Sorry James Comey - You're Fired!

[Baiter]

"Totally false," DOJ Spokesman Ian Prior told the Washington Examiner just minutes after the New York Times reported that Comey made that request.

Thanks for pointing that out... I never ran across the correction for those original articles.  It is inappropriate to write an article with unverified sources of information.

The sad thing about this is I don't think the public will ever really know what happend here or why Comey was really fired.  No one is impartial here, everyone has a bias and a story they're trying to frame this into, and the "Press" is the worst of the bunch.

I agree.  What we do know is that the interviews and press responses about the reasons for Comey's firing gave a story that was not reflected in the White House letter, so you can understand why the "Press" is reluctant to take it at face value.

[Baiter]

He said "If it's possible will you let me know if I'm under investigation". So he basically gave Comey an easy out.

That's what Trump said, but who's to know?  There's so many issues with what was said in the NBC interview, conflicting his own staff on the reasons for the firing, claiming the FBI was in turmoil under Comey (the FBI said that was not the case), and that question itself contradicts Trump's description of the purpose of the dinner.

[WannaTheater]

I no longer have any faith or trust in the mainstream media.  While they are almost certainly not all ideologs, enough of them are to ruin it for the honest ones. 

*This is not an invitation to pull out the flame-throwers, as I know many on here hate the media*

So who is one to trust?  If we can't trust the mainstream media, or the WH, then what does that leave? 

For me, it am still an engineer.  If one makes a statement and it sounds like BS, then it better be backed up with tangible and verifiable facts or I will not believe it-  Independent of the source.

I will also say that I have seen media outlets make mistakes, then also publish retractions and corrections.  How many retractions and corrections have we seen from POTUS and the WH press?  The one exception is when Trump declared Obama as a US citizen after years of telling lies to the contrary-  And honestly, that "press conference" seemed an awful lot like an infomercial for his Trump hotel in DC.

[Mamushka]

*This is not an invitation to pull out the flame-throwers, as I know many on here hate the media*

So who is one to trust?  If we can't trust the mainstream media, or the WH, then what does that leave? 

For me, it am still an engineer.  If one makes a statement and it sounds like BS, then it better be backed up with tangible and verifiable facts or I will not believe it-  Independent of the source.

I will also say that I have seen media outlets make mistakes, then also publish retractions and corrections.  How many retractions and corrections have we seen from POTUS and the WH press?  The one exception is when Trump declared Obama as a US citizen after years of telling lies to the contrary-  And honestly, that "press conference" seemed an awful lot like an infomercial for his Trump hotel in DC.

Here is what I see as the biggest (by far) issue with the mainstream press. There is a almost total lack of political diversity. When 98% of the people working for the press vote/donate to one party there is a significant chance bias will get introduced into their work and it will remain unchecked. A strong press is a great thing for this country, a biased press = a weak and feckless press. I honestly do not trust them one bit and that is on them, literally having reporters crying on air when Hillary lost? Are you fucking kidding me?

The funny thing is that Liberals are the champions of diversity (and the press is solidly in the Liberal camp) but yet they are either too blind or stupid to see their total lack of diversity in their midst.

[Mamushka]

Thanks for pointing that out... I never ran across the correction for those original articles.  It is inappropriate to write an article with unverified sources of information.

As of today the NYT still has the headlines as "Days Before Firing, Comey Asked for More Resources for Russia Inquiry" A clear statement that it happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html?_r=0

Going deep into the story we find this:
Still, the White House insists that Mr. Comey’s dismissal had nothing to do with the Russia investigations, and Sarah Isgur Flores, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said that “the idea that he asked for more funding” for the Russia inquiry was “totally false.”She did not elaborate.

So they are acknowledging that the spokesperson from the Justice Department is saying this report is 100% false.

We then get this:
“I’m told that as soon as Rosenstein arrived, there was a request for additional resources for the investigation, and that a few days afterward, he was sacked,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. “I think the Comey operation was breathing down the neck of the Trump campaign and their operatives, and this was an effort to slow down the investigation.”

