Wikileaks released information showing the New York Times would release information detailing future stories to be published. This information was released to the Hillary Clinton lead State department, some times with as much as a 9 day lead time, so as to allow them to craft their response and spin. I'm sure this is common courtesy and they do the same for the Trump admin. Right?

http://www.projectrepublictoday.com/2017...ign=buffer

The dems keep turning it up and keep getting burned.

Recidivist cheating scumbags with their finger on the scale as a matter of habit.

The news media is not supposed to take sides. They act as the watch dogs against the powerful. Whenever it is proven that they favor one side over another, they breach the trust that is given to them. And make a mockery of the 1st amendment. Commit a felony and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away from you. I say willfully commit a breach of the public trust and they should lose their 1st amendment rights.

(12-31-2017 08:20 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The news media is not supposed to take sides. They act as the watch dogs against the powerful. Whenever it is proven that they favor one side over another, they breach the trust that is given to them. And make a mockery of the 1st amendment. Commit a felony and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away from you. I say willfully commit a breach of the public trust and they should lose their 1st amendment rights.

Pier review should take this to another level if they were fair.

(12-31-2017 08:20 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The news media is not supposed to take sides. They act as the watch dogs against the powerful. Whenever it is proven that they favor one side over another, they breach the trust that is given to them. And make a mockery of the 1st amendment. Commit a felony and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away from you. I say willfully commit a breach of the public trust and they should lose their 1st amendment rights.

Agree 100%. If a news organization proves to be totally in the pocket of one political party they should lose WH press credentials for several years.

(12-31-2017 08:20 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The news media is not supposed to take sides. They act as the watch dogs against the powerful. Whenever it is proven that they favor one side over another, they breach the trust that is given to them. And make a mockery of the 1st amendment. Commit a felony and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away from you. I say willfully commit a breach of the public trust and they should lose their 1st amendment rights.

He said trust.

(12-31-2017 08:34 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-31-2017 08:20 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  The news media is not supposed to take sides. They act as the watch dogs against the powerful. Whenever it is proven that they favor one side over another, they breach the trust that is given to them. And make a mockery of the 1st amendment. Commit a felony and your 2nd amendment rights are taken away from you. I say willfully commit a breach of the public trust and they should lose their 1st amendment rights.

Pier review should take this to another level if they were fair.

this and to what kap/ole blue said.....

it's getting to the point where they're begging for regulation......

talk about a slice of irony.....

#dangeroustimes

#ethicaloafs

More about the trained liars...

(12-31-2017 07:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Recidivist cheating scumbags with their finger on the scale as a matter of habit.

#spoilthechildren

#eatdung

(12-31-2017 05:52 PM)Old Blue Wrote:  Wikileaks released information showing the New York Times would release information detailing future stories to be published. This information was released to the Hillary Clinton lead State department, some times with as much as a 9 day lead time, so as to allow them to craft their response and spin. I'm sure this is common courtesy and they do the same for the Trump admin. Right?

http://www.projectrepublictoday.com/2017...ign=buffer

Well if one was about the state department I don't expect it to get the same treatment as a political campaign.

Several years ago Bull Run got wind of the Justin Moss scandal. We wrote a piece and sent it ahead to the department to make sure (1) it was accurate and (2) they were not taken by surprise.

After a phone conversation with someone in the department we were convinced to hold the story until Moss had completed his appeal so as not to taint the ecosystem. Seemed only fair because he was a 20 year old facing expulsion.

What's funny is we set a tag on the article and forgot to change it when we published. so the url is:

https://www.ubbullrun.com/buffalo-basket...oes-public

I guess the point is that if you're dealing with departments, of any kind, then sometimes you give htem a heads up in advance to be sure you get the details right.

I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

I don't disagree, but would throw in the caveat that if you decide to be a shill and homer that you at least own up to it and be upfront about it.......don't pretend to be objective and neutral while putting a thumb on the scales.

That last part is what is bothersome as far too many people are lazy and dense and just lap up whatever some talking head throws at them....."it's for the dumbasses!!"

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

Yes, they can do anything they want, you are right, and we can also complaint and speak our mind all we want. Which is what we are doing, and I think you are a commie for telling us that we cant complaint about the bias press.

(01-02-2018 10:06 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

I don't disagree, but would throw in the caveat that if you decide to be a shill and homer that you at least own up to it and be upfront about it.......don't pretend to be objective and neutral while putting a thumb on the scales.

That last part is what is bothersome as far too many people are lazy and dense and just lap up whatever some talking head throws at them....."it's for the dumbasses!!"

Ethical and lawful are admittedly two different things.

But that said, how many here thought the NY Times was an unbiased source that did not have close political ties to the Democrats? Say what you want, but anyone examining the NYT already knew the truth.

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

The question is not whether they are FREE to publish what they want.

Rather, the question is if they meet the definition of PRESS. If they are a propaganda tool then they should not be considered Press. If they are NOT Press then they aren't protected by the 1st Am.

Political party propaganda mouthpieces shouldn't qualify as The Press. Why not just have each party write their own news. Then there's no need for an "independent, fair" Press.

This whole thread is so full of irony.

(01-02-2018 03:33 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

The question is not whether they are FREE to publish what they want.

Rather, the question is if they meet the definition of PRESS. If they are a propaganda tool then they should not be considered Press. If they are NOT Press then they aren't protected by the 1st Am.

Political party propaganda mouthpieces shouldn't qualify as The Press. Why not just have each party write their own news. Then there's no need for an "independent, fair" Press.

Exactly! Public relations firms, which several of the supposed press really are, do not get press credentials.

(01-02-2018 10:02 AM)Claw Wrote:  I think you are all a bunch of commies.

It is a FREE PRESS. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO because they are FREE TO DO IT.

You don't get to control press behavior just because you don't like it.

So all the rights, yet none of the responsibilities? Sounds like the very definition of a left wing organization. What about giving debate questions to HRC during the campaign. Do they have the right to do that? Would it be alright if they were paid to do that?