[pg314]

I'm sure there was some back and forth between the media and both campaigns. That's what reporters do, they cultivate their sources. A lot of the allegations in the article seem pretty weak. E.g., the campaign 'planted' stories in the NYT. Could it mean they just had info, and gave it to the NYT?

All this "collusion" also didn't stop e.g. the NYT and WaPo to thoroughly report on Clinton's email server.

[throwaway101416]

NYT started reported on wikileaks emails very late in the revelation process. This already shows dishonesty on some level.

It also coincided with release of emails that didn't actually matter, thus the narrative was - hey she is just human and yes there is some bad, but nothing that terrible.

For example, they didn't report on leaking questions to debate organizers until Donna Brazile got fired. I think people lied on both sides, but I always assumed democrats were better than that. And I used to take my news from New York Times. Now I can't because I know they'll try to present just one side of every issue.

Finally, an example of bias is I am yet to see a single positive news story on Trump from NYT. Like they did a story about him hiring lobbyists. All commenters on the site and the story itself tried to say that he is being hypocritical since he promised that he would get rid of lobbyists. They didn't cite his reasons for that decision that he talked about on the 60-minutes interview.

The story about him firing all lobbyists was instead merged into the "campaign is in disarray" story.

But biggest problem for me is that any tech site I go to, I am constantly bombarded with "Trump is evil" and I never hear his side of the story.

I mean half the time the bias is so bad, I actually think I'm reading the onion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-steak-well-...)

If you go to Wired, they currently have an article on the front page that starts with:

"Mark Zuckerberg is trying hard to convince voters that Facebook had no nefarious role in this election. But according to President-elect Donald Trump’s digital director Brad Parscale, the social media giant was massively influential—not because it was tipping the scales with fake news, but because it helped generate the bulk of the campaign’s $250 million in online fundraising."

This is a) bias as they're not being impartial and b) it is saying that allowing people to post whatever they want is "nefarious".

Basically, this one-sided approach is what I think drove people to twitter/facebook for news in the first place.

[pg314]

> For example, they didn't report on leaking questions to debate organizers until Donna Brazile got fired.

I imagine this is the email you're referring to: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478

Some of the other Wikileaks emails have a cryptographic signature that can be verified. This one doesn't. If they cannot verify the authenticity of that email, I have no problem with them not reporting on it. The source leaking the emails to Wikileaks could have easily doctored some of them.

I think the media that were breathlessly reporting on every single bit of info that could be misconstrued in these mails were the ones that were biased. E.g. the (complete fabricated) satanic cooking rituals in the White House made it to Fox News.

> Finally, an example of bias is I am yet to see a single positive news story on Trump from NYT.

From today's front page, here's a positive story on Trump: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/aides-to-donal...

It's a move from Trump I applaud.

You have to distinguish between the opinion pages and factual reporting. As the name itself says, opinion pages are somebody's opinion. I don't have a problem with them saying that they think Trump is not fit to be president. If somebody can make the argument that he would be a good president, I'd be interested to hear it.

> ... and I never hear his side of the story.

Trump and his campaign have been refusing to comment on numerous stories. It's hard to present his side of the story when he does that.

> I actually think I'm reading the onion

You are not alone. But for me that has more to do with his actions, than any reporting. Like https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79690018395509555... and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/79703472107522867... only hours apart.

[throwaway101416]

You are right about this story. But honestly this is the first story I've seen there that presents him in a positive light in the past 6 months or so.

In fact, I assumed they wouldn't report on it at all since it broke yesterday morning or early afternoon and they mentioned firings in the disarray story.

Sure, I know about opinion pages, but sometimes the opinions can cloud people's judgement.

Regarding Fox news - they've been going back and forth. Fox news already ruined their reputation in the past with biased pro establishment republican reporting. I view them as an alternative news source at this point. They don't outright lie, but they bend the truth in such a way that the message becomes whatever their narrative is at the time.

Edit: Regarding professional protesters: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-15/whos-behind-portlan...

This is not a great source, but you can check that indeed they are from out of state. Some of the protesters who are organizing with megaphones were previously on Dem payrolls. There were also pictures of some of the same protesters in multiple cities all over the country.

Moveon organizes some of the protests: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/13/moveonorg-ra...

craigslist ads advertising pay for protesters (this one is not very good source, but I can't find a better one right now and can't find any archive links): http://truthfeed.com/breaking-bitter-soros-hiring-team-of-fu...

Snopes article on the protesters claims that it's unproven: http://www.snopes.com/craigslist-ad-trump-rally/

Wikileaks previously showed that DNC campaign posted craigslist ads (not for protests but for fake story): https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

Regarding arguments pro-trump, Peter Thiel gave a fairly convincing speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob-LJqPQEJ4

I am still suspicious but at the same time hopeful of Trump. I think he is the only one who can change certain things. Otherwise, economic condition for many people would get worse partly because of outsourcing and partly because of tech advances. UBI is not ready yet. When the economy is poor, this has historically led to radicalization of various groups. We already see traces of it in US. I think it makes sense to appeal to these groups and fix some of their problems.