm pretty sure that the Donald can find his Goebbels. That ought to make you happy.

 

[Bulldawg1971]

So you think they should stop reporting news?

They need to stop reporting the news with such a biased slant on the issues. What they have been engaging in does not even come close to being real journalism. It's just a smear campaign.

 

[atlanta cock#]

So you think they should stop reporting news?

I think they should start.

 

[atlanta cock#]

I'm pretty sure that the Donald can find his Goebbels. That ought to make you happy.

I'm not sure if you directed that at me, but I think the NYT needs to either report facts and facts only, or if they insist on continuing their cheerleading they need to be more even handed. If they're going to attack Trump every day, then they need to attack all politicians with equal vigor. Some of the asinine crap that comes out of the mouths of Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders needs to be challenged. But that's not the way the NYT is "reporting" these days. It's 100% against the GOP and conservatives in general and a gloss-over, it at all, when it comes to a socialist, DEM or Lefty.

This is EXACTLY why Trump won. Even people who don't necessarily like Trump's tone voted for him anyway because they are absolutely sick of the hypocrisy and bias. Trump is viewed as independent enough and wealthy enough to actually shake things up. The fact that the Media is held in lower esteem than Trump ought to tell you something.

 

[Bulldawg1971]

I think they should start.

Great response! That's hilarious....and true. LOL!!!

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

Here's the thing:

1. The NYT is still "the show". Ask any print journalist where they want to be, and 9/10 will tell you the Times. It's *the* newspaper.
2. The NYT's articles are extremely well written. This isn't USA Today where they're written at an 8th grade level.
3. But, you're right, @atlanta cock# - it's slanted coverage (and I agree about your point with the NYT and Trump). But, honestly, which news source isn't?

My advice to everyone is get your news from sources on both the left and the right, do your own research, take nothing at face value, and make up your own mind. But, yeah, buyer beware.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Here's the thing:

1. The NYT is still "the show". Ask any print journalist where they want to be, and 9/10 will tell you the Times. It's *the* newspaper.
2. The NYT's articles are extremely well written. This isn't USA Today where they're written at an 8th grade level.
3. But, you're right, @atlanta cock# - it's slanted coverage (and I agree about your point with the NYT and Trump). But, honestly, which news source isn't?

My advice to everyone is get your news from sources on both the left and the right, do your own research, take nothing at face value, and make up your own mind. But, yeah, buyer beware.

That's the only way to do it. Then you will see how dishonest the left is. If you just watch CNN....you're lost. But comparing "how" CNN reports a given news event as opposed to FOX is very interesting. Of course MSNBC is a joke but nobody watches them anyway.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

That's the only way to do it. Then you will see how dishonest the left is. If you just watch CNN....you're lost. But comparing "how" CNN reports a given news event as opposed to FOX is very interesting. Of course MSNBC is a joke but nobody watches them anyway.

Yes because Fox isn't at all dishonest ever

 

[Onion Dawg]

Yes because Fox isn't at all dishonest ever

I hope you're being sarcastic about FOX.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

I hope you're being sarcastic about FOX.

Extremely

 

[Onion Dawg]

Extremely

I sometimes wonder if the most manipulative people on the planet aren't Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Of course, Ailes isn't there anymore, but he jumped on the Trump Train with 40 million in his pocket.

 

[atlanta cock#]

I sometimes wonder if the most manipulative people on the planet aren't Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. Of course, Ailes isn't there anymore, but he jumped on the Trump Train with 40 million in his pocket.

Roger Ailes is no longer at FOX.

I'll say this about FOX as compared to the other outlets. At least FOX is honest in that they don't hide their opinion under the guise of news. They tell you up front which programs are news and which are opinion. None of the other outlets do that, and all of the other outlets blend their opinion with news. I still watch NBC and ABC on Sunday morning in addition to FOX. And, I watch MSNBC when I can stomach it because I want to see how they are portraying events. The difference is striking. But, at least I feel like I'm seeing the story from different sides.

One thing they all do that I dislike is their anchors are now highly paid celebrities. They advertise their news programs, and they include these dramatic or Hollywood-esque photos. That's BS. News is supposed to be a public service. It's supposed to be a loss leader. Anchors are supposed to be ugly, smart, business-like and serious. Remember David Brinkley?

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

I'll say this about FOX as compared to the other outlets. At least FOX is honest in that they don't hide their opinion under the guise of news. They tell you up front which programs are news and which are opinion. None of the other outlets do that, and all of the other outlets blend their opinion with news. I still watch NBC and ABC on Sunday morning in addition to FOX. And, I watch MSNBC when I can stomach it because I want to see how they art portraying events. The difference is striking. But, at least I feel like I'm seeing the story from different sides.

I think this is an important paragraph in several ways.

