View Single Post
  #51  
Old 02-07-2019, 03:39 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCLX
Default Re: Ultimate Cagefight MMXIX, Democratic Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
But davidm would hate that, the media can do no wrong.
Maybe I'll get to your other stuff later, but right now I just want to focus on this.

This is a flat-out lie, and you know it.
Well it certainly seems the media can do no wrong when it comes to how much attention they pay to scandals involving Democrats according to you.
Quote:
But you're now outed as a known liar, and I know that you are no more interested in facts than is the standard-issue member of Trump's idiot horde.
I missed the part where you apologized for yet again claiming that I wanted the media to give no coverage whatsoever to Clinton's emails. You have yet to even acknowledge that there's a distinction. The projection is strong with you.
Quote:
Quote:
It's their duty to let Republicans dictate their coverage priorities.
The fact that WaPo reported that Warren lied is not letting "Republicans dictate their coverage priorities." It's reporting something that a candidate for the president of the United States did, that the public has a fucking right to know.
That statement does not refer specifically to that latest WaPo story. The media's coverage of Benghazi and Clinton's emails and the Clinton Foundation is a much clearer case of this.

Indeed, consider the fact that the New York Times and Washington Post had exclusive agreements with the author of Clinton Cash, a book commissioned by Steve Bannon's organization the "Government Accountability Institute", funded by the Mercers. So did Fox News, but who's surprised about that? What's exclusive about it was unclear given that three media orgs had access, but either way, the deal was supposedly to get early looks at parts of the book I guess. But it is ridiculous to suggest that they were letting a Republican hack dictate their reporting by creating such an arrangement.

If Steve Bannon commissions a hit piece on Clinton, it's the media's duty to go out of their way to treat it as a credible investigation.
Quote:
Quote:
*Coincidentally, the media is dominated by large corporations. I'm sure there's no connection between this and how different politicians are treated or how minor scandals can get constant coverage in some cases while larger scandals (like the hurricane response in Puerto Rico, which continues to have negative effects) are old news and given little coverage.
The NYT gave massive coverage of the disaster in Puerto Rico, and scathing coverage, both in news columns and editorial pieces, about Trump's pathetic and evil response to said disaster -- which you would know if you actually read the Times, which you obviously don't. But don't let that inconvenient little fact stop you from lying about what the Times writes, yeah?

And, so sorry, the corporate overseers of the Times offer no input whatsoever into news coverage, and if they tried to do so, there would be an open rebellion among the honorable reporters and editors of the paper.
You'll notice the part about "old news", right? Please try to read more closely. I'm talking about the continuing scandal. Hillary Clinton's emails and Benghazi were somehow multi-year scandals, right? So Puerto Rico, which is objectively a far larger scandal, should be getting a similar level of coverage today, right?

Also, while I did mention the NYT in the bit about Clinton Cash above, I did not mention it in the posts you're replying to, so I don't know why you're saying I'm lying about the Times in particular. The media is a lot of other outlets besides the NYT and WaPo you know.

Either way, I'm rather doubtful you'd be so dismissive of the possibility of negative influence by corporate overlords when it came to anything else. If I argued that XYZ donors have no input whatsoever into [Democratic politician]'s policy decisions, and if they tried to do so, there would be open rebellion among the honorable staffers and interns in their office, you would laugh me out of the room.

But at any rate, I wasn't making the claim specifically about the NYT anyway, although I'm not nearly so sure as you are they are not biased, at least at an unconscious level, by such things.
Quote:
Quote:
Because to do otherwise might mean he was wrong about 2016, or even contributed to the outcome we see now in his capacity as a member of the media.
The only one wrong about 2016 is you. Clinton lost because she was a shit candidate, and not because of the news media. That you and people like you can't deal with this means you are setting yourselves up for another shitty candidate in 2020 and another loss to Trump.
You yourself said that Warren was one of the only two good candidates, and Warren is my top choice right now. But keep telling me how I'm a neoliberal shill because that's the only possible explanation for me thinking you're full of shit.

My concern is that the media will turn her into a shit candidate by obsessing over inane bullshit, aided and abetted by people like you, who would rather let them cripple a candidate like her than admit there were any failures in 2016.

Because I recognize that the media patterns that applied to Clinton are not limited to her because of her supposedly unique shittiness, either personally or on policy, and that progressive candidates are not immune to this type of biased coverage.
Quote:
It wasn't the fucking news media that whispered into Hillary's ear to ignore Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, was it?
Pennsylvania and Ohio were her most visited states along with Florida! And she did go to Michigan (although not enough).

Even if this claim were in any way an exoneration of the media (two things can be true at the same time, dumbass), you're simply wrong. The trope is "why didn't she go to Wisconsin?" because Pennsylvania and Ohio aren't states you can say she ignored, but it's not good enough for you to repeat tired cliches, you have to exaggerate them beyond, facts be damned.

Is this the kind of reporting or fact checking you bring to your newspaper job?
Quote:
How'd she make out in those Rust Belt states that she took for granted, hm?
She didn't take Pennsylvania and Florida for granted, and without them, Michigan and Wisconsin couldn't have changed the outcome.

In fact, in terms of optimizing her campaign visits based on the chance of the state deciding the election, she should've visited Ohio MUCH LESS, and yes, visited Michigan more, and Wisconsin at all. (Whereas her decision to visit Arizona once, given how close it was, looks fine.)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (02-07-2019), slimshady2357 (02-07-2019), The Man (02-07-2019)
 
Page generated in 0.08777 seconds with 11 queries