I have to hop on a plane here shortly, I will happily reply after I land!
Rick wrote: I know you're obsessed with the new "smoking gun" that won't take out Trump, but I'd really like SC's opinion of my statements since I was addressing her.
I'm going to break down my answer to reply to various points in your whole post. First, absolutely no where did I say that print media is not biased. Let me also make this perfectly clear, as in reading back through my previous statements on this topic that I've not recently explicitly stated how I've always operated: I am a former scientist, I take everything I read with a skeptical eye. I look for original sourcing, confirmation from multiple sources, I question what isn't being said, I look at what opposing sources have to say for what else wasn't covered or for how they are trying to spin stories. I don't blanket accept entire media companies, as I've stated before, I follow individual reporters and independent sources of expertise who have proven themselves time and again to be more reliable and credible - there are good and bad people at each. Even the sources I've listed before that I've said I trust I analyze what they are saying and don't just accept everything blank-check.
Rick wrote:So you're saying that the print media that you trust is not mostly biased the same way TV media is biased? I watch and read both and see very little difference. I guarantee I can show you evidence of extreme bias in any of the print media you find credible... mostly stories that are not told that should have been.
ScienceChic wrote: My apologies BB, I missed that they were specifically talking about TV news. You know how I feel about that garbage, right? I have always said that news should be consumed primarily in print, because television/video has too great of an impact on us subconsciously and emotionally, and it's too easy to miss the rapid sharing of information and have time to analyze it before they move on to something else. TV news is for entertainment in my opinion, not education.
Again, you are twisting my words. Dude, I'm the woman who started videotaping area town hall meetings, nonprofit board meetings, and continued the effort to videotape political debates in their entirety, no edits, precisely so everyone could see for themselves what was said and be informed straight from the source. That is not the same thing as the TV news (and defintely not the same as political pundits who are not journalists) showing highly edited or itty bitty clips from the entirety of whatever speech/conversation/meeting was done; thus removing it from the context in which whatever was said was meant and subjecting that "first-hand quote" to misrepresentation. C-SPAN live-streams videos of hearings without breaks - I've linked those here multiple times because I think you should hear it directly in the actual context it was intended. THAT'S what everyone should be watching, not any television person telling you what was said and "interpreting it" for you. Yes, I think TV news is worse at that than print journalists and I welcome any fact-checking anytime you want to provide it.
Rick wrote: Print media is a mixture of facts (selective facts), opinion, innuendo, and assumptions made to steer the reader into agreeing with the point the writer/"journalist" wants to pound into your head. Tv does the same thing except with TV you get to watch and listen to the actual players we are talking about. I know we've argued about this before and I'm just as curious why you don't think that listening to the words straight form an individual's mouth is somehow less informative that having a third party describe what the individual said.
LOL, sorry but Trump has done plenty wrong, but you are correct in that the media failed their jobs big-time in the run-up to the 2016 election (Trump was ratings gold, so they did almost nothing to investigate the many red flags that his candidacy provided), and in their [nonexistent] in-depth investigations since the inauguration.
Rick wrote: Print journalists haven't been any more reliable and honest than TV journalists when it came to the whole Russia investigation... both groups failed to tell the whole story which left them all with lots of egg on their faces when it turned out that Trump did nothing wrong. Had they talked about how Hillary's campaign colluding with a foreign agent to get fake dirt from Russians, maybe print and tv media would have maintained at least a little credibility. There's so much that was ignored, like all the FBI, CIA, and DOJ Trump haters that tried to take him out immediately after being elected. We are about to see much of what the media knew but refused to look into. We are going to see indisputable facts that the media will once again attempt to brush off because it will prove that they truly are worthless as watchdogs for the people. I don't think we will have to wait much longer.
Oh, several of them were complicit, only not the way you think. Our media has done a very poor job of serving us in digging for the truth and holding our elected officials accountable in the manner in which they should be. They follow fluff for ratings, and though some of it isn't their fault, much of it is. Catch-and-kill should never be an option for any media organization to be able to employ.
Rick wrote: Unfortunately I don't believe that true Trump haters would ever be willing to concede that the media, print or TV, were not only biased but complicit if pushing a narrative that they and the Democrats created which turned out to be epic amounts of bullshit.