1. I think people, in general, who consume news have a tough time differentiating reporting from opinion/editorial.
2. While you may know the difference in Bret Baier's program and Bill O's, I'm not sure the vast majority of Fox watchers know.
3. At the same time, I'm pretty sure you get that Chuck Todd's MSNBC show and Rachel Maddow's are different just the way that Baier's and O'Reilly's programs are. #2 applies here, too. I'm not sure the average MSNBC watcher gets the difference either.

But, in short, kudos to you for getting your news from different points of view. Too many people just watch/consume news that supports their ideology. I think it's important for everyone to challenge their pre-conceived assumptions.

 

[atlanta cock#]

I think this is an important paragraph in several ways.

1. I think people, in general, who consume news have a tough time differentiating reporting from opinion/editorial.
2. While you may know the difference in Bret Baier's program and Bill O's, I'm not sure the vast majority of Fox watchers know.
3. At the same time, I'm pretty sure you get that Chuck Todd's MSNBC show and Rachel Maddow's are different just the way that Baier's and O'Reilly's programs are. #2 applies here, too. I'm not sure the average MSNBC watcher gets the difference either.

But, in short, kudos to you for getting your news from different points of view. Too many people just watch/consume news that supports their ideology. I think it's important for everyone to challenge their pre-conceived assumptions.

I definitely understand #3. But, when you watch Todd or Stephanopoulos on Sunday AM, they are loaded for bear when it comes to Trump or anything anti-Obama. When you watch all of the MSM nightly news (at 6:30/7:00), they are always sympathetic to the illegal immigrant, BLM, OWS, LGBT and black community. They always will find the fat, white, toothless hick to interview.

Go read the column by Kristin Tate from The Hill. I linked it in a different thread. She is spot on.

Remember the old days when the anchor would express an opinion near the end of the news program and the word "Editorial" displayed across the bottom of the screen? Those days are long gone.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

Remember the old days when the anchor would express an opinion near the end of the news program and the word "Editorial" displayed across the bottom of the screen? Those days are long gone.

Great call on this. The other problem is that all these cable shows bring on "analysts" who are really just mouthpieces for their respective party. The lines between reporting and opinion are blurred a lot now as opposed to the days you're referencing.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

So you think they should stop reporting news?

They don't report the news, they make it up as they go

 

[usernameDawg]

They don't report the news, they make it up as they go

Ok

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Yes because Fox isn't at all dishonest ever

Fox has homers like Hannity and Tucker Carlson. But they say exactly what they are. FOX news anchors are not professional democrat operative liars like Jake Tapper, Wolfe Blitzer and Anderson Goober. FOX reports the NEWS when they claim that's what they are doing. Shepard Smith is an openly queer democrat. You cannot name 1 conservative presence at CNN. That's because they are completely in the tank for the democRAT party.
But then, you know that. You knew they were covering for Hillary Clinton too. You simply have made the decision to go along with it even though it's not right.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

Fox has homers like Hannity and Tucker Carlson. But they say exactly what they are. FOX news anchors are not professional democrat operative liars like Jake Tapper, Wolfe Blitzer and Anderson Goober. FOX reports the NEWS when they claim that's what they are doing. Shepard Smith is an openly queer democrat. You cannot name 1 conservative presence at CNN. That's because they are completely in the tank for the democRAT party.
But then, you know that. You knew they were covering for Hillary Clinton too. You simply have made the decision to go along with it even though it's not right.

You extrapolated an awful lot about me that I didn't say. You always do that with people? Because you're not very good at it

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Ok

Good, there's help for you then

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Here's the thing:

1. The NYT is still "the show". Ask any print journalist where they want to be, and 9/10 will tell you the Times. It's *the* newspaper.
2. The NYT's articles are extremely well written. This isn't USA Today where they're written at an 8th grade level.
3. But, you're right, @atlanta cock# - it's slanted coverage (and I agree about your point with the NYT and Trump). But, honestly, which news source isn't?

My advice to everyone is get your news from sources on both the left and the right, do your own research, take nothing at face value, and make up your own mind. But, yeah, buyer beware.

No doubt, "the truth is out there." But, it takes time and effort and patience to sort through all the gaps and slights and tones and bias and eye rolls to find a healthy percentage of the "whole truth." Heck, we can't even get "whole truth and nothing but the truth" out of our court rooms. We love to spin and to be spun. I believe we are the problem, not news media, not politicians or businessmen. We set ourselves up to be divided and controlled on just about every topic or issue that comes along. But, as long as they comfort us with assuring tones and entertain us, we'll keep buying the narrative that appeals to our personal set of sensibilities most and reelecting the crooks that pretend best that they really care about what pushes our buttons. We suck at choosing leadership, but we're darn good at choosing sides (rah, rah, go team go and all that pap) and getting into a line for gratifications.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

No doubt, "the truth is out there." But, it takes time and effort and patience to sort through all the gaps and slights and tones and bias and eye rolls to find a healthy percentage of the "whole truth." Heck, we can't even get "whole truth and nothing but the truth" out of our court rooms. We love to spin and to be spun. I believe we are the problem, not news media, not politicians or businessmen. We set ourselves up to be divided and controlled on just about every topic or issue that comes along. But, as long as they comfort us with assuring tones and entertain us, we'll keep buying the narrative that appeals to our personal set of sensibilities most and reelecting the crooks that pretend best that they really care about what pushes our buttons. We suck at choosing leadership, but we're darn good at choosing sides (rah, rah, go team go and all that pap) and getting into a line for gratifications.

This was depressing to read but probably a lot of truth to it.

 

[Hoffman_rg]

I saw an ad on the front page of the NYT online paper. It reads: "Journalism that matters. More essential than ever."

I laughed out loud. Seriously, these pompous, smug, self-absorbed a-holes still don't even understand that they are a major reason why Trump won. Their daily attacks will likely assure a Trump victory again in 2020.

It is interesting though that the NYT, WAPO and other media sources reported repeatedly that Trump was wiretapped and/or surveilled. Now when they realize it won't help their leftist agenda, they refuse to take ownership of their own news. The MSM is not in the business of reporting correct info unless it helps the left wing agenda. When the situation evolves
so it doesn't help their agenda, they just drop it like a hot potato.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

 

[Whosyodawgy]

You extrapolated an awful lot about me that I didn't say. You always do that with people? Because you're not very good at it

But you are an expert at changing the subject. Name one conservative presence on CNN. Hell, add in MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS. See how many you can name. Practically none, that's how many because they are practically all democRAT party members.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Greta Van Sustren (sp) signed on with MSNBC. But it doesn't matter if every news outlet does nothing but point-counterpoint arguments by representatives from both sides of every issue or tidbit or rumor, nothing would ever get settled. No concludions would be drawn and no solutions crafted. Why? Because that would kill the goose that daily lays the golden egg of controversy, division and chaos.

Same with our "representatives" in government. Why in 50 years of same old promises and platitudes of comfort and hope have WE (our godfathers in DC) not resolved inner city woes and gang violence and inequalities in education and employment? We/they discuss them all endlessly, but inneffectively and never efficiently solve them. Just imagine if our school systems had at least kept pace with rest of the world. That would have been a huge head start 40 years ago, but we can't even get that right.

 

[Onion Dawg]

Roger Ailes is no longer at FOX.

I'll say this about FOX as compared to the other outlets. At least FOX is honest in that they don't hide their opinion under the guise of news. They tell you up front which programs are news and which are opinion. None of the other outlets do that, and all of the other outlets blend their opinion with news. I still watch NBC and ABC on Sunday morning in addition to FOX. And, I watch MSNBC when I can stomach it because I want to see how they are portraying events. The difference is striking. But, at least I feel like I'm seeing the story from different sides.

One thing they all do that I dislike is their anchors are now highly paid celebrities. They advertise their news programs, and they include these dramatic or Hollywood-esque photos. That's BS. News is supposed to be a public service. It's supposed to be a loss leader. Anchors are supposed to be ugly, smart, business-like and serious. Remember David Brinkley?

Yes, and I remember Chet Huntley, John Chancellor, and Walter Cronkite. You and I are probably two of the only ones on here who remember 30 minute national news and reporting the facts. There was no Joe and Mika and no Sean. The Sunday morning shows, Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation were all good opinion shows. But then Fair and Balanced became extreme right wing, reporting Republican talking points as the Fox operatives curled up next to an administration that got us into a war we didn't need to be in.

Have you read American Theocracy. Somehow the book quotes Dick Chaney in a speech he made before the American and British oil lobby before he became Vice President. "And when we go into Iraq, the concessions from the second largest oil reserve in the world will"...can't remember the rest right now, but you get the picture.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

But you are an expert at changing the subject. Name one conservative presence on CNN. Hell, add in MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS. See how many you can name. Practically none, that's how many because they are practically all democRAT party members.

Conservative on those networks: George Will, Joe Scarborough, Steve Schmidt, etc etc. There are plenty. But that was never my point. My point is that if you believe Fox News doesn't ever make shit up (news or Opinion side), you've been sold a bill of goods. But it was never my point that news stations aren't slanted - they all are.

Somehow you extrapolated that very simple truth into my being an apologist for CNN. You either didn't read what I wrote in this thread or just assume that someone who doesn't blow Fox at all times must be an apologist for CNN. Either way, try to do better and try to keep up with the conversation, chief.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Yes, and I remember Chet Huntley, John Chancellor, and Walter Cronkite. You and I are probably two of the only ones on here who remember 30 minute national news and reporting the facts. There was no Joe and Mika and no Sean. The Sunday morning shows, Meet the Press, This Week, and Face the Nation were all good opinion shows. But then Fair and Balanced became extreme right wing, reporting Republican talking points as the Fox operatives curled up next to an administration that got us into a war we didn't need to be in.

Have you read American Theocracy. Somehow the book quotes Dick Chaney in a speech he made before the American and British oil lobby before he became Vice President. "And when we go into Iraq, the concessions from the second largest oil reserve in the world will"...can't remember the rest right now, but you get the picture.

You're probably correct about you and me being the only 2 who recall the way it used to be. Where we disagree is you blaming FOX. I see it differently. The MSM became increasingly liberal over time to the point where Murdoch and Aisles (correctly) saw a vacuum. They smartly seized the opportunity. I'm not sure when or why the NYT shifted left, but they and others did. But, at least half the country doesn't really agree with them. In fact, I'd bet the majority of the country is actually Libertarian - fiscally conservative and socially moderate-liberal.

During Clinton, talk radio was mostly Right, but the MSM drifted Left. During Bush 43, the MSM became openly hostile. That's when FOX really took off.

 

[atlanta cock#]

For the record, I voted for Bush 43 mainly because I couldn't stand his opponents. Much like why I voted for Trump in the general, but I didn't vote for him in the primary. I didn't like Cheney all that much. Gore, Kerry and Hillary were just God awful.

 

[donalsonville_dawg]

You're probably correct about you and me being the only 2 who recall the way it used to be. Where we disagree is you blaming FOX. I see it differently. The MSM became increasingly liberal over time to the point where Murdoch and Aisles (correctly) saw a vacuum. They smartly seized the opportunity.

This is 1000% percent correct. The three networks and the major papers became very liberal during and post Reagan. Fox and talk radio fill the vacuum left by them. If the 3 networks had played it straight during the 1990s, there would be no Fox News.

Great post; I award you one like

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Conservative on those networks: George Will, Joe Scarborough, Steve Schmidt, etc etc. There are plenty. But that was never my point. My point is that if you believe Fox News doesn't ever make shit up (news or Opinion side), you've been sold a bill of goods. But it was never my point that news stations aren't slanted - they all are.

Somehow you extrapolated that very simple truth into my being an apologist for CNN. You either didn't read what I wrote in this thread or just assume that someone who doesn't blow Fox at all times must be an apologist for CNN. Either way, try to do better and try to keep up with the conversation, chief.

Joe Scarborough...lol
Conservative presence as in NEWS anchor. There isn't one. I know that because I do not only get information from FOX but all the major sources. It's fairly simple: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Greta Van Sustren (sp) signed on with MSNBC. But it doesn't matter if every news outlet does nothing but point-counterpoint arguments by representatives from both sides of every issue or tidbit or rumor, nothing would ever get settled. No concludions would be drawn and no solutions crafted. Why? Because that would kill the goose that daily lays the golden egg of controversy, division and chaos.

Same with our "representatives" in government. Why in 50 years of same old promises and platitudes of comfort and hope have WE (our godfathers in DC) not resolved inner city woes and gang violence and inequalities in education and employment. We/they discuss them all endlessly, but innefectively and never efficiently solve them. Just imagine if our school systems had at least kept pace with rest of the world. We can't even get that right.

We give away much more $ and human effort than it would take to fix the problems that plague us internally. There can only be one reason to perpetuate such madness. A powerful group has to be profiting from it. IMO it was BOTH parties and the elitists who really run them before Mr. Trump commandeered the Republican vehicle. IMO that is why we saw the globalist Republicans (Bush, Romney etc) oppose Trump so vehemently. It is also why opposition to his "America First" policies meet such tremendous, entrenched opposition. On the face of it, the proposition to fix what ails OUR nation should be universally embraced.

But, special interests don't want that. Special interests don't want unification between our diversity of races. Special interests don't want our inner city ghettos to become productive. People with a reason to protect what they have worked for vote very differently than people who just wait for a check they did not earn, regardless of what race that person is. The democRATs make a living sowing division and chaos. They trade a free check for a vote. The old guard republican establishment is just as bad on other fronts such as international trade. A combination of Republican and Democrat administrations have sold this country down the river for the benefit of their globalist, elitist entrepreneur masters such as George Soros, the Rockefeller clan, Buffet, Gates, Rothschild and others.

How is it that the democrats claim to represent the poor, yet they have far, far more money than the Republicans who the media tells us represents the rich people?
I'm afraid the answers are sinister. Mr. Trump, for all his warts, knows first hand what is going on. He ran for president for the right reason. He was concerned with the disastrous direction in which his country was careening at breakneck speed. God bless him. I hope he can overcome the onslaught. His policies make sense for OUR country. We'd better protect that or the rest of it won't matter.