Vanity Fair: New York Times Blocking Reporters From Going On Certain MSNBC and CNN Shows As ‘Too Partisan”

For two years, I have written about the declining journalistic values in this age of rage with both reporters and legal analysts becoming open partisans for or against Donald Trump. I recently spoke on this decline in objective and neutral reporting. It appears that the situation has become a threat to the journalistic principles of The New York Times. According to Vanity Fair, the newspaper is barring its reporters from appearing on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show and CNN Tonight with Don Lemon as too biased and one-sided.

Vanity Fair reports that Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet is concerned that NYT reporters would be “perceived as being aligned” with the hosts in raw advocacy against the Republicans and Trump.

I have in past defended the Times against attacks from Trump and his supporters. This is an example of why the “Old Grey Lady” remains a icon for journalism. It is not clear if the bar does or should apply to columnists or commentators. Presumably it does not. The concern that many of us have raised is how hosts and reporters at CNN and MSNBC openly mocked or counter Trump and the Republicans. Fox has been accused of the same bias in favor of the Administration. However, Fox often runs tough interviews and pieces against Trump, who has complained about the coverage. There are also excellent journalists and hosts at CNN. One of my favorite is Michael Smercomish who often transcends politics and popular positions.

I often play a game in watching these networks. When breaking news happens I ask myself what is the worst possible spin that you could put on the story. The spin inevitably seems to follow. It is formula coverage and executives like Jeff Zucker have admitted that their exhaustive Trump coverage is a ratings play.

I have a great deal of affection and respect for many people at CNN and MSNBC as well as Fox. The loss of objectivity is the result of executives seeking to lock in an audience with echo-journalism. They want to appeal to people who do not want to hear alternative views or scenarios in controversies. CNN has been far less successful in that strategy after MSNBC occupied the field as the go-to anti-Trump channel.

239 thoughts on “Vanity Fair: New York Times Blocking Reporters From Going On Certain MSNBC and CNN Shows As ‘Too Partisan””

  1. OT: I take it Darren is bloody sick of all of us.

    Here’s a suggestion: abolish the office of elector. Assign each state and each abiding territorial possession a quantum of electoral votes equal to the citizen population of each at the time of the last decennial census. For most states, the electoral votes would be assigned according to the winner of a statewide vote. The more populous states would be cut up into constituencies by their state legislatures per a set of constitutional guidelines. Each constituency would be assigned a quantum of electoral votes per its citizen population which would be assigned to the winner of the popular contest in each. (California breaks naturally into five constituencies, Texas into five or six, Florida into four, Ohio and Pennsylvania into three, and eight other states into two).

    1. Tabby, just to avoid complications, let’s just abolish the Electoral College all together. It only serves the interests of small town Whites. That’s not America anymore.

      1. They don’t like you, either, Peter. The difference being they have good reasons and you don’t.


        What tallying electoral votes in lieu of tallying popular votes does, Peter, is it allows each state to administer its own elections without reference to what the other states are doing. The Presidency is the only office wherein you have a multi-state electoral constituency. Absent the electoral college, you’d have to have federally administered elections. No matter how inept state legislatures are, they don’t match the cumbersome stupidity of the United States Congress and those under its supervision. It’s hard to think of a federal agency erected in the last 50 or 60 years that does its job well. The better agencies (e.g. the FDIC and the Bureau of Economic Analysis) are old agencies.


        No sane person wants votes from California or Arizona added in to their pool of votes, for obvious reasons. You did that to yourself, Peter.

        1. Tabby, where are you getting this?? Who says Washington would have to supervise elections if it weren’t for the Electoral College..?? Is this one of those talking points in rightwing media that escaped my notice??

          The states are perfectly capable of supervising their own Popular Vote. There’s no logical reason they can’t.

          1. No, Peter, we’d have to have federal administration: You’d have to have harmonious procedures, which would include the same eligibility screens.

            Right now, you’re expecting voters in Nebraska to accede to the dilution of their suffrage by illegal aliens, ex cons, and vote fraud practiced in California, Arizona, Washington State, Minnesota…

      2. Okay, let’s do it. But you have to give up everything those small town whites provide and have provided to the nation. Let’s identify every white person that originated from a small town and make two different Americas; those from that small town, call them Red and everyone else Blue. Everything Red produces can only be used in Red America and everything Blue produces is for Blue America. Food, medicine, military, police, firefighters, real estate, natural resources, everything. Red will create their own forces and the Blue their own. Red will have their own government, Blue their own. How long do you think it would take to learn what America really is?

        Ready, go.

        1. Peter hasn’t figured out that most people in this country either live in country homesteads of they live in agglutinated settlements with fewer than 260,000 people in them. He also hasn’t figured out that most people are white Anglos and many of the remainder are hispanics and Orientals who want nothing to do with racial identity politics.

          1. Tabby, Olly, did you guys take stupid pills this morning??

            America’s economy is mainly driven by the 100 largest counties. What’s more the biggest blue states are also major agriculture producers. This idea that small towns are essential to the country is about 70 years out of date.

            Personally I wish small towns were still important. I don’t like the fact that globalization has marginalized small towns. That’s not a good trend! But it’s a trend all over the world.

            37% of America lives in the 5 largest states. 54% lives in the 10 largest states. And a whopping 75% of America lives in the 20 largest states!

            We need an electoral system that reflects ‘where’ Americans really live.

            1. We created a federalist system where the states had a lot of power and the power the states didn’t have the people did. The left likes dictators so they want a single ruler and they wish to forget why compromises were made when the Constitution was created.

              The left believes in democracy and doesn’t really care about who votes or what people vote for as they wish to be ordained as the one’s to count the vote and declare winners and losers. That is what they have been doing unsuccessfully with the 2016 election, trying to deny Trump’s legal position as President of the United States. There is no question as to where any of these jokers stand on freedom.

              1. The left believes in democracy

                It believes in nothing of the sort. The left believes in getting what it wants, and that usually means through court decrees and finagling by the permanent government.

                1. DSS, read again and make sure you get the point: ” they wish to be ordained as the one’s to count the vote and declare winners and losers.”

            2. did you guys take stupid pills this morning??

              Perhaps, but let’s see. I said:

              But you have to give up everything those small town whites provide and have provided to the nation. Let’s identify every white person that originated from a small town and make two different Americas;

              Did you think that through? I don’t think so. Everything about this nation is the result of everything that came before it. Remove to the Red America all the contributions ever made from every white person from small town America and the Blue America gets what remains. I like my chances.

            3. America’s economy is mainly driven by the 100 largest counties.

              This is a nonsense statement. There are no ‘drivers’. There are goods and services produced and exchanged.

              What’s more the biggest blue states are also major agriculture producers.

              There’s very little agricultural production in your 103 magic counties, and what there is is to be found in exurban portions that you disdain.

              Your counties encompass about 50 dense metropolitan settlements. The thing is, 34 of them are 2d and 3d tier cities of which only a scatter are on the coasts (Oxnard, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Stamford-Norwalk-Bridgeport-New Haven).

              1. Tabby, great observation about Second Tier Cities. ‘

                Yes’, they’re all over the country; cities with metro’s areas of one to three million. They’re all over the Midwest and South in addition to the coasts.

                Therefore, Republican candidates for president could find a path to victory by campaigning in Second Tier Counties and Cities. It’s very doable if one knows where people live.

                So when I say we should abolish the Electoral College, I’m not assuming Democrats will gain a big advantage. They won’t if Republicans follow this strategy.

                10 Omaha-size cities could negate Chicagoland on Election Day. So it’s not like Republicans would be helpless without the Electoral College. In a Popular Vote Election, Republicans have at least a 50-50 chance.

                But here’s the important point: ‘I would rather have the GOP nominee hopscotching midsize cities than the current status quo’. A few purple states shouldn’t decide elections. And that’s what we have with the Electoral College system; ‘a few purple states decide’.

                Ideally nominees should campaign in every state. Yet Texas, like California, gets screwed by The Electoral College. Texas has more big cities than California.

                Democratic nominees should be campaigning in all those Texas cities. Republican nominees should campaign in certain parts of California. Candidates should visit every state with cities that matter on Election Day.

                1. A few purple states shouldn’t decide elections.

                  They don’t, Peter. It’s just that they’re closely-divided so attention and advertising dollars have higher marginal utility in these states than in other states. Their electoral votes don’t count anymore than any other state’s. It’s just that their direction is uncertain.

            4. We need an electoral system that reflects ‘where’ Americans really live.

              Americans rejected that thesis when the British tried to impose that on them in the 18th century. They are never going to accept it today.

              1. Olly what are you talking about? What do you think the British imposed? You aren’t even clear on that. The British had only 20,000 troops in all of North America and the Caribbean. They weren’t the onerous presence of popular myth. You’re just talking Tea Party slogans.

                1. What do you think the British imposed? You aren’t even clear on that.

                  That’s your root problem. You are ignorant to the reasons this nation was founded. I can’t give you clarity until you pull your head out of your ass and study our founding history. Without that, you are doomed to an existence suggesting stupid $hit in the name of fixing the stupid $hit progressives have done to undermine this great country.

                  1. Olly, I studied the revolution for 5 years. Read many, many books. That whole Tea Party myth of patriotism is largely overblown. The truth is the British made a serious political error by recruiting Native American tribes to serve as their allies. That unleashed a backlash that played out in Saratoga. After Saratoga the French recognized the U.S. and funded our new Continental Army.

                    Native Americans (and treaties the British had with them) were a major component of the Revolution. Americans wanted to move west but the British wouldn’t permit it. So Americans said, “Let’s get the British out of here”.

                    1. That’s it? You studied the war? That explains a lot. The war was just the end result of 150 years of Salutary Neglect. Study history or repeat it. Your choice.

                    2. Olly, for 150 years the British footprint had actually been pretty small. That very lack of physical presence led the Americans to think they didn’t need the British.

                      After the French & Indian Wars, France was marginalized in what is now the U.S. Spain lost Florida as a result of that war. So Americans started thinking, “If we can just get rid of the British all this could be ours”. ‘All this’ being a huge interior stretching west to the Mississippi and beyond.

