"Liberal Media"? Soft on Trump, Tough on Clinton

[Oldstyle]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

 

[eagle1462010]

Time for the wingnuts to admit there is no Liberal Media, just corporate media.


Campaign Press Adopts The Trump Rules -- They're The Opposite Of The Clinton Rules

Soft On Trump, Tough On Clinton



Switching back and forth between MSNBC and CNN last Thursday night as they aired competing, hour-long interviews with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, viewers ran the risk of whiplash. The threat lingered not just because Clinton and Trump were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but because the tone and tenor of the two events seemed dramatically different.

Here were some of the questions posed to Clinton from the MSNBC event's co-moderators, NBC's Chuck Todd and Telemundo's José Díaz-Balart:

• "What would you do to make possible that the [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival] students become permanent residents?"
• "Would you ever imagine raising the retirement age in the next 10 years?"
• "Do you foresee a time when the federal government would be able to include the undocumented [workers] in federal grants for education?"
• "Should people start paying Social Security taxes on income over $120,000?"
• "Is a presidential visit [to Cuba] a step too far? Would a President Clinton be going this quickly?"

By contrast, here were some of the questions posed to Trump from the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper:

• "What do you eat when you roll up at a McDonald's, what does - what does Donald Trump order?"
• "What's your favorite kind of music?"
• "How many hours a night do you sleep?"
• "What kind of a parent are you?"
• "What is one thing you wish you didn't do?"

 

[Oldstyle]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

MSNBC should change their call letters to ATATT (All Trump All The Time).

If conservatives are correct, most news anchors self-describe themselves as liberals, and if conservatives are correct, networks are in it for the commercial $$$/ratings - how do conservatives square that with; America is a center right country? I agree the media are in it for the ratings/commercial $$$, so the question is why would conservative media moguls, company decision makers, etc. hire and program news anchors whose self-described political ideology runs counter to their audience?

As I Googled around looking for news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party, I found a lot of rightwing opinions/accusations/insinuations but very few news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party.

If, as conservatives think, MSNBC is the most liberal of the liberal media, how is it that, on a daily basis they program three hours of Joe (I'm a conservative Republican) Scarborough, one hour of Andrea Greenspan-Mitchell, one hour of Chuck (it's not my job to fact check Romney) Todd, one hour of Chris (the centrist) Matthews...?


.

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

MSNBC should change their call letters to ATATT (All Trump All The Time).

If conservatives are correct, most news anchors self-describe themselves as liberals, and if conservatives are correct, networks are in it for the commercial $$$/ratings - how do conservatives square that with; America is a center right country? I agree the media are in it for the ratings/commercial $$$, so the question is why would conservative media moguls, company decision makers, etc. hire and program news anchors whose self-described political ideology runs counter to their audience?

As I Googled around looking for news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party, I found a lot of rightwing opinions/accusations/insinuations but very few news anchors that self-describe their political bias/party.

If, as conservatives think, MSNBC is the most liberal of the liberal media, how is it that, on a daily basis they program three hours of Joe (I'm a conservative Republican) Scarborough, one hour of Andrea Greenspan-Mitchell, one hour of Chuck (it's not my job to fact check Romney) Todd, one hour of Chris (the centrist) Matthews...?


.

Perhaps you might ask yourself why magazines like Time and newspapers like the New York Times are a shadow of their former selves...no longer beacons of light in the world of journalism...but instead punch lines for bad reporting jokes? It's because they no longer even attempt unbiased reporting and haven't for years! People have stopped believing what they say...because what they say is so obviously slanted.

So why WOULD seemingly intelligent people conduct business in that manner? My guess would be that THEIR friends all have the same view as they do and so they think THEY are right and everyone else is wrong when it comes to liberal policies! Only suddenly fewer people are watching or reading what they put out...and they can't figure out why.

 

[Synthaholic]

And for you to come on here and list MSNBC's Chuck Todd as your "source" to prove that the media isn't liberal is about as absurd as it gets since MSNBC is the POSTER CHILD for liberal bias in the media!

False. Come up with an example, with links.

Are you seriously saying that MSNBC isn't liberally biased? There's stupid...Synth...and then there is EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID!

The nighttime hosts are: Maddow, Hayes, O'Donnell, and Matthews, although he's pretty Centrist.

The rest of the news is not. If you believe it is, produce an example.

