RT vid on Hillary

wv wrote:

RT:https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/365048-clinton-scandals-fbi-investigation/

______________________________________________________

Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing.

Whichever candidate is elected, there will be problems. Difficult ones.

Boiling this down: The GOP has chosen to be the party of obstruction of government. Its role in the Kabuki dance is “bad cop.” As a part of that role, it spends nearly all of its time investigating the other party, instead of governing. When the Dems are in power, they just don’t do this. As the designated “good cop” in the Kabuki dance, they can’t, even if they wanted to. Their role is to be the adult in the room and try to forge “compromise,” which always ends up on the GOP side of the aisle anyway — benefiting the decidedly “conservative” donor class. Their role is to “get things done” for the 1%. The GOP’s role is to make government look as horrible as possible, because this also aids and abets the 1%.

So the narrative on display is “crooked Hillary,” and the Dems as backstabbing, no-good-lying Machiavellis. I have no doubt that the reality is that BOTH parties are at least equal on that score. At least. But the public doesn’t get to see this, generally, because the Dems tend not to engage in endless attempts to expose their political opponents, and Wikileaks won’t go there.

I wish we could make the sun shine on the ENTIRE duopoly, not just Clinton, Obama and the Dems.

WV,

I had to remove your smilie. For some reason, when we quote it, it grows ginormous, as if ready to eat the world.

Do you have secret plans?

;>)

Billy_T wrote:

I guess another way to try to trim this down:

I see the media as rooting for a horse race. It’s great for ratings. It’s terrible for ratings to have a blow out. I’m guessing media bosses try their best to gin up conflict, drama, anger, even hatred, and they don’t want anyone to run away with this — especially not months before election day. So they’re likely going to want to knock down anyone riding high, and maybe give a leg up to the person riding low.

Generalizing like crazy here, but I think that’s essentially the case. Throw in the natural “conservative” tilt of the media, due to the people who own it, and I really don’t see any consistent pro-Clinton bias. At times, yes. Then Trump gets his time too. Back and forth.

Regardless, this circus disgusts me . . . and I despise the absolute lack of viable (positive) choices for Americans — this time and pretty much always and forever in our history.

__________________________________________________

90% of those who work in “the media” vote Democratic.
No, they’re not biased.

I’ve been comparing the headlines for Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN websites for awhile.
When Fox comes out with big headlines that should produce real investigative reporting, the other networks label it as Clinton overcomes obstacles.
I remember when the media bit hard after Nixon, with very little to go on. Their persistence paid off. Now we have HUGE amounts of evidence that Clinton was involved in felonies, and the MSM barely are touching it. If they acted like Bernstein and Woodward did in 1972 and 1973, Hillary would be done for sure.
Complicating it is the most corrupt presidential administration we’ve seen in years. Most transparent administration ever, yep. I can see right through them.

MNR,

90% of those who work in “the media” vote Democratic.
No, they’re not biased.

I’ve been comparing the headlines for Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN websites for awhile.
When Fox comes out with big headlines that should produce real investigative reporting, the other networks label it as Clinton overcomes obstacles.
I remember when the media bit hard after Nixon, with very little to go on. Their persistence paid off. Now we have HUGE amounts of evidence that Clinton was involved in felonies, and the MSM barely are touching it. If they acted like Bernstein and Woodward did in 1972 and 1973, Hillary would be done for sure.
Complicating it is the most corrupt presidential administration we’ve seen in years. Most transparent administration ever, yep. I can see right through them.

You and I see things quite differently in this regard. Fox news, for instance, is just the media arm of the Republican party. Murdoch and Ailes created it for that reason. You’ll notice that when they do try “investigative journalism,” it’s only ever in support of right-wing causes and agendas. They pretty much never go after Republicans, unless they buck the party establishment. And when the GOP holds the White House, they never go after that administration. They endlessly cheerlead for it instead. And, it’s incredibly rare that they go after corporate America.

In short, they’ve never been a legitimate news organization. They’re a joke. A bad joke on the American people, riling up their audience and spreading hatred and lies for twenty years.

The rest of the MSM are owned by conservative corporations too, like Comcast (NBC), Viacom (CBS) and Disney (ABC). Their agenda is decidedly center-right. That fits in well with the power structures of both the Dems and the GOP. The MSM support both parties to the degree they stick to the center-right script. Veer away from that, and you’ll get more stories about that veering.

As for Clinton. For the billionth time, I don’t want Clinton or Trump to be president. But there isn’t any evidence that she’s committed felonies, nor is there any evidence that the Obama administration is any more corrupt than past administrations. The far right long ago invented an alternate universe Obama, and clings to their demonizations without pause. Obama is a run of the mill, center-right president, in a long line of run of the mill, center-right presidents, and has done his best to keep the status quo he was handed by Bush, with some tweaks in a few areas like civil rights. Ever ask yourself why, after endless hearings — involving Clinton too — the GOP has never been able to produce ANY evidence of actual wrong-doing? They’ve been witch-hunting Clinton for nearly 25 years, and they’ve got nothing to show for it except millions in taxpayer bills. Their vendetta against Obama has, of course, covered fewer years, but it’s failed to find any evidence of corruption.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 11 months ago by Billy_T.

wv wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

I guess another way to try to trim this down:

I see the media as rooting for a horse race. It’s great for ratings. It’s terrible for ratings to have a blow out. I’m guessing media bosses try their best to gin up conflict, drama, anger, even hatred, and they don’t want anyone to run away with this — especially not months before election day. So they’re likely going to want to knock down anyone riding high, and maybe give a leg up to the person riding low.

Generalizing like crazy here, but I think that’s essentially the case. Throw in the natural “conservative” tilt of the media, due to the people who own it, and I really don’t see any consistent pro-Clinton bias. At times, yes. Then Trump gets his time too. Back and forth.

Regardless, this circus disgusts me . . . and I despise the absolute lack of viable (positive) choices for Americans — this time and pretty much always and forever in our history.

__________________________________________________

90% of those who work in “the media” vote Democratic.
No, they’re not biased.

I’ve been comparing the headlines for Fox, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN websites for awhile.
When Fox comes out with big headlines that should produce real investigative reporting, the other networks label it as Clinton overcomes obstacles.
I remember when the media bit hard after Nixon, with very little to go on. Their persistence paid off. Now we have HUGE amounts of evidence that Clinton was involved in felonies, and the MSM barely are touching it. If they acted like Bernstein and Woodward did in 1972 and 1973, Hillary would be done for sure.
Complicating it is the most corrupt presidential administration we’ve seen in years. Most transparent administration ever, yep. I can see right through them.

—————
Well, i read a Woodward/Bernstein book about deep throat and watergate, and they certainly did not think the ‘media went hard after Nixon’. They had a HELL of a time getting the Washington Post to print stuff, and no other newspapers were doing ‘anything’. And that situation last for quite a while. After a while though, the feeding-frenzy started. But it took a while. I have a feeling the same will happen with Hillary.

This has been the strangest, weirdest, ugliest most dispiriting election
of my life. Cept for the Bernie surge, which was fun, but we knew how it would turn out.

w
v

It does take a ton to get these things revved up, and to overcome the fact that the politicians in question general hang in the same circles as the owners of the media. Their children go to the same schools. They all go to the same parties, etc.

There is a built-in circuit breaker on deeper looks.

The frustrating thing for me is this: Both wings of the duopoly have this power to skate and avoid scrutiny. But one of them, the GOP, has been peddling nonsense about “bias” for fifty years, when it’s got just as much say so over media content, if not more, than the Dems.

They both avoid far, far too much sunshine. I’ve never bought the line that the Dems have more power over the narrative than the GOP. I don’t think there’s any evidence to support that.

I haven’t had enough coffee right now, so I can’t remember, but doesn’t Chomsky talk about them as basically one big and corrupt power center, not two?

Not an original observation here, of course, but if one candidate tells lies 75% of the time, and the other, 25% of the time, the media shouldn’t cover that equally. It shouldn’t try to be “fair and balanced,” because that actually skews perceptions.

“We need to pick five Trump lies and five Clinton lies, so it’s fair!”

Trump has presented the media with a unique dilemma. From the moment he launched his campaign, he’s said more despicable and false things than any other candidate for the presidency (in my lifetime, anyway) outside of, perhaps, George Wallace. Clinton just can’t compete with him on that, though she obviously has her own major, big time negatives.

Is it “bias” to spend more time on one candidate’s negatives when he has more? No. It’s actual “bias” in favor of that candidate if they don’t.

Related to the above:

Kessler, the centrist fact-checker for the WaPo, brings us his “highlights” for the election so far:

The biggest Pinocchios of Election 2016

Excerpt:

This presidential election race has been one for the record books — including for Pinocchios.

In many ways, it was an unbalanced race. Donald Trump has amassed such a collection of Four-Pinocchio ratings — 59 in all — that by himself he’s earned as many in this campaign as all other Republicans (or Democrats) combined in the past three years. His average Pinocchio rating was 3.4. (By contrast, the worst Pinocchio rating in 2012 was earned by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota — an average of 3.08 Pinocchios.)

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, ended up with an average Pinocchio rating of 2.2. That put her in about the same range as President Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in 2012. (She had a total of seven Four-Pinocchio ratings.) If not for her statements about the email controversy, which earned her lots of Pinocchios, her average rating would have been much lower.

Here are some of the lowlights of the 2016 campaign.

Most absurd facts

Trump repeatedly made claims that boggled the imagination. He said the unemployment rate was 42 percent when it was actually 5 percent. He claimed there were 92 million “jobless Americans,” which included everyone who did not want to work, such as retirees and students. He even claimed that he could save $300 billion a year from a Medicare prescription drug program that only costs $78 billion.
Return to sender award

Hillary Clinton earned 24 Pinocchios over the course of the campaign for a series of misleading statements about her private email server arrangement when she was secretary of state. Among other claims, she falsely said the arrangement was permitted, that she had not sent or received classified information, and that the FBI director had said her answers were truthful.

Most imaginary history (GOP version)

Trump repeatedly claimed things that did not happen. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrate the collapse of the World Trade Center after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton started the “birther” movement that questioned whether Obama was born in the United States. He said Russian President Vladimir Putin called him a “genius” when in fact Putin called him “colorful.” And he suggested that the father of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) had a hand in John F. Kennedy’s assassination.

Most imaginary history (Democratic version)

Hillary Clinton claimed that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act was enacted to thwart an anti-gay constitutional amendment; hacked emails later showed that her staff immediately knew the statement was false. She also claimed that she tried to join the Marines on the eve of her marriage in 1975 but was turned down — a story that did not add up for a number of reasons. And she asserted that Trump opposed the auto bailout in 2009 — when in fact he supported government action.

Hildabeast is guilty of treasonous pay to play. Can it really get much worse than that?