                    3. for 150 years the British footprint had actually been pretty small. That very lack of physical presence led the Americans to think they didn’t need the British…So Americans started thinking, “If we can just get rid of the British all this could be ours”.

                      Not surprisingly you see the Americans as ungrateful and greedy. Let’s see, you studied an 8 year war for 5 years and studied the 150 years leading to that war for 5 minutes. It shows. You have absolutely no idea why this country was founded. Which means you have no business recommending fundamental changes to our electoral process. Unless you’re doing business for any country hostile to the United States.

                    4. Olly, I’m not being cynical.

                      After the French & Indian Wars it was clear to Americans the British were overstretched. In just Canada alone the British were overstretched. That gave Americans big ideas; as it logically would. ‘Build a huge nation independent of Europe’ with no church or royal family’.

                      To young, idealists in New England and Virginia that idea made perfect sense.

                    5. Olly, I’m not being cynical.

                      BS! You’ve cited nothing.

                      That gave Americans big ideas; as it logically would. ‘Build a huge nation independent of Europe’ with no church or royal family’.

                      Citation? No Church or royal family? Then explain why Burke made this appeal to parliament? Come on Peter, at least try to be honest. Phone a friend, buy a vowel, ask for help, but for crying out loud, don’t just make crap up. It’s intellectually dishonest and so provably stupid.

                      There are a lot of sources available. Try at least one before you respond and cite your source.

                      “Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights,” including the power to lay their own taxes, Burke advised Frederick North, earl of Guilford’s ministry, and “no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.” Edmund Burke 1775

                    6. Olly, if Peter spent 5 years learning what he knows about American History then he is very slow. It sounds more like he picked up a very abbreviated copy of Howard Zinn’s American History text book for those that intend to remain uneducated. He sounds very thin and unable to go into depth on British and American relationships of the 1700’s..

                    7. Allan,
                      He portrayed the American colonists as ungrateful, greedy subjects. The only way to view that is through the lens of a ruler that did not recognize his subjects had any rights other than what he granted. That’s a worldview problem that is at the root of modern progressivism. And that is why every Turley post begins and ends with the same people arguing without ever resolving our differences.

                      As long as progressives approach government as an all-powerful, all-Rights granting entity, then they will never understand or accept the principle of natural rights and limited government. They will always see conservatives as an ungrateful and greedy lot. And they will do anything and everything imaginable to not lose elections, because they believe their all-powerful government will do to them what they would do if the situation were reversed.

                    8. Olly, Peter believes there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and his policy suggests reflect his attempt to get it. What he doesn’t recognize is that his pot of gold is a dictator and likely Peter will be of no use and disposed of. What ruthless dictator would surround himself with stupid people?

                    9. ha ha, I tend to agree with cynical peter about some of that.

                      not entirely. i agree that the British miscalculated in enlisting help from the Indians ( of course the French had their own Indian allies) but then restricting the westward expansion– that was deeply resented by colonials

                      i agree that the bigwigs saw an opportunity for themselves to become the new high honchos. I absolutely agree with peter on that! of course they did. leadership always consists of people who expect to “get paid” just as much as the lowly soldier does.

                      also and I am not sure he said this or not– but i think the marxist interpretation of the war of independence as being an occasion of class conflict between emergent capitalism, and the feudal lord England, has a lot of merit too.

                      it is not to say he is wrong about these strategic issues–
                      but I take exception to how he has used them. in this way:

                      the sense of popular american sentiment against the Crown as tyrant was real I think. the violation of Americans’ rights as Englishmen was a profound concern for our Framers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

                      so these viewpoints, are not entirely exclusive. let’s not disagree just out of reflex!

                    10. the sense of popular american sentiment against the Crown as tyrant was real I think. the violation of Americans’ rights as Englishmen was a profound concern for our Framers in our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

                      Of course it was real. What divided the Americans was whether it was legitimate. Those bigwigs as you say took great pains to explain in the DoI that it was not. The grievances were real.

                      i agree that the bigwigs saw an opportunity for themselves to become the new high honchos.

                      The keyword there is opportunity. It would be ignorant to assume many of those bigwigs wouldn’t envision what this opportunity meant for them personally. I believe the Articles of Confederation reflected some of that sentiment. Make a government so weak that it would guarantee it would not interfere with whatever opportunities they wanted to pursue. If government were the story of Goldilocks, they got rid of the Papa Bear in favor of the Baby Bear and it nearly did them in. They finally got it just right with the constitution. A form of government strong enough to provide the security of rights, yet limited enough to provide the freedom to pursue opportunities (bigwigs too). How strong and limited it would remain would be up to the people.

            5. We need an electoral system that reflects ‘where’ Americans really live.

              In case you hadn’t noticed, Peter, nearly all conciliar bodies are elected from equipopulous constituencies or feature weighted voting. There’s some variation in re the federal House of Representatives, but it’s of modest significance, as is the enhanced weight of less populous states in the electoral college. The only real counterpoint is the U.S. Senate (which didn’t bother you when Harry Reid was calling the shots).

              1. Too late, Tabby. You already acknowledged the existence of Second Tier Cities all over the country. And they ‘are’ all over the country. Republican candidates could do just as well without the Electoral College.

                Nominees should think of America in terms of counties instead of states. And even some of our smaller states have one or two big counties. Take Oklahoma, for instance, our 28th largest state. Oklahoma has two counties with populations of more 600,000. And that’s not unusual for states in Oklahoma’s range.

                Therefore elections would more democratic if presidential nominees thought in term of counties, and, or, metro regions. That’s how America is really laid out. We don’t exist in term of red, blue and purple states.
                Red, blue and purple states are an artificial product of the Electoral College system.

                1. Too late, Tabby. You already acknowledged the existence of Second Tier Cities all over the country.

                  I know they told you to say that in the blast fax, but it still doesn’t make any sense.

                  Red, blue and purple states are an artificial product of the Electoral College system.

                  No, Peter. They’re a natural product of geographic variation in voter preferences.

                  1. No, Tabby, you’re wrong!

                    Chicago is a huge, blue island in what is essentially a red state. California is mostly red 50 miles inland. New York is mostly red north and west of Albany. The biggest cities in Texas are blue islands surrounded by red. Examples go on and on.

                    To repeat: ‘Red, blue and purple stares are an artificial creation of the Electoral College System.

                    1. i think the electoral college system is, perhaps not by intention but effect, operates to the slight favor of native born white folks.

                      therefore, I favor it, since I am a native born white guy.

                      simple equation– i am free to pursue my political interests just like every other voter. call me whatever name you like, I will regard my own interests.

                    2. i think the electoral college system is, perhaps not by intention but effect, operates to the slight favor of native born white folks.

                      Why do you suppose that is?

            1. OLLY says: June 1, 2019 at 4:41 PM
              Take it up with Shill and his identity politics.

              Poor angry Olly. Just another crazy angry American.

              1. I’m as angry as you are intellectually honest. Translated: I’m extremely happy and I don’t expect that to change in the future.


                1. Well you just keep on smiling, just as I’ll keep on being “intellectually honest.” You should try it.

                  1. Reality would wipe the smile off his face, the 50s are never coming back.

        2. Olly, the righties on this site are the ones regularly denouncing other Americans as somehow not real and dismissing the fact that most Americans have voted for the Democrat for President in 6 of the last 7 elections as not important since so many of those votes came from states which they don’t approve of.

          Long story short, get off your high horse on the pretend victimization of small town whites by PH. He didn’t say their votes shouldn’t count, that’s your fellow righties job.

          1. the righties on this site are the ones regularly denouncing other Americans as somehow not real…

            LOL! On the contrary, they get denounced because they are real. A real threat to our rights, our freedom and the rule of law. Therefore we don’t dismiss anything about them. We deal with it. That is our job.

            Thanks for playing.

  2. That’s very specific. Gallup disagrees with “Anon/ Jan F”



    This one came up again: the often repeated claim that pollsters were against Trump in 2016.
    Said claim is often mentioned in the spirit of gleeful snickers by Trump supporters. Like liberals should burn with chagrin!

    But those promoting this claim are only admitting they never follow mainstream media. Because mainstream media reported that story in real time; documenting Hillary’s drop in the polls within days of Comey’s letter.

    My fellow Brock troll, Anon, did a bang-up job tonight illustrating that drop in polls. We all saw that story in ‘Leftwing Media’. But Trumpers keep pretending pollsters were ‘wrong to the end’.

    This myth is stupid from get go! To begin with, Republicans have their own pollsters. Every campaign does. Republicans dont just depend on mainstream media!

    What’s more, any savvy campaign strategist is good with polling data. Carl Rove was considered a wizard at one point. So again, Republicans dont depend on mainstream media.

    Why then is this stupid myth so gripping to Trumpers? Two Reasons:

    A) It plays on Trump’s claim mainstream media is against him. ‘The media conspired to quash Trump’s campaign’. This claim reinforces an ‘Us Against Them Mentality’ which Trump loves to encourage.

    B) The myth totally dismisses James Comey’s letter as a campaign factor. Like, “Why would an FBI warning hurt a candidate?’ Trump would love to dismiss Comey’s letter as inconsequential.

    Trump thought, in fact, that Comey was a potential buddy. That misapprehension led the Russia Probe.

    1. It’s not uncommon for polls to narrow as Election Day nears.
      Trump was reeling for the c.10 year old Access Hollywood outtake that just happened to surface the month before the election. There was also the Lisa Bloom/ Mystery Woman accusation that Trump had raped a 13 year-old girl in the 1990s.
      The Access Hollywood tape didn’t prove destructive enough to cost Trump the election, and the Lisa Bloom farce of a news conference blew up in her face.
      Also, Trump visited the 10 states still in play 49 times in the last month of the campaign v. 33 visits Hillary made to those same 10 states.
      It’s handy to attribute all of Hillary’s late slide in the polls to Comey’s announcement, but someone with the same tunnel vision could latch on to any one of these other factors as well.
      The fact is that a lot of things were happening in the final weeks and days of the campaign, a lot of moving parts, and it’s foolish to pretend that you should look at any one part in isolation.

