More Media Dishonesty

[CCTAU]

Bush's trips to his ranch in Texas, tax payer's cost...$20 Million
Obama's trips to his birthplace and where he was raised, tax payer's cost...$4.5 Million

#MicDrop
#YouAreDone

How we conveniently you forget the golf outings and how much did you say moochelle spent on vacations?
You do know that his family counts too, right?

[GH2001]

Bush's trips to his ranch in Texas, tax payer's cost...$20 Million
Obama's trips to his birthplace and where he was raised, tax payer's cost...$4.5 Million

#MicDrop
#YouAreDone

O. K. 

You just compared apples and oranges. Each Obama trip to Hawaii is 4 million. ALL of W's trips to Texas were 20.

Back to your hole and straight jacket.

You also gonna mention that Barry went back to visit "pops"? You know, Frank Marshall Davis. The communist.

[AUJarhead]

Bush's trips to his ranch in Texas, tax payer's cost...$20 Million
Obama's trips to his birthplace and where he was raised, tax payer's cost...$4.5 Million

#MicDrop
#YouAreDone

Obama's 2015 Hawaiian trip cost 4.5M total.  Not the total costs of all his vacations he took in 8 years.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-familys-2015-hawaii-vacation-cost-taxpayers-4823206-88/

Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained records from the U.S. Secret Service revealing that its travel expenses for the First Family’s 2015 Hawaiian vacation cost taxpayers $1.2 million, which brings the total cost of the vacation trip to at least $4.8 million. This was the Obamas’ eighth Hawaiian family vacation. The trip has become an annual event for the Obamas. To date, Obama’s and his family’s travel expenses total at least $85,029,819.

[GH2001]

Obama's 2015 Hawaiian trip cost 4.5M total.  Not the total costs of all his vacations he took in 8 years.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/obama-familys-2015-hawaii-vacation-cost-taxpayers-4823206-88/

Gets it ^^^^

[dallaswareagle]

https://pjmedia.com/election/2017/01/30/chuck-todd-admits-media-treated-hillary-with-kid-gloves/


If you thought there was something fishy about the way the mainstream media kept trying to tell you that Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion, you were right:


NBC’s Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to the fear of appearing “sexist.” What’s more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to “tell the stories of all Americans.”

“Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as reporters and didn’t fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the heartland,” the “Meet the Press” host admitted Thursday to former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the “1947” podcast.

“And I think it was a fear of, ‘Oh, is it going to look like it’s sexist, anti-woman if we say that?’” he added, pointing out that on the hustings he saw numerous “Hillary for Prison” signs adorning the front yards of rural America. “I think we underplayed it a little bit out of political correctness fears,” Mr. Todd said. “No member of the press corps wants to look like they’re singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that [group] is.

“If we sort of were straight-up honest and blunt about hey do we understand the level of hatred that’s out there and you know, all the Hillary for Prison signs that are out there, we certainly would have at least made the viewer know, hey, you know, she’s not well-liked in some places in this country in ways that’s times 10 when it comes to Trump,” he said.

Groupthink is an occupational hazard of reporting, as every reporter wants to break a story but nobody wants to be the first to tell an unpleasant truth. Todd, who began his career working on former Iowa senator Tom Harkin's DOA presidential campaign, has been a Democrat shill for his entire career, and in fact may be the most visible symbol of what the late Andrew Breitbart famously called the Democrat-Media Complex.

If this election results in nothing more than the end of MSM dominance over the public discourse, it all will have been well worth it. Instead, the lefties on the media (many of whom, like Todd, have blocked me on Twitter for the crime of publicly disagreeing with them) have continued to double down on a losing hand, thereby exposing just how very dishonest and desperate they really are.

[Kaos]

https://pjmedia.com/election/2017/01/30/chuck-todd-admits-media-treated-hillary-with-kid-gloves/


If you thought there was something fishy about the way the mainstream media kept trying to tell you that Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion, you were right:


NBC’s Chuck Todd confessed that he and others in the mainstream news media played down just how despised Hillary Clinton was in the heartland due to the fear of appearing “sexist.” What’s more, he admitted, the mainstream media failed to “tell the stories of all Americans.”

“Where I think political correctness got in the way of what we all knew as reporters and didn’t fully deliver was how hated the Clintons were in the heartland,” the “Meet the Press” host admitted Thursday to former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer in a interview for the “1947” podcast.

“And I think it was a fear of, ‘Oh, is it going to look like it’s sexist, anti-woman if we say that?’” he added, pointing out that on the hustings he saw numerous “Hillary for Prison” signs adorning the front yards of rural America. “I think we underplayed it a little bit out of political correctness fears,” Mr. Todd said. “No member of the press corps wants to look like they’re singling out a group and making a group feel bad, right, whatever that [group] is.

“If we sort of were straight-up honest and blunt about hey do we understand the level of hatred that’s out there and you know, all the Hillary for Prison signs that are out there, we certainly would have at least made the viewer know, hey, you know, she’s not well-liked in some places in this country in ways that’s times 10 when it comes to Trump,” he said.

Groupthink is an occupational hazard of reporting, as every reporter wants to break a story but nobody wants to be the first to tell an unpleasant truth. Todd, who began his career working on former Iowa senator Tom Harkin's DOA presidential campaign, has been a Democrat shill for his entire career, and in fact may be the most visible symbol of what the late Andrew Breitbart famously called the Democrat-Media Complex.

If this election results in nothing more than the end of MSM dominance over the public discourse, it all will have been well worth it. Instead, the lefties on the media (many of whom, like Todd, have blocked me on Twitter for the crime of publicly disagreeing with them) have continued to double down on a losing hand, thereby exposing just how very dishonest and desperate they really are.

No member of the press craps wants to single out a group and make them feel bad?

Oh yeah? 

The war on Trump supporters and the broad negative brush with which we were painted begs to differ. Strongly.

I'm tired of these fools.

[The Prowler]

That worthless clown played 330 rounds of golf during his term.  That's essentially an entire year of golf. 

I can't afford the cost or the time to play what amounts to almost every single weekend a year. 

The American taxpayer spent $90 million (conservatively estimated) for that chump to take vacations, on which he spent roughly another full year.  He spent approximately one full month a year on vacation and that doesn't include the hundreds of golf outings.  He and his family stayed at hotels that charged $10k a night. 

That's emperor-level bullshit. 

I'm so glad he's gone.

Aaaand Trump was out playing golf this weekend and watching the Super Bowl last night at his Mar-a-lago resort/Trump Golf Club.

So, you gonna bitch about that Kaos? He was on vacation, playing golf, after just two weeks of playing President.

Also remember he stated this a little while back, “I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done...I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off."

[Kaos]

Aaaand Trump was out playing golf this weekend and watching the Super Bowl last night at his Mar-a-lago resort/Trump Golf Club.

So, you gonna bitch about that Kaos? He was on vacation, playing golf, after just two weeks of playing President.

Also remember he stated this a little while back, “I would rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done...I would not be a president who took vacations. I would not be a president that takes time off."

The dumbass is strong with this one.

[The Prowler]

"The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!" - Trump tweet






I wonder if he still thinks Fox & Friends is great?

[WiregrassTiger]

"The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred. @MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable. @foxandfriends is great!" - Trump tweet






I wonder if he still thinks Fox & Friends is great?

I don't disagree with anything Wallace said. There's still a lot of fake news out there. I don't agree that they are an enemy to the people.  But they definitely are biased.

[The Prowler]

"I'm taking on a new role as occasional information source and validator for the President." - Alex Jones in a phone interview with the NY TIMES.

If that doesn't worry most of the Trump supporters...then they are a lost cause and will likely never be able to grasp reality again.

[Token]

"I'm taking on a new role as occasional information source and validator for the President." - Alex Jones in a phone interview with the NY TIMES.

If that doesn't worry most of the Trump supporters...then they are a lost cause and will likely never be able to grasp reality again.

Reality left this country when Bernie Sanders was an actual candidate for presidency.

[Kaos]

Nails it. 

Adore her.

[Kaos]

THIS is what fair and balanced looks like. 

This is actually what Chizad should try to say instead of taking dumps in his pants and insulting people.  This is something with which I agree.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/22/john-stossel-trump-media-should-stop-making-things-up.html

"Fake News!" shouts our president, calling out CNN, The New York Times and others.

I love it.

Although it's not really true -- not the way President Donald Trump means it. The media rarely "fake" anything. Over time, they generally get the facts correct.

But the president makes a good point: The smug lamestream media spin left but won't admit it.

At ABC News, my colleagues acted as if I was the only guy in the building with an opinion. Everyone else was "in the middle." This was nonsense. Almost all were leftists. They constantly pushed big government. Their bias was revealed in questions they asked, the "experts" they chose to interview and their endless calls for political correctness and new regulation.

Unfortunately, Trump is now just as ridiculous, claiming that "crime is reaching record levels" when it's half what it was 25 years ago. He claimed, "We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban," and that he had "the biggest electoral college win since Reagan," and so on.

This is absurd. Facts are facts. Trump shouldn't make things up.

But I still love his "Fake!" tweets because much of what media spew is misleading.

I did it myself. On "20/20," my consumer reports covered exploding coffee pots and risks posed by pesticides used on lawns. ("Danger in the Grass!")

These weren't lies. A few personal injury lawyers did have clients injured by coffee pots. One man's skin peeled off after he played golf on a freshly sprayed course. The injuries were horrible.

But in terms of consumer protection, this "news" was irrelevant and misleading. It's a big country. Rare and horrible things happen. I wised up eventually, realizing that those threats distract people from real threats, like driving in the rain, drinking too much, smoking, etc.

But my peers continue to terrify people about trivial or nonexistent threats from power lines, hair dye, saccharin, NutraSweet, Teflon pans, electric blankets, computer terminals, cellphones, "killer" bees and more. They win awards for it.

In 1999, the media said planes would crash because computers couldn't handle the switch to the year 2000. Now they claim global warming will drown us if we don't honor meaningless climate treaties. They imply that polar bears are vanishing, although scientists studying 13 polar bear populations found "12 stable/increasing and one declining."

On Friday, Trump varied his attack, calling The New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN "the enemy of the American people."

Enemy?

Maybe Trump said that because he's a narcissist who thinks he is "the American people" and the media run antagonistic headlines like:

"Doomsday Clock Ticks 30 Seconds Closer to Global Annihilation Thanks to Trump, Scientists Say" -- NBCNews.com

"...Trump will Destroy the Environment..." -- The Intercept

"Trump Will Destroy Public Education If We Let Him" -- Huffington Post op-ed

"Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?" -- New York Times

"How Trump's Speech to the CIA Endangered America" -- The Atlantic

These claims are a mix of opinion and click-bait. All are possible. Trump could be the infantile, petulant authoritarian some of us fear. Terrible things may happen. But they haven't yet, and much of what's written deserves the label "fake news."

The press is depressingly shallow. They blow up little things, speculate about conspiracies and constantly obsess about "who's winning?" Offensive remarks are taken out of context and amplified. Days later, it's forgotten and the media move on to the next sensational accusation. They rarely explain the policies at stake, what those policies cost, past success or failure or the laws of economics.

As a result, we miss the real news: the big, important changes that happen slowly. Remember the coverage of the beginning of the women's movement, the invention of the computer chip, Google, Facebook, etc.? No? That's because there wasn't any. But the growth of Facebook alone changed lives more than the election of any politician.

Wages rise -- inflation-adjusted household income rose $7,000 over the last 30 years. But the media claim that the middle class and the poor get poorer.

We live longer than ever. Crime is down. But Americans are fearful and pessimistic because what they read and see on TV makes them believe life's getting worse. When the media do that, they are indeed enemies of the people.

[AUChizad]

THIS is what fair and balanced looks like. 

This is actually what Chizad should try to say instead of taking dumps in his pants and insulting people.  This is something with which I agree.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/22/john-stossel-trump-media-should-stop-making-things-up.html

Don't see how that's so different from what I said.

I agree 100% with that, by the way.

Also, you may want to know that Stossel is a staunch (gasp) Libertarian!!!

[Snaggletiger]

Don't see how that's so different from what I said.

I agree 100% with that, by the way.

Also, you may want to know that Stossel is a staunch (gasp) Libertarian!!!

I fail to see what the man's sexual orientation has to do with any of this.

