| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mat-ty
Joined: 07 Jul 2007
Posts: 7850
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | matty...please. You constantly link stories to the Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Reverend Moon, that doesn't even attempt to hide it's motives. You have no credibility. Its just an opinion. Its hilarious that Righty's call all mainstream newspapers, "liberal rags" how is that paranoia theme working for ya?
Here is the bio from the guy who wrote the Globe column, pretty accomplished smart guy :
Michael A. Cohen is a regular contributor for The Boston Globe on national politics and foreign affairs. He is a fellow at the Century Foundation, a lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and has written for dozens of news outlets, including a column for the Guardian and Foreign Policy. He previously worked as a speechwriter at the US State Department. He is the author of “Live From the Campaign Trail,” which looked at presidential campaign speechwriting, and he is currently writing a book on the 1968 presidential election. |
If Cohen is saying there is nothing to see here he loses all credibility in my book.
And my link above that would conflict with Mr Cohens obvious attempt to protect Hillary is from the NYT. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 wrote: | And speaking of the liberal main stream media, a bit of a flashback~
Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals
05/15/15
NBC Universal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show.
The donations, which range from the low-thousands to the millions, provide a picture of the media industry's ties to the Clinton Foundation at a time when one of its most notable personalities, George Stephanopoulos, is under scrutiny for not disclosing his own $75,000 contribution when reporting on the foundation.
The list also includes mass media groups like Comcast, Time Warner and Viacom, as well a few notable individuals, including Carlos Slim, the Mexican telecom magnate and largest shareholder of The New York Times Company, and James Murdoch, the chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox. Both Slim and Murdoch have given between $1 million to $5 million, respectively.
Judy Woodruff, the co-anchor and managing editor of PBS NewsHour, gave $250 to the foundation's “Clinton Haiti Relief Fund" in 2010.
The following list includes news media organizations that have donated to the foundation, as well as other media networks, companies, foundations or individuals that have donated. It is organized by the size of the contribution:
For the list~
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228 |
hey brainless Nixon gave to democrats in hopes certain ones would defeat the good ones.
hey clueless the head of Fox ruppy gave to Hillary daaaa. not her charity but at least her previous campaign. so again what was your hypothesis again?
do you ever think through your thoughts past a second grade level?
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mat-ty wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | matty...please. You constantly link stories to the Washington Times, a newspaper owned by the Reverend Moon, that doesn't even attempt to hide it's motives. You have no credibility. Its just an opinion. Its hilarious that Righty's call all mainstream newspapers, "liberal rags" how is that paranoia theme working for ya?
Here is the bio from the guy who wrote the Globe column, pretty accomplished smart guy :
Michael A. Cohen is a regular contributor for The Boston Globe on national politics and foreign affairs. He is a fellow at the Century Foundation, a lecturer at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, and has written for dozens of news outlets, including a column for the Guardian and Foreign Policy. He previously worked as a speechwriter at the US State Department. He is the author of “Live From the Campaign Trail,” which looked at presidential campaign speechwriting, and he is currently writing a book on the 1968 presidential election. |
If Cohen is saying there is nothing to see here he loses all credibility in my book.
And my link above that would conflict with Mr Cohens obvious attempt to protect Hillary is from the NYT. |
again read the history of the NYT with the CIA, again they have maureen dowd who has been attacking the clintons from day one. A liberal would have fired her once it was shown not one grand jury indictment. then add in to the NYT the bush war cheerleader Judith Miller who never confirmed sources to get us into a war. again the CIA had over 400 reporters on its payroll at one point. The military got caught planting py-opps officers in was it public broadcasting.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2016 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
once again the right wing owned media with virtually no glaring exceptions... is out attacking hillary with not a thing verifyible...
wpo
| Quote: |
Here’s How The AP Should Have Written Its Hillary Clinton Article
On Tuesday, The Associated Press published a sweeping new investigation into the mingling of Clinton Foundation donors and official State Department business. It has since come under fire for conceptual and structural flaws. By limiting its investigation of the Clinton Foundation to specific financial contributions that led to direct and specific benefits for donors, The Associated Press left itself vulnerable to criticism that no verifiable “quid pro quo” could be established from its findings. By trying to cram its findings into a small box, it distorted what it found, and missed the bigger picture. Read more. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2016 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
where was the media when General was sec of state and had a charitable foundation....
one of Powels largest donors as well as bush 1s wifes foundation large donors was the same llargest donor to Bush to run for gov and president the same guy who gave his corporate jets to Bush to fly his people all over and to Florida for the recount. Yes the largest criminal in the history of america, well top 3 as Bush and his lie to get us into war is by far the biggest, estimated 10s of billions would be repaid, and not estimated at upwards of 6-20 trillion. Ken Ley was also in his donors...
But no; the media left that sec of state alone, that wife of a president alone.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/8/30/12690444/alma-powell-clinton-foundation
| Quote: | In 1997, after a distinguished career in military service that culminated with stints as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Colin Powell launched a charity. Named America’s Promise, it’s built around the theme of Five Promises to America’s children. And while I’ve never heard it praised as a particularly cost-effective way to help humanity by effective altruists, it was surely a reasonably good cause for a famous and politically popular man to dedicate himself to.
Needless to say, however, Powell continued to be involved in American political life. His sky-high poll numbers ensured he’d be buzzed about as a possible presidential or vice presidential nominee, either as a moderate Republican or as an independent. Realistically, that wasn’t in the cards, and Powell was smart enough to know it. But his support for George W. Bush during the 2000 campaign lent him valuable credibility, and his recruitment to serve as Bush’s first secretary of state was considered an important political and substantive coup by Bush.
So what about the charity? Well, Powell’s wife, Alma Powell, took it over. And it kept raking in donations from corporate America. Ken Lay, the chair of Enron, was a big donor. He also backed a literacy-related charity that was founded by the then-president’s mother. The US Department of State, at the time Powell was secretary, went to bat for Enron in a dispute the company was having with the Indian government.
Did Lay or any other Enron official attempt to use their connections with Alma Powell (or Barbara Bush, for that matter) to help secure access to State Department personnel in order to voice these concerns? Did any other donors to America’s Promise? I have no idea, because to the best of my knowledge nobody in the media ever launched an extensive investigation into these matters. That’s the value of the presumption of innocence, something Hillary Clinton has never been able to enjoy during her time in the national spotlight.
The value of the presumption of innocence
Because Colin Powell did not have the reputation in the mid- to late ’90s of being a corrupt or shady character, his decision to launch a charity in 1997 was considered laudable. Nobody would deny that the purpose of the charity was, in part, to keep his name in the spotlight and keep his options open for future political office. Nor would anybody deny that this wasn’t exactly a case of Powell having super-relevant expertise. What he had to offer was basically celebrity and his good name. By supporting Powell’s charity, your company could participate in Powell’s halo.
But when the press thinks of you as a good guy, leveraging your good reputation in this way is considered a good thing to do. And since the charity was considered a good thing to do, keeping the charity going when Powell was in office as secretary of state was also considered a good thing to do. And since Powell was presumed to be innocent — and since Democrats did not make attacks on Powell part of their partisan strategy — his charity was never the subject of a lengthy investigation.
Which is lucky for him, because as Clinton could tell you, once you are the subject of a lengthy investigation, the press doesn’t like to report, “Well, we looked into it and we didn’t find anything interesting.”
Instead we get things like:
An Associated Press investigation whose big reveal is that Clinton once tried to help out a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was in hot water with the ruling party of his home country.
An LA Times story headlined “Billionaire’s Clinton Ties Face Scrutiny,” about a rich Lebanese-Nigerian man who appears to be genuinely somewhat shady, gave money to the Clinton Foundation, and received nothing in exchange.
A Wall Street Journal story about how the crown prince of Bahrain scored a meeting with Hillary Clinton years after having donated to the Clinton Foundation. The story somehow forgets to mention that Rice, Powell, Madeleine Albright, and Warren Christopher had all also met with him during their tenures as secretary of state
An ABC investigation that concluded a donor had used a foundation connection to get a better seating assignment at State Department function.
Three of these stories, in other words, found no wrongdoing whatsoever but chose to insinuate that they had found wrongdoing in order to make the stories seem more interesting. The AP even teased its story with a flagrantly inaccurate tweet, which it now concedes was inaccurate but won’t take down or correct. The final investigation into the seat assignments at least came up with something, but it’s got to be just about the most trivial piece of donor special treatment you can think of.
Did one of Alma Powell’s donors ever ask for a better seat at a Powell-era function? Nobody knows, because nobody would think to ask.
Hillary’s problem is people “know” she’s corrupt
The perception that Clinton is corrupt is one of her most profound handicaps as a politician. And what’s particularly crippling about it is that evidence of her corruption is so widespread exactly because everyone knows she’s corrupt.
Because people “know” that she is corrupt, every decision she makes and every relationship she has is cast in the most negative possible light. When she doesn’t allow her policy decisions to be driven by donors, she’s greeted by headlines like “Hillary Blasts For-Profit Colleges, But Bill Took Millions From One.”
AT&T is one of the very biggest donors to America’s Promise, and for much of the Bush administration, Colin and Alma’s son Michael was chair of the Federal Communications Commission, which, among other things, regulates AT&T. I never saw anyone write a story investigating whether AT&T’s donations improperly influenced Powell’s pro-telecom regulatory stances. But it’s genuinely unimaginable that if Powell had chosen not to help AT&T with regulatory matters the press would have blasted him as a hypocrite. That would have been ridiculous.
But once you “know” that a putative charity is really just a nexus of corruption, then even the failure to be swayed by contributions becomes a news story. And of course once your decision-making is put under that kind of scrutiny, your impulse is to shut down and try to keep information close to your chest. But when you “know” that a person is corrupt, her lack of transparency is further evidence of corruption. And any minor information that does slip out is defined as news, even if the information does not actually contain evidence of anything all that interesting.