      1. Well again, Tom, those of us who follow mainstream media saw those polls drop in a series of headlines during the span of about 5 days. It was the ultimate October surprise!

        And interestingly Tom you mention Access Hollywood and Lisa Bloom rumors. If you knew those stories were out there then you’d understand why Trump’s poll numbers were low. After Access Hollywood, Republican pollsters were telling Trump his odds were rather thin. But James Comey’s letter proved to be an even bigger bombshell.

          Lisa Bloom kept the “Trump raped 13 year old girl rumor in play for as long as she could.
          The way that farce played out, a cloud was largely lifted from the Trump campaign.
          When Trump numbers went up after that in the final week or so of the campaign, guess what happens to Hillary’s poll numbers
          There aren’t many day-by-day “running polls” in the last 10 days- two weeks of the campaign.
          If IF Peter or someone else produced such a poll, it would not prove that Hillary’s poll numbers dropped because of Comey’s reopening of the email investigation.
          I noticed that there’s been no response to my observation that Trump made a lot more campaign visits to key states than Hillary.
          Acknowledging that fact might interfere with the “Comey cost Hillary the election” meme, so those reciting it avert their eyes when other possible reasons that don’t fit their narrative are presented to them.
          In any case, there’s a whole smorgasbord of reasons Hillary herself has given, so the Hillaryites need not feel limited to reciting the “Comey did it” line.
          Her imprimatur is there for a whole host of approved excuses.

          1. Here’s an article from Gallup released in late November of 2016. It notes that most polls were right in terms of Popular Vote. But Electoral College flukes are harder to predict.

            1. Real Clear Politics collated 18 polls collecting data over the period running from 27 October to 6 November 2016 (and using a likely voter screen). Fourteen (14) of them overestimated HRC’s eventual margin.

                1. I consulted the actual poll numbers compiled by Real Clear Politics. Directing me to a once-more-removed secondary source is kinda dippy, Peter.

        1. Again, absent a valid multivariate analysis, 538 doesn’t get to 1st base, much less home plate.

    2. “that pollsters were against Trump in 2016.
      Said claim is often mentioned in the spirit of gleeful snickers”

      I’m sure some pollsters leaned in various directions but the significant claim was that the pollsters were wrong. This became a proven fact since according to the polls on election day Trump was going to lose, but he won.

      You distorted the truth just like you recently did with Trump’s tweets.

      1. National polls showed Hillary up by about 2 points just before the election is the amount she won by. State polling is not good as it gets expensive due to the numbers.

        1. Read all the news media and the reports on election eve.

          The polls thought Hillary would win as did Hillary herself.

          Hillary lost. Trump won. Trump is President and Anon can’t get over it,

            1. Most polls had Hillary ahead 3-5% on election eve.
              I posted those polls, but they seen seem to have gone above Anon/Jan F’s head.
              This is an alternative universe where facts and accuracy do not matter, and its well-suited for anonymous trolls like Anon/Jan F.and L4B / Anonymous.

              1. It’s a fairly simple matter to consult Real Clear Politics. McClatchey, Investor’s Business Daily, and a couple of other agencies put HRC closer than 3% points. (The Los Angeles Times put Trump ahead). A dozen others put her farther away, with one predicting a margin of 7% points. Oh, well.

  4. I sure do miss the days of John Holliman and the “Baghdad Boys” back when CNN was The Little Network That Could. It’s unwatchable now.

  5. I sure do miss the days of John Holliman and the “Baghdad Boys”, back when CNN was The Little Network That Could. Now it’s unwatchable.

  6. “Vanity Fair reports that Times’ executive editor Dean Baquet is concerned that NYT reporters would be “perceived as being aligned” with the hosts in raw advocacy against the Republicans and Trump.”
    That’s locking the barn door after the horse left, took a steamer to China, opened a dude ranch, came back to the states, did a 1000 kids’ birthday parties, fathered three, grandfathered six and ended up in a bottle of Elmer’s!

    1. That was descriptive!

      Only, the horse retired to a nice, green pasture with plenty of senior friends and lived a long, happy life. No glue! Not even metaphorically! Be nice to the imaginary horse in this scenario!

          1. Oh, I’m way more charitable to a metaphorical, imaginary horse than I am to the guy who undertook an investigation, and then refused to come to a conclusion as to whether there was enough evidence to support obstruction of justice.

            Plus, one of them is lying – either Barr or Mueller.

            1. Barr was under oath, there were others present with Barr in re that to which he testified, and Barr hasn’t been engaged in a fundamentally abusive enterprise for two years. Advantage Barr.

  7. Allan,

    I’ve had some discussions with him that have been fairly reasonable. If I were to identify a root cause difference between the Left and the Right it is this: The Left believes that because government has the power to alienate us from our rights, then that means no rights are inalienable. This seems logical on it’s face, but it ignores the fundamental question of, is that power legitimate? Of course it’s not. But they don’t question this abuse of power, they prepare for it’s illegitimate use by using any means necessary to not lose elections. And if they do lose, they go into a full panic mode because of their belief that their perceived enemy will use that illegitimate power against them. What they never understand is most people on the Right won’t accept that abuse of power…period.

    1. Olly, you understand things in an organized and consistent way based on principles. The left doesn’t deal with any of these principles or concern themselves with rights that are just tools to them. They do whatever they can to maintain power. When they don’t know what to do they open the book “Ask Stalin” who did whatever he needed to do at the cost of tens of millions of lives just to maintain power.

      1. The left doesn’t deal with any of these principles or concern themselves with rights that are just tools to them.

        Well they certainly don’t in any identifiable, morally grounded way. In many ways, their reasoning is stuck in toddler mode. They don’t seem to have an understanding of right and wrong; only I want and they’ll be laser-focused to get it. They’re not necessarily stupid, ignorant for sure, they just haven’t yet accepted the idea that the rules protect them and everyone else. They remind me of a video I saw of a toddler that essentially scaled a “child-proof” ladder to get into an above ground pool. The parent swooped in just before the toddler went into the pool. This is the conservatives relationship with progressives.

  8. For once they did something correctly even though it was patently to cover their own similar stench. The truth is you don’t have to walk in the sewage to report the sewer is broken. Nor to measure the effect of the long lasting incident. US history used this method to determine when one or more were bothering the entire neighborhood or city they had crossed the line. Others used length of nose as in once your nose is in my business…..

    Bringing it back to the subject at hand when someone some group openly states they intend to destroy our Representative Constitutional Republic their nose becomes a legitimate target.

  9. Well, that’s the pot calling the kettle black.

    It’s been years since The NYT has been unbiased, straight news. Maybe, one day, it will be again.

    1. Karen, if not for the NYTs, WSJ, WaPo, AP, Reuters, NPR, and the BBC – and a few other remaining American newspapers – those rags you read, and which have left you so ignorant, wouldn’t have anything to spin. The Daily Caller for instance has a “news staff” of less than 10 and they hang out at the Congress and WH. The rest of the staff sits around computers reading other sources.

      1. Honestly, Anon, are you incapable of having a decent conversation with anyone without insulting them? Ever? Can’t you heel-toe it through the day without being ornery?

        Life is too short to be so ill tempered.

        1. Karen, I post here surrounded by people who denounce me personally, or like you who denounce those with my beliefs as immoral bad actors. Get out of here with that Little MIss Fairness act.

          1. Anon. – in your case, it’s hard to complain about people denouncing you when almost all of your posts personally insult others.

            There is also a great difference between my criticizing a misguided ideology, or policies that invariably harm those they purport to help, and personal attacks.

            It is this very trend that I dislike. I have become more partisan than I ever was, because the Democrat Party drives me away on almost every issue. Plus it has embraced Socialism and racial identity politics, which equals mass murder. So…there is a certain urgency in my opposition.

            I hope I never get to the point where I can’t complete a post without calling someone a name.

            1. OK Karen, thanks for not insulting me other than that I embrace for mass murder. Of course you are also always correcting and admonishing others here, like Allan and Tom for insulting me personally, and therefore have proved your obviously high minded and objective attitude.

              What a joke.

              1. Anon – I said the Democrat Party is embracing Socialism. I didn’t say you did. Do you support every single thing the party leans towards? If you do support Socialism, then it means you are misinformed, not that you deliberately support a murderous economic system. I have absolutely no idea if you personally support Socialism itself, or have fallen for the euphemism of Democratic Socialism.

                Socialism is associated with mass murder in every regime in which it has been tried. That’s not my fault. Your feelings don’t change the facts. The problem is that a generation of voters thinks that Socialism is free stuff that magically the rich will pay for. They don’t understand that the economic system requires the collapse of individual rights, and inevitably leads to human rights abuses.

                Now, you can complain all that you want. However, I addressed my comment to you because you responded to my post…again..with an insult. You act flabbergasted as to why I would call you on ad hominem. It’s classic false logic. And, no, I’m not going to get in the middle of you insulting others who are insulting you right back.

                I guess you have to decide what kind of person you want to be. The kind who has honest discussions with people who seriously disagree with their ideas, or just some guy who calls everyone names. What’s it going to be?

              2. Anon, you are an insulting coward that has been proven over and over again to not tell the truth.

                  1. Anon, your problem is that you don’t even know the definition of the word “slut”. That is ignorant and ignorance doesn’t change the fact that you are a known insulting coward that continuously mistates what he says because Trump Won The Presidency.

            2. racial and ethnic voting market segmentation strategy has always been and will always be a part of every smart campaign that has a multiethnic polity

              it does not necessarily lead to mass murder.

              sometimes it does.

              read “World on Fire” by Amy Chua. Talks about that in other countries.

              I welcome your comments Karen

              Let’s be nice to the people who disagree with us, because they provide us with lively conversation on a daily basis! and we too may disagree on occasion


          2. Karen, I post here surrounded by people who denounce me personally,

            Well, try being a better person, and you won’t be denounced.

