Tillerson out?

[Alan Klein]

Chris, I disagree that the NY Times isn't biased.  As a New Yorker who has read the Times all my life, its liberal, Democrat  opinion and editorial viewpoints tend to leak into it's hard news sections as well.   The Washington Post is worse.  The Post and Times also have international and national influence.  Just look up Google News and see how many articles are re-printed from both the Times and Post.  I'm not on Facebook.  But I bet it's similar.

Also, both papers sell their news to other media who can't afford to have their own staffs in Washington DC and elsewhere reporting on the news.  So the liberal biases of both papers extend to news, cable and other media nationally and internationally.  The CNN quoting the NY Times article that I mentioned above is an example.  Hard- copy newspapers use articles from these two sources as bylines.  The power of the Times and Post to effect world political opinion is powerful even though they're both nominally local papers of NYC and Washington DC.

[pegelli]

Mediafactcheck puts both the NY Times and Washington Post as "Left Center" which means:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

They both also have a factual reporting rating of "High", which is in my mind more important then the bias. You can easily see through a (slight) bias and make up your own mind about that, but if they start putting in straight lies or "alternate facts" (like FOX or Breitbart) it takes more work to debunk, even though that can be fun as well

[Alan Klein]

Breitbart has no power.  Nobody reads them or cares what they have to say.  They're used as a straw man by the anti-Trump, liberal press.

The issue with "facts" and "lies" are not the main issue with Times and the Post.  It's how they present the news.  Nobody's saying that Trump didn't want McCabe fired.  He did.  That's as far as they go to make Trump the culprit not McCabe.  But what isn't being reported is that McCabe violated FBI rules and lied as reported by the non-partisan Inspector General who recommended disciplinary action against McCabe.  Instead of recusing himself, McCabe also continued to "investigate" Hillary email server while Hillary gave McCabe's wife $600,000 for her political campaign in Virginia through Hillary's long-time friend Virginia Democrat Gov McAuliffe.  So by not reporting that, it seems like this is just Trump getting even.  That could be part of it, but to leave out McCabe's violations in the IG report is distorting the news if not outright lying.  Telling only part of the truth influences opinion.  That's bias.

[OmerV]

Breitbart has no power.  Nobody reads them or cares what they have to say.  They're used as a straw man by the anti-Trump, liberal press.

The issue with "facts" and "lies" are not the main issue with Times and the Post.  It's how they present the news.  Nobody's saying that Trump didn't want McCabe fired.  He did.  That's as far as they go to make Trump the culprit not McCabe.  But what isn't being reported is that McCabe violated FBI rules and lied as reported by the non-partisan Inspector General who recommended disciplinary action against McCabe.  Instead of recusing himself, McCabe also continued to "investigate" Hillary email server while Hillary gave McCabe's wife $600,000 for her political campaign in Virginia through her long-time friend Virginia Democrat Gov McAuliffe.  So by not reporting that, it seems like this is just Trump getting even.  That could be part of it, but to leave out McCabe's violations in the IG report is distorting the news if not outright lying.  Telling only part of the truth influences opinion.  That's bias.

Well, I learned of McCabe's possible mistakes from reading the New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. While it is clear all three have a liberal bias, there are just as many news organizations which have a conservative bias. The Wall Street Journal being one. 'Tis as it always has been.

[pegelli]

Breitbart has no power.  Nobody reads them or cares what they have to say.  They're used as a straw man by the anti-Trump, liberal press.

The issue with "facts" and "lies" are not the main issue with Times and the Post.  It's how they present the news.  Nobody's saying that Trump didn't want McCabe fired.  He did.  That's as far as they go to make Trump the culprit not McCabe.  But what isn't being reported is that McCabe violated FBI rules and lied as reported by the non-partisan Inspector General who recommended disciplinary action against McCabe.  Instead of recusing himself, McCabe also continued to "investigate" Hillary email server while Hillary gave McCabe's wife $600,000 for her political campaign in Virginia through Hillary's long-time friend Virginia Democrat Gov McAuliffe.  So by not reporting that, it seems like this is just Trump getting even.  That could be part of it, but to leave out McCabe's violations in the IG report is distorting the news if not outright lying.  Telling only part of the truth influences opinion.  That's bias.

You're making up "alternate facts". McCabe's possible mistakes (or felonies) were reported in the what you call "liberal press". Secondly somebody who supported Hillary also supported McCabe's wife, that's quite different from Hillary directly supporting McCabe's wife. Seems you're reporting here is inching closer to the Breitbart trustworthyness

[Alan Klein]

You're making up "alternate facts". McCabe's possible mistakes (or felonies) were reported in the what you call "liberal press". Secondly somebody who supported Hillary also supported McCabe's wife, that's quite different from Hillary directly supporting McCabe's wife. Seems you're reporting here is inching closer to the Breitbart trustworthyness

McCabe was the federal cop assigned to investigate Hillary.  His wife took Hillary's $600,000 filtered through McAuliffe a life-long confident of Hillary.  To believe that McCabe didn't think of that when he went to work to investigate Hillary strains credulity.  At a minimum, McCabe should have recused himself.  Additionally,  McCabe owed his FBI Deputy Director's position to FBI Director Comey who concluded Hillary did no wrong with her email server fiasco.  The whole thing stinks. 

[Alan Klein]

Well, I learned of McCabe's possible mistakes from reading the New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. While it is clear all three have a liberal bias, there are just as many news organizations which have a conservative bias. The Wall Street Journal being one. 'Tis as it always has been.

Yes, CNN spends 5 minutes on McCabe's malfeasance.  Then spends the rest of the hour and day discussing how Trump went after McCabe.  The Times puts the good news about Trump on page 23 of their paper while the news that makes him look bad as a headline on page 1 above the fold.  That's how you distort the "truth". 

[pegelli]

McCabe was the federal cop assigned to investigate Hillary.  His wife took Hillary's $600,000 filtered through McAuliffe a life-long confident of Hillary.  To believe that McCabe didn't think of that when he went to work to investigate Hillary strains credulity.  At a minimum, McCabe should have recused himself.  Additionally,  McCabe owed his FBI Deputy Director's position to FBI Director Comey who concluded Hillary did no wrong with her email server fiasco.  The whole thing stinks.

I'm glad you now agree that what you call "liberal press" isn't as biased as you first said and that they reported on the McCabe case completely (inl. possible mistakes/fellonies).
I'm surprised you fall for the conservative press "spinning" of the 600 grand gift to McCabe's wife, I haven't seen any credible evidence this came from Hillary directly. As far as I'm concerned it's it's still in "alternative  fact" territory. And I agree that the McCabe case stinks, don't know if that it stinks enough to justify firing him a few days before his pension vested but I'm sure more "real" data will come out over time which will hopefully be more trustworthy than the feelings and emotions I now read from all sides.

[pegelli]

Yes, CNN spends 5 minutes on McCabe's malfeasance.  Then spends the rest of the hour and day discussing how Trump went after McCabe.  The Times puts the good news about Trump on page 23 of their paper while the news that makes him look bad as a headline on page 1 above the fold.  That's how you distort the "truth".

More "alternate facts"

The second and third paragraph of the NYT article on the dismissal of McCabe were (March 16):

Mr. McCabe promptly declared that his firing, and Mr. Trump’s persistent needling, were intended to undermine the special counsel’s investigation in which he is a potential witness.

Mr. McCabe is accused in a yet-to-be-released internal report of failing to be forthcoming about a conversation he authorized between F.B.I. officials and a journalist.

While they could have switched the order of these two paragraphs it's far from burrying it deep inside

And the fourth and fifth paragraph quoted the comments by Jeff Sessions, and were also not in favor of McCabe.

I don't see how any of this "distorts the truth"

[Two23]

You can't seriously quote Fox to counter claims of bias!  The same network that literally lambasted and attacked Obama for talking about meeting with NK and now lauding praise so thick it will choke you on Trump for doing exactly the same thing?

The opinion shows (which I generally don't watch) are biased, of course.  The actual news is pretty straight.  There is no longer one source of news that tries to just give you the facts and let you figure it out.  Every one of them now has an ideology behind them, to one extent or another.  This is dangerous for democracy as lies are quickly spread and it's hard to discern the truth.  FoxNews (again, the news) does report things other outlets skip over or try to minimize.  The McCabe firing is an excellent example.  Few of the other outlets ever mention the $700K "donation" of Hillary money or his lying under oath.  Dishonest.


Kent in SD

[Two23]

Mediafactcheck puts both the NY Times and Washington Post as "Left Center" which means:
They both also have a factual reporting rating of "High", which is in my mind more important then the bias. You can easily see through a (slight) bias and make up your own mind about that, but if they start putting in straight lies or "alternate facts" (like FOX or Breitbart) it takes more work to debunk, even though that can be fun as well

NYT is highly unreliable if you want the entire story.  They generally leave out pertinent facts in attempt to persuade, not inform.  FoxNews has nothing in common with Breitbart.  I put Breibart, MSNBC, NYT, Savage Nation, and to some extent CNN all in the category of propaganda outlets.


Kent in SD

[pegelli]

The opinion shows (which I generally don't watch) are biased, of course.  The actual news is pretty straight. 

This is what Mediabiasfactcheck has to say about them:

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox. Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting and promoting the Republican Party and has been deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact. (7/19/2016)

[pegelli]

NYT is highly unreliable if you want the entire story. 

And here is their report on the NYT

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated to NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by The New York Times Company. The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. NYT is well sourced and factual in reporting.  The paper has a pretty strong left wing editorial bias, but is considered one of the most reliable sources for information. (5/18/2016) Update (4/25/2017)

[OmerV]

The actual news is pretty straight.  There is no longer one source of news that tries to just give you the facts and let you figure it out.  Every one of them now has an ideology behind them, to one extent or another.  This is dangerous for democracy as lies are quickly spread and it's hard to discern the truth. 

Kent in SD

When was news not slanted? What publisher started a newspaper or magazine without intending to further their own ideology?

[Two23]

And here is their report on the NYT

Don't know anything about the organization, but I do know what I hear from those two news outlets.  NYT and National Enquirer seem to be about even in reliability.  And, I forgot to add Huffington Post & Yahoo News to my list of propanda outlets.  To some extent I use National Public Radio as a news source, but lately even they have become highly biased in political coverage, although they seem to make at least an occasional effort to give all the information.  There is no longer any source of information that can be trusted to be giving you the straight story.  No outlet has informing you as their goal; all of them are instead now trying to persuade you.  Over the past few years at times I've thought the media was trying to provoke us into civil war with their needless divisiveness.   It's only going to get worse.  A few months ago I heard a TED Talk(I think it was) about a new computer program that can literally put words into people's mouths.  The software listens to about 10 minutes of a person's speech right down to lip syncing and matching voice inflections,  then someone can use that to make a video that appears to have anyone (they used an innocuous statement by George Bush) say anything they want.  It's just a matter of time until MSNBC or CNN starts using those deceptions, although I think it would start with something like Huffington Post.  There no longer is any outlet that you can completely trust. 

It's a dismal gray day, perfect for photography!  Ice-out has begun on a small local river.  Huge chunks of ice have piled and stacked themselves haphazardly on the banks.  Time to gather my Chamonix 4x5, my c1912 Dagor wide angle lens, crampons, tripod, and head out there!


Kent in SD

[Alan Klein]

Kent's the only one accomplishing anything here

[Chris Kern]

Whatever you may think of the quality of the news coverage in the New York Times, they seem to take photography quite seriously.  At the time that I'm posting this, the paper is advertising three different photo editor jobs and soliciting applications for a new photo director.

[pegelli]

There no longer is any outlet that you can completely trust.

Totally agree, so read many (from all directions) and then draw your own conclusion. 

Have fun shooting, did the same here today, light is gone by now.

[pegelli]

Kent's the only one accomplishing anything here

Depends how you see the objective of these threads: See here how I (and Slobodan) see these threads.

Life is beautiful, how many pictures did you take today

[Alan Klein]

Depends how you see the objective of these threads: See here how I (and Slobodan) see these threads.

Life is beautiful, how many pictures did you take today

Well over a great Italian dish with my wife, I took some of her to test max auto ISO and min shutter speed controls on my camera.  Preparing for our next trip to the Southwest national parks.  Monument Valley, Arches, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef, Grand Staircase Escalante, Bryce, Zion and Grand Canyon with rest and recreation breaks in Sedona, Arizona and Santa Fe, New Mexico.