| > 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. |
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.