  10. “All the news that’s fit to print.” They use the word “print” not “air on TV” or “broadcast on radio”. CNN has gone downhill. It is not just Don Lemon. Look at all the dorks who put on the fake glasses which they get backstage before they start blathering and sqeeking. The worst was Chuck Todd when he said that “Ferguson is a Ghetto!”.

  11. Turley claims: “The loss of objectivity is the result of executives seeking to lock in an audience with echo-journalism. They want to appeal to people who do not want to hear alternative views or scenarios in controversies.”

    Explain to me, please, how one can be “objective” about a President who brags about grabbing womens’ genitalia, or saying that White Supremacists who murdered a protester can be “fine people”. How about calling African countries “shi*hole”? How about caging infants and children for the express purpose of punishing their parents for seeking asylum in the US? Then, we have the Russian interference in the 2016 election with the cooperation of the Trump campaign, which Trump just acknowledged, and then backed off. He refuses to do anything to stop it from happening again. Next, there is the endless turnover of Administration officials. How about paying off porn stars and nude models? What about the daily, endless lying, the siding with murderous Communist dictator over the American intelligence community? How about lying repeatedly about the findings in Mueller’s report? I haven’t even started with the narcissism. What about the petty, grade-school level name-calling and attacks on anyone who criticizes this person? What possible grounds are there to find him anything other than unfit to serve?

    What “alternative views” are there to condemning these things? Please tell me what “alternative views” there are. From where I sit, you have to be a blind partisan and not a patriot to be anything other than repulsed by how low that person has brought this country.

    1. Nutjob: “saying that White Supremacists who murdered a protester can be fine people”

      Me: “LOL”

    2. “How about paying off porn stars and nude models?”

      wow, you really are grinding an axe against sex workers, huh?

      “What about the daily, endless lying, the siding with murderous Communist dictator over the American intelligence community? ”

      Hello, who is that? Surely you don’t mean Putin who hasnt been a communist since um lets see…. 1991? earth to Kosmonaut Natacha! ты копируешь?

      1. Kurtz, Putin is the guy who apparently owns our President’s ass and who murders political opponents in Russia and wherever else he finds them and then attacks our election system with complete impunity and even a defense from his his stooge. But you have a point. It;s been a long time since he was a communist. Yippee.

        1. “Putin is the guy who apparently owns our President’s ass”

          Ignorance prevails.

    3. Apparently you have been watching CNN and MSNBC because you post is entirely untrue….these are the same things being said about President Trump that have been repeated almost daily by these two networks.

    4. Natacha is hitting on something important here.

      In the past 100 years, no president has challenge the media like Donald Trump. Every day Trump says or tweets something that is completely outside the boundaries of what we considered normal for a president. Yesterday we saw two glaring examples: that U.S.S. John McCain incident and Trump’s tweet acknowledging Russia helped him in the campaign. It’s almost impossible for mainstream media to objectively cover Trump without noting his instability.

      Certain cynics might argue that Trump is deliberately ‘gas-lighting’ America. That is Trump intentionally issues immature rash statements to stress the media. So every headline involving Trump looks like a ‘hit piece’; allowing Trump to claim ‘the media is out to get him’. I, however, believe that Trump is truly unstable.

      1. “Yesterday we saw two glaring examples: that U.S.S. John McCain incident and Trump’s tweet acknowledging Russia helped him”

        Peter, you really should think more and read more widely. What was wrong with this tweet of Trump’s? “I was not informed about anything having to do with the Navy Ship USS John S. McCain during my recent visit to Japan. Nevertheless, @FLOTUS and I loved being with our great Military Men and Women – what a spectacular job they do!” Or this one? ”
        The Navy put out a disclaimer on the McCain story. Looks like the story was an exaggeration, or even Fake News – but why not, everything else is!”

        What did he say in his tweet about Russia you disagreed with or thought was inappropriate?

        You complain all the time but I don’t think you know what you are complaining about.

        1. Alan, you’re not addressing ‘me’ here. You’re addressing random reader who might be scanning this blog. You’re putting on a charade where this ‘P H’ commenter has poor grasp of events. ..What a phony your are..!

          1. Don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about. I quoted from one icon and now the same icon is responding. If you are having an identity crisis that is your problem.

        2. I don’t see a problem with either Tweet. OMG, I don’t see a problem with a Trump Tweet! Hurray! 🙂

      2. In the past 100 years, no president has challenge the media like Donald Trump. Every day Trump says or tweets something that is completely outside the boundaries of what we considered normal for a president.

        As the truth comes out regarding the investigations of the investigators, we’ll discover what good has been done by accepting that normal and not challenging the role the media has played in perpetuating it.

        1. Olly, you wish with all your might.

          The media was played to cover stolen DNC emails with front page stories for days at critical times during the election that contained nothing of substance. Quick, what was in the emails? Then “Deep State” kingpin Comey announced Hillary’s renewed investigation 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump from the exactly same revelation The media covered that and it dominated headlines for a week after, lowering Hillary’s numbers by 3-4%.

          Is that the “role” the media played that you want investigated. Yeah, can’t wait.

          1. Anon,

            I don’t need to wish, it’s happening. And however bad you thought your 2.5 year nightmare has been, well it isn’t over by any means. The panic attacks we’ve been seeing from the Left is knowing every Democrat candidate will have some explaining to do.

            More popcorn please.

            1. Yeah, I get it Olly. You’ve got nothing but you think making bolder predictions wins an argument.

              Well, not really. I can’t wait for this investigation of the investigators either, except it’s been going on for 2 years already. I can’t wait to learn the secret plan for sabotaging Hillary’s campaign 2 weeks before the election while protecting Trump’s.

            2. Olly,
              “Anon” has tried to present the same argument about two dozen times here. It won’t be any more effective the next two dozen times he recites it, but it goes like this: Comey re-opened the Hillary email investigatuon less than two weeks before the election. There, that clears all other questionable actors in the Obama Administration, and we should not be suspicious of the activities of people like Strzok, Page, Bruce Ohr ( and his wife Nellie), McCabe,etc.
              It’s an attempted “Comey cover-up, or more exactly, an attempted cover-up and a “nothing to see here, folks” weak excuse using Comey’s re-opening of the email investigation as a “reason” to sweep the activities under investigation by Horowitz, others in the DOJ, and possibly Huber, if he’s actually investigation the 2016 election.I forget the name of the other prosecutor Barr tapped to look into the activities of Obama Administration officials and other in the 2016 election.

              1. John Durham was the name of the U.S. Attorney that Barr appointed to review the origins and examine the players involved in kicking off the investigations into the Trump campaign.

              2. Tom, give us a list of presidential nominees who were tagged with an FBI warning days before the general election.

                1. Peter,
                  We can compare notes on how many times that’s happened v. how many times you’ve had British and Russian actors ( Steele, his contacts, and their sources) doing opposition research, FBI investigators kicking off an investigation of a candidate, possibly spying on one campaign, etc.
                  We can also see if there’s an precendent for a candidate’s “extremely careless” handling of classified material.
                  As Bob Scheiffer humorously noted in an interview, “this has never happened before.”.
                  ( He talked about how his interns laughed at how many times he’s said that, and turned it into a drinking game every time he said those words.

                  1. Tom, Trump wasn’t president when the FBI first took a look at him. Trump didn’t hold any public office. Nor was Trump an ambassador or public official of any kind.

                    Trump was, however, an unusually rash candidate running a blatantly racist campaign where his basic stump speech was an improvised rant agains Mexicans and Muslims.

                    Trump was also the CEO of a huge-but-private company that was well-known for its dealings with Russian oligarchs. Trump’s involvement with Russian investors had been widely reported in business media going back many years.

                    The FBI would have been remiss in its duties had it ‘not’ opened an investigation of Trump. And the fact that Trump had never been a public official of any kind was all the more reason to look at him.

                    No one had any idea how mentally stable or financially solvent Trump really was. The fact that he continually refuses to show his tax returns validates the FBI’s concerns. But I think it’s tragedy the American public didn’t know Trump was being investigated. That was one letter Comey didn’t send to Congress.

                    1. “running a blatantly racist campaign”

                      After listening to two tweets that were normal and Peter complaining how terrible they were we can recognize that Peter cannot accurately assess anything about the President.

                      Peter’s big complaint is Trump made a lot of money. He is envyous. To date Trump has done a good job despite the left trying to sabotage him.

                    2. Trump was a presidential candidate who had the nomination sewed up when the FBI started investigating him; in fact, it my have been after he was officially the nominee, but I’d have to check the dates.
                      If the point is supposed to be that a non- office holder nominated by a political party is fair game as a target of the FBI, Pater Hill has a different view of the FBI than most.

                    3. The investigation was formally opened on 31 July 2016. They were running informants before that.

                      Partisan Democrats are fairly confident that no one on their side will be subject to this sort of abuse of power, so they’re all for it.

                    4. Partisan Democrats are fairly confident that no one on their side will be subject to this sort of abuse of power, so they’re all for it.

                      That’s exactly right. And when they lose control of that power, it’s panic time. Publicly they’ll turn to all the catchphrases that resonate like no one is above the law, the constitution, rights, duty, transparency, get to the truth, and so on. They won’t even recognize their own hypocrisy in doing so; neither will their base. It’s why Clinton can be selected the keynote speaker at a cyber-security conference and their base applauds. Privately, they are doing anything and everything to get that power back.

              3. Tom, don’t misrepresent what I’ve said. Here it is again, for probably the hundredth time:

                Explain how you believe a “Deep State conspiracy” was able to and would want to sabotage Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from exactly the same available evidence by Comey 2 weeks before the vote?:

                That’s simple and should be easy to answer. You can’t Tom, because this supposed “conspiracy” is obviously ridiculous. Prove me wrong.

                As to the investigation? Bring it on. I can’t wait, though it’s been going on already for 2+ years already and with nothing.

                1. I don’t know if “Anon/ Jan F.” is playing dumb, or is actually dumb. After several attempts at exchanges on this subject, “Anon/Jan F. recycles the same lines like a parrot.
                  I never claimed there was a deep state apparatus per see, and to that was one thing I pointed out to Anon/ Jan F. Still, the same line demanding an explanation if the deep state is phrased in the same way with robotic repitition.
                  It reaches a point where I don’t care if a comnenter here is actually stupid or just playing dumb, but it doesn’t matter to me.
                  Either way, it’s a waste of time engaging them.

                  1. As to an “exchange”. My question is simple and sums up accurately what the Deep State believers have to explain and can’t.

                    Glad to see Tom has accepted he can’t answer it and is not a Deep State conspiracy believer.


                    1. It has been explained to you, Anon/ Jan F. Again, I’m not that interested in determining if you’re too stupid to understand explanations, or pretentend that you are that stupid.
                      But as long as you can repeat the “Comey re-opened the Hillary email investigation two weeks before the election” line dozens more times like a broken record, you never gave to worry about running about of material.
                      By your own count, you had used that same line at least 20 times as of early April. It was about at that point that I pointed out that you were interested in parroting that same line and unwilling to engage in any rational debate.
                      Nothing has changed except for the discovery that both “Jan F.” and “Anon” have both “known Bernie for over 40 years”, and that when “Jan F.” quit posting, “Anon” took over.

                    2. Tom, here;s that question again. If you can’t answer it, why are you still here?

                      Explain how you believe a “Deep State conspiracy” would want to sabotage Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from exactly the same available evidence 2 weeks before the vote?:

                      Thanks for playing.

                    3. If you don’t know the obvious answer to this question then you don’t know the facts of the case. I could explain it to you, but you don’t actually care. Go and do your homework…look at the origin of the events that lead to Comey’s conference.

                    1. Tom Nash on April 9, 2019 at 10:39 PM
                      I already did that for Anon. I will occasionally repeat comments for people.
                      I’m not inclined to repeat what I’ve already said to a lying slimeball like anonymous Anon.
                      There is no end to that “tell me why” game when the answer has already been provided.
                      This is just another version of his ‘”20 questions” game…..literally, 20 questions by his own count…that he was playing earlier

                    2. The comment I reposted here is from April 9th, when I pointed out that I wasn’t inclined to waste time on a fool like “Anon” who keeps playing the same game by repeating the same question.
                      “The game” hasn’t gotten any fresher since then as “Anon” keeps recycling it.

                    3. Tom, you seem to be enjoying this and so am I. Here’s the question for you again.

                      Explain how you believe a “Deep State conspiracy” would want to sabotage Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from exactly the same available evidence by 2 weeks before the vote?:

                    4. I’ve pretty much covered why I won’t repeatedly continue trying to answer the same silly- ass questioned after I’ve already answered it. In fact, I explained that weeks ago.
                      When a person continues asking the same question 10-20 times after it’s been answered, that brings up the question of whether that person is simply going out of his/ her way to be an *******. ( Don’t know Anon/ Jan F.’s gender).
                      When that same person continues sqwaking out that same question dozens of times, that answers the question.

                    5. Tom can’t help himself and neither can I. I suppose his conviction that my asking a simple, obvious and important question that his team can’t answer warrants personally attacking me is explained by his own failure as well.

                      Here you go Tom. Here’s your chance to answer it again and send me running with my tail between my legs. Remember, obfuscation and slandering me aren’t necessary if you have an answer.

                      Explain how you believe a “Deep State conspiracy” would want to sabotage Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from exactly the same available evidence 2 weeks before the vote?:

        2. OLLY says: May 31, 2019 at 4:59 PM

          “As the truth comes out regarding the investigations of the investigators, we’ll discover . . . ”

          That the Dread Dee[f]-State weaponized Obama holdover lawfare artists did not find out about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting until July 8th, 2017, when The NYT reported it. If they were only half the dastards The Chief presumes them to be, they would have known all about the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting on June 6th, 2016, when Rob Goldstone sent Donald Trump Jr. the first email setting that meeting up.

          “My campaign was spied upon. It’s the biggest scandal of all time. Bigger than Watergate”

          Oh Really? If only that were true, then you never would’ve been elected in the first place, Crybully!

          L4D was here.

          1. Seriously though, why didn’t the NSA know about Rob Goldstone’s emails to Donald Trump Jr. setting up the June 9th, 2016, Trump Tower meeting? Why didn’t Clapper and Brennan catch the Trump campaign red-handed with a roomful of Russians pitching dirt on Clinton in exchange for sanctions relief for Russia? Why this namby-pamby, pasty-faced, mealy-mouthed, Goodie-Two-Shoes Jim Comey routine whereby they couldn’t even dare dream of doing such an unspeakable thing as staking out The Trump Tower in New York, New York, 24/7, for fear of getting caught “interfering in a U. S. election”?????

            L4D was here, again.

            1. L4D says–Gosh Darn it! Why didn’t the NSA intercept Michael Cohen’s emails and text messages to Dmitri Peskov negotiating the Trump Tower Moscow deal? Why not? What kind of Max Stennet Keystone Cops Dee[f] State were those weaponized Obama soon-to-be-holdovers running around here anyhow?

              Should we hang them all from their necks until dead or pin medals on their chests? Now there’s a tough call, for you.

              1. L4D, as I suggested elsewhere, this amusing construct suggests a coming comedy starring Jim Carrey (Comey) and Jeff Daniels (Mueller) called “Deep State Doofuses”. Trump could be Jon (“yeah, that’s the ticket”) Lovitz,

                1. L4D says–Anon, I’ve been reading your stuff the whole way through. It’s still all good. Keep it coming.

                  Sometimes my replies to my fellow Trump detractors draw fire upon those compatriots instead of drawing fire away from them. So you should always assume my approval for everything you post even when its not explicitly stated.

                  1. Diane has always supported the crazies and she is doing it again but having Diane’s support is like having a needle poked into one’s eye.

                    1. Everybody knows how much you seek my approval, Allanumbian. Tell us all how much you seek it, Allan. Tell us. Please?

                  2. L4D – I fully expect the fire and can handle it, as can you obviously. I don’t have Tom obsessing over me, like you do, though his turning to very personal insults with me when stymied is amusing. I take it for the frustration it expresses.

          2. I took the opportunity to answer Anon’s question. I don’t repeatedly answer the same silly- ass questions just because the same jackass keeps repeating them. I can’t put it any more politely and tactfully than that, and I wouldn’t put it more polite and tactfully even if I could.

      3. PH: Trump’s not smart enough to be gaslighting us. He shoots straight from the hip, and what you see is what he is thinking. He is truly unstable, and destabilizes more every time he cannot lie his way out of things, like Mueller setting the record straight that he was not exonerated. Now, he’s attacking Mueller, claiming that he turned Mueller down for FBI Director, and that Mueller and Comey are “best friends”. NBC did an interview with a Michigan Trump supporter, an older woman, who said that before she heard Mueller speak, she truly believed Trump was exonerated by Mueller because she only listens to “conservative” media.

        1. ” Sometimes people don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed” …Nietzsche. And on this site the Trump sycophants really don’t want to hear the truth.

          1. No worries fishy, there’s more truth to come and then we’ll all know which contributors on this blog have been delusional.

            1. Olly, as recently as 2 days ago the delusional on this site were left tongue tied by Mueller’s statement, which contained nothing new from what was in the SC report but had been spun by Barr, Trump, and whatever sources you all listen to in your echo chambers. Boy, was that subject dropped fast.

              Speaking of delusional, can you please – I’ve asked this a hundred times here – explain how you believe a “Deep State conspiracy” was able to sabotage Hillary’s campaign while protecting Trump’s from exactly the same available evidence by Comey 2 weeks before the vote?

                1. No, Olly, no one can answer it because the so called conspiracy is patently ridiculous.

                  If you think so, give it a try and I’ll try to keep a straight face.. No one has else has even tried.

                  1. What are your assumptions going into the question?

                    1. Clinton ran an unbeatable campaign?
                    2. Trump was never going to be president?
                    3. Your favorite polls couldn’t be wrong?
                    4. Americans are stupid?
                    5. Lawfare is a myth?
                    6. Top-tier alphabet soup suits aren’t corruptible?
                    7. That those same suits are smarter than everyone else?

                    There is already a mountain of publicly available evidence that hasn’t made a dent in the collective psyche of the Left. I believe it’s called confirmation bias. Are you prepared to change your opinion if the reports that will come out prove you’ve been wrong all along? I am.

                    1. Maybe Anon wasn’t on the thread where this was posted.

                      Trump Has Become the Democrats’ Great White Whale – American Greatness Victor Davis Hanson

                      One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months.

                      More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas. The Democratic Party has no plan to secure the borders other than to be against whatever Trump is for. They would not build a wall, deport illegal entrants, end sanctuary cities, fine employers or do much of anything but allow almost anyone to enter the U.S.

                      The homeless crisis is reaching epidemic proportions in our cities, almost all of them run by progressive mayors and city councils. None have any workable plan to clean the sidewalks of needles and human excrement. None know what do with the hundreds of thousands who have camped out in public spaces, endangering their own health and everyone around them due to drug addiction and inadequate sanitation and waste removal.

                      On abortion, the new Democratic position seems to be that the unborn can be aborted at any time the mother chooses, up to and including the moment of birth.

                      The Green New Deal has been endorsed by most of the current Democratic primary candidates, even though they privately know its utopian fantasies would shut down the U.S. economy and destroy the present prosperity fueled by record energy production, deregulation, and tax reform and reduction.

                      Abroad, were Democrats for or against abrogating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and prodding China to follow reciprocal trade rules? How do they propose to deal with North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles that seemed to suddenly appear as Barack Obama left office?

                      Have Democrats proposed canceling the new pipeline construction that Trump has fast-tracked? Would they scale way back on the natural gas and oil production that has made America energy-independent and on the cusp of becoming the world’s greatest energy exporter?

                      Democrats have occasionally talked of implementing reparations for slavery, a wealth tax and free college tuition, and of eliminating college debt, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Electoral College. Yet they have never spelled out exactly how they would enact such radical proposals that likely do not appeal to a majority of the population.

                      Would they reverse Trump tax cuts, stop hectoring NATO members to pay their promised defense contributions, restore NAFTA or revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

                      For now, no one has much of an idea what Democratic candidates would actually do, much less how they would do it.

                      Instead, the fallback position is always that “Trump stole the 2016 election,” “the Mueller report did not really exonerate Trump of collusion and obstruction,” and “Trump must be impeached or somehow stopped from finishing his first term.”

                      When the Mueller report found no collusion and no indictable grounds for obstruction of the non-crime of collusion, for a moment progressives suffered an identity crisis. The temporary paralysis was prompted by the terror that without a crusade to remove Trump, they might have to offer an alternative vision and agenda that would better appeal to 2020 voters.

                      The Democratic establishment has become something like novelist Herman Melville’s phobic Captain Ahab, who became fatally absorbed with chasing his nemesis, the albino whale Moby Dick. The great white whale once ate part of Ahab’s leg, and he demands revenge—even if such a never-ending neurosis leads to the destruction of his ship and crew.

                      Democrats can never forgive Trump for unexpectedly defeating supposed sure winner Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then systematically—and loudly—undoing the eight-year agenda of Obama.

                      So far, Trump seems to have escaped all of their efforts to spear and remove him before the 2020 election. Trump, like Moby Dick, seems a weird force of nature whose wounds from constant attacks only seem to make him more indestructible and his attackers even more obsessed with their prey.

                      Even if the quest to destroy Trump eclipses every other consideration and entails the destruction of the modern Democratic Party, it seems not to matter to these modern Ahabs.

                      Getting Trump is all they live for—and all they have left.


                    2. Olly, right here, in your comment, we have one of the most frequently repeated lies in America today. This lie that ‘the polls were wrong’ in 2016.

                      Those of us who follow mainstream media saw Hillary’s poll numbers drop significantly only days after Comey’s letter to Congress. And that was no surprise.

                      For all intents and purposes Comey’s letter strongly suggested that Hillary faced indictment in the immediate future. ‘I’ had to wonder myself. It made me ponder if there was any point in voting for Hillary. So I have no doubt that millions of voters wondered the same.

                      In that last weekend before the election, some pollsters were saying that race had narrowed to a point where it could go either way. But this fact has long been lost on Trumpers. Instead they love to keep saying ‘the polls were wrong’.

                      But even though ‘polls were wrong’, Trump couldn’t win the Popular Vote. In fact Hillary won the Popular Vote by a margin that was well within the boundaries of a normal victory.

                    3. PH – From 538:

                      “…Few news organizations gave the story more velocity than The New York Times. On the morning of Oct. 29, Comey stories stretched across the print edition’s front page, accompanied by a photo showing Clinton and her aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife. Although some of these articles contained detailed reporting, the headlines focused on speculation about the implications for the horse race — “NEW EMAILS JOLT CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN RACE’S LAST DAYS.”

                      Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12:01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later — after polls had time to fully reflect the letter — her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. That is to say, there was a shift of about 3 percentage points against Clinton. And it was an especially pernicious shift for Clinton because (at least according to the FiveThirtyEight model) Clinton was underperforming in swing states as compared to the country overall. In the average swing state,3 Clinton’s lead declined from 4.5 percentage points at the start of Oct. 28 to just 1.7 percentage points on Nov. 4. If the polls were off even slightly, Trump could be headed to the White House.

                      ….According to the news aggregation site Memeorandum, which algorithmically tracks which stories are gaining the most traction in the mainstream media, the Comey letter was the lead story on six out of seven mornings from Oct. 29 to Nov. 4, pausing only for a half-day stretch when Mother Jones and Slate published stories alleging ties between the Trump campaign and Russia….”


                    4. Olly, these guys like Anon cannot take responsibility for anything. Hillary was leading in the polls on the night of the election. Comey’s statement about Hillary’s carelessness was shortly after July 4. That more of Hillary’s illegal emails were found wasn’t the fault of Comey, the NYTimes or Trump. It was Hillary’s fault. She had been warned by security not to use her Blackberry and continued to use it and warned about illicit email accounts dealing with government business. Hillary Clinton’s arrogance was the cause of her email problems and thus any fall in the polls. She was actually protected but People like Anon can’t see that because it might make them look like fools.

                    5. Olly, my assumptions now and then are irrelevant to what is factually obvious. If the “Deep State” wanted to help Hillary and hinder Trump, “they” would not have sabotaged her campaign while protecting his 2 weeks before the vote. That is inescapable and un-explainable.

                    6. Of course you’re making at least one assumption: that the Deep State was competent. Once the various reports come out, we’ll see just how incompetent they actually were.

                    7. OK, Olly says the Deep State was so incompetent they couldn’t figure out that Comey’s announcement would seriously impact the election against Hillary, or accepting that it would, announce at the same time, justified as a simple matter of fairness, that Trump’s campaign was also under FBI investigation.

                      That’s your answer Olly? Really? How dumb did they have to be to not figure that out?

                    8. Were they incompetent because Trump was elected, or competent because Clinton didn’t? Maybe it was divine providence. Whatever it was, I’m certain all these questions and others will get answered in due time.

                    9. Olly, Allan is a fool and jerk who quite often demonstrates his ignorance of the issues in his many posts, which subsequently require corrections due to his misstatement of “facts”.

                      The reopening of the investigation into Hillary’s emails was not known to the public until Comey announced it, much like the investigation into Trump’s campaign was unknown at that time. Except for a few leaks which did not get much play in the media except Mother Jones, Trump’s campaign investigation remained unknown to the public until his election because the FBI kept it hidden.

                    10. Olly while Anon goes on an hysteria streak and babbles unable to dispute the facts presented, normal people go on with their lives and accept that Trump won the election.

                      Comey’s statement about negligence was just after July 4th. Hillary had engaged in arrogant and illicit behavior after being warned many times that what she was doing was wrong. All sorts of groups were trying to get ahold of the emails and information and were being inhibited by those protecting Hillary. Without the protection Hillary obtained she might have been replaced by another candidate but Anon cannot see that she did anything wrong and that emails that appeared were hers. She wrote them not Comey, Mueller or Trump.

                      Anon is like a junkie juvenile who cannot take responsibility for wrongdoing or stupidity, but then again we see that with him over and over again.

                    11. Allan clearly is no fool. Jerk? Few on this blog haven’t earned that title from time to time. As for the timeline that has been tormenting you since the election: you’ll get your answers. How you respond to them will be revealing as well.

                    12. Olly, the questions have been answered but you and others don’t like the answer and hope the bats..t. crazy story Trump has come up with which makes him the victim will be vindicated. Of course the “Deep State conspirators” weren’t that stupid and that is not really a viable answer to my question.

                    13. I don’t have to hope for anything except the rest of the story. You seem to believe we’ve seen all we need to see. That would be willful ignorance. If you truly love this country, then you should know the people deserve the whole truth.

                    14. Thanks for those details, Anon. I was going to name The Five Thirty Eight but couldn’t remember that name.

                    15. To The Current PH, it appears that you forgot what the polls were predicting.

                      Here is Pew Research Center, on the topic.


                      “The results of Tuesday’s presidential election came as a surprise to nearly everyone who had been following the national and state election polling, which consistently projected Hillary Clinton as defeating Donald Trump. Relying largely on opinion polls, election forecasters put Clinton’s chance of winning at anywhere from 70% to as high as 99%, and pegged her as the heavy favorite to win a number of states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that in the end were taken by Trump.

                      How could the polls have been so wrong about the state of the election?“

                      Take note. The polls were not just off about the popular vote. After all, Clinton won the popular vote. They were off in the populara vote of swing states, and how that would translate to the electoral votes.

                      For example, the polls did not predict that Trump would win most counties in America by a landslide.

                      I watched media coverage from many different angles leading up to the election, and the media was not forecasting that Hillary would lose.

                    16. As for the common accusation that Comey “cost” Hillary the election: was it Comey that caused the drop in the polls, or was it the reminder that she hid a server in her bathroom, lied about it repeatedly, on camera, hid top secret information on it, uploaded it to the Cloud, gave access to it to people with zero security clearance, deleted thousands of emails while under subpoena, smashed her phones and laptops with a hammer, erased her server with Bleach Bit, and otherwise obstructed justice and engaged in federal crimes regarding classified information?

                      What was Comey talking about? The weather? He was talking about her crimes. And it was her crimes and repeated, on camera lies, that hurt her in the polls. She earned a reputation as a generally unlikeable, unfavorable person, and she lied to the American people repeatedly, and with great facial expression.

                      What is this with removing personal responsibility? No one mentions the other part of Comey’s announcement, namely, what Hillary had done. Her actions cited in the opening paragraph are not false accusations, or opinion. She did it, and it’s been proven she did it. Anyone who was not a Clinton would have been in prison.

                      Why was Trump not notified about the investigation in Russia? Well, that’s a good question, and it wasn’t to protect Trump. Diane Feinstein was notified she had a Chinese spy on staff, so that she could block his access and protect sensitive information. Trump was not told, however. The allegation is that Obama and the FBI illegally spied on Trump’s presidential campaign, and that Hillary Clinton paid Russian spies for false information for an October Surprise (for which she is well known), in order to defraud voters. This dossier was used to get a FISA warrant, that had been denied before. The fact it was opposition research was not disclosed to FISA court, nor was that it had not been vetted.

                      If they informed Trump, they could not spy on his campaign.

                      There is certainly a discussion to be had on whether Comey should have disclosed that they had recovered some of the emails Hillary had unlawfully deleted, or whether he should have kept silent. But Comey was most emphatically not protecting Trump. None of his actions prior to, or after the election have shielded Trump. In fact, Comey used false information against Trump to get a FISA warrant.

          2. questionable attribution fishhead

            However, from this work something similar can be found:

            Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Thoughts Out of Season, Part Two, The Use and Abuse of History. Preface.” (“Vom Nutzen und Nachtheil der Historie für das Leben”, 1874), Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche. Translated by Anthony M. Ludovici and Adrian Collins, Delphi Classics, 2015, Kindle edition, location 9365.

            two quotes …..

            “For the historical audit brings so much to light which is false and absurd, violent and inhuman, that the condition of pious illusion falls to pieces.”


            “… ‘he who destroys illusions in himself and others is punished by the ultimate tyrant, Nature.'”

            be careful when you quote German philosophers, some people reading this may actually take them seriously

        2. you keep on thinking that
          meow, your cats need attention. get off the internet and feed them.
          the litter boxes need changing too

      4. No, Natacha is repeating accusations that were thoroughly disproven. For instance, if you watch the entire video of Trump’s comments, rather than the edited one that changed its meaning, he made it quite clear that he was not praising racists.

        Ahem. One more time, and pay attention this time!

        There were 4 groups that converged on Charlottesville that day.

        Group 1: Locals who were peacefully protesting the removal of a Confederate statue from a park. (Fine people on one side)
        Group 2: Out-of-towners who were peacefully protesting Group 1’s peaceful protest, because they wanted the statue taken down (Fine people on the other side)
        Group 3: Out-of-towners who were racist and were violently protesting not only the removal of the statue, but life in general (Bad people on one side)
        Group 4: Out-of-towners who were violently protesting Group 1 and Group 3, and who instigated some of the violence on purpose (Bad people on the other side, example: Antifa with bats)

        Get it? Fine people on both sides, and bad people on both sides = 1 innocent person dead. Which is bad.

        No matter how many times this has been explained, no matter how many times the entire video is shown, and preceding comments and comments afterward are shown, people persist in spreading misinformation. This is the fault of the media, which fraudulently edited his remarks until they entirely changed the meaning of the statement. Naive and gullible people not only ran with this, but apparently refuse to do any research on the matter. This fuels the Trump is a racist meme so useful to politicians.

        Don’t accept everything at face value. Natacha is well aware that this accusation was proven wrong, and yet she keeps repeating it here, like repeating it can make misinformation true. It doesn’t. There’s no use trying to convince her. It appears her mistake is deliberate. But perhaps you will be open minded.

    1. I used to like Vanity Fair but that was a long time ago. Now they’re obsessed with Trump. If they told writers to stay away from maddow, doesn’t mean much. not newsworthy, just navel gazing

      1. I seen somewhere yesterday someone say about most channels is that management seen the reporting on facts cost a lot of money because the had to send out journalist & confirm the facts, but opinions are cheap , everyone has one.

        So most channels/shows went to opinions & not much journalism

        Just look at the above post of Natacha’s, she/it has no facts I could see to backup any claim made, it’s just another pile of faulty opinions.

        1. legacy mass media is in a death spiral.
          like it or not, government sponsored media like bbc and npr and RT will be more and more signficant as time goes by and the legacy mass media fails and fails and fails…..

          fact verifying is expensive undertaking. in my mind, private investigators do a lot better job than reporters. which is why they get paid. tells you a lot, who gets paid and who doesn’t. mostly, who is making themself useful to others!

          1. Kurtz, who is paying “private investigators” and how many do you think there are? Are they covering non-sexy events in backwaters like Lodz and Oklahoma City?

            Have you watched RT? If you want a dark picture of everything America, it’s your place, but do you think Glenn Greenwald is going to tell you any good , or even benign, news from Little Rock?

            1. No i just mean in general private investigators are more effective and verifying facts than journalists. It’s their job. Its journalists job to write window dressing articles for mass media advertising platforms. Fact checking is not their thing, but they do at least an eigth grade level job of it, most times

              I watch RT sometimes yes. They have many excellent programs.
              BUT THE RUSSIANS!
              I also listen to NPR and BBC, which have some good info too, in spite of themselves

            2. i don’t quit follow your last comment., surely you know greenwald lives in brazil.
              little rock is in arkansas which is in a bad state of flooding now.

        2. Well, OKY1, I “seen” Trump brag to Billy Bush about grabbing women “by the puxxy”, and I “seen” him say that there are “fine people on both sides” of the Charlottesville matter. I also “seen” the little brown children in cages and I “seen” Mueller’s statement on his report wherein he refuted Trump’s mantra of “no collusion….no obstruction”. I also “seen” the Helsinki news conference where Trump said he believed Putin when Putin denied Russian interference. I also “seen” the extensive list of departures from his Administration and the endless name-calling, which I won’t repeat. These are not opinions. These are facts.

          1. natacha, i bet you don’t spend too much time in the kitchen, eh?

          2. I suggest you work on listening to want was actual said, was a comment edited, out of context, discerning facts from fiction & other such things as intent.

            BTW: Show us you proof Putin interfered in Trumps favor in the 2016 election.

            And why would Trump need to connect wikileaks to get orders from Putin if Trump was already in direct contact with Putin?

  12. Does Fox lean right? Yes. But they regularly have people like Chris Hahn and Richard GoodStien on their opinion shows and on their straight news shows. You will never see any Republican/Conservative equivalents on CNN or MSNBC.


    All three of the major cable news networks have based their business models on dividing America. Which explains why this country is so dangerously polarized. Numerous writers and broadcast personalities have gotten rich promoting polarization. Which illustrates how capitalism is naturally self-destructive.

    1. …But the NYTimes by blocking its own reporters demonstrates how far left some shows have become. Are the NYTimes reporters unable to provide their point of view that contrasts that of CNN? The New York Times is to the left as is CNN.

      1. Alan, The New York Times is making the responsible decision here. But for some reason you want to claim this as ‘proof’ of a ‘left-wing bias’. So obviously The Times can’t win with regards to far-right Trumpers like you.

        1. i saw an interesting thing yesterday on tweeter with data analysis about using terms like “transgender” which has spiked the past couple years at NYT that supported the thesis that the NYT has become more propagandistic

          just reporting someone’s opinion, maybe you saw it

          1. Kurtz, I’m sure many talking points go out on Twitter each day. But I don’t think Google keeps files of everything said on Twitter.

            An increasing number of news stories have concerned transgender types. So any increase in its usage by The New York Times is only a reflection of the word’s new currency.

            Personally I don’t care about transgenders. They’re not a topic that interests me in the least.

            1. me neither. tiny fraction of people with a perplexing problem, best left for them and people besides me to try and sort that out

              i am interested in the use of language however, and as a former student of the French language, i dislike constant neologisms and the pretense that fiddling with ancient usages will fix perceived social injustices, the French have no part of that and so much the wiser for it

        2. “The Times can’t win”

          No, the NYTimes is left wing but the statement shows how extreme the bias is at CNN. It also makes me wonder why the Times reporters can’t appear and fight for their positions even though I don’t generally agree with them.

          1. Alan, speaking as an individual, I don’t want Times reporters appearing on any cable news network. As I noted, cable news is all about the Culture Wars.

            For decades conservatives have howled about the so-called ‘left wing bias’ in mainstream media. It is essentially a decades-old effort to intimidate the media. Those of us who actually follow mainstream media are frequently disappointed. That so-called ‘left-wing’ bias is never there when we really want it!

            During the 2016 Election year, numerous Bernie Bros told me that I was fool to read The New York Times and Washington Post. According to Bernie Bros those papers were simply ‘too establishment’ to be trusted. Bernie Bros prefer small, obscure papers unknown to the general public. In the minds of Bernie Bros, only the most obscure papers are credible.

            So there you have it, the finest papers are equally distrusted by the far-left and far-right. Which means they’re more balanced than Trumpers maintain.

              1. WaPO is at least equal on – big surprise – Washington and has been responsible for numerous real breaks in news. The NYTs is the paper of record for other national and international news. The WSJ does Washington stories and in depth reporting very well.

                1. Since Anon likes the WSJ and this was posted on another thread I’ll post it again.

                  Robert Mueller’s Parting Shot
                  The special counsel gives House Democrats an impeachment nod.
                  By The Editorial Board WSJ
                  May 29, 2019 7:20 p.m. ET

                  Opinion: Robert Mueller: ‘Concerted Attack’ by Russia Hit U.S. Election

                  Robert Mueller made a surprise press conference on May 29, 2019, where he reiterated key findings of the Special Counsel’s report on Russian election interference in 2016. Image: REUTERS
                  Robert Mueller is an honorable man, as Marc Antony might have put it. And in his public statement Wednesday we saw a special counsel who went out of his way not to absolve Donald Trump and may have put his thumb on the scale toward impeachment.

                  Mr. Mueller offered no new facts about his probe at a press appearance in which he read a statement and took no questions. The event was mainly intended to deflect bipartisan requests that he testify on Capitol Hill about his 448-page report on Russia and the Trump campaign. He may have succeeded in that deflection, but not without taking revenge on the President who has criticized his probe.

                  The special counsel said the Russians he indicted for interfering in the 2016 election are innocent until proven guilty. About Mr. Trump he said only that “there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia.

                  Yet as his report shows beyond doubt, there is no evidence of a conspiracy, broad or narrow. His report recounts a series of contacts between individual Russians and Trump officials that were of no great consequence and are connected by nothing more than coincidence. Mr. Mueller should have said this clearly on Wednesday.

                  Regarding obstruction of justice, Mr. Mueller suggested that the reason his office reached no prosecutorial decision is because Justice Department rules don’t allow the indictment of a President while in office. “Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider,” he said Wednesday.

                  He thus left it hanging for everyone else to infer whether he would have indicted Mr. Trump if he were not a sitting President. And he left Attorney General William Barr to take responsibility for reaching the prosecutorial judgment that Mr. Mueller refused to make. Mr. Mueller added to this sneaky anti-Trump implication by noting that “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrong doing.” What else could he mean but Congress and impeachment?

                  Yet Mr. Mueller’s analysis of the obstruction evidence in his own report makes clear that no investigation was obstructed. Not the FBI’s counterintelligence probe, and not his own. No witnesses were interfered with, and Mr. Mueller was allowed over two years to issue nearly 500 search-and-seizure warrants and interview anyone he wanted, including anyone in the White House.

