Has anyone else noticed this...

[usmbguest5318]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

 

[Pete7469]

LOL.... The New Yuck Slimes "broke" the story because they were so dedicated to exposing the truth.... It's a bird cage floor liner, not a source of information.

Where do you retards come from? Why can't you just stay there?

 

[gipper]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

In case you haven’t noticed, liberals bias in the MSM swamps all conservative media.

 

[MisterBeale]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

Other sources break big news, you just don't believe them, you call it "conspiracy nonsense."

Get real.

 

[Timmy]

Why is "MSM" short for "mainstream media "? "Mainstream" is one word not two.

 

[Timmy]

LOL.... The New Yuck Slimes "broke" the story because they were so dedicated to exposing the truth.... It's a bird cage floor liner, not a source of information.

Where do you retards come from? Why can't you just stay there?

So if you watch CNN , and they are reporting about a hurricane hitting Texas, do you say "bah, another mainstream media lie . There's no hurricane!"

 

[Little-Acorn]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

Excellent point. After all, look how the liberal mainstream media broke the story about Barack Obama's minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the racist anti-American hatred he has hissed from his pulpit while Obama sat there for 20 years listening.

Oops, that wasn't the mainstream media, it was Fox News.

But we all remember how the mainstream media alerted us to the fact that Bill Clinton was having an affair with a White House intern while in the Oval Office.

Oops, that wasn't the mainstream media, it was the Drudge Report.

Umm, were you saying something?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Why is "MSM" short for "mainstream media "? "Mainstream" is one word not two.

Without the S it would be M&Ms

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why is "MSM" short for "mainstream media "? "Mainstream" is one word not two.

Unlike "Inter Continental Ballistic Missile".... umm, oops

But at least there's "Hyper Text Transfer Protocol"... ummm, well

What about "Tele Vision"? ...oh, never mind

 

[usmbguest5318]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

Other sources break big news, you just don't believe them, you call it "conspiracy nonsense."

Get real.

I have no doubt that other organizations break news. What's not clear to me is whether they, in particular conservative news organizations, break negative news about their supposed allies.

 

[BlackSand]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

Damn Xelor ... I thought you were too smart to be consumed by your bias.
Screw it ... We are going to need people like you when the rest of the world is actually interested in coming up with ideas that benefit us all with a decent respect towards core principles and values.

There is some use in observing what we have ... But most ideas that could possibly carry us past that ... Are not rooted in the propagation of more crap.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

Excellent point. After all, look how the liberal mainstream media broke the story about Barack Obama's minister Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and the racist anti-American hatred he has hissed from his pulpit while Obama sat there for 20 years listening.

Oops, that wasn't the mainstream media, it was Fox News.

But we all remember how the mainstream media alerted us to the fact that Bill Clinton was having an affair with a White House intern while in the Oval Office.

Oops, that wasn't the mainstream media, it was the Drudge Report.

Umm, were you saying something?

I did say something, but you clearly didn't get it. I'll repeat it.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities?....I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals.

 

[MisterBeale]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

Other sources break big news, you just don't believe them, you call it "conspiracy nonsense."

Get real.

I have no doubt that other organizations break news. What's not clear to me is whether they, in particular conservative news organizations, break negative news about their supposed allies.

From my POV, the establishment "conservative news organizations," and the "liberal news organizations" all have exactly the same filters, they have exactly the same agenda.

The owner of Fox News, and the owner of CNN, as well as the owner of the NYT and the owner of the Washington Times all use discretion, and never reveal what is being discussed among themselves. Just as the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the Bilderburgers, they use the Chatham House rules there to insure that the public hasn't got a clue that the political, financial, and cultural elites are molding a one world order that is very undemocratic in nature.

It is pretty much modeled after the Platonic ideal of the Republic. They have the birthright to rule by their station, and public politics have nothing to do with it. Surely you are familiar with Tragedy & Hope?

 

[Wry Catcher]

For all the complaining about so-called fake news and beefing about how liberally biased be mainstream media (MSM), the fact remains that that time and time again, the MSM seem to be the organizations that break news pertaining to malfeasant and nefarious behavior by individuals conservative and liberal.

• Weinstein --> NY Times broke that story.
• Clinton campaign funding oppo-research on Trump --> The Washington Post broke that story

Those two examples came to mind immediately. There are surely others.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals. (I'll be honest and say that I don't generally pay attention to what organization breaks a given story, so that's part of why I don't really know the answer to my own question.)

This is really a matter of integrity as far as I'm concerned. Events that happen are just that. People's behavior and remarks are what they are. Regardless of what one may think about either, the fact is that informing people about those things, most especially "the big stuff," is what news organizations are supposed to do. There really shouldn't be any difference in the nature and extent of reporting pertaining to "big" events.

What are the "big" things? Well, by my reckoning, it's the stuff that shows up in PBS Newshour's opening news summary. PBS isn't on all day and they only have an hour to cover the news, so they can't and don't waste their time talking about minor things. They don't have a bevy of commentators to color the matter and talk about every imaginable aspect of a story's nuances; they just tell the story, to whatever extent they have information about it, and move on. So, that's how I judge what's a "big" story and what's not. To be sure, that leaves lots of things not mentioned, but rarely, upon encountering it elsewhere, have I found that unsaid stuff to be pivotal.

The not MSM*** is all editorial all of the time; not so the MSM. Fox News is not news, it is propaganda all of the time.

Have you GOP supporters, those who toss "the establishment" under the bus as RINO's, and the trumpanzees ever considered - actually thought - what the Bannon's and other provocateurs have besides "ain't it awful"? They rant and rave ad nausea and yet have no plan as to how our nation of 300 + million diverse people can and need to be governed!

We the People are not subjects, we are citizens who employ pols to operate the machinery of government. Pols who cannot lead, and yet are desperate to prove they can accomplish something - even when they can't agree on what and how they should proceed, cannot and do not understand that it is not all about them and their party.

 

[BlackSand]

The not MSM*** is all editorial all of the time; not so the MSM. Fox News is not news, it is propaganda all of the time.

Have you GOP supporters, those who toss "the establishment" under the bus as RINO's, and the trumpanzees ever considered - actually thought - what the Bannon's and other provocateurs have besides "ain't it awful"? They rant and rave ad nausea and yet have no plan as to how our nation of 300 + million diverse people can and need to be governed!

We the People are not subjects, we are citizens who employ pols to operate the machinery of government. Pols who cannot lead, and yet are desperate to prove they can accomplish something - even when they can't agree on what and how they should proceed, cannot and do not understand that it is not all about them and their party.

I cannot disagree with the notion that the Mainstream Media and Alternative News sources are not the same thing.
That's pretty much what makes them alternative.

You still cannot ignore the fact that Alternative News outlets don't survive the same way the Mainstream Media does.
Mainstream Media relies on the notion they provide a responsible and forthright discussion of the news ... And is suffering fiscally from their abuse of that.
Alternative News survives by offering the same biased, but opposing views ... And adding a little more opportunity for people to look at both sides.

What people do with it is anyone's guess ... Whether or not I like what one source says or another ... Doesn't make it any more credible.
What the Mainstream Media is going to have to look out for ... Is the fact that Alternative News is basing its survival more and more on subscriptions.
Much like the days when you bought a subscription to a newspaper ... You can buy subscriptions to alternative news outlets.

Hate to tell you ... But they aren't suffering.

What the Mainstream Media is suffering from most ... Is the fact they refused to pay the proper respects towards remaining independent.
There is no need for them to act like they have paid that respect ... The damage is done.

.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Today, we are given another instance whereby the so-called liberal media have called to the carpet a Liberal. In this case, it's Mark Halperin. Halperin has been "widely considered to be one of the preeminent political journalists, Halperin, 52, has, among other career highlights, been political director at ABC News; co-authored the bestselling book "Game Change," which was made into an HBO movie starring Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin; and anchored a television show on Bloomberg TV. He is featured in Showtime's "The Circus," a show that chronicled the 2016 campaign cycle and the early days of the Trump presidency, and has a project in development with HBO, which, like CNN, is owned by Time Warner."


CNN broke the story this morning after Wednesday night receiving confirmation from Halperin.

Veteran journalist Mark Halperin sexually harassed women while he was in a powerful position at ABC News, according to five women who shared their previously undisclosed accounts with CNN and others who did not experience the alleged harassment personally, but were aware of it.

"During this period, I did pursue relationships with women that I worked with, including some junior to me," Halperin said in a statement to CNN Wednesday night. "I now understand from these accounts that my behavior was inappropriate and caused others pain. For that, I am deeply sorry and I apologize. Under the circumstances, I'm going to take a step back from my day-to-day work while I properly deal with this situation."
(Source)
​

Halperin served as a political commentator with MSNBC/NBC; however, now, he's been ousted. In Halperin's case, the harassing didn't even happen at MSNBC/NBC. It happened over a decade ago while he worked at ABC, yet he's being held accountable for it by NBC.

"We find the story and the allegations very troubling," MSNBC said in a statement. "Mark Halperin is leaving his role as a contributor until the questions around his past conduct are fully understood."
​

The stories of harassment shared with CNN range in nature from propositioning employees for sex to kissing and grabbing one's breasts against her will. Three women assert that Halperin, without consent, pressed an erection against their bodies while he was clothed. Halperin denies grabbing a woman's breasts and pressing his genitals against the three women.


That the so-called Liberal media are as willing to highlight actual or apparent wrongdoing by liberals isn't limited to press and other media figures. It extends to the White House and Democratic Administrations, as the decided incomplete list below shows:

• IRS Targeting Scandal -- This story was initially reported by Fox News.
  • CNN
    • IRS Scandal Fast Facts - CNN
      
    • Obama says some IRS employees 'failed,' orders accountability
      
    • Court: IRS needs to prove it isn't targeting conservative groups
      
    • Additional CNN coverage
  • ABC
    • Tea Party Rejects IRS Apology, Republicans Vow Investigation
      
    • IRS Report: Targeting Began in 2010
  • HuffPost
    • IRS Apologizes For Targeting Conservative Groups In 2012 Election | HuffPost
      
    • Additional HuffPost coverage
• Benghazi -- I'm not even going to attempt listing all the coverage that got from all news organizations. Google is your friend; you can search for that yourself.
• Fast and Furious
  • CNN
    • Operation Fast and Furious Fast Facts - CNN
      
    • Fast and Furious: A 65,000-page document dump - CNNPolitics
      
    • What was 'Fast and Furious,' and what went wrong? - CNN
  • L.A. Times
    • ATF's Fast and Furious scandal
      
    • http://documents.latimes.com/fast-and-furious/
      
    • Two convicted of killing Border Patrol agent; incident exposed Fast and Furious operation
      
    • Fast and Furious weapons found in Mexico cartel enforcer's home

In stark contrast, searching for stories about the single biggest ongoing scandal and depravity pertaining to Trump, his inveterate lying and ethical turpitude, what does one find? Essentially, damn near "radio silence," at least insofar as what comes up on the first page of a simple search. See for yourself:

• Fox: fox news trump's lying -- My God! The top results pertain to someone other than Trump lying.
• Forbes: forbes trump's lying -- This search returns some results. I wonder how many Trumpkins are regular consumers of Forbes?
• Wall Street Journal: wall street journal trump's lying -- Here, one article.
• National Review: national review trump's lying -- The top results here, like those for Fox, discuss people other than Trump, including at least two articles that talk about Hillary Clinton, Charles Blow and Liberals in general!

There were so few stories when I used those search terms that I figured perhaps the paucity is my fault, perhaps due to my search terms. I used the same search model with regard to the NY Times and found only a couple articles among the top results. I also tried it with CNN. There, as with Fox and the National Review, the results pertained to people other than Donald Trump. I then tried it with The Washington Post. That search revealed an abundance of results. From that outcome, I infer that it's the WaPo that's leading the effort to call attention to Trump's lying. [1] (I haven't ruled out that there may be a better set of search terms, but I also have only so much time to meddle with this sort of informal examination. [2])

The results of my brief searches and discovery of the story pertaining to Halperin yet bring me back to the core question I asked in the OP.

The question in my mind is when do conservative media outlets break and push stories pertaining to the malfeasance of conservative figures and entities? Maybe occasionally they do, but I wonder if, on balance, they do so with the same scope, consistency and frequency as do non-conservative outlets with regard to liberals.

To the extent were talking about Trump's misrepresentations of the truth, it appears, from the above that neither mainstream Conservative nor Liberal media outlets [3], except for The WaPo, do much of that.


Notes:

1. I guess it's not surprising that The Washington Post is the leading outlet decrying rampant presidential misrepresentations of fact and context. The Post is, after all, the paper of Washington and all things governmental have, since the paper's inception, been its focus.
2. FWIW, I chose not to rely on my personally anecdotal sense of what organizations may or may not focus on the matter of Trump's lying. I did that because anecdotal observations are just that, anecdotal. There's no way, regardless of what and how much news I consume, that my personal observations and inferences can be indicative of the larger spectrum and incidence of news coverage in the U.S.
   
   For instance, though a good number of people here, have asserted that news media personalities are Liberals/Democrats, a 2014 study conducted as part of Pew's American Journalist series found that 50.2% of journalists identify as Independents.
3. As for what media organizations are mainstream, sound reasoning would lead one to think that those who enjoy places in the front row of the White House press briefing room are indeed members of the mainstream media (MSM). That seating chart is as follows: