Reporters and Commentators should have R's or D's next to their names

[LiveLaughLove]

Just like politicians do.

Of course, most would claim to be "I"'s, but especially commentators should be made to disclose campaign contributions and political activism.

CNN had a professor on to speak to the Fast and Furious case. He is a supposed expert on Executive Privilege.

Of course, he claimed no US Attorney should take the contempt charge to a grand jury (which is why CNN picked him to speak).

However, when it was Harriet Miers in that situation this same professor said why of course the US Attorney should take matters such as these to a grand jury.

This professor is from Ohio State and has donated to many many Democrats, and MoveOn.org. Such bias was not mentioned by CNN. They portrayed him as simply an expert.

While they are on camera speaking their political activism and donations should be scrolling under their picture.

I don't mind that CNN had the guy on, but it infuriates me that they try to pawn him off as objective. - hat tip to Ace of Spades HQ where I read about this guy

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That sounds reasonable, LiveLaughLove, R.

[rock on sooner]

I guess that those on Fox should have FRWR (Far Right Wing Republican) or
maybe F&BR (Fair and Balanced Republican)...:cheerful:

[soonercruiser]

"Lame Stream Media"!!!
:torn:

They are in the tank for the Demoncratic Party!

[soonercruiser]

I guess that those on Fox should have FRWR (Far Right Wing Republican) or
maybe F&BR (Fair and Balanced Republican)...:cheerful:

Most of the shows on FOX have poundits from both sides to argue out an issue.
No so on the LS Media.

[LiveLaughLove]

That sounds reasonable, LiveLaughLove, R.

Actually, it would be LiveLaughLove (TP) . The Republican party is for pansy's. :)

But yeah, those on Fox should have their allegiances known. Most of them are fairly open about it there however.

It's CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS that try to hide under the guise of being "journalists". I have never once seen a CNN panel that had more Right/Conservative types on it than Left/Liberal types. Not once.

Crossfire would have been the closest. But certainly nothing in the past 5-10 years. Usually, their panels are at least 2-3 Libs, maybe 1 token Con, and the host (always a lib).

Politico is a new media outlet that poses as neutral. Yet are they? Their WH correspondent just got suspended for tweeting Ann Romney penis jokes. No kidding, this is their unbiased WH correspondent, not some commentator or editorialist.

Jay Carney was a "reporter" before suddenly becoming WH Press Secretary. Not an editorialist, not a commentator, but a supposed fair journalist. Valerie Jarrett the same thing.

[SicEmBaylor]

Just like politicians do.

Of course, most would claim to be "I"'s, but especially commentators should be made to disclose campaign contributions and political activism.

CNN had a professor on to speak to the Fast and Furious case. He is a supposed expert on Executive Privilege.

Of course, he claimed no US Attorney should take the contempt charge to a grand jury (which is why CNN picked him to speak).

However, when it was Harriet Miers in that situation this same professor said why of course the US Attorney should take matters such as these to a grand jury.

This professor is from Ohio State and has donated to many many Democrats, and MoveOn.org. Such bias was not mentioned by CNN. They portrayed him as simply an expert.

While they are on camera speaking their political activism and donations should be scrolling under their picture.

I don't mind that CNN had the guy on, but it infuriates me that they try to pawn him off as objective. - hat tip to Ace of Spades HQ where I read about this guy
They should be made to do so by whom exactly? And campaigns already have to disclose their donors, so it isn't exactly difficult to look up who has contributed what to where. There are several websites that track ethics reporting.

How about, instead of sitting around bitching that someone isn't giving you the complete political background of every idiot talking head, you remain skeptical of everything you hear and do your own research.

"Lame Stream Media"!!!
:torn:

They are in the tank for the Demoncratic Party!
Do you put out a newsletter? I would love to subscribe to more of this expert in-depth analysis.

Actually, it would be LiveLaughLove (TP) . The Republican party is for pansy's. :)[/quotes]
O'Rlly? How many non-Republicans have you voted for in, say, the last 3 general election cycles and who were they?

[quote]But yeah, those on Fox should have their allegiances known. Most of them are fairly open about it there however.

[quote]Politico is a new media outlet that poses as neutral. Yet are they? Their WH correspondent just got suspended for tweeting Ann Romney penis jokes. No kidding, this is their unbiased WH correspondent, not some commentator or editorialist.
This is such a load of ****. First, Politico was known to lean slightly Republican for the first few years of its existence. Second, the opinion of one of its reporters (even the WH Corespondent) is not a reflection upon the relative political ideology of a particular news organization. The editorial staff is what causes a publication or outlet to lean one way or the other.


Jay Carney was a "reporter" before suddenly becoming WH Press Secretary. Not an editorialist, not a commentator, but a supposed fair journalist. Valerie Jarrett the same thing.
This is not the least bit unusual.

[LiveLaughLove]

They should be made to do so by whom exactly? And campaigns already have to disclose their donors, so it isn't exactly difficult to look up who has contributed what to where. There are several websites that track ethics reporting.

How about, instead of sitting around bitching that someone isn't giving you the complete political background of every idiot talking head, you remain skeptical of everything you hear and do your own research.

Do you put out a newsletter? I would love to subscribe to more of this expert in-depth analysis.

O'Rlly? How many non-Republicans have you voted for in, say, the last 3 general election cycles and who were they?

But yeah, those on Fox should have their allegiances known. Most of them are fairly open about it there however.


This is such a load of ****. First, Politico was known to lean slightly Republican for the first few years of its existence. Second, the opinion of one of its reporters (even the WH Corespondent) is not a reflection upon the relative political ideology of a particular news organization. The editorial staff is what causes a publication or outlet to lean one way or the other.


This is not the least bit unusual.

Well, they should be made to do so by "we the people". I don't ever expect it to happen, in fact, I know it won't, but it would be nice to see.

As for sitting around bitching, I do nothing of the sort. I do fact check these idiots. That's how I am able to list some of it here. The problem is my vote is cancelled out by some other idiot that doesn't, and believes what CNN spews without checking to see that their "expert" is a dem plant, bought and paid for.

Politico may have been a right lean once upon a time, then along came Ben Smith. Hardly the case now even though he has moved on. And to say the editorial staff is all that matters is the real load of ****, as you put it. An editorial staff is usually fairly known to be left or right, and that is easy to check out. It's the so called unbiased journalists that "report" the news that are the biggest fly in the ointment. Precisely because they get to hide under this cloak of independence. Do you seriously think a guy that is childish enough to tweet sex jokes against Romney's wife is going to play the news coverage fair and impartially? You really think that guy is going to tell us if he discovers something that would cost Obama the election? What planet are you on?

Of course it's not unusual that reporters and Democrats are interchangeable. I never said it wasn't. Matthews, Russert, Stephanopolis, Moyers, and on and on. You can count the ones from Republican administrations or vice versa on one hand in the last 20 years. Pete Williams is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Heck, Obama's former Spokesman on Health Care is now a reporter for GQ magazine. Whats his beat? The Romney campaign. He is one of the press following Romney around. So Obama supporters follow Obama, and Obama supporters follow Romney. Seems fair.

I have voted for the Republican in each election of my life. I won't ever vote for a pro-choice anybody, which excludes a Dem presidential candidate. I have held my nose on Bush, Bush, Dole, and McCain, but pulled their lever. The pansy thing was a joke. Hence, the smiley face. So lighten up, Francis.

[diverdog]

Well, they should be made to do so by "we the people". I don't ever expect it to happen, in fact, I know it won't, but it would be nice to see.

As for sitting around bitching, I do nothing of the sort. I do fact check these idiots. That's how I am able to list some of it here. The problem is my vote is cancelled out by some other idiot that doesn't, and believes what CNN spews without checking to see that their "expert" is a dem plant, bought and paid for.

Politico may have been a right lean once upon a time, then along came Ben Smith. Hardly the case now even though he has moved on. And to say the editorial staff is all that matters is the real load of ****, as you put it. An editorial staff is usually fairly known to be left or right, and that is easy to check out. It's the so called unbiased journalists that "report" the news that are the biggest fly in the ointment. Precisely because they get to hide under this cloak of independence. Do you seriously think a guy that is childish enough to tweet sex jokes against Romney's wife is going to play the news coverage fair and impartially? You really think that guy is going to tell us if he discovers something that would cost Obama the election? What planet are you on?

Of course it's not unusual that reporters and Democrats are interchangeable. I never said it wasn't. Matthews, Russert, Stephanopolis, Moyers, and on and on. You can count the ones from Republican administrations or vice versa on one hand in the last 20 years. Pete Williams is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. Heck, Obama's former Spokesman on Health Care is now a reporter for GQ magazine. Whats his beat? The Romney campaign. He is one of the press following Romney around. So Obama supporters follow Obama, and Obama supporters follow Romney. Seems fair.

I have voted for the Republican in each election of my life. I won't ever vote for a pro-choice anybody, which excludes a Dem presidential candidate. I have held my nose on Bush, Bush, Dole, and McCain, but pulled their lever. The pansy thing was a joke. Hence, the smiley face. So lighten up, Francis.

Tell me how many commentators on Fox ran for poltical office as Republicans? I bet it is at least a half dozen.

[LiveLaughLove]

Tell me how many commentators on Fox ran for poltical office as Republicans? I bet it is at least a half dozen.

Yes, never said they didn't. And you and most everyone know who they are. AND they are commentators and do not act as journalists or reporters. AND I am in favor of having a scroll below them as they speak stating their affiliations.

Now try and look at CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS and see if former politicians and political consultants are ONLY working as commentators, or if they are working as reporters/journalists. See if they are acting as supposed neutral unbiased objective folks just reporting the news. A much different outcome.

I don't mind MSNBC that much on their commentary shows. They are extreme libs and most everyone knows it. But then you have their daytime supposed news shows with supposed unbiased reporters hosting. Yeah, not so much. CNN is the same. They actually want you to believe that Soledad OBrian and Don Lemon are just down the middle reporters. Right.

Let them all come out into the light and state where their allegiances are, then report, and then we can decide what we believe from them. The first thing you libs do when someone copies and pastes a story here is see where it's from. If it's from Breitbart or Fox, you poopoo it immediately. It could be 100% accurate but you don't care because you don't trust the source. Yet the left pawns these lib journalists off on us on almost every network and expect us to just believe them on face value. I don't, but unfortunately most people don't have a clue and do believe them.

Walter Cronkite was a lying scumbag, but he was considered the most trusted man in America when he was spewing his liberal bilge on a nightly basis. Tet was a huge disaster for the viet cong (over 45k killed), but Uncle Walter went on air and told us the opposite and that's what everyone believed. The NVA were thrilled at how it worked for them propaganda wise while they were freaking out that they had lost so many men and were left so vulnerable. If the public had known Cronkite was playing with the idea of being McGoverns VP running mate, would the country have believed him as much? Not a chance. How different would history be had it been reported as the great tactical victory that it actually was for the US?

These reporters carry a lot of weight that can have great consequences for all if us. Yet we know more about Justin Beiber and Lindsay Lohan than we do any of them.