Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Robert Roaldi]

... you now accuse him of exercising his right of free speech. 

Wow.

[Alan Klein]

You're never going to get completely bias-free news, as black people have been arguing for years (a white perspective and education make it difficult to really understand what blacks are talking about when they claim systematic racism; good white reporters try, but they usually don't get there.) But I think the Times, Wapo and the WSJ **news** reporting is usually pretty good, within some wide limits. If you write "Two people were killed in a head-on crash on I-25 south of Santa Fe Wednesday night," it's pretty hard to claim bias. Most news reporting is in that category. Political news is somewhat different, in that people and opinions are constantly shifting. Yet, some excellent reporting can be done. I think Maggie Haberman of the Times did an excellent job of covering Trump. She knew him well, pointed out his lies, which were frequent, and on occasion, gave him credit for doing a good thing if she thought credit was due. Basically, she could be trusted; her judgment was proven good on multiple occasions, and even when giving opinions on various TV news programs, her opinions seemed based on solid reporting. Same is true of Bob Woodward's book on Trump, based on multiple in-person interviews which were recorded.

I think, Alan, that you sometimes assert things like "the NYT and WaPO news section are biased as well" simply because you don't like them, or that their stated factual reporting doesn't align with your opinion. If Maggie Haberman says X, based on years of reporting experience and first-hand knowledge of what Trump is doing, and she has a long-standing reputation for ethical reporting, and your opinion is otherwise, I'd go with Haberman, myself.

Maggie Haberman is the person I am most critical of.  She was the one who always appeared on the talk shows smearing Trump after she just got through writing a news article on him in the NY Times. How could you trust what she wrote?

There was a point where the editor of the NY Times cautioned their reporters to not overdue their appearances.  They obviously must have feared that their paper wouldn't be taken seriously by people like me.  Obviously, they didn't care because she continued to appear on these shows.  Frankly, it doesn't really matter to them because 95% of their readers hate Trump.  So it probably helped their sales.  The NY Times which I've read for over 60 years, was always on the left.  And always biased.  But never as bad as it's been as the last four years. But they quadrupled sales and I guess that's all they care about.  And Haberman I believe gets paid handsomely every time she appears on the anti-Trump cable channels like CNN. 

[Alan Klein]

Here's a two-year-old article about getting paid handsomely for news, how CNN and MSNBC get NYT and WaPO reporters to be their news sources.  You only get to go on the show if you have something juicy to sell, truthful, biased, or not.  Imagine getting paid $250,000 for being biased like we are here for nothin'.

It’s A Good Time To Be A Reporter Covering Trump If You Like Money And Going On TV
Reporters’ windfall has stemmed, in part, from a shift in strategy by CNN President Jeff Zucker and NBC News chair Andy Lack, two old-school executives leading the major networks that supplement reporters’ income. (The contributor well for Fox News tends to differ from its rivals.) Dinged by critics for featuring roundtables of talking heads, Zucker and Lack have been on a buying spree to sign reporters who break news to paid contributor contracts. That way, when the Washington Post or New York Times breaks a big Russia–Trump story — and they often do — their network will have exclusive access to the bylined reporter. In the hyper-competitive world of political television, the coin of the realm has become five magic words: “The author joins us now.”

“With the sheer amount of breaking news now, you really are trying to differentiate yourself, and the way to do that is to have all the news breakers if you are a network,” said one CNN source.

CNN contributors include the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Martin, and Julie Hirschfeld Davis, the Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey and Josh Rogin, Politico’s Rachael Bade, Time’s Molly Ball, Bloomberg’s Margaret Talev, and AP’s Julie Pace. NBC News and MSNBC have signed on contributors such as Philip Rucker, Robert Costa, David Fahrenthold, and Ashley Parker from the Washington Post, the Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff, Gabe Sherman and Emily Jane Fox from Vanity Fair, and Peter Baker, Matt Apuzzo, Jeremy Peters, Charlie Savage, and Michael Schmidt at the New York Times.

Compensation ranges widely, but it has risen in recent years, according to reporters, agents, and network sources. Starting contributor rates for political reporters fall between about $30,000 and $50,000 a year. Top reporters can earn between $50,000 and $90,000 for their TV side-hustles, and some seasoned pros — boosted by loyalty and multi-year arrangements — make as much as $250,000.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stevenperlberg/white-house-reporters-tv

[digitaldog]

Alan criticizes the New York Times and Washington Post as biased whenever they publish anything he disagrees with, and then quotes them when it suits his purpose. Then we have to hear all about "discernment". There is a word for such behavior.

There is such a word, it's been used several times over all these pages and his solution to being called out is put as many on his ignore list day by day. Out of sight, out of his mind. 😭

[faberryman]

You're changing the subject.  You brought up old democratic accusations that were part of a smear campaign.  You accused him of colluding with the Russians, violating emoluments laws, and other illegal stuff, none of which he was charged with or found guilty of.   So now, ignoring my defense of your false charges, you now accuse him of exercising his right of free speech.  How many years do you think he should get?

Why are you jumping to the defense of Michael Flynn? What motivates you to do so?

[digitaldog]

Maggie Haberman is the person I am most critical of.  She was the one who always appeared on the talk shows smearing Trump after she just got through writing a news article on him in the NY Times. How could you trust what she wrote?

It's factual and so often verifiable.
Your posts on the other hand could use the Haberman approach ”bigly”. 🤔

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

[two of my quotes]

You are just proving my point. I am sure you think you caught me in a hypocrisy.

[Peter McLennan]

And Haberman I believe gets paid handsomely every time she appears on the anti-Trump cable channels like CNN.

Alan, according to you, ALL the MSM channels are anti-Trump.

[Peter McLennan]

How many US functionaries, including former Presidents, have been giving speeches across the globe and being paid handsomely for that? Nothing you quoted amounts to "being paid by Putin to promote Russian propaganda."

How many of them publicly sit next to Putin at the dinner table?

[faberryman]

Maggie Haberman is the person I am most critical of.  She was the one who always appeared on the talk shows smearing Trump after she just got through writing a news article on him in the NY Times. How could you trust what she wrote?

Verify it factually?

[digitaldog]

Verify it factually?

From a guy who always appeared on this forum smearing Clinton, Obama, who's been verified as posting misinformation? 

[Alan Klein]

Alan, according to you, ALL the MSM channels are anti-Trump.

Not all.  But definitely CNN.  But that's neither here nor there.  When a person gets paid only if they have good stuff on someone, it fosters "looking" for that stuff whether it exists or not.  The NY Times has published many articles where they claimed an "unknown source who couldn't be identified" told them something terrible about Trump. Then Haberman or whoever wrote the article goes on TV and repeats the article and walks off with how much in extra pay over what they get from the paper as a reporter?  This stuff never happened before to my knowledge, a new phenomenon.   Even the Times editor thought this was nuts.  But everyone is getting rich, so what the heck.

[Alan Klein]

It goes along with photoshopped photos as photojournalism.  Nobody cares anymore.  Anything goes.  How can you believe anything?  We buy the outlets that repeat our biases because it feels good.  Facts don't count only rhetoric. 

[digitaldog]

The NY Times has published many articles where they claimed an "unknown source who couldn't be identified" told them something terrible about Trump.

Clearly no idea how investigative journalists work and no idea the difference between Deep Throat and Deep Throat. 

[faberryman]

Not all.  But definitely CNN.  But that's neither here nor there.  When a person gets paid only if they have good stuff on someone, it fosters "looking" for that stuff whether it exists or not.  The NY Times has published many articles where they claimed an "unknown source who couldn't be identified" told them something terrible about Trump. Then Haberman or whoever wrote the article goes on TV and repeats the article and walks off with how much in extra pay over what they get from the paper as a reporter?  This stuff never happened before to my knowledge, a new phenomenon.   Even the Times editor thought this was nuts.  But everyone is getting rich, so what the heck.

I was just about to invoke a whataboutism and ask whether this behavior ever occurs with conservative media outlets like Fox News, but I caught myself just in time.

[digitaldog]

It goes along with photoshopped photos as photojournalism.  Nobody cares anymore.  Anything goes.  How can you believe anything? 

Speaking again for everybody (Nobody cares anymore). And the real question should be, based on posting history and fact checking, How can we believe anything you post?
I understand you don't care about facts. Some here have stated they do. But you go out of your way to ignore them, then lump the others as 'everyone'.
Tell a lie once and all your truths become questionable. -Author Unknown

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... an "unknown source who couldn't be identified" told them something terrible about Trump. Then Haberman or whoever wrote the article goes on TV and repeats the article...

(Bold mine)

Nancy Pelosi has a technical term for that: "wrap-up smear."

“We call it the ‘wrap-up smear.’ You smear somebody, with falsehoods and all the rest, and then you merchandise it,” Pelosi said at a press conference last year. “And then you write it, and then they’ll say ‘See? It’s reported in the press that this, this, this and this,’ so they have that validation that the press reported the smear, and then it’s called the ‘wrap-up smear.’ Now I’m going to merchandise the press’s report on the smear that we made.”

[Alan Klein]

How many of them publicly sit next to Putin at the dinner table?

Third party candidate in the 2016 election, and secret agent Jill Stein did.  Now what was she really up too?

Stein said the soiree was “a great opportunity to lay out some of my foreign policy proposals and get Russian reactions to them.” Flynn, who commanded a $45,000 fee to speak at the event, said he didn’t ask to be seated next to Putin. “I found it a great learning opportunity,” he told the Washington Post.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/05/flynn-putin-dinner-payment-security-clearance-photo/

[faberryman]

It goes along with photoshopped photos as photojournalism.  Nobody cares anymore.  Anything goes.  How can you believe anything?  We buy the outlets that repeat our biases because it feels good.  Facts don't count only rhetoric.

We know facts don't matter to you, but quite a few of us around here do care about the facts. That's why we fact check you.

[Alan Klein]

How many of them publicly sit next to Putin at the dinner table?

I'd be more concerned if Flynn sat next to Putin at a private dinner.