• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No liberal media huh? A video is worth a thousand words.

Grim17 said:
You'll see the media chase after a republican candidate the exact same way... as soon as a juicy scandal is manufactured and smell the blood in the water.
Click to expand...
That sounds like email story. I suppose those reporters didnt want to ask her about that, right,
 
Grim17 said:
You mean all 3 of them?

What does that have to do with this topic?



Based on the discussions over the years with the left, I would have to agree... but again, what does that have to do with myself or this topic?
Click to expand...

Are you really going to go with "I know you are but what am I?"
 
Anyone who's honestly claiming reporters rushing to get to a very limited possible availability session with Hillary Clinton is a sign of "liberal media bias" is utterly delusional, and doesn't know squat about what reporters, yanno, DO FOR A LIVING.

If your editor wants the story, you get the story.
 
Kobie said:
Anyone who's honestly claiming reporters rushing to get to a very limited possible availability session with Hillary Clinton is a sign of "liberal media bias" is utterly delusional, and doesn't know squat about what reporters, yanno, DO FOR A LIVING.

If your editor wants the story, you get the story.
Click to expand...

The unspoken aspect, at least so far, are the paparazzi types. If some see the video as "proof" of adulation by the "liberal main stream media", they obviously have never been in the area when a movie/tv star walks out of a restaurant. There's no adulation, it is simply people who make a living by producing photos and quotes for publication. In some instances, it is the personality's PR people who have called the paparazzi in advance just to ensure they are there to make a commotion.

Also unmentioned, except in the OP's link, was the number of foreign press present in the video. So how do they count as "liberal MSM"?
 
Somerville said:
The unspoken aspect, at least so far, are the paparazzi types. If some see the video as "proof" of adulation by the "liberal main stream media", they obviously have never been in the area when a movie/tv star walks out of a restaurant. There's no adulation, it is simply people who make a living by producing photos and quotes for publication. In some instances, it is the personality's PR people who have called the paparazzi in advance just to ensure they are there to make a commotion.

Also unmentioned, except in the OP's link, was the number of foreign press present in the video. So how do they count as "liberal MSM"?
Click to expand...

Precisely why this is utterly meaningless. But good luck convincing the Bias Banshees that showing anything other than Hillary being burned in effigy isn't "liberal bias."
 
To me it just shows the desperation of photographers than anything else. This kind of stuff just happens. I'm sure it will happen when Jeb officially begins to run or someone else that isn't a hack on the GOP side.
 
"No liberal media huh? A video is worth a thousand words."

This has to be one of the silliest threads I've seen in a long time. The writer of the OP claims to be an expert on bias. Not even close. :lamo
 
Grim17 said:
This really speaks for itself...

Click to expand...


Hillary Clinton is a hot news item right now and msnbc does just news like cnn, so they have to fill the day with something - every day.
 
JohnWOlin said:
To me it just shows the desperation of photographers than anything else. This kind of stuff just happens. I'm sure it will happen when Jeb officially begins to run or someone else that isn't a hack on the GOP side.
Click to expand...

Right, and don't forget to run a thread on how the media is right-wing.
 
Media bias now includes covering the moves of important political figures that have far more name recognition than most people on the other side.
 
Grim17 said:
This really speaks for itself...

[video=youtube;wgxQe9vYrj8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgxQe9vYrj8[video]
Click to expand...


Perhaps it's easier for the press to "digest table scraps" from a sure winner than the 'kool-Aid' from twenty losers.
 
coyotedelmar said:
As soon as the public cares about one of them, they'll chase after them too.
Click to expand...

Kinda referring to the media and their unabashed adornment spurring them into action, to run.
 
Yes, Clinton isn't getting this maniacal coverage simply because she's running for POTUS. It's, first, because she's a global celebrity, and secondly, because she's nearly an odds-on favourite to get elected.

As others have noted, I can't see how this has anything to do with partisan bias. Perhaps if I were predisposed to feel that way …

Nah, I don't think I could be that irrational.

eohrnberger said:
Indeed. Chasing after her like she's some sort of freaking rock star, rather than the deceitful, secretive and corrupt politician that she is.
Click to expand...

She is a rock star, and if she fits the other words you've used to describe her, that would only increase media interest, would it not?
 
Last edited:
Again, the people who are claiming that the media running to get to Clinton is some evidence of adoration don't know dick about what journalists actually have to do in their jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom