IDBillzFan Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 And already the Washington Post has vetted Scott Walker far more than they ever did Barack Obama. And the WaPo is by far the most balanced of the left-leaning MSM. Imagine how bad this will get by next spring. Maybe he even cut someone's hair!!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-scott-walker-mulls-white-house-bid-questions-linger-over-college-exit/2015/02/11/8e17ea44-b13e-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html It's amazing to me how stupid liberals can be. Unless you spend a lot of time either in politics or in Wisconsin, you have no idea who Scott Walker is. So what do they do? Give him a free ride to Get To Know Me Town. Perhaps when WaPo is done with this, they can start wondering where Barry's transcripts are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 You know, national media, a governor being pressured to resign over corrupt influence-peddling is the sort of thing that usually dominates news cycles. If only there were some bridge lane closures.............then it might make the Sunday Shows..........................lol . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Not really seeing the issue here. Of course the Washington Post is going to jump all over this and ignore other stories that they don't feel are as salient *now*. There has been a long established tradition of leaving the president's children, especially minor children, out of the mix. They're kids. They didn't ask for this attention. And rightfully anyone who pierces that veil should be rebuked. That's not partisan; that should be the outlook of any good parent - and I imagine that the Post is made up of plenty of them. I remember editorials at the Post rebuking the NY Times for an unflattering piece that they wrote about Jenna Bush and her penchant for frequenting bars and enjoying strong drink - when she was 19. The Clintons, and established media outlets, jumped down the throat of some magazine (I believe it was Vanity Fair) for doing a story on Chelsea Clinton. It wasn't bad; but it affected their ability to try to parent in some sort of traditional sense irrespective of the constraints and attention of their public responsibility. Again, I see this less as a bias issue, and more of an effort to reinforce the precedent that the president's minor children are categorically off limits. And anyone who runs afoul of that tradition will be met with strong rebuke. And think of this also in this "anti-bullying" culture that we live in. it just seems like there is a lot of context here that is missing to make some political point. There may, indeed, be a bias; I'm just not sure that this is the strongest example to make your point. And, incidentally, Jenna agrees: http://www.inquisitr.com/1654822/jenna-bush-defends-sasha-and-malia-obama-history-of-first-daughters-shows-challenges-video/ Edited February 13, 2015 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Well, that didn't take long............................see reply#142 Now.....................if I could just figure out, what letter is missing from this AP news alert ?...........hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Anyone here watch OANN One America News Network. They're about as politically neutral as you can get. They also cover a lot of human interest stories that the sex-for-sale major networks and cable news shows couldn't be bothered with. Check them out if your service provider carries them. I'm beginning to watch them a bit more from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Not really seeing the issue here. Of course the Washington Post is going to jump all over this and ignore other stories that they don't feel are as salient *now*. There has been a long established tradition of leaving the president's children, especially minor children, out of the mix. They're kids. They didn't ask for this attention. And rightfully anyone who pierces that veil should be rebuked. That's not partisan; that should be the outlook of any good parent - and I imagine that the Post is made up of plenty of them. I remember editorials at the Post rebuking the NY Times for an unflattering piece that they wrote about Jenna Bush and her penchant for frequenting bars and enjoying strong drink - when she was 19. The Clintons, and established media outlets, jumped down the throat of some magazine (I believe it was Vanity Fair) for doing a story on Chelsea Clinton. It wasn't bad; but it affected their ability to try to parent in some sort of traditional sense irrespective of the constraints and attention of their public responsibility. Again, I see this less as a bias issue, and more of an effort to reinforce the precedent that the president's minor children are categorically off limits. And anyone who runs afoul of that tradition will be met with strong rebuke. And think of this also in this "anti-bullying" culture that we live in. it just seems like there is a lot of context here that is missing to make some political point. There may, indeed, be a bias; I'm just not sure that this is the strongest example to make your point. And, incidentally, Jenna agrees: http://www.inquisitr.com/1654822/jenna-bush-defends-sasha-and-malia-obama-history-of-first-daughters-shows-challenges-video/ The press totally ignored stories about Chelsea Clinton getting s-faced at the DKE parties on the Stanford campus when she went there. I worked there then and she used to go every weekend and have to be helped home by her secret service bodyguards. We had an undergrad in the lab that was a member of DKE and he would give us the latest update every Monday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 The press totally ignored stories about Chelsea Clinton getting s-faced at the DKE parties on the Stanford campus when she went there. I worked there then and she used to go every weekend and have to be helped home by her secret service bodyguards. We had an undergrad in the lab that was a member of DKE and he would give us the latest update every Monday Could really care less about Chelsea Clinton getting s-faced at a frat house, the Bush twins partying habits, or whatever Obama's kids do. Tho in the case of the Bush twins, especially Barbara the Younger , I wouldn't have minded being there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Here's another example of liberal bias. This story has kind of died on the vine. Turns out the guys a big liberal that loves rachel maddow and so on. Thats why it's not a big deal. If he said he loved Rush or Mark Levine could you imagine? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c4f_1423718143 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/chapel-hill-shooting-three-young-muslims-gunned-down-in-north-carolina-at-their-family-home-10037734.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) Not really seeing the issue here. Of course the Washington Post is going to jump all over this and ignore other stories that they don't feel are as salient *now*. There has been a long established tradition of leaving the president's children, especially minor children, out of the mix. They're kids. They didn't ask for this attention. And rightfully anyone who pierces that veil should be rebuked. That's not partisan; that should be the outlook of any good parent - and I imagine that the Post is made up of plenty of them. I remember editorials at the Post rebuking the NY Times for an unflattering piece that they wrote about Jenna Bush and her penchant for frequenting bars and enjoying strong drink - when she was 19. The Clintons, and established media outlets, jumped down the throat of some magazine (I believe it was Vanity Fair) for doing a story on Chelsea Clinton. It wasn't bad; but it affected their ability to try to parent in some sort of traditional sense irrespective of the constraints and attention of their public responsibility. Again, I see this less as a bias issue, and more of an effort to reinforce the precedent that the president's minor children are categorically off limits. And anyone who runs afoul of that tradition will be met with strong rebuke. And think of this also in this "anti-bullying" culture that we live in. it just seems like there is a lot of context here that is missing to make some political point. There may, indeed, be a bias; I'm just not sure that this is the strongest example to make your point. And, incidentally, Jenna agrees: http://www.inquisitr.com/1654822/jenna-bush-defends-sasha-and-malia-obama-history-of-first-daughters-shows-challenges-video/ Welcome back. We haven't always agreed, but I always respected your position, even though i thought it was FUBARED. Now that I know that you didn't croak on us, please bring it on! Edited February 14, 2015 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 14, 2015 Author Share Posted February 14, 2015 Not really seeing the issue here. Of course the Washington Post is going to jump all over this and ignore other stories that they don't feel are as salient *now*. There has been a long established tradition of leaving the president's children, especially minor children, out of the mix. They're kids. They didn't ask for this attention. And rightfully anyone who pierces that veil should be rebuked. That's not partisan; that should be the outlook of any good parent - and I imagine that the Post is made up of plenty of them. I remember editorials at the Post rebuking the NY Times for an unflattering piece that they wrote about Jenna Bush and her penchant for frequenting bars and enjoying strong drink - when she was 19. The Clintons, and established media outlets, jumped down the throat of some magazine (I believe it was Vanity Fair) for doing a story on Chelsea Clinton. It wasn't bad; but it affected their ability to try to parent in some sort of traditional sense irrespective of the constraints and attention of their public responsibility. Again, I see this less as a bias issue, and more of an effort to reinforce the precedent that the president's minor children are categorically off limits. And anyone who runs afoul of that tradition will be met with strong rebuke. And think of this also in this "anti-bullying" culture that we live in. it just seems like there is a lot of context here that is missing to make some political point. There may, indeed, be a bias; I'm just not sure that this is the strongest example to make your point. And, incidentally, Jenna agrees: http://www.inquisitr.com/1654822/jenna-bush-defends-sasha-and-malia-obama-history-of-first-daughters-shows-challenges-video/ If she were a media figure or a political figure I would agree, but she's not. It wasn't even part of any news media publication or broadcast. It was some random nobody with no influence who posted a comment on her private FB account. There's no reasonable justification for the media running with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Welcome back. We haven't always agreed, but I always respected your position, even though i thought it was FUBARED. Now that I know that you didn't croak on us, please bring it on! I appreciate that 3rd. And likewise I've always respected both your opinion and your dogged persistence in support of or in critiquing an issue. Ive basically stayed out of current events and politics for a year or so. It was one of those things that I had to do for myself. Too many late nights drunk at the old hawk n dove arguing about sh#t that I didn't truly care about, with people who I couldn't relate to, to impress women who didn't look half as good when they were naked and I was sober. Had to completely get away from politics and current affairs for a while and focus on fixing some things. But it's good to be back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 If she were a media figure or a political figure I would agree, but she's not. It wasn't even part of any news media publication or broadcast. It was some random nobody with no influence who posted a comment on her private FB account. There's no reasonable justification for the media running with it. Reasonable minds can disagree on this, however my understanding is she was a Hill staffer. When I was a grunt on the Hill getting paid good taxpayer dollars to open constituent mail and summarize recurring concerns, we were told over and over again that we represented the institution of the Congress, the state, the party, and the congressman himself. We were admonished about our actions in and around the watering holes in DC, and we were held to a social media policy. Again, reasonable minds can disagree but she should have known better. When I was in DC, there is no way that I would have taken to Facebook saying anything about anyone of my colleagues or a public political figure. I was always led to believe that, whether fairly or not, my sentiment, if inartfully expressed, would be attributed to my boss; and that truism would necessitate my expeditious discharge from employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 Reasonable minds can disagree on this, however my understanding is she was a Hill staffer. When I was a grunt on the Hill getting paid good taxpayer dollars to open constituent mail and summarize recurring concerns, we were told over and over again that we represented the institution of the Congress, the state, the party, and the congressman himself. We were admonished about our actions in and around the watering holes in DC, and we were held to a social media policy. Again, reasonable minds can disagree but she should have known better. When I was in DC, there is no way that I would have taken to Facebook saying anything about anyone of my colleagues or a public political figure. I was always led to believe that, whether fairly or not, my sentiment, if inartfully expressed, would be attributed to my boss; and that truism would necessitate my expeditious discharge from employment. I thought this is basic common sense? You know, the kind parents & schools used to hammer in your head by the time you were 12? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 18, 2015 Share Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) Anyone here watch OANN One America News Network. They're about as politically neutral as you can get. They also cover a lot of human interest stories that the sex-for-sale major networks and cable news shows couldn't be bothered with. Check them out if your service provider carries them. I'm beginning to watch them a bit more from time to time. I discovered OANN recently while surfing the channels, and have tuned them in several times since. You're right - they seem to be pretty neutral in their reporting. So many people seem to prefer their news presented from a point of view that they can relate to, it makes me wonder how long OANN will last. Edited February 18, 2015 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Liberal media? What do you mean liberal media? Oh, you mean the liberal media that gives its stories to the DNC for editing before they publish them? THAT liberal media? Email released by Wikileaks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) Liberal media? What do you mean liberal media? Oh, you mean the liberal media that gives its stories to the DNC for editing before they publish them? THAT liberal media? Email released by Wikileaks... Good thing I was sitting down when I read that.............. I guess I'll throw this here........ KEEP IT TOGETHER, RACHEL! Maddow to Rolling Stone: To Prepare for President Trump, I’m Reading Up on Hitler’s First Months. Maddow: Trump’s Speech Could Be ‘Gateway Drug’ for KKK into GOP. So which flavor of socialist is Trump this week? Is he Hitler, or Woodrow Wilson? And note that while Maddow has no problem smearing Trump as Hitler (and Woodrow Wilson), when it comes to Republican voters’ responses to Hillary’s corruption, Maddow desperately needs a safe space woobie – and believes her viewers do as well: Warning — viewer discretion advised. That was the precursor for Rachel Maddow’s segment on Wednesday in which she showed viewers an array of anti-Hillary Clinton campaign buttons. Maddow cautioned snowflake-viewers with a trigger-warning: “You may find it uncomfortable. And so, you may not want to look at this stuff,” referring to slogans like “Hillary for prison” and “Vote no to Monica’s ex-boyfriend’s wife in 2016.” Reminder: Rachel Maddow was a protégé of former MSNBC anchor/spittle-flecked raver Keith Olbermann, who in 2008 when Hillary was hanging on during the Democrat primaries and slowing Obama’s inevitable coronation, demanded someone from the Democratic Party “take her into a room and only he comes out.” She debuted on Air America, also home to Randi Rhodes, who in 2008 was suspended from the now-defunct leftwing talk radio network for describing Hillary as a “big f***ing whore” and the since-deceased Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman nominated to be vice president as “David Duke in Drag” for supporting Hillary that year. But Maddow thinks a few anti-Hillary campaign buttons will cause her fellow lefties to dive for the fainting couches? Edited July 22, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitmic Posted July 23, 2016 Share Posted July 23, 2016 Lets take our media back and make it great again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Sorry MSM, you can't spend 3 days on 23 words by Melania Trump, then ignore 1000s of #DNCLeak #DNCLeaks emails . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sodbuster Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Sorry MSM, you can't spend 3 days on 23 words by Melania Trump, then ignore 1000s of #DNCLeak #DNCLeaks emails . And wikileaks is accusing Facebook of blocking it's links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 Twitter has already censored this. Pathetic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts