Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[San Antone]

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]

"The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for CBS News—an oldfashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be told."  -- William J. Bennett

Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.

In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.

Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."

[Madiel]

Well, that's easy.

It's also not relevant to specific stories.

[snyprrr]

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]

Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.

In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.

Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."

Could someone please bring up that 'Propaganda Law' that was repealed in 2013... the one where the feds couldn't use propaganda against it's own people...

At this point, they are crafting narratives, then executing these stories during "drills", and then calling it Real News. ABC Poll has Hillary 540%... cuz, y'know, like, she's a gaziiiiiillion times better than bla bla bla...


I am just a little concerned about the next two weeks, and what kind of crafted narrative might have been put in play for the final stretch. And it's not the Trump/N***** Tape, no,nothing directly with him, but just a big big thing that might be called for to put a final spin of confusion perhaps. If Hillary's really in trouble and knows it, and she really does have Leviathan in her corner... I don't see these next two weeks being totally event free (again, not including standard parade of Trump civil misdemeanors)

maybe an implosion somewhere?

Or maybe the fireworks begin as soon as the results are tallied- if we truly are that divided...


Either way, it sure is going to be hard to believe everything I hear from the mainstream media, on any topic, since it is pretty clear about that bias thingy. Pesky little thingy

Well, that's easy.

It's also not relevant to specific stories.

You have been reading the WikiLeaks Emails where the "I'm now a hack" reporter tells Podesta he can censor anything he doesn't like? Anyhow, but, and, beyond that, it (the current state of media bias) is in EVERY story. Bernie wrote that some bunches of years ago, before Propaganda was allowed to  be foisted on the American People by their own Government. Could someone please Post that law being repealed in 2013?


Thanks, cause I know you all just want to get to the bottom of it, just like anyone would

[Karl Henning]

Either way, it sure is going to be hard to believe everything I hear from the mainstream media, on any topic, since ...

... if it isn't a conspiracy theory, it probably isn't for you?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[drogulus]

     

Could someone please bring up that 'Propaganda Law' that was repealed in 2013

    Debunked: 2013 NDAA Thornberry amendment, domestic propaganda, disinformation

     Note that such information could have the effect of influencing public opinion, though no funds are to be appropriated for that purpose. In the age of the internet the whole business of walling off Americans from our own propaganda seems to be outdated. Anyone who wants to listen to VOA here can if they want. It's not against the law. I read the relevant piece in Foreign Policy, ground zero for the world wide Zionist conspiracy to make snypppr have a nervous breakdown.

[Ken B]

And I don't know about you, but I delete emails at work all the time. I delete the ones that tell me morning tea is on. I delete the ones that don't add anything to a conversation. I delete the ones that tell me about some meeting I'm not going to or conference I'm not interested in.

The IT people can see me doing this. No-one has ever come storming into my office telling me that I can't delete these emails just because they're not "mine".

And as I said we are not talking about the delete button in your mailer. If you don't know the difference you really shouldn't opine on the issue. No one is complaining about her clicking delete in her inbox.

[Karl Henning]

Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News

[asin]B0026IUP2C[/asin]

"The allegation of liberal bias in the media is not a new one. However, in this book the allegation is made not by a conservative but by a reporter for CBS News—an oldfashioned liberal who has seen the bias firsthand. Bernard Goldberg has written a courageous book and told a story that needed to be told."  -- William J. Bennett

Bernard Richard Goldberg (born May 31, 1945), also known as Bernie Goldberg, is an American writer, journalist, and political pundit. Goldberg has won twelve Emmy Awards during his career.

In 2001, his first book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News was published and became a number one New York Times bestseller.

Goldberg followed Bias with two books – Arrogance: Rescuing America from the Media Elite in 2003 and 100 People Who Are Screwing Up America in 2005. Boston Globe journalist Cathy Young—praised by Goldberg in 100 People—criticized the book for listing mostly liberal or liberal-leaning individuals and only "a Few Token Right-Wingers". There were also many favorable comments about the book including one from Jonah Goldberg (no relation) who said, "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" and Brent Bozell, who commented: "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America is out, and it's a wonderful read for anyone not on that list."

One question is all:

"... a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" ... this didn't set off your BS detector?

[Ken B]

Aw, come on. Find something original at least. SanAntonio already posted that link hours ago.

I confess i dont read all this thread. Not even posters I respect, like David, as opposed to the petty ones.
Or petty one actually.

[Ken B]

One question is all:

"... a rollicking and revealing look at 100 of the most egregious obstacles on the path of our nation's return to glory" ... this didn't set off your BS detector?

