What the media is choosing to ignore about this whole mess: Itself

[Mac1958]

Too funny

Don Lemon: "A Good Thing That Mueller Found No Collusion With Russia By Trump"

 

[Mac1958]

So thanks loads. Your maniacal, hyper-partisan crusade just handed him a big win.

Reason 10000001 to NOT be partisan.....~S~

It's an affliction.
.

 

[sparky]

partisan pandemic.....

~S~

 

[Fueri]

They handed Trump a major win here by slobbering all over themselves at the opportunity to pillory the guy that called them out as fake news.

...And ended up making him look like some sort of mad genius.

It's utterly hilarious.

 

[Mac1958]

They handed Trump a major win here by slobbering all over themselves at the opportunity to pillory the guy that called them out as fake news.
...And ended up making him look like some sort of mad genius.
It's utterly hilarious.

It is, but also at the same time, it's troubling that they refuse to admit a thing.

Does this mean that they're lying about their behavior, or that they really don't see it?

Which would be worse?
.

 

[Fueri]

They handed Trump a major win here by slobbering all over themselves at the opportunity to pillory the guy that called them out as fake news.
...And ended up making him look like some sort of mad genius.
It's utterly hilarious.

It is, but also at the same time, it's troubling that they refuse to admit a thing.

Does this mean that they're lying about their behavior, or that they really don't see it?

Which would be worse?
.

They're passing the buck. They have to, as they think they are defending their journalistic integrity, but by doing so they are forfeiting it.

The irony is stacking up like cordwood.....

 

[OldLady]

Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia

Notice that these guys pretend that all they did was "report" the "news". THAT'S the key here. They completely ignore the non-stop "pundits" and "panels" who took up hours of TV time every day and massive space on the internet making endless accusations and assumptions based on hearsay and opinion. A few examples of my point, from the piece:

1. CNN chief Jeff Zucker responded to criticism in an interview with The New York Times, saying he’s “entirely comfortable” with the network’s coverage. “We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said.

2. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also blasted back at conservative attacks on the press. “Just because you will justify everything that man does and just because you are corrupt, just because you’re not a journalist, just because you have sold your soul to a personality cult, don’t knock reporters at The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or the broadcast networks for doing their job right,” the former Republican congressman and staunch Trump critic said.

3. The editors in chief at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which broke countless stories connecting the dots between Trump officials and Moscow, argued that the facts they laid out in their reporting stand on their own, even if no conspiracy charges materialized. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told one of his reporters. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”

Ian Bremmer gets it right in the piece, including Fox in the circus.

The media should be embarrassed, but they are not. Neither are their usual sycophants.
.

NYTimes and WaPo have nothing to be embarrassed about. They reported facts and op eds, just exactly as they were supposed to.
I have repeatedly invited posters to link me one actual lie by the NY Times or, for that matter, any other major newspaper. For some reason, they never respond.
Trump said his inauguration was attended by more people than ever in history. The news media who factually reported that this was not true were branded as the liars.
Figure it out. You're not stupid.

 

[Mac1958]

Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia

Notice that these guys pretend that all they did was "report" the "news". THAT'S the key here. They completely ignore the non-stop "pundits" and "panels" who took up hours of TV time every day and massive space on the internet making endless accusations and assumptions based on hearsay and opinion. A few examples of my point, from the piece:

1. CNN chief Jeff Zucker responded to criticism in an interview with The New York Times, saying he’s “entirely comfortable” with the network’s coverage. “We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said.

2. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also blasted back at conservative attacks on the press. “Just because you will justify everything that man does and just because you are corrupt, just because you’re not a journalist, just because you have sold your soul to a personality cult, don’t knock reporters at The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or the broadcast networks for doing their job right,” the former Republican congressman and staunch Trump critic said.

3. The editors in chief at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which broke countless stories connecting the dots between Trump officials and Moscow, argued that the facts they laid out in their reporting stand on their own, even if no conspiracy charges materialized. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told one of his reporters. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”

Ian Bremmer gets it right in the piece, including Fox in the circus.

The media should be embarrassed, but they are not. Neither are their usual sycophants.
.

NYTimes and WaPo have nothing to be embarrassed about. They reported facts and op eds, just exactly as they were supposed to.
I have repeatedly invited posters to link me one actual lie by the NY Times or, for that matter, any other major newspaper. For some reason, they never respond.
Trump said his inauguration was attended by more people than ever in history. The news media who factually reported that this was not true were branded as the liars.
Figure it out. You're not stupid.

Please comment on the following from the OP - True or False?

"... they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

"Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?"
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did any media outlets cover the Mueller probe into conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia in a responsible manner?

 

[candycorn]

I've seen quite a bit of whining from the media about the blowback over this whole Russia circus. Their argument is "well, there were lies, and we had to investigate them".

Well yes, that is certainly fair. But they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?

Congratulations, folks. There is only one group of people on the fucking planet who can put Donald J. Trump in the position of a fucking VICTIM, and it's YOU.

So thanks loads. Your maniacal, hyper-partisan crusade just handed him a big win. Not good news for those of us who don't care much for the guy.
.

Link?

 

[Mac1958]

Link?

Holy crap. We've broken a new record for obtuse.

Huh? What? Who? Where?

Tell ya what: Here's a nice little montage. And I know it won't be "good enough" for someone like you: The Revolution Is In You on Twitter

And you can read the piece by Matt Taibbi I linked to earlier. THAT won't be "good enough" for you EITHER.

Gawd, this place is amazing.
.

 

[OldLady]

Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia

Notice that these guys pretend that all they did was "report" the "news". THAT'S the key here. They completely ignore the non-stop "pundits" and "panels" who took up hours of TV time every day and massive space on the internet making endless accusations and assumptions based on hearsay and opinion. A few examples of my point, from the piece:

1. CNN chief Jeff Zucker responded to criticism in an interview with The New York Times, saying he’s “entirely comfortable” with the network’s coverage. “We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said.

2. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also blasted back at conservative attacks on the press. “Just because you will justify everything that man does and just because you are corrupt, just because you’re not a journalist, just because you have sold your soul to a personality cult, don’t knock reporters at The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or the broadcast networks for doing their job right,” the former Republican congressman and staunch Trump critic said.

3. The editors in chief at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which broke countless stories connecting the dots between Trump officials and Moscow, argued that the facts they laid out in their reporting stand on their own, even if no conspiracy charges materialized. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told one of his reporters. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”

Ian Bremmer gets it right in the piece, including Fox in the circus.

The media should be embarrassed, but they are not. Neither are their usual sycophants.
.

NYTimes and WaPo have nothing to be embarrassed about. They reported facts and op eds, just exactly as they were supposed to.
I have repeatedly invited posters to link me one actual lie by the NY Times or, for that matter, any other major newspaper. For some reason, they never respond.
Trump said his inauguration was attended by more people than ever in history. The news media who factually reported that this was not true were branded as the liars.
Figure it out. You're not stupid.

Please comment on the following from the OP - True or False?

"... they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

"Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?"
.

I have always thought the "panels" and the 24/7 discussion of Trump's latest tweet or rumor from the WH by some anonymous copy boy was ridiculous. So I stopped watching the channels that did it. I don't miss much.

I can't True or False your quote, because it's an opinion. You're just doing more media bashing. I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater, though--that has always been one of my biggest concerns about Trump & Co. Training his followers to mistrust the truth is a very dangerous place to be, and all the conjecture in the world about what is going to happen next (which the panels were endlessly discussing) is nowhere close to as dangerous.

 

[Mac1958]

Link?

Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia

Notice that these guys pretend that all they did was "report" the "news". THAT'S the key here. They completely ignore the non-stop "pundits" and "panels" who took up hours of TV time every day and massive space on the internet making endless accusations and assumptions based on hearsay and opinion. A few examples of my point, from the piece:

1. CNN chief Jeff Zucker responded to criticism in an interview with The New York Times, saying he’s “entirely comfortable” with the network’s coverage. “We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said.

2. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also blasted back at conservative attacks on the press. “Just because you will justify everything that man does and just because you are corrupt, just because you’re not a journalist, just because you have sold your soul to a personality cult, don’t knock reporters at The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or the broadcast networks for doing their job right,” the former Republican congressman and staunch Trump critic said.

3. The editors in chief at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which broke countless stories connecting the dots between Trump officials and Moscow, argued that the facts they laid out in their reporting stand on their own, even if no conspiracy charges materialized. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told one of his reporters. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”

Ian Bremmer gets it right in the piece, including Fox in the circus.

The media should be embarrassed, but they are not. Neither are their usual sycophants.
.

NYTimes and WaPo have nothing to be embarrassed about. They reported facts and op eds, just exactly as they were supposed to.
I have repeatedly invited posters to link me one actual lie by the NY Times or, for that matter, any other major newspaper. For some reason, they never respond.
Trump said his inauguration was attended by more people than ever in history. The news media who factually reported that this was not true were branded as the liars.
Figure it out. You're not stupid.

Please comment on the following from the OP - True or False?

"... they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

"Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?"
.

I have always thought the "panels" and the 24/7 discussion of Trump's latest tweet or rumor from the WH by some anonymous copy boy was ridiculous. So I stopped watching the channels that did it. I don't miss much.

I can't True or False your quote, because it's an opinion. You're just doing more media bashing. I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater, though--that has always been one of my biggest concerns about Trump & Co. Training his followers to mistrust the truth is a very dangerous place to be, and all the conjecture in the world about what is going to happen next (which the panels were endlessly discussing) is nowhere close to as dangerous.

The media is terribly important and it really fucked this up with its partisanship.

The least we can do is be honest about it. Or not.
.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[August West]

I've seen quite a bit of whining from the media about the blowback over this whole Russia circus. Their argument is "well, there were lies, and we had to investigate them".

Well yes, that is certainly fair. But they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?

Congratulations, folks. There is only one group of people on the fucking planet who can put Donald J. Trump in the position of a fucking VICTIM, and it's YOU.

So thanks loads. Your maniacal, hyper-partisan crusade just handed him a big win. Not good news for those of us who don't care much for the guy.
.

What if it was Chelsea Clinton that had a secret meeting with the Russians in Clinton Tower? The GOP would have just ignored it. You think? Would you consider the 8 Benghazi investigations to be a circus as well?

 

[Mac1958]

I've seen quite a bit of whining from the media about the blowback over this whole Russia circus. Their argument is "well, there were lies, and we had to investigate them".

Well yes, that is certainly fair. But they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?

Congratulations, folks. There is only one group of people on the fucking planet who can put Donald J. Trump in the position of a fucking VICTIM, and it's YOU.

So thanks loads. Your maniacal, hyper-partisan crusade just handed him a big win. Not good news for those of us who don't care much for the guy.
.

What if it was Chelsea Clinton that had a secret meeting with the Russians in Clinton Tower? The GOP would have just ignored it. You think? Would you consider the 8 Benghazi investigations to be a circus as well?

Of course. The two ends of the spectrum are comically similar in their behaviors. I say that all the time.

So your attempt there to change the subject didn't work.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The shameful behavior of the media is only slightly more shameful than the behavior of its sycophantic hardcore Left.

 

[OldLady]

Link?

Media figures defend coverage of Trump and Russia

Notice that these guys pretend that all they did was "report" the "news". THAT'S the key here. They completely ignore the non-stop "pundits" and "panels" who took up hours of TV time every day and massive space on the internet making endless accusations and assumptions based on hearsay and opinion. A few examples of my point, from the piece:

1. CNN chief Jeff Zucker responded to criticism in an interview with The New York Times, saying he’s “entirely comfortable” with the network’s coverage. “We are not investigators. We are journalists, and our role is to report the facts as we know them, which is exactly what we did,” Zucker said.

2. MSNBC host Joe Scarborough also blasted back at conservative attacks on the press. “Just because you will justify everything that man does and just because you are corrupt, just because you’re not a journalist, just because you have sold your soul to a personality cult, don’t knock reporters at The New York Times or The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal or the broadcast networks for doing their job right,” the former Republican congressman and staunch Trump critic said.

3. The editors in chief at The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of which broke countless stories connecting the dots between Trump officials and Moscow, argued that the facts they laid out in their reporting stand on their own, even if no conspiracy charges materialized. “We wrote a lot about Russia, and I have no regrets,” Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the Times, told one of his reporters. “It’s not our job to determine whether or not there was illegality.”

Ian Bremmer gets it right in the piece, including Fox in the circus.

The media should be embarrassed, but they are not. Neither are their usual sycophants.
.

NYTimes and WaPo have nothing to be embarrassed about. They reported facts and op eds, just exactly as they were supposed to.
I have repeatedly invited posters to link me one actual lie by the NY Times or, for that matter, any other major newspaper. For some reason, they never respond.
Trump said his inauguration was attended by more people than ever in history. The news media who factually reported that this was not true were branded as the liars.
Figure it out. You're not stupid.

Please comment on the following from the OP - True or False?

"... they're pretending that the way they did it was the only way.

"Wall to wall "pundits" making this assumption and that assumption; non-stop "breaking news" about the latest "bombshell", a never-ending stream of "panels" full of delirious anti-Trump wingers going full drama queen over every last damn possible rumor. On and on and on. These were CHOICES that YOU made as you "covered" this "story". That's the "investigation" that you "had" to do? Really?"
.

I have always thought the "panels" and the 24/7 discussion of Trump's latest tweet or rumor from the WH by some anonymous copy boy was ridiculous. So I stopped watching the channels that did it. I don't miss much.

I can't True or False your quote, because it's an opinion. You're just doing more media bashing. I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater, though--that has always been one of my biggest concerns about Trump & Co. Training his followers to mistrust the truth is a very dangerous place to be, and all the conjecture in the world about what is going to happen next (which the panels were endlessly discussing) is nowhere close to as dangerous.

The media is terribly important and it really fucked this up with its partisanship.

The least we can do is be honest about it. Or not.
.

At least you and I agree that the media is terribly important. Did they really "fuck up?" That is for them to say, I guess. They got their viewers; that's all they care about.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Just to be clear, in a thread where Mac1958 claims that the media is not looking inward and examining itself regarding the coverage of the Trump-Russia probe, Mac has cited several media sources which have examined the media’s coverage of the Trump-Russia probe.

 

[Mac1958]

Struck a nerve again. Good.