NY Times "Reporter" Never Actually Saw the Comey Memo

it went way beyond being so called friendly the times allowed the Clinton camp to proof read their articles and allowed them to edit them before they were published

 

Another person who looks at the sausage of journalism being made and doesn't understand it, yet feels qualified to comment on it.

You have an example of the NYT initially publishing a story on Sanders, then later editing it to be more balanced, and call that "bias". No, the original story was too unbalanced. For instance, between the first and second versions, someone obviously asked the question, "Can the tactics Sanders used to succeed in the Senate scale up to the presidency"? So they added a couple of paragraphs addressing that. And the revised headline more accurately reflects the tone of the story, both before and after it was updated. This is a newspaper doing its job.

You cite the work of NYT opinion columnists, which is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether NYT news stories are biased.

You have a correspondent, Mark Leibovich, emailing portions of a Clinton interview transcript that he wants to use, and getting the Clinton camp's response. This isn't that uncommon. Journalists routinely confirm quotes and such things before using them, and also give sources a chance to expand/refine what they said, because in live interviews people don't always get the right words out. And there's also the need to preserve access: after all, Clinton didn't have to give the interview in the first place, and will be less inclined to give a second interview if she feels she was sandbagged. So you extend some courtesies. It's up to the journalist to decide if they will accept the Clinton camp's feedback. Since all we have is an email chain that was forwarded to Podesta, we don't know what they eventually told Leibovitch, and we don't know how he responded.

You have Clinton staff talking about an NYT story that was going to be published the following day. This is completely normal: if a reporter is writing a story about you, they will usually contact you for comment, and tell you when they plan to run the story. It's not like they can hide that they're doing a story at that point, and the rest is common courtesy. You don't ambush people unless there's a good reason.

Similarly, you have Robby Mook discussing a story-in-the-works by Jonathan Martin. He knows about the story because Martin told him about it, because it's a story about the inner workings of the campaign, and the only way you get that story is by talking to people at the campaign. So it's not weird at all that campaign people would know about the story, and be planning on talking to Martin about it.

It's all like that. It's reporters doing their jobs, the normal dance between organizations that want coverage and reporters that want access.

 

How did I lie?

I went to your profile, went to the "information" tab, selected "find all threads by Habana", and looked through the last 14 threads you created. That's what I came up with.

Here are the last 14 threads you created:

Daily Mail, a cut-and-dried report saying WikiLeaks had released a new batch of emails:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...de-to-hide-the-origins-of-its-hacking.501044/

A tweet from Maxine Waters, which you commented on.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ealdonaldtrump-right-into-impeachment.494721/

ZeroHedge, pushing a 4Chan hoax:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...abricated-anti-trump-report-as-a-hoax.491130/

Assange denying a Russia connection:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-wikileaks-was-not-russian-government.490147/

The Hill, a cut-and-dried story about Pelosi retaining her leadership post:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/pelosi-holds-onto-leadership.486454/

ABC News, a cut-and-dried poll result:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nt-in-new-poll-as-enthusiasm-declines.482227/

A CNN video showing Hillary's "deplorable" comment:


The Gateway Pundit, talking about WikiLeaks emails:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/wikileaks-67-emails-between-hillary-and-chelsea-clinton-under-her-fake-name-“diane-r.472163/

An AP story about people giving money to the Clinton Foundation:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...nton-foundation-met-with-her-at-state.472059/

The American Mirror, about "leftists" being violent:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/video-agitators-bang-on-doors-at-trump-fundraiser-punch-attendees-in-‘gauntlet’.471561/

Breitbart, talking about Tim Kaine:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/globalists-unite-hillary-clinton-running-mate-tim-kaine-dines-with-george-soros’-son.470397/

ABC News, reporting on a Trump speech:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...can-stop-clintons-supreme-court-picks.469791/

Boston Herald, the conservative tabloid, on Benghazi families suing:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...milies-sue-cljnton-for-wrongful-death.469620/

Dennis Michael Lynch, claiming Democrats broke the law at their convention;
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/dnc-breaks-federal-law-at-convention-violation-of-section-8-u-s-code-§-1324.467318/

Like I said, you do quote mainstream sources, but mainly when its just straight-up reporting. But you also quote a lot of conservative fringe sources -- five of the 14 threads are based on such sources, six if you count Assange's appearance on Hannity. You don't ever seem to quote left-leaning sources.

Maybe if I went back further, I'd get a different ratio. But I have limited time, and 14 posts seemed like a decently large sample.

 

Go **** yourself.

 

???

Why are you suddenly so angry? Do you disagree that those are your last 14 threads? Do you disagree that those are the sources you based those threads on?

I don't get it.

 

O-o-o-o-kay.

 

Anymore, news isn't news, it's opinion pieces based on events. The MSM paints "all things progressive" as the only truth. If you don't like the sites he posted, maybe you should lobby the MSM into being more fair and balanced. There is no denying they are mostly left wing shills. They have been since Cronkite.

 

"The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." --George Orwell, 1984



Could there be any more proof?

 

I went to memeorandum....Most stories there regarding Trump were negative and follow the MSM anti-Trump meme. They even had a story about Hannity 'being replaced' in the first line of the story while the whole truth is that Hannity is taking his yearly Memorial Day vacation.

I believe a lot of journalists are unaware of just how liberal they are. It is really unbelievable the bloated lies the MSM has been reporting about Trump.

Since its not perfect and humans will be humans, why not mandate that reporters be upfront about their political affiliations when reporting politics? I doesn't matter who reads the stories if most of them are liberal.

Sorry, but if you consider yourself a contrarian I don't see it in your usually left-biased posts.

ThinkProgress is a far left outlet and InforWars is a far right outlet. Breitbart is mostly right but not radical. Why you would lump it with the others indicates your more left bias.

The extent to which they 'miss context' or are just lazy or are publishing biased stories as 'objective' is ones personal opinion and judgement.

Not really, the MSM is mostly radical leftist and anti-Trump and I don't get that opinion from FOX or talk radio I get that from participating on this Forum, looking up stories and looking into sources which are usually 'unnamed sources' or 'experts' or 'scientists' or 'officials.' Today we have a B.S. Trump/Russian story that is nothing but a witch hunt but still being promoted by the MSM as a viable issue when there is absolutely no evidence. We also have a MSM that completely ignored Comey's acting as AG in his decision about Hillary and no interest in reporting the absolute insanity of the Clinton/Lynch meeting that should have never taken place and was probably pre-planned. That is just one example.

 

What a weak response.and total B.S. All you did is mimic my last post. . Your idea that every reporter or group of reporters reveal their bias during every single presentation of news is crazy. And who would enforce this and make sure all sources of news would be in compliance??? You would need an imperial news czar monitoring every reporter and the press both on line and off , all TV news broadcasts and all news stations. Where would that person come from, the Trump Regime? You are so off the charts. And of course what you really want is a highly controlled press leaving a pathological liar of a President to continue streaming out his constant B.S.on every topic unchecked.And you're not contesting this notion. Remember your motto:
. All major negative news about Trump is a lie. All major investigations against Trump are lies. Only Mein Trumph tells the truth.

 

Do you happen to notice the huge amount of links under each item in the "Discussion" section? Those are links to other sites from all over the spectrum that discuss the news in question.

And so what if most of the stories about Trump are negative? Maybe Trump's actions are attracting negative stories. Is it only "unbiased" if it is pro-Trump?

For instance, the big story today is about Greg Gianforte. Is that "anti-Trump"?

The next big story was about the appeals court ruling on the travel ban. Is that "anti-Trump"?

Then there were three stories about Trump's NATO meetings. Are they "anti-Trump"?

I'm trying to see how you're assessing bias here. It mostly appears to be "negative about Trump." Without any reference to whether the story SHOULD be negative or not -- i.e., the news is simply bad for Trump today.

That's a little condescending, don't you think? What "bloated lies" have the MSM been peddling?

Why not let the newspaper strive for objectivity, and let the stories speak for themselves?

*Sigh.* Even if I were still a journalist, I'm not at work. I'm allowed to have personal opinions here. That's kind of the point.

At work, professionalism ruled. I cared about how many sides there were to a story, and if they were all adequately represented. I didn't care what those sides were. I cared if the numbers added up; I didn't care what they added up to, in terms of ideology or policy.

Correction: ThinkProgress is a far-left outlet and InfoWars is a swamp of conspiracy theories and nuttery.

Breitbart is completely slanted and totally in the tank for Trump. It has been embarassing the stuff they have printed. They are not even remotely a credible source.

If you consider Breitbart a credible source, then we have diagnosed your perspective problem right there.

Yes and no. I think you, like many conservatives, see deliberate deception when the truth is more likely either laziness or the limitations of daily journalism. I can tell you that that's what was usually at fault.

Again, I think the problem here is your perspective. There is more than enough Russia weirdness to justify an investigation. Maybe a lot of the coverage around it will turn out to be froth, but that's not anti-Trump bias: that's a classic media frenzy, where any bit of information with "Russia" attached to it gets trotted out, even if turns out to amount to nothing. Same thing happened to Clinton with her emails and foundation. A lot of noise, but very little actual substance.

You don't like it now, because it involves Trump. I bet you didn't complain at all when it involved Hillary. I bet you didn't even think about the fact that what Trump is going through now, Hillary went through last year.

I didn't hear about that from ANYBODY until a month or so ago. It's not just the MSM. And it's a bit silly, since Lynch knew what Comey was going to do and let him do it. Mostly because after the plane meeting, she said she would accept whatever Comey decided.

