Sign in to follow this  
Snoslinger

left vs right

Recommended Posts

story breaks about a rww politician banging boys. rwws yawn, the left bashes him, lasts about 2 days in the "lib media". rwws question motives of victims"?

story breaks about a hollwood lib using his power to seduce women. dems condemn. rwws go ape shit for weeks. they bring the Clintons into it. they shed some fake tears and pretend to care. the "lib media", scared to death of looking biased, continues coverage of rwws going ape-shit.

the end

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
butt·hurt
ˈbətˌhərt/
USinformal
adjective
adjective: butthurt; adjective: butt-hurt
  1. 1.
    overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful.
    "they're all butthurt that she released the album online first"
noun
noun: butthurt; noun: butt-hurt
  1. 1.
    an excessive or unjustifiable feeling of personal offense or resentment.
    "it's time to get over the butthurt from last year's playoffs"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

story breaks about a rww politician banging boys. rwws yawn, the left bashes him, lasts about 2 days in the "lib media". rwws question motives of victims"?

story breaks about a hollwood lib using his power to seduce women. dems condemn. rwws go ape shit for weeks. they bring the Clintons into it. they shed some fake tears and pretend to care. the "lib media", scared to death of looking biased, continues coverage of rwws going ape-shit.

the end

 

Just another day in the news cycle......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, T1R9sledder said:

Just another day in the news cycle......

how long do you think dennis hastert was in the news cycle? 1-2 days?

 

Edited by Snoslinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

how long do you think dennis hastert was in the news cycle? 1-2 days?

 

I didn't see anyone defending him.  And he went to PRISON eventually.  And your worried about the length he went in the news cycle????  You're worries seem misguided to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, racer254 said:

I didn't see anyone defending him.  And he went to PRISON eventually.  And your worried about the length he went in the news cycle????  You're worries seem misguided to me.

for once in your life you weren't watching any rww "news"?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/dennis-hastert-tom-delay-letters-court-sentencing-222344

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely have a point...

150528183959-04-hastert-2006-super-169.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet there is some dirt on that pole smoker Lindsey Graham somewhere too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

story breaks about a rww politician banging boys. rwws yawn, the left bashes him, lasts about 2 days in the "lib media". rwws question motives of victims"?

story breaks about a hollwood lib using his power to seduce women. dems condemn. rwws go ape shit for weeks. they bring the Clintons into it. they shed some fake tears and pretend to care. the "lib media", scared to death of looking biased, continues coverage of rwws going ape-shit.

the end

 

It's amazing how dumb you are. the left wing media sweeps every dem scandal under the rug. The statics bare this out you can deny it all you like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jtssrx said:

It's amazing how dumb you are. the left wing media sweeps every dem scandal under the rug. The statics bare this out you can deny it all you like. 

:lol:

I guess that's why it's been plastered on the front pages for days. why not many people knew about billy's blow job, or Hillary e-mails, or bengazi, or....

dude just stfu. you prove daily you don't watch any real news, so quit commenting on it like you do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snoslinger said:

:lol:

I guess that's why it's been plastered on the front pages for days. why not many people knew about billy's blow job, or Hillary e-mails, or bengazi, or....

dude just stfu. you prove daily you don't watch any real news, so quit commenting on it like you do.

 

both the New York Times and NBC tried to hide the story. There was a story written about this 15 years ago that got squashed as well. The Writer of the story had to go to the New Yorker to get it published. He works for the new york times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

:lol:

I guess that's why it's been plastered on the front pages for days. why not many people knew about billy's blow job, or Hillary e-mails, or bengazi, or....

dude just stfu. you prove daily you don't watch any real news, so quit commenting on it like you do.

 

:lol: Yeah but he post YouTube vids and tweets from the Right Scoop :lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

story breaks about a rww politician banging boys. rwws yawn, the left bashes him, lasts about 2 days in the "lib media". rwws question motives of victims"?

story breaks about a hollwood lib using his power to seduce women. dems condemn. rwws go ape shit for weeks. they bring the Clintons into it. they shed some fake tears and pretend to care. the "lib media", scared to death of looking biased, continues coverage of rwws going ape-shit.

the end

 

Seduce? How about molest and rape women. 

On some level I might agree with you but let's be honest some of the names involved in this like Afflack, Dammon, Weinstein and yes even Clinton just spent the better part of a year telling us how awful Trump was for just saying the things that these guys were actually physically doing. So much for the party of women's issues.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jtssrx said:

both the New York Times and NBC tried to hide the story. There was a story written about this 15 years ago that got squashed as well. The Writer of the story had to go to the New Yorker to get it published. He works for the new york times. 

They called Harvey the best kept secret in Hollywood.  There's a lot more to it than the 'librul' media.  Besides - you're the most gullible clown in the Posse. :lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Snoslinger said:

story breaks about a rww politician banging boys. rwws yawn, the left bashes him, lasts about 2 days in the "lib media". rwws question motives of victims"?

story breaks about a hollwood lib using his power to seduce women. dems condemn. rwws go ape shit for weeks. they bring the Clintons into it. they shed some fake tears and pretend to care. the "lib media", scared to death of looking biased, continues coverage of rwws going ape-shit.

the end

 

Is that what it is called when a liberal sexually assaults women and minor women....  Seduce?????  Nice spinning!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.chicagotribune.com/93376841-132.html

 

Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump

A Harvard study has found a majority of the media coverage of President Trump's first 100 days has been negative. (May 22, 2017) (Sign up for our free video newsletter here)

John KassJohn KassContact ReporterChicago Tribune
 

Whenever I mention the news media leans ridiculously far to the left, that it has lost half the country with its attitude and that the tone of the coverage of President Donald Trump is over-the-top hostile, I get the same darn reaction.

The eye-roll.

That big Anderson Cooper CNN eye-roll, often accompanied by a few theatrical sighs.

And when I leave the newsroom, it gets even worse on social media.

 

But now Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has come out with a study of media coverage of the Trump White House in its first 100 days.

It is astonishing because it comes from Harvard, not exactly the bedrock of American conservatism.

The study found that in Trump's first 100 days in office, the tone of the news coverage of the president has been a whopping 80 percent negative to 20 percent positive.

CNN and NBC struck a 93 percent negative tone on their Trump stories, with only 7 percent positive. CBS was third in the anti-Trump race, with a 91 to 9 ratio. And the pro-Trump Fox News? That network was 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

 
White House press corps

Reporters raise their hands to ask questions during a news conference with President Donald Trump and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in the East Room of the White House May 18, 2017 in Washington.

 (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

So what does fair and balanced really mean, anyway?

"It confirms what most people understand," said Tom Bevan, publisher and co-founder of RealClearPolitics, one of the go-to websites for media and political junkies.

Bevan spoke as a guest on "The Chicago Way" podcast that I co-host with WGN-AM radio producer Jeff Carlin.

"The response will be that Trump is deserving of this kind of coverage because he's conducted himself inappropriately, and these are self-inflicted wounds, and the press is doing nothing but covering him and his actions. But that's a little bit disingenuous," Bevan said.

"I think Trump has been treated unfairly by the press in his first 100 days. Everything he does is seen as a five-alarm fire."

Trump bears some of the blame for this. He mocked the media, called journalists "the enemy of the people," and went to Washington with much vulgar bragging, essentially promising he'd kick the political establishment right in the private parts. And telling the Russians that former FBI director James Comey is a "nut job" doesn't help.

And now the establishment kicks back.

Many beltway journalists are essentially establishment creatures, gatekeepers for the political ruling class, members of that class and fierce guardians of their place in the empire. The political class sees Trump and the 62 million Americans who voted for him as the stuff they scrape off their shoes.

While Trump's 80-20 negative coverage ratio is amazing, Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also received much negative coverage in their first 100 days, at about 60-40 ratios.

So how was President Obama covered in his first 100 days? With a 60-40 positive to negative ratio, according to the Harvard study.

"That's a significant shift, a significant difference," says Bevan. "I think this is reflective of the fact that the media does root from the press box and they do cheer for certain personalities and they do cheer against others."

I have my own memory of the media's tone after Obama took office. It wasn't merely positive, it was adoring, gushy, in the way a small child looks up to a beloved parent, or a dog to the master who gives it biscuits.

It was as if the media were hugging a magical unicorn. Obama wasn't only given the benefit of the doubt. He was handed the Nobel Peace Prize though he hadn't done anything to earn it. And critics were trashed as nothing but racists.

Obama controversies, from his administration's gun running scandal in the "Fast and Furious" debacle to using the Internal Revenue Service as a weapon against conservative groups, were covered, somewhat. But generally, the tone was muted, respectful, nothing like it was for Trump or the Clintons.

Later, in Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 campaign, leaks of Democratic National Committee email — whether hacked by the Russians or not — demonstrated collusion between journalists and Democrats. But that cozy relationship has never properly been addressed, and that avoidance undermines the credibility of journalism as the media challenges Trump.

"Because of the way the press covered Obama, they lost so much credibility," Bevan said. "And because they did not take these things seriously, the IRS Scandal, Fast and Furious, you could go down the list of where they turned the other cheek. … And now where they're giving Trump the third degree on everything, that makes the contrast all that much greater.

"So you have a certain segment of the public, the people who voted for Trump, who literally do not trust what the media says."

And the divide between rigidly defined political tribes, one courted by the media, the other dismissed by it, grows even wider.

"It's not good for journalism, and it's not good for the country," said Bevan.

Agreed. But I don't see it changing any time soon. Do you?

Kass Printer's Row note: Would you like have some free coffee with me and tell stories? Then please save the date: Saturday, June 10, from 10 to 11 a.m. I'll be at the Printer's Row Lit Fest, Jones College Prep, 700 S. State Street, on the 2nd Floor Food and Dining stage.

Tickets are free, but reserve seats by going to this site. I know it's hard to find, as my event is buried at the bottom, but it's there. Hope you can make it. I'd love to see you.

Listen to "The Chicago Way"podcast, with John Kass and Jeff Carlin here.

jskass@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @John_Kass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Seduce? How about molest and rape women. 

On some level I might agree with you but let's be honest some of the names involved in this like Afflack, Dammon, Weinstein and yes even Clinton just spent the better part of a year telling us how awful Trump was for just saying the things that these guys were actually physically doing. So much for the party of women's issues.

before all of this shit was known. why do you suddenly believe everything from the victims? did you do the same for trump? he is also being treated for what he supposedly is, not voted into the WH :news:

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BOHICA said:

Is that what it is called when a liberal sexually assaults women and minor women....  Seduce?????  Nice spinning!!!!

 

we don't know if there was any raping or anything else illegal yet ya putz.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Snoslinger said:

we don't know if there was any raping or anything else illegal yet ya putz.

 

:backpeddle:  Now you need concrete evidence? Someone whispers something negative about trump and you're balls deep in it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JEFF said:

:backpeddle:  Now you need concrete evidence? Someone whispers something negative about trump and you're balls deep in it...

:lol:we have concrete evidence on trump, on tape, and in e-mails :news:

putz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

we don't know if there was any raping or anything else illegal yet ya putz.

 

Riveting...  connect the dots you moron...  you are a self proclaimed expert in dot connecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.