Actually Karl don't you think dismissing a whole book and all the claims in it on the basis of a few words in a blurb shows a certain confirmation bias?

I read one of Goldberg's books. He had a lot of good examples but oversold his thesis. But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.

[Karl Henning]

Actually Karl don't you think dismissing a whole book and all the claims in it on the basis of a few words in a blurb shows a certain confirmation bias?

I read one of Goldberg's books. He had a lot of good examples but oversold his thesis. But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.

I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.

[Ken B]

I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.

Fair enough.

What strikes me about Trump and press bias is

1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)

All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.

[Karl Henning]

Fair enough.

What strikes me about Trump and press bias is

1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)

All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.

Indeed!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[San Antone]

I asked a question about our esteemed friend's response to a specific statement; I call that distinct from your suggestion.

Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question. 

That quote went by me, but Jonah Goldberg could have been trying to damn the book with his odd praise.  Don't know.  The book Bias is the only one I was posting about, and should have snipped that extra blurb about the other books.  I don't know anything about the other books, but Bias makes a fairly strong case and Bernard Goldberg is not a right wing hack.

[San Antone]

Fair enough.

What strikes me about Trump and press bias is

1 yes they are largely biased against him now. BUT
2 they gave him wall to wall coverage which helped him enormously to get the nomination AND BUT
3 without his history in the tabloids and reality TV he wouldn't have been able to mount a campaign for mayor of Poughkeepsie ( where the great composers are)

All in in all it's like a lotto winner complaining about the long odds of a second win.

He who lives by the press dies by the press.

[drogulus]

     I'm concerned about dishonesty and not very much about bias, or even some level of dishonesty about being biased. For liberals bias is supposed to be something you lack introspection about. It's a fault you resist admitting. For conservatives also bias is something liberals resist admitting.

     

[Madiel]

And as I said we are not talking about the delete button in your mailer. If you don't know the difference you really shouldn't opine on the issue. No one is complaining about her clicking delete in her inbox.

Assuming that "mailer" is a US term for an email program such as Outlook, what exactly do you think they at complaining about then?

I'm not sure exactly what you know about the relationship between various parts of a computer system, but I can assure you that when I press delete in my inbox at work, it does considerably more than remove the email from my Inbox screen.

[Karl Henning]

Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question.

It may have been that, too.  You are at liberty.

[Karl Henning]

     I'm concerned about dishonesty and not very much about bias, or even some level of dishonesty about being biased. For liberals bias is supposed to be something you lack introspection about. It's a fault you resist admitting. For conservatives also bias is something liberals resist admitting.

     

Some good insights here.

Take snypsss.  (Please!)  There are obvious flaws—obvious to anyone who is not in a bubble—to the viewpoint that I am the only one qualified to determine what is a credible news source.


Does the practice of journalism benefit from watchdogs?  Certainly.  Is the Fox News branding of "Everyone is biased, we're just honest about it" next door to a con?  If not often closer.

[Karl Henning]

. . . But if you want an analysis based on sophisticated statistics try the book by Tim Groseclose.

I meant to thank you.

[Karl Henning]

Donald Trump may find a place in history — by losing just that badly

When told that the New England transcendentalist Margaret Fuller had grandly declared "I accept the universe," the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle dryly remarked: "She'd better." Much ink and indignation has been spilled concerning whether Donald ("I am much more humble than you would understand") Trump will "accept" the election's outcome. The nation, like the universe of which it is the nicest part, will persevere even without the election result being accepted by the fellow who probably will be the first major-party presidential nominee in 20 years to receive less — probably a lot less — than 45 percent of the vote.

When the Jimmy Carter/Walter Mondale ticket lost 44 states in 1980, Mondale used his elegant concession remarks to herald "a chance to rejoice": "Today, all across this nation — in high school cafeterias, in town halls, and churches, and synagogues — the American people quietly wielded their staggering power. . . . Tonight we celebrate above all the process we call American freedom." Today, such political grace notes are rare as the nation slouches toward its first dyspeptic landslide — an electoral-vote avalanche for a candidate regretted by a majority of the electorate.

I wanted briefly to highlight the last sentence.

While I express appreciation for all the Loyal Opposition's oppo research on the Clinton flaws (and, by all means, keep 'em coming), nothing in the past month or year has been much of a surprise to anyone;  c'est-à-dire, it's already baked in to this season's electoral expectations and model.  If Clinton wins, as we all have most every expectation of happening, it is a victory which the nomination of the present GOP candidate made possible.