...that it was a he said/ she said and that since there was no other corroboration, they did not think that it was credible to publish at that time.
So (conor especially), WHY DID THEY REPORT ON KAVANAUGH THE WAY THEY DID AND WHY DID THEY THNK BLASY FORD WAS CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO REPORT AS THEY DID?
And why did they sit on it for a year until Northam fell out of favor with the Dem Party for not stepping down with Fairfax not joining the chorus to have him step down?
"Truth dies in darkness". Indeed. Perhaps another Super Bowl ad next year is in order?
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-lt-gov-justin-fairfax-denies-sex-assault-allegation-from-2004/2019/02/04/05fb0f6c-272b-11e9-ad53-824486280311_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.161640c1f7e0
for establishment/deep state, another is for liberals. We don't expect WaPo to expose Hillary's using private server, even though WaPo people knew it; We don't expect NYT to publish Va Lt Gov Fairfax sexual assault, even though NYT can easily find it out. This is a fight between liberal wing vs Hillary/establishment wing inside D.
(no message)
(no message)
Link: https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1092529550716747776?s=19
GOP scandal? Report the scandal immediately, perhaps even before fact checking.
Dem scandal? Hold the report until the scandal is denied or explained, and report the denial/explanation of the scandal.
That way, the Lefties can always say that the MSM reports on all scandals.
I pointed this specifically when the IRS scandal was coming down. The very first time that CNN reported on the story was to report that the White House had denied the story. They withheld reporting for several days because the White House took so long to deny it.
(no message)
call for the media to exercise ethical restraint, and which ones don't please Chris. We need to know your arbitrary cut offs for where ethical journalism is required, and where it is not. Because for all the world, it looks like the real criteria at the WaPo is whether the target is a Dem in good favor with their party or not.
You are yet again being illogical.
Or a very popular Senator. Or a powerful, longtime House member from a key midwestern state. It would never happen! Media bias!
Oh, wait.
I think not.
All of those seats remain in Dem control thanks to the election being won before the revelation. The MSM NEVER instigates these stories with a Dem member in good standing before an election, and every decision is run by the Dem party heads first (as we saw examples of with NYT reporters looking for Podesta's blessing before releasing their stories). There are multiple examples of the MSM having information and holding it when it affected a Dem.
In every case, the political calculus was in favor of the Dems. Sometimes, the story leaks out from a blog or Fox, or some other nonMSM site, and the revelations are a threat to the voter base of the party (like Al Franken or Northam) which forces the MSM's hand. In other cases MSM NEVER instigates these stories with a Dem member in good standing, and every decision is run by the Dem party heads first (as we saw examples of with NYT reporters looking for Podesta's blessing before releasing their stories).
The media collusion (hey here's collusion for you) can be easily seen in the identical parroted phrases that occur with every big story throughout the MSM. They receive their talking points, and then they do their job which is to be Pravda for the Dems.
It is essentially a defining characteristic of right-wingers everywhere to complain about coverage they get in the press.
Truth has a liberal bias around the world, as it turns out.
.....not a primary, since another dem would just replace them.
The example needs to be where a MSM site broke the story and was not coerced to do so because info that they had been sitting on was leaked and they knew that it was about to be revealed since that is not actually a willing act
Not all for your absurd qualifications, but I don’t feel like researching things.
Vetting typically happens during primaries...and it’s often done by opposing campaigns, not the media alone.
....his wife Huma was close to HRC and heading into Pres election campaign & he had to be taken care of for HRC’s benefit after multiple embarrassments, and also Huma and HRC were really close, and they were pissed at him for betraying Huma &; humiliating her over and over........but mostly for hurting Hillary’s image due to the tight link.
Reynolds had federal child molestation charges against him for which he was convicted and the MSM didn’t break the story at all, they simply covered it which is hard not to do when a US congressman is in federal court....and btw he was in a district in Chicago that would easily replace him with another Dem with no threat of hurting the party.....
And every case you mentioned other than Weiner who was hated by the Left for hurting HRC due to close connection was from over 25 years ago.
Btw the Clinton/ Lewinsky story was first being pursued by both Michael Issikoff at Newsweek, and Matt Drudge- an up and coming new age reporter but while MSM publication Newsweek for whom Issikoff worked chose to bury the story against Issikoff’s wishes, Drudge broke the story and made his name. Your answer here even further proves my point - even way back then!
You have to study this history, but I lived it and need no research to remember.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Isikoff
What about JFK and Marilyn and FDR and his mistress? Whoops! They didn't report those!
Hahahahahaha.
(no message)
You kind of danced over that question with your response.
(no message)
challenged by this higher job profile exaple even without having to point out how ridiculous his premise is.
maybe he will retreat to saying that when t comes to the SCOTUS, anything is ok for the MSM (unless it involves a Dem candidate, or unless we are referring to Fox when we use the term media).