[AUChizad]

Another piece that I thought was good and says basically the same thing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445054/media-trump-both-unreliable

The Press vs. the President
February 19, 2017 4:00 AM

Choosing sides is no substitute for thinking

The problem with the man currently leading the Republican party is that he is, as the Washington Post puts it, a hostage to the “fanatical policies of the extreme right.” His administration “insults women” and his unwelcome presence in public life “insults us all.” And, because the Republican party is all about the winning these days, the GOP establishment is “ready to forgive” . . . what? . . . “just about anything — as long as he wins.”

So says the Post, which is not alone in this estimate: Extreme on economic issues, extreme on the so-called social issues, he even has had an “extreme foreign-policy makeover,” according to The Atlantic. His views on immigration, MSNBC says, represent the Republican party “shrinking down to its most extreme elements.” One cable-news panelist insists he was the most extreme Republican presidential candidate ever. Paul Krugman laments that he has forsaken all serious policy thinking for “dangerous fantasy.” Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times is also alert to the “dangers” he presents, the “most dangerous of all” being his views on Iran, though Kristof also worries that he is too buddy-buddy with that awful, scheming Benjamin Netanyahu. Predictably, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow dogpiled him for his perplexing relationship with Moscow. Vice calls him a “sociopath” and Maureen Dowd dismissed him as “an out-of-touch plutocrat” who keeps “his true nature . . . buried where we can’t see it,” a devious figure who is so awful deep down inside that he “must hide an essential part of who he is” from the public.

President Mitt Romney sounds like he would have been a riot. Alas, his presidency never came to pass, thanks in no small part to the hysteria chronicled above. Every Republican president is “the most extreme ever,” or so Democrats and their media friends insist.

(“We do always say that,” one Democratic friend acknowledged. “And it is always true.” Well . . . )

In this corner, the American Press; in the opposite corner, the American President. The time has come for choosing sides — or so do many of our friends on the left and in the media (there is some crossover in that group) insist, as do more than a few of our friends on the right.

On Friday, I was scolded by Joe Hagan of New York magazine (he must have taken a break from the vital service he is offering to the republic at the moment, composing a biography of Jann Wenner) for daring to criticize my media colleagues in the age of Trump, “since you are supposedly a journalist.” It is, he insisted, “as if you, as a conservative, can’t see objective reality along with somebody you assume is a political opposite.” No, it is as if the American news media are predictably biased and incompetent, and would be writing almost precisely what they are writing about Donald Trump if the election had been won by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Pat Sajak. Or, as the example above shows, Mitt Romney, who is a great many things (some of them admirable) but hardly an “extremist” or a “danger” to the republic.

It is possible, if you are not mentally crippled, to hold in your mind two non-exclusive ideas: Donald J. Trump stinks, and the press stinks. Trump’s spat with the press is a bloodless Iran–Iraq war, and I myself am cheering for (metaphorical) casualties. If you find yourself only able to focus on which party stinks worse, then you have adopted the pre-kindergarten “binary choice” rhetoric of the campaign, in which both Trump and Clinton supporters insisted that we must ignore the obvious character defects, financial shenanigans, lies, and foolishness of A or B on the theory that B or A is so much worse that we simply cannot acknowledge any shortcomings on the other side.

Those of us who have not entirely surrendered our neocortices to one cable-news tribe or the other are perfectly capable of criticizing Trump and criticizing the media.

Of course the American media are terrible. Everybody knows this. Everybody who follows the public debate about guns, taxes, or abortion knows this. Dean Baquet, the executive editor of the New York Times, knows this, which is why he sheepishly acknowledged that the so-called Newspaper of Record and its editors “don’t get religion.” And that is just a little bit of what they don’t get. Other senior editors at major media outlets know this, too. The people who run the Washington Post know this. The reflexive Democratic affiliation of most of the major media is a simple fact of life that you’d have to be foolish or dishonest to deny: Hell, I got the business about being a conservative when I was being considered for a copy-editor’s job a million years ago at the Philadelphia Inquirer — working in the sports section.

The tragedy of all this is that, yeah, we really could use an effective, active, and credible press right now. We have an active one five days out of the week, an effective one five days out of the month, and a credible one . . . not that often. My criticisms of Trump do not go so far as those who believe that he is a budding fascist dictator on the verge of building concentration camps, but if you really did believe that, wouldn’t you wish, at least a little, that the media hadn’t been exactly as hysterical when faced with the bland, anodyne visage of Mitt Romney? Or John McCain? You want to be taken seriously now after insisting that Dick Cheney was the new American Gestapo?

The last wolf show we bought tickets for wasn’t really all that spectacularly lupine.

It would be really very useful to have an authoritative source. I do not agree with Barack Obama about much of anything, but there is something to his argument that our public discourse suffers from our lack of anything that might be generally agreed upon as an authoritative source. The problem is that Barack Obama believes that this authoritative source should be Rachel Maddow or someone like her, or the editorial columns of the New York Times, dopey and predictable as they are. And, of course, there are people like Joe Hagan of New York, who believe that the current moment is simply too dangerous — it’s always dangerous with these people — to acknowledge that.

Hagan’s opposite number is a correspondent who on the same day sneered at me for relying on the New York Times as a source for a historical question, because we all know that no conservative can trust the New York Times. The Times column in question was written by the eminent historian John Lukacs, whose conservative bona fides are such that there is literally a chapter on him in a book called Catholic Intellectuals and Conservative Politics in America 1950–1985, alongside Russell Kirk, Michael Novak (RIP), and William F. Buckley Jr. It did not matter to him what was written or by whom, only that it came from the other side — from the enemy camp.

We deserve a better press, and a better president, too. If you are the sort of partisan who cannot entertain the possibility that both of these things may be true at the same time, then you ought to consider the possibility that you are one of the reasons why we do not have a better press or a better president.

[Snaggletiger]

"It is possible, if you are not mentally crippled, to hold in your mind two non-exclusive ideas: Donald J. Trump stinks, and the press stinks. Trump’s spat with the press is a bloodless Iran–Iraq war, and I myself am cheering for (metaphorical) casualties. If you find yourself only able to focus on which party stinks worse, then you have adopted the pre-kindergarten “binary choice” rhetoric of the campaign, in which both Trump and Clinton supporters insisted that we must ignore the obvious character defects, financial shenanigans, lies, and foolishness of A or B on the theory that B or A is so much worse that we simply cannot acknowledge any shortcomings on the other side."



This, as much as anything, captured my attention because that's exactly how this entire campaign/election played out.

[Kaos]

Don't see how that's so different from what I said.

I agree 100% with that, by the way.

Also, you may want to know that Stossel is a staunch (gasp) Libertarian!!!

He delivered the message without resorting to insults or pants pooping.  He pointed out both sides while identifying a clear problem with the press. He didn't engage in a frothing rant directed at our fantastic president.

I don't have a problem with libertarian other than they can't put forth an electable candidate. Johnson was wack-a-doodle.  It's like the XFL. Can't put a quality product on the field but has some good ideas that can be absorbed by the Republican Party. 

[Kaos]

"It is possible, if you are not mentally crippled, to hold in your mind two non-exclusive ideas: Donald J. Trump stinks, and the press stinks. Trump’s spat with the press is a bloodless Iran–Iraq war, and I myself am cheering for (metaphorical) casualties. If you find yourself only able to focus on which party stinks worse, then you have adopted the pre-kindergarten “binary choice” rhetoric of the campaign, in which both Trump and Clinton supporters insisted that we must ignore the obvious character defects, financial shenanigans, lies, and foolishness of A or B on the theory that B or A is so much worse that we simply cannot acknowledge any shortcomings on the other side."



This, as much as anything, captured my attention because that's exactly how this entire campaign/election played out.

The only problem I have with that piece is it seems to operate from the presumption that if you agree with most of what Trump has done then you are incapable of independent thought.

Simply untrue. 

I opposed Hillary because I thought she was corrupt, because her social policies conflicted with my values, because I disagreed vehemently with her foreign policy. 

The other option was Trump.  I agree with securing the borders. I'd support a Muslim ban. I support his pro-business, America first stance.  Im in full concert with the demolition of Obamacare. I'm honestly a little surprised that he's gone full bore in fulfilling his campaign promises. It's unusual and unprecedented.

I'm also disgusted and dismayed at the way the media and the crybaby left has treated him.  The "Sweden" thing is a clear example. 

That doesn't mean I lack the capacity to find fault, it just means that for me the good thus far outweighs the bad by a large margin.  I wish that story was being accurately told.