Trump is relying on it. Imo, I think he just wants Hillary treated the same as he is.
You gonna use his past against him, if your fair, you have to use her past against her.
Seems like he is trusting the integrity of the media.
It will be interesting dissecting the game behind the game.

The thing that strikes me is that Wasserman backs Hillary and gets canned while LP backs Trump and gains credibility.

to the premise....fk no

to Trump's relative thinking....he's going to to use it to his advantage as much as possible....

his current issue is now dealing with only one candidate....

that's an entire other animal....

that's why he had to change managers.....

(06-21-2016 06:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  to the premise....fk no

to Trump's relative thinking....he's going to to use it to his advantage as much as possible....

his current issue is now dealing with only one candidate....

that's an entire other animal....

that's why he had to change managers.....

He is not running against only one candidate....

Hillary + Ryan = 2

(06-22-2016 08:02 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 06:14 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  to the premise....fk no

to Trump's relative thinking....he's going to to use it to his advantage as much as possible....

his current issue is now dealing with only one candidate....

that's an entire other animal....

that's why he had to change managers.....

He is not running against only one candidate....

Hillary + Ryan = 2

won't argue that one.....that's a fair point....

it still boggles me mind....

what a dipshite that guy is....just like the other so called 'cons' that claim to care....

one doesn't have to like a person to work in tandem....

your (1+1=2) point out of all is about as dumb as it gets from the red side at this time in the race.....

he's a moron to offer anything other than support if he truly cares about economics and party.....

apparently, the socio side means more to that self righteous bastard....fk'n dumbarses the leadershite is on the 'right' side...

Nothing can be unbiased, it's just human nature to consciously or subconsciously tilt the scales one way imo.

Even if it could be, it wouldn't seem like it if it isn't going your way.

Math dictates equal minutes = fair

What does math say about unbiased?

(06-23-2016 07:28 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Nothing can be unbiased, it's just human nature to consciously or subconsciously tilt the scales one way imo.

As a 20-year small town journalist hack who went to J-school, I agree with this. Most times, it's not really an issue. You're covering what other people do and you're telling their story - that's true whether it's a football game or a murder trial (and I've covered plenty of both) or whatever. You're an observer, you get quotes, you relay to readers what took place and you leave opinion out of it as best you can.

But it's only natural to be sympathetic to some folks and the opposite to others. Covering fish kills and EPD issues, or say public hearings on pipelines, or when a defendant is particularly despicable, or a high school football team you cover as part of a beat, all are examples of where I've had to try and check my 'subjectivity at the door.'

It's impossible to that entirely, but the way I've worked is make sure I go out of my way to give all sides as much opportunity to tell their story as possible.

Everybody likes to bemoan the lack of real journalism, but I think it's out there. Small town papers do it every day, there are good websites out there with no political slant -- propublica is an outstanding news site doing real watchdog journalism, and I"m sure there are others.

There's good straight reporting going on, but there's a lot of folks offering opinion as straight news out there. If you can tell the difference, you're fine. But some folks apparently can't.

(06-23-2016 03:05 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(06-23-2016 07:28 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Nothing can be unbiased, it's just human nature to consciously or subconsciously tilt the scales one way imo.

As a 20-year small town journalist hack who went to J-school, I agree with this. Most times, it's not really an issue. You're covering what other people do and you're telling their story - that's true whether it's a football game or a murder trial (and I've covered plenty of both) or whatever. You're an observer, you get quotes, you relay to readers what took place and you leave opinion out of it as best you can.

But it's only natural to be sympathetic to some folks and the opposite to others. Covering fish kills and EPD issues, or say public hearings on pipelines, or when a defendant is particularly despicable, or a high school football team you cover as part of a beat, all are examples of where I've had to try and check my 'subjectivity at the door.'

It's impossible to that entirely, but the way I've worked is make sure I go out of my way to give all sides as much opportunity to tell their story as possible.

Everybody likes to bemoan the lack of real journalism, but I think it's out there. Small town papers do it every day, there are good websites out there with no political slant -- propublica is an outstanding news site doing real watchdog journalism, and I"m sure there are others.

There's good straight reporting going on, but there's a lot of folks offering opinion as straight news out there. If you can tell the difference, you're fine. But some folks apparently can't.

God love ya!

My prayer is that you always are able to keep your wits about you.

I hope your truth is actually truth! Always.

Pretty much everything on politics I read from the AP these days is opinion masquerading as reporting. Article today on Ryan's health care plan was filled with critiques.

(06-23-2016 05:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  Pretty much everything on politics I read from the AP these days is opinion masquerading as reporting. Article today on Ryan's health care plan was filled with critiques.

it's almost impossible to escape op-ed these days....and the last 40+ years I began to notice such....

I only do news during an election year.....it's long been freddie joe patek(ic) agenda drive(l)n....

So, CNN hires CL while also employing the woman he "handled".
What message does that send?
To be fair.....CNN is not "free media"
I see CL more in an advisory role for CNN as he can't really speak negatively about Trump publicly.

what is "free media"?
I would not say CNN, Fox News or network news are free since they push a POV. right or wrong

Plus I don't think politics is something that can be unbiased. Today is more about ratings, than the actual news story. how else do you explain Chewbacca Mom??

(06-24-2016 03:27 PM)Greenroom Wrote:  what is "free media"?
I would not say CNN, Fox News or network news are free since they push a POV. right or wrong

Plus I don't think politics is something that can be unbiased. Today is more about ratings, than the actual news story. how else do you explain Chewbacca Mom??

Would you consider Fox and CNN and MSNBC to be quasi PACs?

No.

The media is giving Trump a pass. They aren't pressing him on his policies.

July 4th weekend news dump. DOJ requests Clinton e-mails be hidden from public until after the election after meeting between Bill and Lorretta.

Will the "free media" be fair and unbiased?

Obviously trying to bury the news is obvious.