Liberal media? What liberal media?

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Never mind,what other reaction should I have expect from someone who also minimizes child molestation allegations like in the Zimmerman case.

[b]Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".

That attitude worked out real well for Penn State,didn't it? Not so much for the victims though. It's people like you that allow these monsters to continue victimizing their prey.

Actually, I have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing “these monsters to continue victimizing their prey”. I said quite clearly:

happy jack wrote:

If it is shown that any laws were broken in this case, then Zimmerman should be charged and tried accordingly.

Now, are you finished making things up?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Never mind,what other reaction should I have expect from someone who also minimizes child molestation allegations like in the Zimmerman case.

[b]Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".

That attitude worked out real well for Penn State,didn't it? Not so much for the victims though. It's people like you that allow these monsters to continue victimizing their prey.

Actually, I have nothing whatsoever to do with allowing “these monsters to continue victimizing their prey”.
Now, are you finished making things up?

Your exact words:

happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Your exact words:

happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?
"Allegations" are not "facts".

If and/or when the "allegations" become "facts", then the perpetrator should be punished to the full extent of the law. But for now, they remain "allegations", and no one should be punished for allegations made against them.
What are you having trouble understanding?

That's not what you said,is it? What you said is

happy jack wrote:

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?

You still don't get it,do you? Allegations of child abuse are serious and should not be minimized. Doing so helps these monsters perpetrate their crimes by intimidating victims from coming forward and into believing that no one will take them seriously.

Why not just admit that you're wrong instead of trying to spin your way out of it?

Quote :

Why shouldn't I minimize child molestation allegations?

Hey, that's what Joe Pa did.

Quote :

Child abuse is very serious and should not be minimized....Allegations should be investigated

Good one
jack is starting to sound like Willard

Dumbfux still haven't learned that blatant lying is counterproductive.




http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/07/abc-president-ross-report-hurts-coverage-129940.html

ABC President: Ross report hurts coverage

By DYLAN BYERS |
7/24/12 2:44 PM EDT

ABC News president Ben Sherwood told staff today that last Friday's incorrect report by Brian Ross detracts from the network's otherwise excellent coverage of the Colarado theater shooting, network sources tell POLITICO.
Sherwood's remarks, made on the network's daily editorial conference call, came the morning after Ross's report was picked up by late night comedians John Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central, both of whom used Ross's erroneous suggestion of a Tea Party link to the Colorado theater shooting as fodder for their Monday night routines.
On Monday's conference call, ABC News SVP James Goldston also commended the staff for its work, noted the incorrect report, and said that the network was taking steps to ensure it did not happen again, sources told POLITICO yesterday.
A spokesperson with ABC News said the network does not comment on editorial conference calls.
In addition to Ross's report, ABC News now faces a conflicting claim from the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes. Arlene Holmes issued a statement yesterday alleging that ABC's Matthew Mosk mischaracterized her when he reported that she had identified her son as the alleged shooter. On Monday evening, ABC released a new article with details about Mosk's call to the mother and announced that it was standing by its initial report.

Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Audiotape: Katie Couric documentary falsely depicts gun supporters as ‘idiots’
By Erik Wemple May 25

It looks as though Katie Couric stunned her interviewees. Knocked them out with a bombshell inquiry: “Let me ask you another question: If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?” Now check out the blank stares:



Nearly 10 seconds of silence, as if no one has an answer to Couric’s rather straightforward question. The scene comes from “Under the Gun,” a film written, produced and directed by Stephanie Soechtig and narrated by Couric, the global anchor for Yahoo News; Couric also serves as executive producer. The session depicted in the video above features Couric and members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a group whose motto is “Defending Your Right to Defend Yourself.”
And to hear the VCDL tell the story, those awkward seconds are a fabrication, a byproduct of deceptive editing. To prove the point, VCDL President Philip Van Cleave has released an audiotape of the session, which is available on the site of the Washington Free Beacon as part of a story by Stephen Gutowski. In that recording, the question from Couric is a bit different from the one in the video. She says, “If there are no background checks, how do you prevent — I know how you all are going to answer this, but I’m going to ask it anyway. If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from walking into, say, a licensed gun dealer and purchasing a gun?”
On the audiotape, a reply comes immediately from one of the VCDL members: “Well, one — if you’re not in jail, you should still have your basic rights.” More chatter follows.




In an interview with the Erik Wemple Blog, Van Cleave said, “My teeth fell out of my head when I saw that.” The result of the editing, he says, is that folks who view the documentary are “going to say these people are idiots. It affects all the gun owners.” Other scenes in the documentary, says Van Cleave, “accurately” represent the input of his fellow gun owners. But not the exchange on background checks. “This was beyond the pale.” Van Cleave says he has audio of the entire interview with Couric — a backstop against bogus editing that he learned from his dealings with the media. “I do that as a matter of course when I’m doing things like that,” says Van Cleave. “It has saved me a few times.”
After he saw the finished product, Van Cleave emailed his concerns to Kristin Lazure, a producer at Atlas Films. “Well, that was interesting. So a ‘balanced’ piece gives 15 minutes to the pro-gun side and 1-1/2 hours to the opposition? I had no idea that was the definition of ‘balanced,’ when I was approached about this.”
Then he bored into the integrity matter:
On the question where our members were asked, “So without background checks, how do you keep guns out of the hands of felons?”: it shows our members just sitting there and then one looking down. The editors merged some “b-roll” of our members sitting quietly between questions, followed by Katie asking the felon question. I have the audio of that entire interview and I know for an absolute fact that our members immediately jumped in to answer the question and did NOT just sit there quietly. To the person watching the video, it gave the intentionally false appearance of no one in our group having an answer. Am I supposed to think that is good journalism, Kristin? I hope that in your heart of hearts that you are at least thinking to yourself, “no, it is not.”
Here’s how Lazure handled that concern: “I’m truly sorry to hear you were disappointed with the final product. We knew when we set out to make a film on such a divisive issue that we weren’t going to make everybody happy. However, we have heard from many gun owners following our screenings and the television premiere who felt we gave the issue a balanced look and reflected their views accurately.” That response, of course, doesn’t address the issue raised by Van Cleave, which he noted forcefully in his reply: “It’s not a ‘feeling’ – the 8 seconds of silence from gun owners shown after the question about felons is inexcusable. Within 1 or 2 seconds members responded to that question – like I said I have the proof. That edit actually changed the answer members gave to the question. Worse, that deception was intentional.”
This brand of defensiveness appears widespread among those associated with the documentary. Moments ago, the film’s people released this statement from Soechtig:
“There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks. I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
Here the Erik Wemple Blog stroke our gray beard and reflect: In the years we’ve covered and watched media organizations, we’ve scarcely seen a thinner, more weaselly excuse than the one in the block above. For starters, it appears to count as an admission that this segment of the documentary was edited. The artistic “pause” provides the viewer not a “moment to consider this important question”; it provides viewers a moment to lower their estimation of gun owners. That’s it. As far as the rest of the statement, adults in 2016 may no longer write the phrase “apologize if anyone felt that way” and preserve their standing as professionals. To compound matters, here’s the accompanying statement from Couric:
“I support Stephanie’s statement and am very proud of the film.”
That, from the Katie Couric of Yahoo News, of “CBS Evening News,” of “60 Minutes,” of the “Today” show and so on.
Many of those who sampled the discrepancy between the video and the audiotape were already enraged by the depiction of these gun owners. The statements from Soechtig and Couric will surely intensify the backlash, as well they should. An apology, retraction, re-editing, whatever it is that filmmakers do to make amends — all of it needs to happen here.

happy jack wrote:

Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :

“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :

“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On

Quote :

“This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

Yeah, it involves silence where there was originally no silence. This is deceptive journalism at its most blatant.
Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Perhaps this lying twat should apply to NBC for a job editing 911 recordings.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/05/25/audiotape-katie-couric-documentary-falsely-depicts-gun-supporters-as-idiots/\\

Quote :

“This was an unnecessary mistake,” the individual told TheWrap. “It did not represent editing someone’s sentences, there was no factual error, this is not a mistake that is a substantive mistake. It could have been avoided,” he said, adding: “This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

http://www.thewrap.com/katie-couric-under-the-gun-documentary/

Love seeing you gun nuts getting all riled up about nothing. Katie Couric appreciates the free publicity you lunatics have provided.
Carry On

Quote :

“This was a poor decision that was made and it involves silence.”

Yeah, it involves silence where there was originally no silence. This is deceptive journalism at its most blatant.
Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.

Yeah. Well I have to agree with you on this one, jack.  I don't know that I'd go so far as to call Katie a "twat," but the video was clearly deceptive.

happy jack wrote:

Can’t say that I’m surprised that you don’t see anything wrong with it, though.  Next to your usual dishonesty, almost anything appears legitimate.
[/b]

Says the troll who has no problem when wingnut right to lifers edit videos and lie about Planned Parenthood.

Of course, the far bigger issue is that the gun loving fanatics of America simply don't care to keep guns out of the hands of gang members, terrorists, and murderers.  Answer left in or out, the point is exactly the same. That terrorists know to take advantage of our laughably lax gun laws isn't an issue so long as it doesn't interfere with their masturbatory fetish for firearms.

‘Guns Everywhere’ Trolls Miss the Mark on Katie Couric Documentary

Quote :

We are gun owners, and we were forced to confront the infuriating truth that our daughter’s killer was able to build an arsenal for his slaughter simply by going online and ordering over 4,000 rounds of metal-piercing ammo, tear gas, body armor, and a 100-round magazine without even showing his driver’s license. We believe the easy accessibility of firearms in America played a critical role in our daughter’s death.

...

Again, we are gun owners; we believe in the Second Amendment right to own guns. We also believe, as Justice Scalia reasoned in the Heller decision, that the Second Amendment supports longstanding prohibitions on gun ownership by dangerous people, such as felons, fugitives, and the severely mentally ill; and that the Second Amendment also allows reasonable restrictions on carrying guns in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision undercuts the fallacious “guns everywhere” mentality pushed by the corporate gun lobby.

But some trolls spoon-fed on NRA propaganda don’t listen to reason, don’t respect the Supreme Court’s reasoning, and sometimes make up their own conspiracy theories and pretend they are factual.

...

And now I’m watching the same kind of conspiratorial nonsense and hyperbole flung at the filmmakers of Under the Gun, Katie Couric’s documentary film about gun violence, directed by Stephanie Soechtig. We appear in this film and find it to be fair-minded overall and factual about our experience, despite the controversy over an eight-second pause after Couric asked whether a terrorist or felon should be able to own guns. She has since posted the transcript of that exchange with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, in which one man ignored whether a terrorist should be able to buy guns, but responded, “If you’re a felon and you’ve done your time, you should have your rights.”

In our opinion, that eight-second pause saved the dignity of “guns everywhere” proponents. To us, it made them seem more human and thoughtful. After listening to the tape, we were not surprised to hear the NRA bumper sticker mythology that they regurgitated in response.

We do find it amusing that people who believe the big lie “more guns make us safer” had such a huge problem with an eight-second pause that kept them from making mythological statements that we could refute with the facts and data from years of research from respected researchers. The truth is the filmmakers didn’t have to edit Under the Gun to make “guns everywhere” proponents look silly. They do that on their own every day! The filmmakers could easily have made caricatures out of them, but they didn’t. They tried to offer viewers a look at multiple varied, nuanced and opposing perspectives on the debate.

CNN, your track record speaks for itself.
Now might be a good time to shut the fuck up.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/sarah-sanders-press-briefing-analysis/index.html



Sarah Sanders just made a hugely offensive allegation against the media



Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 5:48 PM ET, Mon December 11, 2017

(CNN)

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders isn't a big fan of the media.
Which is, of course, her right. The relationship between any White House and any press corps tasked with covering that White House is almost always fraught and fractious.
But, on Monday, Sanders made an accusation that went way, way beyond the pale of the usual give and take between White House and press corps. Here's what she said:
"There's a very big difference between making honest mistakes and purposefully misleading the American people. Something that happens regularly. You can't say -- I'm not done. You can't say that it's an honest mistake when you are purposely putting out information that you know to be false or when you're taking information that hasn't been validated, that hasn't been offered any credibility and that has been continually denied by a number of people including people with direct knowledge of an incident. This is something that -- I'm speaking about the number of reports that have taken place over the last couple of weeks. I'm simply stating that there should be a certain level of responsibility in that process."
Yes, there is a big difference between honest mistakes and purposely misleading people by reporting information that you know to be false. But, there's absolutely zero evidence -- cited by Sanders or anyone else in the Trump administration -- that any reporter covering the Trump White House has published something they knew to be false. Not any. (If there was any, by the way, that reporter should be fired immediately.)
The example Sanders cited -- when prompted to back up her outrageous claim -- was that of Brian Ross' reporting on ABC.
"I think that was pretty misleading to the American people, and I think that it's very telling that that individual had to be suspended because of that reporting," said Sanders. "I think that shows that the network took it seriously and recognized that it was a problem."
As a reminder, Ross reported, citing a single source, that former national security adviser Michael Flynn was prepared to testify to special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump had directed him to reach out to the Russians. Ross corrected his reporting the same day, noting that his source was wrong on the timing -- that Trump had told Flynn to reach out to the Russians as president-elect. Ross was suspended for a month and will not report on the White House going forward.
There's no question that Ross' reporting was misleading. And that it was taken by lots of people who oppose Trump's presidency as game, set and match on collusion. It was a big mistake made even worse by the fact that Ross relied on a single source rather than at least two sources, which is long-standing journalistic practice.
But, but, but. Nowhere in anything we know about Ross' erroneous reporting is there even a whiff of intentionality. Where is the evidence that Ross purposely pushed out the Flynn-Trump report -- knowing it was wrong -- solely to make Trump look bad?
There is a massive difference between making an honest mistake -- in this case trusting a source too much -- and purposeful intent to deceive. A massive difference.
Think of it this way: I am up to bat with the bases loaded and my team down one run in the bottom of the ninth inning of the seventh game of the World Series. I strike out. Game over. My team loses.
If I tried my best to hit the ball but failed, that means one thing.
If someone paid me $50,000 to strike out anytime I was up in an important moment in the game, that's something else altogether. It's not even in the same, ahem, ballpark.
Mistakes like the one made by Ross amount to striking out with the bases loaded while trying to get a hit. He was trying to get the story right -- and failed. What Sanders is alleging is the latter -- that reporters are, as an industry, pushing out things they know to be false because they hate Trump and want him to fail. You can't make a claim like that with zero supporting evidence.
I can only hope that Sarah Sanders doesn't believe what she said on Monday but rather was simply parroting the oft-expressed views of her boss when it comes to the media's motives.
"Very little discussion of all the purposely false and defamatory stories put out this week by the Fake News Media," Trump tweeted on Sunday afternoon. "They are out of control - correct reporting means nothing to them. Major lies written, then forced to be withdrawn after they are exposed...a stain on America!"
"Purposely false and defamatory." I mean, I just can't.
There is no question these past seven days haven't been good ones for the media. We've screwed things up. We've taken actions to address those mistakes. We need to do better. Period.
But, to suggest -- or believe -- that the mistakes made by the media, including CNN, are purposeful is beyond offensive to anyone who spends their days in this profession. Is it possible there is a bad apple or two? Yup. Just like in every profession ever. But the vast, vast majority of journalists work like hell to get it right and beat themselves up for weeks and months when they make an honest mistake.
Those are the facts. And they aren't negotiable -- not by Donald Trump, not by Sarah Sanders, not by anyone.





•

http://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-clinton-lewinsky-impeach-trump-782734

Fox News Will Devote Series to Impeachment, But About Clinton's, Not Trump's, Of Course

By Greg Price On 1/16/18 at 2:31 PM



????
No, they are not devoting a series to Trump's impeachment, and for good reason - because it never happened, of course.
Doesn't Newsweek have one of those guys who checks to make sure that what they're publishing is not ridiculous nonsense?
What are those guys called?
Oh, yeah - editors.

happy jack wrote:

http://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-clinton-lewinsky-impeach-trump-782734

Fox News Will Devote Series to Impeachment, But About Clinton's, Not Trump's, Of Course

By Greg Price On 1/16/18 at 2:31 PM



[b]????
No, they are not devoting a series to Trump's impeachment, and for good reason - because it never happened, of course.

Easy there Trump worshiper. Awfully touchy about your hero,arent you?

happy jack wrote:

Truth and Integrity wrote:

happy jack wrote:

http://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-clinton-lewinsky-impeach-trump-782734

Fox News Will Devote Series to Impeachment, But About Clinton's, Not Trump's, Of Course

By Greg Price On 1/16/18 at 2:31 PM

????
No, they are not devoting a series to Trump's impeachment, and for good reason - because it never happened, of course.

Easy there Trump worshiper. Awfully touchy about your hero,arent you?

Actually, I'm touchy about being fed bullshit from liberals. Newsweek may as well have published this headline:

Says he who gets all his info from the liikes of Fox News

Angry Trump Worshiping Racist wrote:

And, as an aside from this topic, I'd just like to mention that, while you refer to me as a 'Trump-worshiping troll' and a 'denigrator of blacks, gays, and Muslims on a regular basis' (or some other such nonsense), with no justification or substantiation whatsoever,

[b]And whenever you can rustle up the honesty to substantiate your claims about me, please do so. I will, however, not be holding my breath waiting for a congenital liar to demonstrate even the slightest bit of class.
The ball is in your court, Precious.

[b]The following is a list from just the last 3 pages of Nation/Word that this Trump Worshiping,racist,trolling waste of sperm has posted...
Transgender bathroom use
Color Me Colored
Kaepernick--Black man has the gall to protest unarmed Blackmen being murdered by police
The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize---Muslim hating
Discrimination by gays, Then and now--One Anti Kaepernick thread wasn't enough
Obama insults half of the country----proven false
Homecoming It--Gender outrage
Stop/Go Gay
No whining--more gay outrage
Missouri--upset about racisim being exposed
Caitlyn Jenner, Woman of the Year--Anyone wanna guess?
Luckiest Little Boy in the World--gender outrage
# Dark Meat Matters---Bent out of shape over references to slavery
Make mine black .... or can I still say that?---Outrage over Starbucks barista thoughts about race
I shoot....I score! 34 more pages go,Racist,Trump loving,snowflake.