Free for All: 08/25/14

What’s on your mind?


65 Responses to “Free for All: 08/25/14”

  1. icemannyr Says:

    FNC really stretching to find new media bias in Brown case.
    Now stating facts are media bias according to FOX & Friends.

  2. savefarris Says:

    I guess you missed some of the earlier conversation, but referring to Brown as a ‘teen’ is indeed a documented case of media bias.

  3. “referring to Brown as a ‘teen’ is indeed a documented case of media bias.”

    ^^I suppose that goes for male and black as well. Nice to know the thought police are alive and well on the right.

  4. Believe it or not, the media has to identify Michael Brown in some way. Unless you want to choose between ‘unarmed victim’ or ‘unarmed suspect’, I think ‘unarmed teen’ is probably the way to go.

  5. A teen or teenager is someone between 13 and 19 inclusive. Any other definition is a modification based on whatever agenda the modifier is pushing. The sex, skin color, appearance, intelligence, size etc. are subjects that have nothing to do with the persons age.

  6. It’s a ridiculous argument, and I suspect Ms. Chavez included “teen” as an afterthought to her real issue: that somehow it’s biased to identify the unarmed dead person as unarmed. Well I’m sorry, but “unarmed” is the entirety of why this is a story. To refer to Michael Brown without addressing why you’re referring to him makes no sense.

  7. savefarris Says:

    A teen or teenager is someone between 13 and 19 inclusive.

    Not according to the AP. Their style guide, unchanged on this topic since at least 1997, says that anyone 18 and over be labeled as an “adult”, for precisely this reason.

    Changing it for ONLY this case is proof positive of bias.

  8. savefarris Says:

    DOJ admits what we all knew: Lois Lerner’s email still exist and the Obama Admin is either too lazy/corrupt to produce them.

    “Not a smidgen”

  9. Referring to a teenager as a “teen” is proof positive of “bias”, and not an oversight by someone who might not have AP’s stylebook tattooed on their arm. Okay.

    I find it depressing that Linda Chavez is reduced to discussing a ridiculous charge of press bias with Steve Doocy, and that’s about all.

  10. Arguing over two words is what’s known as grasping at straws. FOX “News” will say ANYTHING to “prove” media bias.

    Story: ISIL militants behead American photojournalist.
    News report: ISIL militants behead American photojournalist.
    FOX “News”: They didn’t say “terrorist”. LIBERAL BIAS!

  11. “Changing it for ONLY this case is proof positive of bias.”

    ^^What the AP does is not “proof” of anything. You can just as easily say you have a media bias for your POV. The whole discussion is idiotic on it’s face.

  12. Ice just caught Megyn in a lie and Jake Tapper called her out on it.

    Megyn claimed nobody from the national media (except FNC) covered the pro-Wilson rally. Problem is, Jake Tapper on CNN did cover that rally. So Ice sent Megyn a link to CNN’s coverage. Jake Tapper responded to Ice, saying, “not to worry I’m sure she will issue a correction tomorrow!!!!”

  13. Okay, the mainstream media coverage of the shooting of Michael Brown is out of control now. Two weeks later and it’s still non-stop, wall-to-wall “BREAKING NEWS” on every channel. I don’t think Hurricane Katrina got this much coverage. Good grief.

  14. FNC’s fascination with “what the other guys don’t cover” is bordering on the surreal at this point.

    In Megyn’s case, one of two things happened: Either she knew there was national media there, and lied about it; or she didn’t bother to check, but blurted it out anyway ’cause that’s the gig at that channel. In both cases she would have been relying on the conceit that most of her audience doesn’t watch any non-rightwing news coverage, and would blindly and happily believe her. Which is disturbingly cult-like behavior.

  15. The NYT’s has an interview out with, NBC News head, Deborah Turness that among other things discusses the new MTP. She wants an edgy show and is proposing a panel of journalist to question guests; much like the shows original format.

    That can work really well if the journalists panel are the quality of say David Ignatius, Margaret Warner, Chris Jansing, Ezra Klein etc.

    If, on the other hand, they are say Joe Scarbporough, Chris Matthews and Al Sharpton etc. then I won’t be expecting much.

  16. Nice to see Chuck Todd back for a final goodbye week of TDR. He says he’ll have news of the future of the show later in the week.

    Maybe he will include an announcement or at least a hint of who will be taking over for Todd; my guess either Melber or Kornacki but maybe a longshot like bringing back Jansing. Hopefully there will be news as well about if there will be major changes to the show format.

  17. imnotblue Says:

    So what Megyn should have said was, “Nobody but FNC and one show in CNN covered the protest.”

    Ah yes, much better.

    Good thing that one show can speak for all the rest of the MSM, otherwise this petty complaint would look… well… petty.

