The Media’s Obama Protection Society

Shall we poo poo this or trash Sharyl? Inquiring minds want to know.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/ ... attkisson/

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary
03.10.2014 - 7:40 PM


The news that CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson is leaving the network does not come as any great surprise to those who have followed her career. Last year, at a time when we learned that the Obama Justice Department was spying on Fox News’ James Rosen as well as a group of reporters at the Associated Press, Attkisson reported that her computer had been hacked. But, as Dylan Byers wrote in Politico, Attkisson had an even bigger problem: most of her colleagues at CBS didn’t like the fact that she had spent the last few years reporting aggressively about the Obama administration’s various shortcomings and scandals. Journalists at mainstream media outlets like to pretend that they play it down the middle when it comes to whoever is in power. But it was hardly a coincidence that the prevailing office culture at the network that the president trusted, in Steve Kroft’s memorable phrase, not to make him “look stupid,”...

I really wish Sharyl had been allowed to stay with CBS and keep her independence but she was also saying how the people above her wouldn't give her stories air time.

FredHayek wrote: I really wish Sharyl had been allowed to stay with CBS and keep her independence but she was also saying how the people above her wouldn't give her stories air time.

Why would she? She's obviously the only one of the bunch who understands the meaning of the word "journalism".

BlazerBob wrote: Shall we poo poo this or trash Sharyl? Inquiring minds want to know.


..

"Whatever Happened to Sharyl Attkisson?"

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/11/w...ned-sharyl-attkisson

On the "other" side of the coin:

mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/02/stonewa...ed-attempt-to/201405

Pros and cons, poo poos, Left vs. Right, "liberal" media, all part and parcel of individual perceptions.

The media is biased to Republicans according to you. Any comments about NBC News paying Chelsea Clinton a six figure salary to work part time for them? Were they buying influence with her parents? Or the Democratic Party? It can't be based on her experience, right?

FredHayek wrote: The media is biased to Republicans according to you. Any comments about NBC News paying Chelsea Clinton a six figure salary to work part time for them? Were they buying influence with her parents? Or the Democratic Party? It can't be based on her experience, right?

Good grief, Fred! All I'm trying to say is there are two sides to every coin. It takes critical thinking on the part of those who watch the "news" from any source in order to sift through the chaff and make realistic suppositions based thereon.

Or even which stories make it on the news...

ZHawke wrote: On the "other" side of the coin:

mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/02/stonewa...ed-attempt-to/201405

Pros and cons, poo poos, Left vs. Right, "liberal" media, all part and parcel of individual perceptions.

Let's revisit another "individual perception' from the "UNBIASED" media.

OmniScience wrote: Let's revisit another "individual perception' from the "UNBIASED" media.

Let's not get into a "tit for tat" argument, please. I could provide just as many on the "other" side of the coin to counter this one, but I'm choosing not to.

Edited to add: MSNBC, CNN, FOX News are 24 hour a day stations that are arguably more "news entertainment" than actual news, in my opinion. There are a couple more outlets that might even be included in that mix, as well. It's been said the younger generation looks to outlets like Comedy Central's The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than they do to so-called mainstream media outlets such as those listed. If true, one has to wonder why that is.