So some Democrat Senator "was told" by a unnamed source vs. a direct quote from the spokesperson in the department in question and the NYT decides to keep the headline stating the report as a fact. Fuck the press.

[WannaTheater]

The whole media argument can be made in both directions.  For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX).  You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize.  We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.

[Mamushka]

The whole media argument can be made in both directions.  For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX).  You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize.  We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.

I'm not talking about commentators/annalist, I'm specifically talking about journalist/reports who should be neutral in their reporting.

[briefcase]

The whole media argument can be made in both directions.  For every example there is of a reporter in one camp spinning crap for one party, you will find another example on the other side.
You've got Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) on one side, offset by Sean Hannity (FOX).  You have a Hillary pundit on one side crying on the air, yet you have Hannity in Trump's campaign commercials.
Neither side is right or wrong- they need to sensationalize.  We just have to wade through the BS, look at the facts, and make our decisions.

The problem is that even if MSNBC and Fox cancel each other out at the fringes, you have the bulk of the remainder of the mainstream media that leans left. I think the DNC emails that got leaked proved the collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media. Having people like George Stephanopoulos admit they contributed to the Clinton Foundation to gain access to Hillary only reinforces the conclusion that an independent, unbiased media doesn't exist.

[Baiter]

Here is what I see as the biggest (by far) issue with the mainstream press. There is a almost total lack of political diversity.

Wait for it... I agree!  Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides.  If media outlets are hiring reporters with predisposed viewpoints and/or approving only those articles that meet the viewpoint of the media outlet's owners/editors, it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole. 

I don't agree with a significant portion of the agendas of any political party, convinced that special interests are driving the agendas.  The problem is that special interests, by definition, advantage only a minority of the population.  If people actually do their homework to understand how a candidate (and thus party agenda) would benefit themselves, their children, and their country I think voting would be a lot different... may even start moving votes away from the current 2 party system.

[WannaTheater]

I think the DNC emails that got leaked proved the collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media

Perhaps.  To me the bigger question is how and why only Democrat emails were leaked...

[briefcase]

Perhaps.  To me the bigger question is how and why only Democrat emails were leaked...

Because those were the emails the hackers got...?    If you go back and look at the reporting at the time, attempts were made to access the RNC servers, but all the hackers got into were old email accounts, nothing current.

[kbvette]

Wait for it... I agree!  Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides.  If media outlets are hiring reporters with predisposed viewpoints and/or approving only those articles that meet the viewpoint of the media outlet's owners/editors, it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole. 

I don't agree with a significant portion of the agendas of any political party, convinced that special interests are driving the agendas.  The problem is that special interests, by definition, advantage only a minority of the population.  If people actually do their homework to understand how a candidate (and thus party agenda) would benefit themselves, their children, and their country I think voting would be a lot different... may even start moving votes away from the current 2 party system.

                                Ah yes the Fairness Doctrine come to mind,dilluted and eventually black holed under St. Ronnies tenure as POTUS
                         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[Mamushka]

it's a problem, but it also tends to reflects the country as a whole. 

You are saying the county demographics are in line with the demographics of the press? 

[Mamushka]

Wait for it... I agree!  Each major media outlet should offer a voice for both sides.

Wait for it... I don't agree!

Reporters and journalist should not pick either side. They should report on the facts without leaning one way or another. Unfortunately as the reporters are so like minded (almost exclusively Liberal) there is no one to rein them back when they skew left. I doubt most don't even realize they are left and think they are center.

Look at the NYT example I posted. I doubt anyone there said: "Yo, Matt you are taking the side of an unknown/unverified source over a verified spokesperson, you should probably cut that shit out."

[Baiter]

Wait for it... I don't agree!

Reporters and journalist should not pick either side.

You're ignoring editorial opinions which are common in all major media.  Each side should be represented where possible.