  18. A quick Google search finds coverage of the pro Wilson rally from MSNBC, WaPo and HuffPo, too. Which Megyn Kelly clearly did not bother to do before blurring out her ridiculous comment.

  19. *blurting

  20. imnotblue Says:

    MSNBC’s coverage was from their website. If you want to argue that WaPo’s newspaper coverage is equal to that of television, you’re going to have try pretty hard. And HuffPo isn’t really “MSM” or “national media.”

    “A quick Google search” shows the story was under-covered. But if petty semantics are the best you can do to distract from the issue, go for it.

  21. Well since MSNBC is barely a network over the weekend, you’re going to have to accept that their website constitutes a major part of their operation over that time. And last I checked, WaPo and HuffPo is national media, which is the term she used. And she didn’t say “undercovered”, which is a subjective opinion. She said it no national media covered the event, and so far I have for major segments of it who clearly did. She either knew and lied about it, or made it up out of thin air without checking. She claims to be a journalist, and this little stunt wasn’t even worthy of a commentator. It’s propaganda.

  22. This phone is killing me. “For” is “four”.

  23. imnotblue Says:

    Like I said… if this is the “gotcha” moment you’ve been waiting for, and the best you can do. Congrats.

    It’s still just a semantic whine, if you ask me.

  24. You’re applying a “gotcha” dodge to a discussion about facts, as if this somehow makes the facts less factual. Basically you just don’t mind that Megyn Kelly lied about; or made up; a simple fact which was easily disproven. Jake Tapper told her so personally.

    After a weekend in which California had a major earthquake and there was much talk of going to war again to stop ISIS, Megyn Kelly chose to single out a rally in Ferguson, then whine that no national media covered it. A. They did. B. It was far from the biggest story last weekend.

  25. My only question is, why doesn’t Megyn just report news, instead of telling us what other networks are or aren’t doing? Is she a media-criticism show, or is she there to report what’s happening? I watch a lot of CNN, and outside of Brian Stelter, I don’t hear their people with this compulsive need to talk about what MSNBC and Fox are doing. Oh, you’ll occasionally hear a swipe about how Fox took a story from Gateway Pundit that turned out to be questionable/not true, but that’s about it.

  26. icemannyr Says:

    People complain about CNN and MSNBC all day even more if they get something wrong are most of them petty?.

    Megyn said something that is not true. It’s not being petty she was factually incorrect.
    Jake Tapper was at that rally and talked to the Wilson supporters.

  27. savefarris Says:

    People, please. There are MUCH more important things to discuss: like whether or not Sofia Vergara’s Emmy Rotation was a sexist pandering bit or a sly satire of the same. Go!


  28. Megyn Kelly is doing what FOX “News”, as a whole, does. This isn’t the first time, nor will it be the last time, that FOX “News” tells their viewers that they’re the only ones covering something and everyone else is ignoring it because of media bias.

    Bill O’Reilly pulled the same stunt last year with the Obama drone memos… he called out “NBC News” (FNC code for “MSNBC”) for not covering it, at all, because they have a liberal bias and were trying to cover it up to protect Obama. Of course, NBC News broke the story, first on NBC Nightly News, then on an extended segment on The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, several days prior to O’Reilly’s rant.

    It’s what they do over there. They claim they’re not the “mainstream media” while boasting about being the most watched/trusted name in news then they say that the “mainstream media” doesn’t cover things they do cover and their viewers believe it.

    I go around in circles all the time with Conservatives, believing everything FOX “News” tells then, about Chicago. When an unarmed black kid is shot and killed by a police officer, they start about “where’s the media outrage over Chicago” with a link to FOX News or a Conservative blog just recently posting something that happened over a month ago. I’ll link them to video clips and news articles from all the mainstream media outlets where they did cover that Chicago story – followed by evidence that FOX “News” was the only media outlet that did NOT cover it. They just stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating the same thing that was just disproven.

  29. Jake Tapper has personally knocked this ‘fact’ down twice now, yet the flock is still trying to find ways around admitting Megyn blew it. The second response included me as one of the tagged names on Twitter, and can be found right there on my timeline. So “semantics” and “gotcha” and “what she really meant” are bollocks. THE Jake Tapper – a man who has asked tough questions of the President of the United States – of the quite national and also global CNN..thinks the story Iceman caught was worthy of correcting.

    She got it wrong, people. Either she knew and lied about it, or she blurted some spurious propaganda without checking if it was true.

  30. imnotblue Says:

    String her up! Get her! Indict ALL of the network and anyone who’s ever watched! Liars! Racists! The worst people ever!


    Good thing there’s nothing serious going on, and our top priory can be whether Kelly ignore a small handful of outlets that reported the story (even though the vast majority didn’t).

