Final-Fan said:
Thuglas said:
So do you classify all of those examples as "fact checking with the Clinton campaign"? How about the New York times journalist I linked that allowed Clinton campaign to edit out one of his opinions? He mentioned Sarah Palin in the article and the Clinton campaign told him to remove it. I can only assume they do not want Clinton to be associated with SP in any way but that is beyond trying to be "objective". That is a clear example to want to portrey Clinton a certain way and had nothing to do with fact checking. You take this as good journalism? Do you think NYT, CNN and Politico contacts Trump campaign when writing stories about Donald Trump and allow edits or fact cheaking? You think they are fair enough to let Trump project his own ideas in secret then they sign off on it as if it is their own?
You claim there must be others leaking questions to Trump too. okay provide proof. anything. When you are faced with undeniable proof of cheating, you immediately assume Republicans must be doing it too because of what? That is a clear bias that leads you to assume that the democratic party can not possible be worse than the Republican party in anyway no matter if there is clear cut proof. This is something I see all the time with Hillary supporters. Sorry to bring in the whole "Hillary supporters always do this" type argument but I truely believe what you did is equal to the all to common argument of "it is just dirty politics, all politicians do it". No, not at all. There is evidence of Clinton campaign cheating, there isn't any (atleast none you have provided or that I have seen) of Trump cheating this election. What has been exposed of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign is FAR above the level of corruption exposed for any other presidential politician in a long time. this is not the norm, get that idea out of your head.
About the article you linked - A journalist using a fallacy to elevate Trump is not proof of collusion. That is simply a Trump favoring journalist giving a fallacious argument. I am not saying any of the people I mentioned previously are colluding with Clinton because they use fallacious arguements, I am saying they are colluding because we have proof that they communicate with the Clinton campaign in secrecy to either cheat or help push a narrative HRC wants. If I were to use weak arguments as proof of collusion, then I would use the fact that majority of all reporter respond to Wikileaks arguements with Russia scapegoating which is simply not a counter argument. I didn't use the fact that 96% of media campaign donations went to Clinton as proof of collusion. I didn't use the fact that Donald Trump sexual assault accusations got 23x more airtime than the Podesta Wikileaks emails even though the public care much more about that (Clinton polls dropped more due to wikileaks than Trump due to accusations) as collusion.
There is still much more wikileaks examples, like I said it is hard to keep track of them. List of 65 top Mainstream media journalist invited to 2 Private "off the record" dinners at Clinton campaign house about "framing the HRC message and framing the race" http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/ No Fox news journalist went. Large collections of journalist meeting to learn how they should "frame the HRC message" two days before she announced she was running seems a little sketchy. It almost certainly show they are being told a collective message of what they need to do in favor of Clinton and what narrative the MSM needs to push
side note: You do not trust anybody reporting on the Wikileaks emails? I was simply giving a suggestion since 10,000s of emails are hard to read through by yourself. If you aren't willing to trust anybody critical of HRC (yes most who knows the full contents of these leaks WILL MOST LIKELY no longer support Clinton) then you likely will never know the full extent of HRC coruption.
|
Briefly:
No, I do not think they were ALL just fact checking. You didn't read my post very carefully, did you? I numbered my points according to the three instances you cited. One of them I called "definitely collusion". (Paraphrasing, not direct quote)
For another thing, the person you claim colluded with Clinton in the first instance is the SAME PERSON you also just now claimed was "a Trump favoring journalist". Can you explain why these two things would simultaneously be true?
Read my post for real, get back to me, then I'll respond in more detail.
|
- I lumped all of the one you didn't call "definite collusion" together and addressed that one seperately. You claimed the CNN leaking debate question was collusion but refused to believe it proved anything because "Republicans do it to" without having any proof of that. I know you didn't call the CNN one a matter of "simple fact checking" which is why I addressed it seperately. I used poor wording by saying "all of those examples" but you should know that I obviously didn't mean the CNN example since I addressed it seperately with an entire paragraph dedicated to it.
- My mistake, Yes I didn't read that part fully because from a glance it looked like you were using a journalist using a fallacy as proof of someone colluding. Okay but one instance of her defending Trump does not negate the fact that she gets into contact with Clinton campaign to "tee up" stories for them. Like I said, I didn't base collusion off individual arguments presented by these journalist so one arguement in favor of Trump doesn't necessarily mean everything (although it does make me question my stance as I see your point). To me, what motivated my arguement is the secrecy of the journalist forming their opinion behind closed doors with DIRECT influence from the people they are supposed to be unbiased towards. But I see your point, this is definately the weakest example out of the ones I provided
okay please address the points you skipped
1. Clinton campaign editing out journalist mention of Sarah Palin in a HRC article.
2. Do you think Trump gets this same "fact checking" priviledge from these people? If not, would they no longer be good journalist for NOT fact checking?
3. Can you provide any reason why you assume leaking debate questions happens on both sides? Are you implying Trump cheats here too?
4. 65 top journalist from every major news organization, except FOX, attended secret dinners at Clinton campaign exec's house. The 2 dinners were about "framing the HRC message and the race" two days before HRC announced she was running for President.
5. So you are not going to learn about the wikileak emails because you do not trust anyone reporting on it? I simply provided 3 known sources to help summarize the tens of thousands of emails for you. ofcourse the people reporting on it fully do not like Hillary, if you know the contents of these emails then you will see why. With that logic you will NEVER find a source that satisfies you. You need to be willing to listen to the opposing side for a second. I have been reading about these emails for the past month and every single source that goes into detail on them have are understandably anti-Hillary.
I was initially Hillary leaning, then I read the email that showed Hillary in her own words claiming "suadi Arabia and Qatar are providing logistical and financial support to ISIL and other radical suni groups in the region", Then i saw a link to the Clinton foundation website showing they took 25mil from Saudi Arabia. Add to that the email that showed Bill Clinton taking 1Mil from the Qatar government in secret and not reporting it. Now consider Hillary pushed for the multi Billion dollar arms deals with Suadi Arabia as Secretary of State. She pushed the sale of billions worth of weapons to governments SHE KNEW were funding ISIS. She took massive donations to the Clinton foundation (one donation was kept secret) from groups SHE KNEW funds ISIS. She also kept her knowledge of Saudi and Qatar funding ISIS secret. Now I purposely didn't include any speculation over her motives as I want to point out as strongly as possible that nothing here is "theory" only very strong evidence. You can form your own theories but to me, I can't possibly see how anybody can anybody come to any other conclusion than something really morally reprehensable. I know this isn't about media bias, but I wanted to show you exactly why people who report on this in detail have "rage-boners" like H.A Goodman and Stefan Molyneux (he gets pretty angry talking about this stuff too). It is completely justified and this isn't even getting into detail of SOOOO many other horrible things like what the Clinton Foundation did to Haiti. Anti-Hillary people do get angry at the very thought of her getting away with such disturbing acts. I dont know why you think they get angry but I assure you it is not because they are not "just so pro trump" or sexist or conservative or anything like that.