Er ... that was heavily reported, to the extent it became a campaign issue, and Lynch had to recuse herself from anything involving Clinton's emails.

Agreed. If nothing else, it just looked really bad.

Okay, stop a minute and think about the level of paranoia here. If Bill had wanted to talk with Lynch, he could easily have done so in private. There were far less public ways to chat than on two airplanes sitting on the runway. So your paranoia on this doesn't even make SENSE.

Bill, instead, chose arguably the MOST public way to have a chat with Lynch. It was STUPID.

So consider that. But most importantly, it WAS covered extensively by the media. So it's a lousy example of "media bias".

 

Which one?

 

You've gone beyond B.S. into some Trump controlled fantasy world. Too bad your gross ignorance of Trumps lifelong pathological lying which began long before he was president allows you to believe he's just a normal politician.. Lol in 2011 this racist liar told several journalists that his experts came back from Hawaii with startling revelations about Obama's birth certificate. Except he never revealed what the revelations were and then screwed over many of his birther followers by stating in 2016 that Obama's BC was not a fake. Trump is an equal opportunity destroyer. The Republicans in Congress asked Trump for proof that his general election losses were fraudulent as he claimed. But even though he claimed that his disgraceful loss by 2million 800,000votes were all due to fraudulent votes he gave his fellow Republicans in congress nothing when they asked for his proof. But keep showing your ignorance of what Trump really is as you willingly and ignorantly swallow this life long liar's B.S.

 

Are you sure you quoted the right post?

 

With apologies.

 

OR maybe the MSM spins negative stories about any actions that Trump takes?

I never said every story there is anti Trump. BTW a FOX news correspondent was eye witness to Mr. Gianforte body slamming the Guardian reporter.

There is no discussion in that story about the inappropriateness of the Courts basing their judgements on Trump's campaign utterances. It assumes the courts are correct.

"Trump chastises fellow NATO members"
"Trump Declines to back core NATO tenet"

There is no news supporting Trump's decision

You can say the 'news is simply bad for Trump today' but asking why is important. In the case of NATO, America is getting screwed by nations refusing to pay their fair share and you can bet they will be crying for America's support if they get attacked. Where is THAT discusion?

The Trump/Russian supposed connection that came basically from an unverified dossier compiled by a spy (Mr. Steele) hired by the Democrats.

I am not convinced they are striving for objectivity in the first place.

I don't believe anyone can be absolutey objective especially in this charged political climate. Of course journalists can have their personal opinions but when it comes to political reporting their personal political party affiliations should be published along with their stories. That way objectivity can be discerned by the reader.

Fine, but your opinion of objectivity may be different than that of your readers when it comes to politics. It's only fair to let them know your party affiliations.

Your opinion is noted

MSNBC is completely slanted, Daily Kos is completely slanted, CNN is completely slanted.

I think every source can be credible at times. Even the MSM...I am claiming OVERALL the MSM is left slanted. One outlet like Breitbart won't change that.

The MSM was sure 'lazy' when it came to Obama but let Trump make an offhand comment and they somehow get energized.

Like I said, an unverified dossier proves nothing and there is NO evidence to support any claim of Trump/Russian collusion. Yet that is what is being reported and implied.

With Hillary there was evidence!!! Comey even SAID so but refused to indict.

The decision wasn't Comey's to make. He could have refused to do it.

Er...You do realize she NEVER recused herself?

Sorry but a PRIVATE meeting in a PLANE on a tarmac is not exactly public. Frankly it doesn't matter if anyone SAW him in fact that was probably the plan to be seen but not heard. That gave Lynch the opportunity to unofficially recuse herself.

 

The fun part is watching his supporters swallow the ongoing pathological lies of
President Mein Trumph

 

My point was, you can't assume bias just because the news is negative.

Okay.

It simply REPORTS WHAT HAPPENED. It neither supported the courts decision nor criticized it. You are seeing bias just because they didn't write the story from the slanted angle YOU want them to.

Again, they are simply REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED. Why should a news story SUPPORT Trump's decision?

You have proved my point. You are seeing bias not because there is bias, but because it doesn't contain PRO-TRUMP bias.

Uh ... that was the lead of the Washington Post story.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.428da5fb890b


President Trump exported the confrontational, nationalist rhetoric of his campaign across the Atlantic on Thursday, shaming European leaders for not footing more of the bill for their own defenses and lecturing them to stop taking advantage of U.S. taxpayers.

Speaking in front of a twisted shard of the World Trade Center at NATO’s gleaming new headquarters in Brussels, Trump upbraided America’s longtime allies for “not paying what they should be paying.” He used a ceremony to dedicate the memorial to NATO’s resolve in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States as a platform from which to exhort leaders to “focus on terrorism and immigration” to ensure their security. ...

European leaders gazed unsmilingly at Trump while he said that “23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying,” and that they owe “massive amounts” from past years — a misstatement of NATO’s spending targets, which guide nations’ own domestic spending decisions.

If that is the sole basis of the various FBI investigations, it would be lame. I seriously doubt that is the case. Maybe you should wait for the investigations to conclude before you make assumptions.

Fine. But the examples you gave were of newspapers doing their job.

I disagree. For one thing, party affiliation is a poor proxy for a person's political beliefs. For instance, every reporter could simply decline to register with a party and declare as independent. Does that change their personal opinions? No.

So what you're really suggesting is that a reporter should have to disclose their personal opinion on every issue they cover. A reporter covering abortion has to report their stance on that, a reporter covering the police has to report their own position on cops or the death penalty or racism or whatever, and so on. I think that's insane and ridiculously intrusive, not to mention making the reporter part of the story.

The way this is normally handled is twofold. First, the newspaper discusses stuff like this before assigning a reporter to a hot-button beat or story. Second, if the subject of a story feels the reporter is biased, they complain to the newspaper. If that goes nowhere, the subject of the story can always complain in public and accuse the reporter of bias.

So how about let the reporter do their job, and trust that if there is bias, it will come out?

I agree on the first two. I disagree on the third. I find CNN as a network amateurish at times, but not necessarily biased.

There are some sources that are so biased and so noncredible that they're not worth paying attention to in the least, even if they occasionally stumble across the truth. The National Enquirer, for example. Or Breitbart. Or InfoWars. Or WND. Or NewsMax.

After that come a long list of sources I won't take at face value, but will at least consider the content. Sites like DailyKos, Media Matters, Newsbusters, and many more.

Comey said so at the END of the investigation, at which point he concluded that the evidence did not justify prosecution. You want the Russia thing to go away without an investigation.

In Hillary's case, there was enough evidence to justify an investigation, but not enough to prosecute. With Trump, we are in a similar place: enough evidence to justify an investigation. We will see if that leads to enough evidence to prosecute, or, as with Hillary, not.

In the end, most of the stuff reported about Hillary's email turned out to be meaningless froth.The constant drip-drip of daily stories contributed to the impression that Clinton had broken the law, or was hiding something massive in her emails, or had knowingly and deliberately shared classified information through unsecure channels. She did none of that.

I'm not saying she did NOTHING wrong. But she didn't do anything close to what the most lurid stories about her said.

Fabulous. You weren't in Lynch's and Comey's shoes. And it's just not that important a point. Comey told Lynch "I'm going to say this." Lynch said "Fine." That's really all there is to that.

She said she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI came up with.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286260-lynch-i-will-accept-fbi-recommendations

No, not a formal recusal. But she definitely handed responsibility for the call to Comey.

I feel like you're just being argumentative now. They could have met secretly just about anyplace else. Instead they met on a runway, so that EVERYONE IN THE WORLD knew they were meeting. It's pretty much the dumbest thing you could do if you were trying to influence the AG.

Um, what? Now you're not making any sense at all. Why would the Clinton's want to engineer Lynch recusing herself? That's nonsensical.

You have a conspiracy theory that makes no sense, and examples of bias that aren't actually examples of bias. Please consider the possibility that your definition of "bias" is highly skewed.

 

The fun part is to watch his followers swallow the ongoing pathological lies with complete rapture.

 

I see your post and raise you and go all in.Oh and, my hole cards are the Clinton murders.

 

Once again a screwball notion from another planet. Your simple minded notion that all reporters from the media are all alike and marching in lock step is beyond reality. Reporters change their opinions and affiliations. And once again you refuse to tell us what news czar enforces such compliance and keeps up with subtle and not so subtle changes in a reporters positions. Meanwhile your desire to hamstring the press while a pathological lying president runs free is your true agenda. Every major negative news story is labeled as fiction by Trump and his willing followers with little exception.

 

Thanks for your raving B.S. nonsense but you can't blame Trumps ongoing pathological lies on a citizen who is has no power????!!.and you're not contesting that Trump is an ongoing Pathological lying sitting president. So I win. We agree that Trump is a pathological sitting President. You're comparing the President of the United States with a mere Citizen that no longer has power. But we both agree that Trump as a president is wrecking so much in a few short months. Duh! Now repeat after me. Duh!Clinton is not the president. Duh Clinton has no power. Duh! Clinton is not the President. Duh! Clinton has no power.







.

 

I never said all reporters are alike. I just said it would be a good idea if reporters publish their political affiliations when publishing a political story. If they are so objective that shouldn't be a problem for them should it? I don't see how that would hamstring anyone unless, of course, they want to publish biased garbage and pretend to be objective. Frankly it's pretty screwball to believe all reporters are unbiased. The only pathological liars are the TDS ones...Like you.