The press should contextualize Clinton stories
Hillary Clinton is running for president. Her opponent, Donald Trump, is unusually weak and will probably lose. Scrutinizing her, her activities, and her associations is appropriate, and it’s difficult for any responsible citizen to argue that the likely next most powerful person on the planet is under too much scrutiny.
But the mere fact of scrutiny can be misleading.
It’s natural to assume that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But the smoke emanating from the Clinton Foundation is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It is the result of a reasonably well-funded dedicated partisan opposition research campaign, and of editorial decisions by the managers of major news organizations to dedicate resources to running down every possible Clinton email lead in the universe.
Whatever one thinks of that decision, it’s at least appropriate to ask editors and writers to put their findings on these matters into some kind of context for readers’ benefit. To the extent that Clinton is an example of the routinized way in which economic elites exert disproportionate voice in the political process, that’s a story worth telling. But it’s a very different story from a one in which Clinton is a uniquely corrupt specimen operating with wildly unusual financial arrangements and substantive practices.
Much of what we’ve seen over the past 18 months is journalists doing reporting that supports the former story, and then writing leads and headlines that imply the latter. But people deserve to know what’s actually going on. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Last edited by real-human on Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2016 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know Issil (iso) will claim he can not divulge his top secret knowledge in the military because well he is delusional. But again in general 9 out of ten officers are right wing. Same with enforcement agencies spy agencies and so on. Just a s we can agree in hollywood 9 out of 10 or some number like that are liberals, just as we can say in general university professors and the educated, and teachers are liberals.
So when we step out of the statistical norm like right now with trump where the generals are not lining up 9 out of 10 backing trump it says volumes.
Now has the media ever pointed out this issue to the public or am I just so much smarter than the right wing media. will the media plaster just these two generals all over the media if I owned the media as a liberal I would. It certainly would be first page.
| Quote: | | -- Two retired four-star generals will announce they are backing Clinton today. Bob Sennewald (former Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command) and David Maddox (formerly Commander in Chief, U.S. Army-Europe) write in a joint statement that will go out from the campaign later: "Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army 4-star general, we each have worked closely with America’s strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia. Our votes have always been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate. Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton.". |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You fooled by Fox righties must be so proud:
| Quote: | Gabriel Sherman’s latest bombshell about Fox News reports that the network hacked journalists’ phone records, including those of at least one Media Matters reporter. Media Matters is threatening a lawsuit.
Sherman’s article was published today in New York Magazine. It’s a lengthy, must-read for NewsHounds. But of particular import are these two paragraphs:
Fox News also obtained the phone records of journalists, by legally questionable means. According to two sources with direct knowledge of the incident, Brandi, Fox’s general counsel, hired a private investigator in late 2010 to obtain the personal home- and cell-phone records of Joe Strupp, a reporter for the liberal watchdog group Media Matters. (Through a spokesperson, Brandi denied this.) In the fall of that year, Strupp had written several articles quoting anonymous Fox sources, and the network wanted to determine who was talking to him. “This was the culture. Getting phone records doesn’t make anybody blink,” one Fox executive told me.
What makes this practice all the more brazen is that the Guardian was already publishing articles about phone-hacking at Murdoch’s British newspaper division. About that scandal, Murdoch said, “I do not accept ultimate responsibility. I hold responsible the people that I trusted to run it and the people they trusted.” In this case, of course, the person he trusted, inexplicably, was Ailes, and Murdoch does not seem to have wanted to know how Ailes chose to spend company funds. Every year, Murdoch approved Ailes’s budgets without question. “When you have an organization making that much money, we didn’t go line by line through people’s budgets,” a former News Corp. executive said.
Sherman only cites one journalist hacked by Fox but he implies there were more. Media Matters also thinks so - and that Fox hacked emails, too. From The Daily Beast:
“We know there are allegations of email and phone records being obtained, but do not know precisely how. It’s part of our internal review now,” Media Matters president Bradley Beychok told The Daily Beast.
[…]
Beychok said Strupp may not have been the only target. “We are not sure of how widespread the issue may be in regards to our employees. However, in addition to Joe Strupp there is at least one other current Media Matters colleague who we have reason to believe also had their phone records obtained.”
Media Matters is also threatening to sue Fox. Today it issued a statement:
Roger Ailes and Fox News broke the law by hacking into the phone records of Media Matters employees. Anyone involved in the illegal hacking should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and we are considering all legal options.
|
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/in_midst_phone_hacking_scandal_murdoch_s_fox_news_hacked_media_matters_phone_records_090216#f4kh4PsRmVwE3JX4.99
Did anyone think he was only breaking the law in England? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2016 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe those hacks by FOX of a news media are domestic acts of terrorism and should be treated as so.
assault vehicles should be raiding every fox employee and owner and putting them in gitmo and waterboarding them till the truth threat is determined. No lawyers legal representatives for at least 3 years. again they were for waterboarding so I have no problem with people who advocate torture from receiving it.
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14877
Location: on earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