  31. There’s a part of FNC that has succeeded at forming its own cult. I won’t paint the entire channel with the same brush because there are good journalists over at FNC. I’m sure there are employees who are tired of that crap and the continual erosion of actual news programming. The poison that’s being peddled by Hannity and friends is leaving its cult followers disturbingly ignorant, petty, unwilling to hear other POVs and unable to properly engage in civil discussions. Watching some of the segments with their ‘expert’ pundits and guests is like getting a non-invasive lobotomy. The quality of FNC is declining rapidly. There are a few oases here and there but if they go, there’s nothing to watch on FNC.

  32. Blue, this is a cable news blog. We talk about cable news. If we treat every criticism of a cable host as an unfair attack worthy of STRING HER UP! reactions, we would have nothing to talk about here. If you want to discuss all the news more important than Megyn Kelly, there’s plenty of news sites you can go to.

  33. imnotblue Says:

    Thanks Joe! I was confused by the purpose of this site. Good thing you’re here to police the situation.


    The point is you have your knickers in a twist over a minute semantic argument, because it’s easier to attack FNC than to talk about real issues of importance… including cable news and television issues!

    For example… We can talk about the optics of Obama not sending someone to the Foley funeral, but to Ferguson, and the role of there media in both of those stories.

  34. Well golly, Blue, Andy brought up the Megyn/Tapper schlamozzle, and I chose to respond to it. Because it interests me. Jake Tapper has now corrected the record three times, and now I’m hearing that it’s all good because Megyn said Saturday and Tapper was there Sunday. Which is just ludicrous. Megyn’s implication is that no national media covered the event. Complaining that they COVERED THE WRONG DAY OF THE 2-DAY WEEKEND is absurd on its face.

  35. employees who are tired of that crap
    Major Garrett, anyone? Not to mention the open loathing that O’Reilly has for Hannity.

  36. imnotblue Says:

    So your upset that Megyn is playing semantics with it? Ha. The irony is delicious.

    And then there’s this:

    Personally, I hate this race-based-gotcha stuff. It only serves to divide, and I’m far too lazy to be that concerned about everyone else’s race all the time.

  37. Uh, no, I’m concerned that the flock is playing semantics with it in order to cover for Princess Sparkle Pony. If she bothers to mention it herself at all, I doubt she will say something as silly as “I meant Saturday, Tapper was there Sunday.” I mean, it could happen, but even I don’t think Megyn Kelly is that silly.

  38. imnotblue Says:

    “…Princess Sparkle Pony…”

    Really, Joe?

    Now you’re going to scream that this comment somehow ISN’T sexist. Can’t wait.

  39. No, Blue, we’re not going back to those days. I don’t care about your endless tangents to my comments.

  40. More BS. This one made it to Fox, then started spreading to other mainstream media before the grownups took over.

  41. “”

    ^^Really good tick tock on how these fake stories make it to FNC and then on to the MSM. Sadly it happens all the time; and I also see the same far right fringe sources quoted here regularly as fact finders.

    The big problem is the established rightwing blogs; Daily Caller, The Blaze, Drudge, Breitbart, IBN etc.; that are used as cover by ‘legit’ news organizations like FNC. Much of what is published as fact by these ‘news blogs’ is actually unsubstantiated or fake stories, picked up from even more fringy far right blogs or twitter that they use to push their rightwing agenda.

    It’s good to see that the MSM is now catching on to this scam and trying to nip these ‘news’ stories in the bud before they get established by FNC as factual.

  42. Now, we’re catching wind that the tape CNN has been running might be fake. So, to wrap up, Fox takes false stories from red blogs, with no apparent attempt to verify, and CNN floods the zone with a recording that might not be legitimate. I know I feel well and fully informed.

  43. Thank goodness I get Al Jazeera America.

  44. I’d be interested to hear more about the audiotape. Ron Allen from NBC interviewed the (supposed) attorney for the man on the tape, so it’s being presented by a named on-camera source.

  45. Yeah, I’m real interested if CNN went with an audiotape that implicates a cop, to an even greater extent than he already is.

  46. Ronan Farrow said MSNBC has decided to stop playing it because “there’s too many questions” about its validity. If it’s not real, CNN better figure out how we got as far as a live, on-camera attorney saying it is.

  47. icemannyr Says:

    While you could say CNN may have jumped to quickly to play that audio, MSNBC and FNC have played the audio after CNN did so if it’s a hoax they all got duped.

    Seems odd that someone would hire a lawyer if the audio is not authentic.

  48. CNN was the first, and one might reasonably assume that they had it verified. Not sure if networks should go on that assumption, but this is CNN all the way.

  49. icemannyr Says:

    Another thing to consider If this audio tape is proven to be fake.
    Did CNN even consider what the reaction to the tape might be by people in Ferguson?

  50. Nothing personal, but DUH. This is possible evidence, being aired to the public/potential jurors. You don’t just put this sh-t out there, unless you have it dead to right, and even then, it’s a questionable thing to be aired publicly. It taints the jury pool, period.