 

[Synthaholic]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

 

[Oldstyle]

And for you to come on here and list MSNBC's Chuck Todd as your "source" to prove that the media isn't liberal is about as absurd as it gets since MSNBC is the POSTER CHILD for liberal bias in the media!

False. Come up with an example, with links.

Are you seriously saying that MSNBC isn't liberally biased? There's stupid...Synth...and then there is EMBARRASSINGLY STUPID!

The nighttime hosts are: Maddow, Hayes, O'Donnell, and Matthews, although he's pretty Centrist.

The rest of the news is not. If you believe it is, produce an example.

Matthews IS pretty centrist compared to Maddow...but that's like saying Bill Clinton doesn't mistreat women compared to Bill Cosby!

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

I'm an "extremist" because I think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

The difference between you and me, Synth...is that I readily admit that Sean Hannity is a far right conservative. To do anything else would be talking out of my ass. When you come here and declare that Chris Matthews is a "centrist" that's EXACTLY what you're doing!

 

[Star]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

I'm an "extremist" because I think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

The difference between you and me, Synth...is that I readily admit that Sean Hannity is a far right conservative. To do anything else would be talking out of my ass. When you come here and declare that Chris Matthews is a "centrist" that's EXACTLY what you're doing!

Obviously you haven't watched MSNBC or Chris Matthews recently. Matthews is left of rightwing extremists but right of the Democratic Party - Blue Dog-----blue dog...at best.

Matthews, Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh, etc. have all aligned themselves with big oil, big pharma, big finance, the Koch Bros, the six media corporations that control about 90% of all media in the United States, as well as many other extreme rightwingers, against Bernie Sanders.

It's possible you're overlooking the fact that most of the talking heads are millionaires many times over - a couple of factors to consider when you're watching self described "news" networks like Fox and self described opinion ("A Place For Politics") shows like the shows on MSNBC is; these folks want, above all else, protect their multi-million dollar salaries and will carry water for their billionaire bosses to that end and-----and most of these shows originate in New York and Washington DC, most of these folks belong to the same clubs, vacation in the same exclusive resorts, go to the same restaurants and bars, date and have affairs with the same people, run into each other on the street and buy their illegal $100+ Cuban cigars from the same dealers... that said...

...Chris Matthews gave D. Trump the gift of a documentary/infomercial about the candidate that doesn't accept donations life, titled "Citizen Trump" then-----then gave up his primetime slot to run D. Trump's infomercial at no charge to the candidate then-----then ran it in multiple time slots on MSNBC, again at no charge to the candidate. Production costs and free time for the candidate on MSNBC undoubtedly has run into the millions of dollars -- I'd guess Matthews is feeling the tingle run down his leg again - this time for D. Trump.


Olbermann leaves Chris Matthews off 'thank you' list on final show

.

 

[Synthaholic]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

I'm an "extremist" because I think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

The difference between you and me, Synth...is that I readily admit that Sean Hannity is a far right conservative. To do anything else would be talking out of my ass. When you come here and declare that Chris Matthews is a "centrist" that's EXACTLY what you're doing!

No, you're just pretty ignorant. Maddow is a Liberal. Matthews is a Centrist.

 

[hadit]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

That is the correct motorcycle. It does appear, that by self-identifying as democrats and liberals, the majority of the media is admitting to bias. It is cute, therefore, that so many outside the media are clamoring the opposite, as if they know better than the media figures.

 

[hadit]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

It's time for you and others on the right to get over the 'liberal media' myth:

'Impugning the motives of those we've entrusted with separating fiction from fact has proven an effective strategy for the right. Don't agree with a judicial decision? Blame the "activist" judge. Think an academic paper might be damaging to your cause? No worries. Academia is "liberal" and "elitist." Worried that global warming might prove nettlesome? It's the product of scientists harboring a "hidden agenda."

And today a news media that might otherwise be making reasoned judgments about what's news and what isn't has become so cowed by conservative complaints that just about any allegation, no matter how outlandish, must receive "equal time."
[…]
But suggest that the media might not be so liberal after all, and you elicit ferocious conservative push-back. Just ask Chuck Todd. Last week, when he said media bias was a myth, the conservative response was perhaps best typified by Greg Gutfeld's 90 second uninterrupted monologue on Fox, which I think can be fairly boiled down to: The media is liberal because the media is liberal and it's preposterous to think otherwise.'

Breaking News: Skepticism of Conservative Ideas Requires No Bias

Indeed, it's an article of religious faith among conservatives that 'the media' are 'liberal,' in spite of the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a ridiculous claim.

Something tells me that if media figures self identified as Republican or conservative by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin, that this discussion would be a little different.

 

[easyt65]

Trump is a egotistical/narcissistic goof ball and 'fraud' (not really 'GOP') who is drawing massive crowds and making news, he is 'new', 'fresh', and makes news with his antics, tweets, and comments.

Hillary is a retread dinosaur, still unethical, still immoral, still a liar, nothing new, drawing half the crowds Trump is pulling, and is still scandal-plagued. There is nothing new about Clinton...she is the same 'news' / person she was as 1st Lady, as Senator, and as SoS. And whether Liberals want to admit it or not, she still draws scandals and is up to her ass in issues...and NO ONE is buying the 'vast right wing conspiracy'...'nothing to 'it' cr@p anymore....not even the Liberal Media....and when you are Hillary Clinton and THEY won't 'swallow' that cr@p anymore, you're in trouble.

Let the FBI NOT call for a Grand Jury, NOT call for her Indictment, let the DOJ refuse to allow this to go forward, and the media will love her all over again and sing her praises in time for the general election.

The problem is the State Department said they will not release all of her e-mails until sometime in 2017, AFTER the general election. As long as this drags out she will not be 'hailed'...she will have to limp into the general election with the 'ghost' of this scandal still over her. The sooner this 'dies' the better for her and the quicker she becomes 'loved' again by the media.

 

[Pogo]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

That is the correct motorcycle. It does appear, that by self-identifying as democrats and liberals, the majority of the media is admitting to bias.

No one has yet explained how.

What, anyone who classifies his/her own personal ideology differently from the way you classify yours is "biased"? Dooooon't think so.

 

[hadit]

HADIT SAID:
"This old canard again? Why are we still attempting to make the case that the major media has no bias?"

Their bias is ratings, profit, and money – not a particular political ideology, or advancing a particular political agenda – the old canard is the 'liberal media.'

And it's just a total coincidence that an overwhelming majority of "journalists" and on air personalities self describe as liberals? It's laughable that you folks on the Left utterly refuse to admit that there is a liberal bias in main stream media, Clayton! It's so obvious that there is...to deny it makes you look like an idiot.

You want to claim that even though most of the people working in main stream media are liberals...all they care about is profits? Hmmm...if that WERE true...what does it say about those liberals in general...that they put profit over principle?

That is the correct motorcycle. It does appear, that by self-identifying as democrats and liberals, the majority of the media is admitting to bias.

No one has yet explained how.

What, anyone who classifies his/her own personal ideology differently from the way you classify yours is "biased"? Dooooon't think so.

Like I said before, it is almost impossible for people to be completely objective, and when the majority of those who not only choose which events are to be reported on, but decide how to report the story all think the same way, it is inevitable that their version of the "news" will reflect their unintentional bias. I will never forget one of the most blatant demonstrations of the media hive mind when they all discovered the word "gravitas" at the same time when Dick Cheney was picked to be the next VP. It was obvious that they all read from the same source and didn't even think about how it would make their reporting look.

This is why the police interview as many witnesses to a crime as possible. They know that each person recalls events in different ways. I hate to bring race into it, but if all the witnesses to a white policeman shooting a black person were white, do you think they might just give a different story than if all the witnesses were black? In that case, I would think a mix of people might just give you a more complete story.

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

I'm an "extremist" because I think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

The difference between you and me, Synth...is that I readily admit that Sean Hannity is a far right conservative. To do anything else would be talking out of my ass. When you come here and declare that Chris Matthews is a "centrist" that's EXACTLY what you're doing!

No, you're just pretty ignorant. Maddow is a Liberal. Matthews is a Centrist.

What's "ignorant" is believing that being more moderate than Rachel Maddow makes one a "centrist"! Chris Matthews isn't a centrist...he's simply not as far left as Maddow or the fat guy that screams at the camera all the time or the woman with the lisp.

 

[Oldstyle]

The fact that you think Chris Matthews is a "centrist" simply shows how skewed your world view is!

No, it shows how batsit crazy of an extremist you are.

I'm an "extremist" because I think Chris Matthews is a liberal?

The difference between you and me, Synth...is that I readily admit that Sean Hannity is a far right conservative. To do anything else would be talking out of my ass. When you come here and declare that Chris Matthews is a "centrist" that's EXACTLY what you're doing!

Obviously you haven't watched MSNBC or Chris Matthews recently. Matthews is left of rightwing extremists but right of the Democratic Party - Blue Dog-----blue dog...at best.

Matthews, Hannity, O'reilly, Limbaugh, etc. have all aligned themselves with big oil, big pharma, big finance, the Koch Bros, the six media corporations that control about 90% of all media in the United States, as well as many other extreme rightwingers, against Bernie Sanders.

It's possible you're overlooking the fact that most of the talking heads are millionaires many times over - a couple of factors to consider when you're watching self described "news" networks like Fox and self described opinion ("A Place For Politics") shows like the shows on MSNBC is; these folks want, above all else, protect their multi-million dollar salaries and will carry water for their billionaire bosses to that end and-----and most of these shows originate in New York and Washington DC, most of these folks belong to the same clubs, vacation in the same exclusive resorts, go to the same restaurants and bars, date and have affairs with the same people, run into each other on the street and buy their illegal $100+ Cuban cigars from the same dealers... that said...

...Chris Matthews gave D. Trump the gift of a documentary/infomercial about the candidate that doesn't accept donations life, titled "Citizen Trump" then-----then gave up his primetime slot to run D. Trump's infomercial at no charge to the candidate then-----then ran it in multiple time slots on MSNBC, again at no charge to the candidate. Production costs and free time for the candidate on MSNBC undoubtedly has run into the millions of dollars -- I'd guess Matthews is feeling the tingle run down his leg again - this time for D. Trump.


Olbermann leaves Chris Matthews off 'thank you' list on final show

.

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Star but NOBODY watches MSNBC! Matthews is laughably bad...he can't go an entire show without referencing how things were done when he was with Tip O'Neal back in the day! He may indeed be the closest that MSNBC has to a "centrist" at night but that's only because the rest of them are SO far left!

 

[Synthaholic]

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Star but NOBODY watches MSNBC!

Yet when the Republicans get blown out again this November you'll blame the Liberal Media that no one watches.

Pathetic.

 

[easyt65]

If there was EVER an election when the most amount of Americans at one time held their noses and voted for a candidate, IMO, it would be this one. There are no 'Top Tier' candidates - truly honorable, ethical, moral, honest, inspiring, professional leaders who have a burning desire to SERVE their country and represent Americans - ALL Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that there are a plethora or more highly qualified, more preferable candidates out there but none who want to participate in this mud-slinging, personal demonizing, 'Politics of Personal Destruction' nightmare our system has turned into....so we are left with what we have.

I heard a little while ago, BTW, one of the best reason to vote for Bernie Sanders I have heard yet. The young man I was talking to stated he agreed with Sanders on some really good ideas and would probably vote for him because Congress would ensure his really 'nutball' ideas would never go through while possibly adopting and passing some of the truly good ones, offering the American people perhaps the closest thing to a TRUE 'moderate' government we have had in a long time. (May not be true, may be quite optimistic, but it SOUNDED good. )

 

[Oldstyle]

You may not have gotten the memo on this, Star but NOBODY watches MSNBC!

Yet when the Republicans get blown out again this November you'll blame the Liberal Media that no one watches.

Pathetic.

It's hard to blame MSNBC for much these days, Synth because few people besides yourself and R-Derp watch it anymore.

What sways people's opinions is what they read or see in the main stream media...or conversely what they don't read or see in the main stream media. Every single day boards sit around a desk at newspapers and television networks and decide what IS considered newsworthy and what is not and those boards are overwhelmingly made up of liberals! If those boards decide that the Clinton Foundation taking millions in donations from overseas contributors isn't newsworthy then that story will not get reported on or reported on in a cursory fashion. They literally have the power to "filter" the news to match their own views and you're naive if you think that the New York Times and CNN don't do exactly that each and every day!

 

[sealybobo]

Time for the wingnuts to admit there is no Liberal Media, just corporate media.


Campaign Press Adopts The Trump Rules -- They're The Opposite Of The Clinton Rules

Soft On Trump, Tough On Clinton



Switching back and forth between MSNBC and CNN last Thursday night as they aired competing, hour-long interviews with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, viewers ran the risk of whiplash. The threat lingered not just because Clinton and Trump were on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but because the tone and tenor of the two events seemed dramatically different.

Here were some of the questions posed to Clinton from the MSNBC event's co-moderators, NBC's Chuck Todd and Telemundo's José Díaz-Balart:

• "What would you do to make possible that the [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival] students become permanent residents?"
• "Would you ever imagine raising the retirement age in the next 10 years?"
• "Do you foresee a time when the federal government would be able to include the undocumented [workers] in federal grants for education?"
• "Should people start paying Social Security taxes on income over $120,000?"
• "Is a presidential visit [to Cuba] a step too far? Would a President Clinton be going this quickly?"

By contrast, here were some of the questions posed to Trump from the CNN moderator, Anderson Cooper:

• "What do you eat when you roll up at a McDonald's, what does - what does Donald Trump order?"
• "What's your favorite kind of music?"
• "How many hours a night do you sleep?"
• "What kind of a parent are you?"
• "What is one thing you wish you didn't do?"

Want more proof the media isn't liberal?

In the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, Senate Republicans shocked most Americans with their immediate commitments to refuse a hearing for any replacement nominated by President Obama -- which would amount to an unprecedented act of obstructionism.

The fact is: President Obama has more than 300 days remaining in his term, but the longest any Supreme Court nominee has waited for a confirmation vote is 125 days.1

Such an act of obstructions has zero precedent in American history. But if you were to go by some reports in the traditional corporate media outlets, you'd think it was politics as usual, being waged by two equally obstinate political parties who just can't seem to agree.

That's an absurd and dangerous misreading of what's happening in Washington right now, and we need to put pressure on the traditional corporate media to avoid the same old false equivalences and fake evenhandedness in covering the Supreme Court nomination story.

Tell the traditional corporate media: Report the Supreme Court nomination story for what it is -- an unprecedented case of extreme Republican obstruction and anti-constitutional overreach. Click here to sign the petition.

Unfortunately, too many news reports have strained to make it appear as if top Democrats have taken similar stances in the past, justifying current Republican intransigence.

Many outlets have pounced on past comments from Sen. Chuck Schumer, who expressed opposition to Bush nominees in the final year of his presidency. The Wall Street Journal Editorial said Schumer "may want to forget" his comments in 2007 as he pushed back on Republican obstructionism. CNN's Erin Burnett said Schumer's comments in 2007 "sounds like exactly" Republican's pledge to block any nominee.2

They weren't. These reports failed to make clear that Schumer's opposition was based on the merits of the nominees themselves, and he never indicated blanket opposition to nominees based on it being an election year and Bush's final year as president, as Republicans are now doing.

Those same outlets have similarly drawn another false equivalence with President Obama's own opposition, as a senator, to the nomination of Samuel Alito. CNN's Matt Lewis said "there's a lot of hypocrisy" with Democrats pushing back on obstruction.3

But again, the media completely misses the story -- President Obama's opposition to Samuel Alito's nomination was one based on the merits of the nominee, not an outright opposition to any nominee of President Bush or an argument to wait until after President Bush left office.

Even The New York Times has gotten in on the act, drawing the same comparison to President Obama's opposition to Alito, repeatedly reporting the story as a partisan dispute that Democrats are now simply "swapping uniforms" to be on the other side of, and depicting the unprecedented nature of Republicans' obstruction as merely a strategic talking point being deployed by the Obama administration.4

But history speaks for itself: The same Senate Republicans -- including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sen. Chuck Grassley, and Sen. Orrin Hatch -- who today flatly refuse to consider any nominee on grounds that it is President Obama's last year in office ALL voted to approve the nomination of Justice Anthony Kennedy in the final year of President Reagan's presidency. And they did so in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

So while Republicans would love for the media to report this as a mere political disagreement that would play out similarly if the shoe were on the other foot, the truth is that what Republicans are doing now is an unprecedented, anti-democratic power grab that violates their duty to the nation and our Constitution.

It's the responsibility of the media to report the broader context of this story, not a horse race of false equivalences and fake evenhandedness that misleads the public on what's really happening in Washington.

Tell the traditional corporate media to tell the truth about Republicans' unprecedented and anti-constitutional obstruction: