• [O'Reilly Factor] The press and the presidential election

    From Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 19 05:00:00 2016
    XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv
    XPost: alt.politics.elections, alt.journalism

    It is no secret that most in the media despise Donald Trump and
    coverage of the candidate reflects that.

    Talking Points is sure supporters of Hillary Clinton would
    acknowledge that, even if she herself gets pounded on occasion.

    That clear bias in hard news reporting is now reflected in a new
    Gallup Poll.

    Before I give you the shocking numbers, listen to this sound bite
    from one of CNN's best hard news reporters:

    Monday:


    CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN REPORTER: “But surely this can't be a case
    of a human being having an off day. Nope. Like so many things
    Hillary, the media are having a field day, off to the races with
    another debilitating case of indignant outrage. This must be
    another typical Clinton conspiracy to fool them with total
    transparency breakdown. Talk about a transparency breakdown-what
    about Donald Trump's tax returns? Where are they? Can't a girl
    have a sick day or two?”
    Ms. Amanpour has had a distinguished career as a fact-finding
    journalist.

    So why is she giving her pro-Hillary Clinton opinion? She's not an
    analyst.

    How can viewers now accept her information, especially about the
    campaign, without being skeptical?

    How?

    Americans know what's going on.

    According to a new Gallup Poll, just 32% of us trust the news to be
    reported fairly and accurately.

    That is the lowest media trust number in Gallup's history on the
    subject.

    The question then becomes why is it so difficult to simply report in
    straight way without a tilt?

    The answer: emotion.

    Editors of many press operations now believe they are on a mission
    to save the USA from a guy like
    Trump and the deplorables who support him.

    Same thing on the Clinton side.

    A few, and I mean few, news concerns believe she is not honest and
    are out to get her.

    That kind of advocacy hurts the folks.

    Let me give you a vivid example.

    The Washington Post is about as anti-Trump as a news operation can
    get.

    Their top editorial guy Fred Hiatt bashes Trump almost every day and
    allows his mostly uber-left columnists to run wild.

    So this week the Post's hard news division has raised some valid
    questions about how Mr. Trump runs his charitable foundation.

    Our Truth Serum reporter will deal with that in a moment.

    But the Post story is getting far less traction than it might
    because the paper is so committed to hurting Trump.

    Therefore, some folks just ignore what the Post reports.

    Now some of you will ask, what about Fox News?

    From my vantage point in commentary, there are just as many FNC
    analysts who disparage Trump as support him. So we are balanced.

    As for hard news, we play it straight at least from what I've seen
    and I've seen a lot.

    Summing up, this coming presidential vote is extremely important for
    the country and Americans deserve honest reportage.

    Sadly, we are not getting it.

    And that's “The Memo”.


    --
    Hillary is still awaiting evidence beyond an explosion, shrapnel,
    fire, smoke, and injuries to decide if NYC experienced a bomb.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From FPP@21:1/5 to Ubiquitous on Mon Sep 19 19:16:07 2016
    XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.tv.oreilly-factor, rec.arts.tv
    XPost: alt.politics.elections, alt.journalism

    On 2016-09-19 05:00:00 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> said:

    Sadly, we are not getting it.

    Yup. Got it in one...
    --
    Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they taste funny?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)