                  Mr. Trump sometimes showed his exasperation, and bad judgment, in suggesting to more than one adviser that Mr. Mueller be fired, but no one acted on it. The special counsel probe rolled on without interference. Yet on Wednesday Mr. Mueller would only say that “if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” Since when do prosecutors make it their job to pronounce whether someone they investigate is exonerated? Their job is to indict, or not, and if not then keep quiet.

                  Mr. Mueller finished his statement with an ode to “the attorneys, the FBI agents, and analysts, the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner.” These individuals, he said, “were of the highest integrity.”

                  Does that include Andrew McCabe, the former deputy FBI director who is being investigated for lying to investigators? Does he mean Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI paramours whose antipathy for Donald Trump is obvious from their text messages? Mr. Strzok was part of Mr. Mueller’s investigating team until those texts were discovered.

                  Does Mr. Mueller also mean the FBI officials who used the politically motivated, and since discredited, Steele dossier to persuade a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to issue a warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page? Mr. Mueller didn’t appear to want to investigate that part of the Russia story. Was that behavior of “the highest integrity”?

                  Mr. Mueller would have better served the country and his own reputation if he had simply done what he claimed he wants to do and let his report speak for itself. Instead he has weighed in for the Democrats who want to impeach the President, though he doesn’t have to be politically accountable as he skips town. This is the core problem with special counsels who think they answer only to themselves.

                  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn’t as fortunate. The media and backbench pressure will now build on her to open an impeachment inquiry to charge Donald Trump with obstructing an investigation that wasn’t obstructed into a conspiracy that didn’t exist. Unlike the honorable Mr. Mueller, House Democrats will be accountable at the ballot box in 2020.

            1. Peter, your proof and conclusions are mostly invalid.

              The Times is far left and lies a lot. The Washington Post is far left as well and lies a lot. CNN is far left and also lies. The comparisons between these three journalistic failures might leave some of the left distrusting the other but that doesn’t matter because all are far left and lie a lot. Perhaps you are satisfied with the publication that you think lies the least. That is not journalism.

              1. Alan, the real problem is that conservative ideas are generally simplistic.

                That simplicity plays well in right-wing media where consumers want simple solutions. Like border walls, abortion bans and the cutting of social safety nets.

                But the finest media sources probe deep into issues; exploring all the layers underneath. In that regard good journalism is like peeling an onion, the layers are unspooled.

                When issues are peeled like onions, conservative ideas tend to look simplistic. Those layers beneath the surface are always more complex than conservatives acknowledge.

                For these reasons, conservative ideas tend to fall apart when reported by good journalists.

                1. “Alan, the real problem is that conservative ideas are generally simplistic.”

                  They might be simplistic because the ideas are based on fact and history. Liberal ideas are based on conflating multiple facts together that don’t even belong and thereby lead to the wrong answer.

                  “Like border walls, abortion bans and the cutting of social safety nets.” This is your type of argument that is only simplistic words where you don’t seem to understand the meaning. You want to make things very complex.

                  Let’s take border walls. In the past you said border walls weren’t necessary because there was no emergency because less people were coming across the border. Your simplistic approach led to not creating border walls long ago so that problem wouldn’t have occurred. Your answer to abortion is not to condemn those in power that make statements associating them with infanticide or even late term abortions where the baby can survive outside the mother’s womb. You mention simple social safety nets but conservatives want to stop the illegals from using them to preserve them for those American citizens in need. You hide the fact that these safety nets are being raided by those not in need and by illegals.

                  Any time you wish to peel any onion do so, but do so with fact and don’t run away. Don’t quote entire books and libraries rather tell us what you are trying to prove with the quote and then provide the quote. You do nothing to peal the onion.

                2. Peter, what you said about good journalism like peeling an onion is apt

                  facts matter. here you are saying facts matter and alan is saying facts matter too. i agree!

                  yes facts matter. and i would agree with some people that liberal journalism often sees facts through a prism of certain universalistic tropes about human nature. for example, all cultures and religions are basically equal. that’s preposterous. they are different and what is different is not equal. equal as individuals before the law is one thing, but pretending that large groups are the same is willful blindness to difference. and yet that is what a lot of proponents of diversity seem to implictly suggest! in religion that is a heresy called indifferentism, by the way. I do not subscribe to that it any sphere except for law insofar as my license requires it. LOL

                  Fox news, of which I am not much a consumer, sometimes seems to exhibit a different version of the same thing, where facts are seen through an ideological prism which screens reporting and delimits the acceptable interpretations.

                  So perhaps they have been slack in reporting on things that might offend the patriotic sentiments of the audience where certain foreign military adventures were involved. I am not well informed about Fox on any level, generally do not watch tv

                  I observe that all the major including fox will have certain “liberal” cultural interpretations which are not that different between Repubicans and Democrats. So, they will all shy away from certain topics and play to a fundamentally similar set of general American cultural tastes. From my perspective, as a person a little farther out there than the average norm, it is all thin soup.

                  1. that is why i like to check in on “left wing” sources from time to time, like Democracy Now, or RT which in my view has a sort of leftist orientation as well.

                    But they often cover things from a perspective rarely seen. I saw on youtube recently, a very good talk from Professor De Zayas, a man i have respected for decades who used to teach law at DePaul, on Abby Martin’s program. He gave an objective report about what he had seen in Venezuela that was much at odds with what seemed to be the universal American mass media opinion at the time ( a few months ago)

                    but a lot of people hate Abby Martin, certainly she is a left wing critic of the Democrat party. Most conservatives prolly never heard of her. She’s good looking that’s for sure.

                    I have also consumed a lot of “extreme right wing” etc etc over the years and appreciated the different perspectives through brought to subjects as well.

                    The focus on facts is not just pragmatism. It comes also from existentialism. Heidegger was a member of the nazi party, but remains a respected philosopher today. Just as Sartre was a communist existentialist, but remains important as well. Heidegger focused on existence itself as a central subject, value, and lodestar of philosophy, rather than truth-falsehood and other universalisms which had guided the goals of philosophical work for a long time before (all the way to Socrates perhaps!).

                    His worked became important to post war left, and worked its way into various sorts of what conservatives call “relativism” now. And yet, his ideas were and are important to conservatives, who tend to inhabit the nationalist- particularist space, as opposed to the universalist globalist space.

                  2. Kurtz, of course newspapers will reflect the language and temperament of the time and place they inhabit. Culturally, our times are more liberal than in the past, and in terms of LGBT rights, dramatically so in a short time. If you are out of tune with this this will catch your attention of course, but I’m not sure bias is the correct word. At times I am angered by cultural assumptions I may not agree with, and especially with “feature stories” which take up more space than in the past, in an effort I’m sure to sell advertising. But hard news collection is usually still there, buried a little deeper, with the better sources. For instance, here’s the NYT’s Itanbul Bureau chiefs site:


                    1. ha ha it’s nice there are any foreign bureaus at all

                      here’s an example of NYT editorial style journalism

                      denouncing democratic victories that they find distasteful–
                      where have we heard that before? lol

                      well, it’s better than nothing!


                      By Jason Horowitz
                      May 27, 2019

                      ROME — Matteo Salvini basked in triumph on Monday after a thumping victory for his far-right League Party in this weekend’s European Parliament elections rendered him the dominant politician in Italy and the strongest claimant to the leadership of Europe’s populists.

                      But if Europe has been an incubator for resurgent nationalism in recent years, it now also feels like an active battleground.

                      With Europe’s decades-old project of unity increasingly in the balance, the voting energized both sides on a polarized Continent. It was a contest between angry, disaffected nationalists who want to beat back what they see as a remote and overreaching bureaucracy in Brussels, against the once-sleepy, complacent supporters of Europe looking to defend a unity that can no longer be taken for granted.

    2. i agree they have models that segment the market.

      i don’t agree about the assertion about capitalism. certainly, capitalism can be socially destructive of various kinds of pre-existing social orders, a process we saw when it took down kings and clerics alike, and has continued over time to erode other older forms of social organization, some would claim even the family as such.

      but as a social system in its own right, it has perpetuated itself over time.

  14. “New York Times Blocking Reporters From Going On Certain MSNBC and CNN Shows As ‘Too Partisan”

    This is the left’s idea of freedom of the press.

    This is also why many on this blog remain ignorant of what is really going on.

  15. The MSM too partisan? You don’t say. They are rabid, model partisans of the communist sort.

  16. I have been saying for years that there is a genetic mutation in those on the left that prevents them from recognizing both hypocrisy and irony. They are unaware of both and ignorant to that fact.

    1. L4D says–You don’t say? Irony and hypocrisy are genetically determined? No. Wait. The “perception” of irony and hypocrisy are genetically determined? Hmmm . . . [Smith is on standby during this particular ellipsis] . . . [Redacted] . . . [Deleted] . . . [Blocked] . . . Are you and your genes “perceiving” this, Ms. Carman??? Because mine are.

      Is it possible to be ironic without perceiving one’s own irony? Hmmm . . . Is it possible to be hypocritical without perceiving one’s own hypocrisy? Hmmm . . . Do dogs perceive irony? Are dogs hypocritical? Are “those on the left” dogs? Are “those on the left” Alpha-dogs?

      If a Dandy Dinmont wore a T-shirt with a big Capital letter “A” emblazoned upon it, would all of the Bull Mastiffs in the neighborhood knuckle under on cue? Or are dogs still illiterate? Is there any scientific proof for the supposed illiteracy of dogs?

      What’s it mean? What’s it mean? Context. Subtext. Pretext. Woof!

  17. Prof. Turley:

    To see the partisan divide, all you have to do is read a few comments on your blog from readers.

    The conservatives make reasoned and compelling arguments while the Pinkos are shrill, emotional and strident.

    1. “…the Pinkos are shrill, emotional and strident.”

      That bit alone is enough of a reason to simply ignore anything that monumentcolorado has to say.

  18. The Pope should be banned from all media as being too partisan against evil.

    1. The Pope is a crooked institutional politician who has no objection to a smorgasbord of misconduct so long as the transgressor is a political ally and so long as the transgressions aren’t causing him bad PR.

        1. TIA8 is just channeling that most splendid drag queen this side of the Tiber dressed in red silk gowns

Comments are closed.