  51. It’s fashionable to assume that this guy is guilty, but we don’t know that. “Justice” is not what pleases the family, or what satisfies the greatest number of people. News orgs are supposed to recognize the effect of stuff like this, whether it’s this audio or the cop’s reported “injury”, and maybe be a tiny bit responsible for what they put on the air.

  52. It’d be nice if we could just stick to the facts we know about the case in news reports. It’s fine for opinion shows to have their opinions, but in too many cases throughout the media – this isn’t limited to one cable channel – supposedly straight news shows have run suspect information from dubious sources as though it were news.

    Last week Lawrence O’Donnell took apart The New York Times for reporting anonymous Ferguson PD leaks as if it were a ‘known thing’, which they then applied to blanket statements of “largely conflicting eyewitness accounts.” The source told them there were conflicting accounts, then NYT reported it as a fact. It is not a fact. The four publicly identified eyewitnesses have told largely the same story about the Michael Brown shooting. That’s a fact a news anchor can report.

    “Broken eye socket” is not a verified fact. The audiotape of gun shots is not a verified fact. The lady on the radio repeating a Facebook discussion is not a verified fact. The reality is that without a video of the shooting itself, the officer probably will not be charged with a crime, and we will never know what really happened between him and Michael Brown.

  53. “It’s fashionable to assume that this guy is guilty, but we don’t know that.”

    True. Maybe it was a suicide like that black kid in Louisiana who managed to find a gun in the backseat of a cop car and shoot himself in the chest; all while being handcuffed behind his back. When they asked if they had checked the kids hands for gun residue they somehow forgot to check. They too say the cops were innocent.

  54. CNN used words along the lines of ‘alleged’, ‘believed’, ‘unverified’, etc. as if that makes it perfectly fine to broadcast the tape. The story is polarized and they knew people from both sides would throw BS out there.

  55. That’s the problem, Outsider. CNN is becoming an operation which does their news-gathering on air, then vets it ON AIR. Between FNC’s penchant to make stuff up to fit their narratives, and CNN’s to run unverified stories, then “fix” them later, I don’t know how to pick the bigger loser. Oh right, it’s the viewers of both.

  56. CNN is desperate to boost viewership but this approach is going against its goal as it’s damaging its brand. I guess they could always rely on people unwilling and unable to access AJAM and people dissatisfied with FNC and MSNBC and hope these people just will settle for the lower quality product they’re now churning out. They have every incentive to lower standards and almost none to increase quality.
    In the age of social media, where rumours/hearsay are treated as facts, CNN and other news organisations could play vital role in being fact-checkers people can turn to since they have the resources to verify claims and go into the field but many choose not to. Such a shame.

  57. You’re free to go talk to them to your heart’s content over there, Blue. Nobody needs this cross-posting business.

  58. “”

    ^^The only thing I can note from that link is that the trolls that plagued this site over the last two years are now posting there. Good reason to stay away.

  59. imnotblue Says:

    It’s so nice that you’re here to play board police officer, Joe. Always telling everyone what they can and can’t talk about, what they should and shouldn’t post, and so on. What would we do without you?

    Of course my link to J$’s site seems to show how you and some of the others around here were wrong in your comments about FNC, so I understand the frustration. Too bad.

  60. Bro, you can cross-post about one blog’s commenter’s whining about another’s as long as Spud allows it. This blog hosts opinions, and mine is that it’s all a little incestuous and strange. But knock yourself out.

    Meanwhile, Joe Concha nails CNN right good here. They’ve all but conceded that the Ferguson audiotape is a hoax. Nice work, gang.

  61. CNN ran with that story for about a day-and-a-half before having two experts on to tell them that it was a hoax. These “experts” work for the network. Why in the world would you wait so long to consult those people? Aside from being a pure ratings grab, it makes no possible sense. Even Rush made the point that they wouldn’t run the surveillance tape of Michael Brown in the convenience store, until it had been verified. It’s totally irrational.

  62. On the other hand, the lawyer isn’t so happy to have CNN turn her into a hoax peddler without a fight.

  63. IMO Joe Concha misrepresents (perhaps unintentionally) what the two law enforcement guests told CNN’s Michaela Pereira.

    Joe wrote, “The short answers are: Klinger thinks ‘someone is trying to punk CNN,’ while Fuentes calls the tape ‘a hoax.’”

    However, if you re-watch the interview carefully you will see that both of her guests were more ambivalent than what Joe suggests.

    One guest said, “It could be real.”

    The other guest declared, “Maybe they (the FBI) will be able to authenticate it.”

    We need to be precise otherwise ‘confirmation bias’ about how awful CNN is can interfere with good reporting.

  64. You are correct, Michael, and the WaPo link about the lawyer confirms what you’re saying.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: