Jan 4, 2018

An Introduction To, & Overview Of, The Mainstream Corporate Media


This post summarizes some of the problems with the media and is meant to be a basic introductory post to how left-wing (mainstream/normal/non-conspiracy-based) media operates in America. Notice, in particular, how media makes GOP seem nicer than they are, sometimes just by ignoring hard facts that involve death (which would obviously cast a negative impression on the GOP) (Stockholm syndrome?)...

Media keep calling the GOP's corporate tax bill a "win" for Trump The extraordinarily unpopular bill is built on lies and ignores what we know about economics

President Donald Trump and his Republican congressional allies are enjoying a round of praise from media commentators for finally getting a legislative “win” on the board as their tax bill closes in on passage before the end of the year. The budget-busting corporate giveaway will enrich the superwealthy and do little for Americans who have to work for a living.
Republicans finally unveiled the finished version of their tax legislation last Friday evening, and -- despite the public having just days to absorb its 1,097 pages -- both chambers of Congress plan to vote on the bill before the end of the week. If everything goes according to plan, the president will sign the bill into law just in time for members to head home for the holidays.
After a year plagued by self-destructive outbursts, failed policy changes, unprecedented legal troublesembarrassing scandals, humiliating legislative defeats, and nationwide political upheaval, many in the press are framing the GOP tax proposal as a crucial “win” for Trump and his party.

What this is..., well, what I call this is "kissing the asses of their GOP masters". The actual truth may be more or less (maybe stockholms syndrome?), in any case, helping the GOP by covering up for their past lies (that Jon Stewart said should be set afloat on an ice flow for their Iraq War lies), is what the media does from time to time like with the following example of avoiding harsh stuff during election season (helps the GOP with winning, not like they need help);

The Present: Iraq war lies ignored in Republican campaign coverage - Rachel Maddow sets the record straight on the deliberate lies told to support the decision to go to war in Iraq, and talks with Dan Rather of AXS TV about how political coverage of "the Iraq question" is allowing Republican candidates to re-write history.

6 key mistakes media made in covering the health care debate

In the wee hours of the morning of July 28, Democrats, activists, and three Republican senators just barely thwarted the GOP’s attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Ever since President Donald Trump pledged to make repealing the ACA one of his first priorities as president -- and Republicans retreated to secrecy to take health care away from tens of millions of people -- media have continuously made six key mistakes in their health care coverage.

Ignoring diversity and intersectionality

Focusing on process over consequences

Letting the GOP off the hook for sabotage efforts

Not challenging Republicans

Pushing unworkable solutions

Ignoring the debate all together

5 Worst Media Moments Last Week From rehabilitating W’s image to overlooking white supremacist violence in Florida, here were the media’s worst moments last week.
1. Media eats up George W. Bush’s latest PR tour.
2. New York Times defends its long track record of backing wars by insisting it has “raised many questions” about wars it supported.
3. Critics mock Rachel Maddow’s Niger conspiracy theory.
4. New York Times says US “stood by” during mass killing It actively helped organize.
5. Cable news shockingly silent on neo-Nazi terror attack. Or not so shocking if you consider how casually racist our media usually is. Media Matters found that of the three major cable networks, only MSNBC covered the recent arrest of three of Spencer’s neo-Nazi supporters--Tyler Tenbrink, William Fears, and Colton Fears, who were arrested for attempted murder after firing a shot at a group of protesters in Florida. Both CNN and Fox News ignored the story entirely and MSNBC’s coverage only lasted for 1 minute and 57 seconds.
Read details here.

I've actually seen many guests on cable news white wash history with Trump, for example, ignoring all the Iraq War lies and acting like this is the first President to play with nukes (Bush helped Iran - undercover & illegal operations have been a GOP hallmark for years - and encouraged the nuclear breakthrough of the North Koreans). In fact, Trump ENTIRE political pitch (picking on North Korea 7 Iran with incendiary rhetoric) is LITERALLY the completion of George Bush's "Axis of Evil' speech where Bush, like Trump today, is after both Iran & North Korea. This trend of pretending there was no treason before Trump (a tactic for Pence to replace him?) is seen in this piece;

NYT Trumpwashes 70 Years of U.S. Crimes Trump washing presents Donald Trump as an aberration.

The New York Times reports that Donald Trump “holds a radically different view of the United States’ role in the world than most of his predecessors,” citing his lack of interest in “the rules-based postwar international order.”
Trumpwashing—defined as whitewashing, obscuring or rewriting the broader US record by presenting Donald Trump as an aberration (FAIR.org, 6/3/16)—was on full display Thursday in a nominally straight news report from the New York Times’ Mark Landler (12/28/17) on how Trump has reshaped US foreign policy. Buried in the otherwise banal analysis was this gem of US imperial agitprop:
Above all, Mr. Trump has transformed the world’s view of the United States from a reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order into something more inward-looking and unpredictable. That is a seminal change from the role the country has played for 70 years, under presidents from both parties, and it has lasting implications for how other countries chart their futures.
There’s lots of ideology to unpack here, but let’s start with the empirically false assertion that the “world” viewed the United States as a “reliable anchor of the liberal, rules-based international order.” Poll (Guardian, 6/15/06) after poll (Pew, 3/14/07) after poll (PRI, 1/3/14) throughout the years has shown that much of the world views the United States as threat to peace, often taking the top spot as the single greatest threat. What evidence Landler has for the world viewing the US as a sort of good-natured global babysitter is unclear, as he cites nothing to support this hugely important claim (since if Trump’s cynical disregard for “human rights” is nothing new, then there’s no real story here). It’s just thrown out with the assumption the Times readership is sufficiently nationalistic and/or amnesiac to either not notice or not care. It’s designed to flatter, not to elucidate.
The US invasion of Iraq in defiance of international rules

More problems...

CNN's "both sides" problem infects coverage of Trump's anti-Muslim retweets

New Book Exposes Koch Brothers' Guide To Infiltrating The Media

The book examines the influence of several of the country's wealthiest conservative donors, but it pays particular attention to the activities of Charles and David Koch, who have organized their network and spearheaded the group's political efforts. "Few had waged a more relentless or more effective assault on Americans' belief in government," Mayer wrote of the Kochs.
A key element of the Koch brothers' strategy is influencing the media. Through media, they have advanced their political and ideological goals and attacked those who stand in their way. The Koch brothers and their network have paid conservative media figures to promote their message, bankrolled front groups that run aggressive anti-environmental media campaigns, and even created their own right-wing "news" outlets. Meanwhile, they've garnered some favorable mainstream media coverage by tightly controlling reporter access to their summits and other events, while attacking and otherwise intimidating journalists who dare to shine a light on their activities.
Here is how the Koch brothers and their network have infiltrated the media:

Links: The conflicts of interest and corporate interests lurking behind op-eds in 2017

Media Matters has documented this year how op-ed pieces that have appeared in newspapers and online publications have frequently failed to inform readers about their authors’ financial conflicts of interest; and when corporate-backed entities have deceived editors and readers with cut-and-paste jobs supposedly by different writers.
Here are seven examples from this year:  

Gerrymandering is ruining our democracy. Will television news ever care?

Broadcast and cable news’ reluctance to talk about gerrymandering, let alone address the outsized impact it has in state and federal elections, has allowed American democracy to quietly become less representative. As movements build behind redistricting reform, the question remains: Will TV news ever care about gerrymandering?
A yearlong Media Matters study found that cable news shows brought up gerrymandering in only five segments between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. During that same time period, broadcast morning news programs and nightly newscasts didn’t discuss gerrymandering at all. And this isn’t a new trend; for years, media have shown a reluctance to discuss gerrymandering and redistricting. Given the outsized influence partisan and racial gerrymandering has on American democracy, these issues deserve more coverage.
Read details here.

Sunday news shows completely ignore growing Whitefish scandal in Puerto Rico Whitefish, the inexperienced, Montana-based firm that was contracted without a competitive bidding process to restore power in Puerto Rico, was charging “eye-popping” rates. Meanwhile, a month after Maria, 70 percent of Puerto Rico remains without power.

The Sunday news shows on broadcast networks and CNN all completely ignored the growing scandal over the small Montana-based firm Whitefish Energy Holdings that had recieved a $300 million contract from Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) to restore power to Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria devastated the island. The contract, which was facing increasing scrutiny, was canceled late Sunday afternoon.
E&E News first reported on Whitefish’s contract with PREPA in stories on October 6 and October 9, revealing that PREPA decided not to take advantage of a mutual aid program among 1,100 electric companies that could have helped to quickly restore power on the island, where about 70 percent of residents still have no electricity. Instead, PREPA awarded a contract to the Montana-based firm, which at the time had only two full-time staffers.
On October 23, The Washington Post reported that Whitefish is based in the hometown of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, that Zinke and Whitefish CEO Andy Techmanski know one another, and that Zinke’s son worked for the company during one summer. Zinke’s office said he had no role in Whitefish securing the contract. BuzzFeed further reported on October 24 that a major donor to President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Republican National Committee, Joe Colonnetta, is the head of one of Whitefish’s major funding sources, private equity firm HBC Investments. However, the report noted, “It’s unclear whether Colonnetta, who did not respond to a request for comment, has specific connections to Whitefish, or whether his stake in Whitefish Energy is simply a business investment.”

FEMA now says it has “significant concerns” with the deal, which was canceled this afternoon hours after Puerto Rico’s governor urged the utility to cancel the contract. CNN and MSNBC gave the Whitefish story significant attention this week amid the rise of serious questions and discrepancies that have been flagged. But the Sunday political shows, which are influential in Washington and which can help hold government agencies and lawmakers to account, barely discussed Puerto Rico at all, and they ignored the deal completely.

Sunday political talk shows barely cover Hurricane Maria’s devastation of Puerto Rico The entire island is without power, a dam is in danger of bursting, and Sunday political talk shows talked about it for less than a minute

Sunday political talk shows completely ignored Trump White House officials' use of private email accounts ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, CNN’s State of the Union, Fox’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press all failed to mention Jared Kushner and other Trump officials used private email accounts

On September 25, The New York Times reported that at least six White House advisors, including Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus, had used personal email accounts to conduct official government business. The Times’ story followed a Politico report that Jared Kushner, a senior advisor and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, had used a private email account to conduct correspondence related to White House matters. Even though the story that White House advisors used personal email accounts for official business was reported several days ago, ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation,  CNN’s State of the Union, Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, and NBC’s Meet the Press all failed to discuss it during their Sunday morning broadcasts.
As the Times notes, “Officials are supposed to use government emails for their official duties so their conversations are available to the public and those conducting oversight.” According to Politico, the National Security Agency (NSA) had “warned senior White House officials in classified briefings” against the “improper use of personal cellphones and email,” as it “could make them vulnerable to espionage” by foreign entities. By failing to discuss the news of the officials’ use of private accounts, Sunday political talk shows ignored a significant story and failed to inform their audiences of yet another example of the lack of transparency that has been an endemic in the Trump administration. The Sunday shows’ failure to report on officials’ use of personal email accounts is particularly shocking given the media’s obsessive focus on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State throughout the 2016 election.

Of all the Sunday shows, only Dana Bash on CNN asked a GOP senator about changes to 401(k) contributions

CNN’s Dana Bash was the only host of a Sunday morning political show to ask a Republican lawmaker or official about a potential tax reform provision that is reportedly being considered that would limit pre-tax 401(k) contributions. Such a move would limit how much money millions of middle class Americans would be able to set aside for retirement.
The New York Times reported that Republicans are considering a proposal to put limits on how much American workers can contribute to their 401(k) accounts before taxes, potentially decreasing caps from $18,000 a year (or $24,000 for workers over 50) to “as low as $2,400.” The Times noted that this move would likely cause “a vocal backlash from middle-class workers who save heavily in such retirement accounts.” As CNBC reported in 2015, over 13 million people have 401(k) retirement plans.
While several Republican lawmakers and officials made the rounds on the Sunday morning political shows to discuss tax reform, Bash was the only host to ask one of them about the 401(k) proposal. In an interview with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on State of the Union, Bash asked what he plans to do if Republicans were to take this path, which, she pointed out, “could mean higher taxes on the middle class.”

2017 was a disastrous year for local news

Local news matters now more than ever -- and it’s also in unprecedented peril.
In the midst of an unparalleled presidential war on the press, people still trust and rely on their local news. This year we’ve watched local journalists contribute invaluable on-the-ground reporting that helps communities and saves lives -- whether it’s about natural disasters, a mass shooting, or a public health crisis -- while adding valuable local context to national stories.
Although the decline of local news certainly did not begin this year, 2017 has dealt the industry some particularly heavy blows. And right-wing corporations are already swooping in to fill the voids that dying local outlets leave behind. As conservative media expert Will Sommer theorized recently, 2018 may become “the year that every media market in the country gets its own Fox News-style voice at the local level.”
If that terrifying prospect comes to pass, it will be directly because of the damage done in 2017.

Sinclair quietly pushed pro-Trump propaganda on local news stations across the country -- and it’s only going to get worse

Billionaire Joe Ricketts bought, then shut down, a conglomerate of hyper-local digital outlets

Local news on the West Coast is rapidly disintegrating, and it hurts Spanish-speaking communities most

Local media newsrooms are downsizing and shutting down across the country, creating local “news deserts”

A compliant press helped bring Alliance Defending Freedom's anti-LGBTQ hate back into the mainstream in 2017 The hate group led the fight against queer and trans equality this year, but many in the press fell for its "free speech" narrative

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) began 2017 by being designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and finished the year arguing before the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision. Throughout that time, ADF fervently opposed LGBTQ equality at every step while also moving its hardline extremism more and more into the mainstream. The media, in turn, aided the group’s efforts by largely failing to contextualize its unrelenting campaign against queer and trans people.
Much of the reporting around the Masterpiece Cakeshop case fell into this trap. Time and time again, media outlets failed to contextualize ADF, instead simply noting that it was arguing the case or sometimes calling it “conservative.” In their reports on the case, The Washington PostNPRLos Angeles Times, and The New York Times all mentioned ADF’s role in the case but failed to mention its years-long campaign against LGBTQ equality, and those compose just a small sampling of a larger problem. A report by Time explicitly said that ADF “is making the argument that [the case] is fundamentally not about LGBTQ discrimination but about free speech” but also failed to note any of ADF’s other work combating LGBTQ equality. The piece did appropriately address the ramifications of the case for queer and trans rights, but it failed to counter ADF’s narrative or give background to its work, which would’ve shown the readers that ADF’s argument about the case “not [being] about LGBTQ discrimination” is without any merit in the context of its other work.
Leaving out important context about ADF can give readers an impression that the case, or even ADF’s work as a whole, may truly be about “free speech” rather than discrimination against LGBTQ people. ADF’s history proves that, for the group, the Masterpiece case is not about so-called “artistic freedom” or the First Amendment; it’s about preventing LGBTQ people from being fully recognized citizens in public and even private life. If news outlets won’t call it hate in 2018, they can at least give enough information for their readers to see it for themselves.

This is how TV news ought to be covering the death of net neutrality Don’t give in to the spin, stick to the facts, and provide viewers with some sense of the stakes

UPDATE: As expected, the commissioners of the FCC voted 3-2 along party lines to rescind the net neutrality protections instituted by the agency in February 2015. Internet advocacy groups responded to the vote by announcing legal challenges.
Broadcast and cable news programs have been largely silent on the topic of net neutrality in the weeks since the Republican-led Federal Communications Commission (FCC) indicated its intention to rescind Obama-era consumer protections codifying a free and open internet. With the FCC set to begin deconstructing those regulations today, news coverage must provide viewers with enough context to make clear the stakes of this dramatic policy shift.
The FCC’s commissioners, a majority of whom are Republican appointees, are expected to vote “along party lines to scrap Obama-era net neutrality rules” during its December 14 meeting, marking “a huge victory for the big internet service providers” who have sought to dismantle the consumer protections governing how customers and content-providers interact online. According to a December 12 report from Reuters, three major net neutrality advocates -- Public Knowledge, Common Cause, and Free Press -- have given up attempting to convince Republican-appointed FCC commissioners to reconsider their decision and, with little reason to expect a legislative solution from an unproductive Republican majority in Congress, are “preparing to turn to litigation as a last resort.” Another major net neutrality advocacy group, the Internet Association -- which represents technology giants and content providers like Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft -- is also weighing possible legal challenges to the FCC’s ruling, according to the report.
The FCC’s Trump-appointed chairman, Ajit Pai, spent the days leading up to the December 14 vote doing a tour of friendly conservative media outlets to promote his anti-neutrality agenda without facing any pushback from consumer advocates and regulatory experts. Chairman Pai argued that his move to install a so-called “light touch” regulatory framework is just a return to the way the internet worked pre-2015, never mentioning that net neutrality was instituted that year in response to worries that the free and open internet Americans had come to rely on might soon disappear. (Pai’s right-wing media blitz neglected to mention his previous work on behalf of Verizon, one of the telecommunications conglomerates pushing to unwind net neutrality.)
Broadcast and cable news programs, which Media Matters demonstrated have been conspicuously absentfrom net neutrality discussions, need to emphasize for their audience what is at stake in the ongoing net neutrality fight. Despite the overall inadequate coverage, there have been several examples over the past month demonstrating how news programs can inform viewers, advance the discussion, and give time to expert perspectives.
On the December 13 edition of MSNBC Live, host Stephanie Ruhle brought on guest Jeff Jarvis who said that  rescinding net neutrality would “enable the oligopoly of cable and telephone” to control content on the internet while showcasing Pai's inconsistent approach to regulating the service providers he is aligned with and content producers who might not share his political perspective. Two weeks earlier, during the November 23 edition of MSNBC Live, host Ali Velshi and tech entrepreneur Michael Fertik engaged in a similarly fruitful discussion that provided viewers with specific examples of how telecommunications companies might take advantage of consumers in a world without mandatory net neutrality:
During the November 26 edition of CNN’s Reliable Sources, host Brian Stelter and New York Times reporter David Gelles also delved into the net neutrality debate, and again stressed the ideological inconsistency of the Trump administration’s position. Gelles pointed out that Trump’s threat to block a proposed media merger by citing concerns about competition and consumer choice was directly at odds with his FCC chairman’s decision to entrust the same media titans as caretakers of the free and open internet:
Consumer advocates have long been concerned that an internet unprotected by net neutrality could devolve into a maze of predatory and expensive consumer traps similar to what we see in countries without net neutrality, which do not provide consumers with the same protections Americans benefit from today. The Republican-led FCC has already demonstrated that it plans to use its time during the Trump era empowering corporate interests, fighting for right-wing pet priorities, and ignoring American consumers. Mainstream news outlets need to start making that story clear.

Watch a tech entrepreneur explain why millions of Americans oppose the FCC's rollback of net neutrality Michael Fertik: FCC rules change could make your internet at home as expensive and limited as it is on airplanes

ALI VELSHI (HOST): Reactions pouring after the [Federal Communication Commission's (FCC)] controversial move yesterday to roll back net neutrality rules, which require internet service providers to treat all traffic on the internet equally. Opponents are protesting the move saying the rule change is going to hurt consumers and could give internet providers the ability to block or slow down content on the internet. And some are taking action.
We should note, Comcast, the parent company of MSNBC, is one of the country's leading internet service providers and supports the rollback of net neutrality rules. Comcast has said in a statement it's commitment to customers remains the same, the company is not going to block, throttled, or discriminate against lawful content.
The amount of fury around this discussion is of epic proportions. The interesting thing is everybody makes the same argument. Everybody, no matter whether you're for net neutrality or you're against it, the argument is that "my side protects a free and open internet." Make it clear to me, Michael. What am I supposed to believe?
MICHAEL FERTIK: Epic fury, Ali. There is epic fury you’re exactly right. And it is justified epic fury. We do not know what will happen in the play out of these rules but it is possible that there's a lot of damage coming to the internet, and a lot of damage coming to innovation, in particular. When you go on an airplane, say Southwest or some other airline, and you open up your phone or your browser. You are usually allowed to have a certain, very limited access to the internet for free. Maybe a couple of magazines, a couple of TV shows. Those things are subsidized by the airline or by their content partners. But if you want the access to the whole internet, then you have to pay. So that is what the new change in the FCC rules could bring to your house. You might get a very small flavor of the internet, a very small slice of the internet. For example: just Facebook or just Google for free. But if you want access to the open internet, you might have to pay.
That's sort of my version of -- I think Silicon Valley's version of -- the worst, nightmare scenario. In which the big guys, the big companies, the ones like Google and Facebook that supposedly oppose this net neutrality rule change might actually profit from it. They might be able to pay or subsidize the Comcasts of the world to get a free, small sliver of the internet. That lowers your Comcast bill or your AT&T bill to zero dollars per month, but guess what? You don't get to use the entire internet.

Note; Local news all over the country (for example in Oklahoma) is being taken over by a autocratic style "Sinclair" group cresting "news deserts" where news is no longer available publicly on TV on in newspapers;

John Oliver highlights Sinclair Broadcast Group's consolidation of local news to push their conservative agenda Oliver: "With Sinclair, they're injecting Fox worthy content into the mouths of your local news anchors"


Scientific Studies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
John Oliver discusses how and why media outlets so often report untrue or incomplete information as science.

More research;

Study: Cable and broadcast news still largely ignoring Thursday's planned net neutrality repeal

Fox's Jonah Goldberg: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is "a hate crime against the Constitution"

Politico fails to disclose conflicts of interest in article attacking Democrats for protecting consumers A strong, independent CFPB was created to rein in a predatory financial industry, not cater to political whims

Sinclair is forcing local news stations across the country to air multiple false attacks on the Southern Poverty Law Center Right-wing groups and anti-LGBTQ hate groups have been actively campaigning against SPLC’s “hate group” designation

How news outlets have treated reports of sexual harassment in their own newsrooms

New York Times Magazine profile of Sean Hannity missed a ton of his conspiracy theories

The latest Trump propaganda segments running on local news, courtesy of Sinclair Broadcast Group

2017 was a terrible year of climate disasters -- and too many media outlets failed to tell the story

Cable news networks forgot Trump sexually assaulted women, until the Harvey Weinstein stories broke Evening programming on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all devoted much more time to the allegations against Trump after The New York Times reported on Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct

How right-wing media are laying the groundwork for an assault on voting rights in 2018

The Chilling Trump Propaganda Airing Across Local News, Courtesy of Sinclair Broadcast Group Americans are being told there was no collusion, and the president did a bang-up job in Puerto Rico.

Fox News pays contributor Kevin Jackson to push blatant lies and conspiracy theories In addition to speculating about an FBI plot to kill the president, Jackson has falsely claimed that Colin Kaepernick supports terrorism and Trump released his tax returns

Fox’s Napolitano baselessly claims GSA acted unlawfully by not informing Trump transition team of Mueller's request for emails GSA told Trump officials that it would comply with requests for information from law enforcement

Rupert Murdoch's Trump support pays off Disney deal, FCC action will make the conservative mogul an even more potent force in U.S. media

Study: Local TV news omits key details of Senate GOP's tax bill

Net neutrality dies in silence as morning shows largely ignore FCC's vote The flagship morning news shows on broadcast and cable news covered net neutrality for less than four minutes combined

Bernie Blackout? As DNC Accused of Targeting Sanders, Corporate Media Ignores Historic Campaign Sanders is making history despite being subjected to what he calls a "blackout" in the corporate media.

Why Is There a Media Blackout on Bernie Beating Trump in the Polls?Whether or not this goes any further, something remarkable has happened.

The Washington Post Just Published Probably the Most Inaccurate Editorial on Bernie's Campaign So Far The Post, owned by a man worth $53.2 billion, really doesn't like Bernie Sanders.

The Term 'Bernie Bro' Is an Over-Used Smear: Even Krugman Used It to Dismiss Criticism of ClintonWhile the term once had some kernel of truth, now it's the worst kind of thought-terminating political label.

The New York Times enabled harassers in a tech article on its Sunday front page

New York Times Magazine profile of Sean Hannity missed a ton of his conspiracy theories

How cable news should cover Trump's latest effort to screw you over while helping big banks White House appointment to CFPB could doom successful watchdog agency

New Study: Conservative Media Is An Echo Chamber That Increases Partisanship Vox Highlights Study: "Republicans Rely On A Media That Is More Likely To Echo Their Partisan Biases, And Democrats Rely On Media That Does Not Pick A Side"

A History Of Dishonest Fox Charts

Despite What Corporate Media Tells You, Bernie Sanders’ Positions Are Mainstream

Pundits overlook John Kelly's extreme record, instead speculate that he could save Trump
Media figures and political strategists flocked to the Sunday shows to speculate that Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly will promote “discipline” and reduce “chaos” as White House chief of staff, and that Trump will listen to him because he “respects” military officers. What their analyses left out is Kelly’s extreme policy position on immigration and his defense of Trump’s chaotic Muslim travel ban implementation.


No comments:

Post a Comment