Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

[lwf]

Wow. Not sure whether to blame that on media brainwashing, or something native. There was absolutely nothing prohibiting Mueller from concluding that the president committed a crime. Who in the media told you that whopper?

The Constitution prohibits it, my friend. Allow me to provide the full quote. When asked why he didn't conclude that Trump committed a crime, Mueller said:

“That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

 

[NWRatCon]

For the third time, my posts have never relied on anything but the Muller report itself. If you continue insisting on making shit up, particularly after being corrected, were done.

My friend, you were done long, long ago...

 

[Rawley]

The Constitution prohibits it, my friend.

Nope

Allow me to provide the full quote. When asked why he didn't conclude that Trump committed a crime, Mueller said:

“That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

Word matter. You claimed that Mueller was prohibited from "concluding" the President committed a crime. That's 100% incorrect. Mueller was absolutely free to conclude and write anything he wanted to in his report to the AG. DOJ policy is/was only that that sitting President could not be prosecuted by the DOJ. But Mueller was unconditionally free to state his conclusions e.g. "President Trump obstructed justice under the statute, but we can't prosecute him."

 

[Rawley]

My friend, you were done long, long ago...

Backatcha "my friend"

 

[NWRatCon]

The Constitution prohibits it, my friend. Allow me to provide the full quote. When asked why he didn't conclude that Trump committed a crime, Mueller said:

“That is unconstitutional. Charging the president with a crime was, therefore, not an option we could consider. If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

There is an entire section of the Mueller Report itself that addresses this explicitly. Friend Rawley tends to elide anything that disproves his assertions, much like the right- wing press this thread is actually about. It's a subtle form of mendacity, but mendacity nonetheless.

 

[Rawley]

There is an entire section of the Mueller Report itself that addresses this explicitly. Friend Rawley tends to elide anything that disproves his assertions, much like the right- wing press this thread is actually about. It's a subtle form of mendacity, but mendacity nonetheless.

Go for it "my friend." Cite the portion of the Mueller report that legally prohibits Mueller from concluding the President committed a crime. Is this really what your media was trying to sell you?

 

[lwf]

Word matter. You claimed that Mueller was prohibited from "concluding" the President committed a crime. That's 100% incorrect. Mueller was absolutely free to conclude and write anything he wanted to in his report to the AG. DOJ policy is/was only that that sitting President could not be prosecuted by the DOJ. But Mueller was unconditionally free to state his conclusions e.g. "President Trump obstructed justice under the statute, but we can't prosecute him."

You are mistaken. The constitution prohibits both the prosecution and the indictment of sitting president of the United States according to the OLC. An indictment is nothing more than a formal determination by the State that someone committed a crime. Mueller represented the State in an official investigation. Saying that the president committed a crime is an indictment. There is no other process to indict someone. When the State concludes that you have committed a crime, then you have been indicted. Whether it decides to prosecute is another matter entirely. Both were off the table for Mueller. He said so plainly in his deposition before Congress. It is available here if you don't believe me.

So, perhaps then it is you who have been brainwashed by an incessantly repeated narrative? We call that gaslighting. Just because the president and the talking heads on Fox News keep repeating the words "hoax" and "exoneration" doesn't make them true. The evidence to the contrary has clearly been established. Do your own research. Watch the video or read the transcript of Mueller's testimony if you are interested in fact rather than pushing a convenient but provably false narrative.

 

[Rawley]

You are mistaken. The constitution prohibits both the prosecution and the indictment of sitting president of the United States according to the OLC. An indictment is nothing more than a formal determination by the State that someone committed a crime. Mueller represented the State in an official investigation. Saying that the president committed a crime is an indictment. There is no other process to indict someone. When the State concludes that you have committed a crime, then you have been indicted. Whether it decides to prosecute is another matter entirely. Both were off the table for Mueller. He said so plainly in his deposition before Congress. It is available here if you don't believe me.

So, perhaps then it is you who have been brainwashed by an incessantly repeated narrative? We call that gaslighting. Just because the president and the talking heads on Fox News keep repeating the words "hoax" and "exoneration" doesn't make them true. The evidence to the contrary has clearly been established. Do your own research. Watch the video or read the transcript of Mueller's testimony if you are interested in fact rather than pushing a convenient but provably false narrative.

Sorry. I don't know who fed you this line of bullshit (You didn't provide a link), but Federal indictments can only be brought by Grand Juries. Any conclusions Mueller wanted to make in his confidential report to the Attorney General is not an indictment.

Charging

www.justice.gov

 

[GDViking]

Russia Russia Russia

Yup they gave you trump...
We took him away...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

And once again, the historically atrophied Left don't want to acknowledge the Lamestream Press have ALWAYS been the propaganda arm of the Democrat party.

Historically atrophied?
Which group is sitting at a keyboard and whining in impotent rage at a "deep state" that doesn't exist, shooting up pizza parlors in search of basements that don't exist and refusing to accept election results because the replacement for Christianity (Qanon) sez the election didn't really happen, all while losing case after case after case in court?

If you think we're so atrophied, why don't you just MAN UP and do something about it?

 

[GDViking]

Seriously. Which of these words do you not understand?

Our investigation “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.”

Most of us understand the entire report that documented over 120 acts of collusion.

The mueller report leg zero doubt that trump and company colluded to get trump into office.

As Mueller stated, trump was not exonerated...

 

[GDViking]

Pretty much..rightwing media is trash.

The people that consume it wallow in the trash and come out extremely misinformed.

There’s really nothing else to say.

Those are the same people who are taken advantage of by infomercials, TV evangelists, carnival barriers and believe professional wrestling is real.

Spoiler alert: that is not Sasha Banks real hair color...

 

[GDViking]

Nope



Word matter. You claimed that Mueller was prohibited from "concluding" the President committed a crime. That's 100% incorrect. Mueller was absolutely free to conclude and write anything he wanted to in his report to the AG. DOJ policy is/was only that that sitting President could not be prosecuted by the DOJ. But Mueller was unconditionally free to state his conclusions e.g. "President Trump obstructed justice under the statute, but we can't prosecute him."

In his statement before Congress he said exactly that outlining at least ten counts of obstruction...

 

[GDViking]

You are mistaken. The constitution prohibits both the prosecution and the indictment of sitting president of the United States according to the OLC. An indictment is nothing more than a formal determination by the State that someone committed a crime. Mueller represented the State in an official investigation. Saying that the president committed a crime is an indictment. There is no other process to indict someone. When the State concludes that you have committed a crime, then you have been indicted. Whether it decides to prosecute is another matter entirely. Both were off the table for Mueller. He said so plainly in his deposition before Congress. It is available here if you don't believe me.

So, perhaps then it is you who have been brainwashed by an incessantly repeated narrative? We call that gaslighting. Just because the president and the talking heads on Fox News keep repeating the words "hoax" and "exoneration" doesn't make them true. The evidence to the contrary has clearly been established. Do your own research. Watch the video or read the transcript of Mueller's testimony if you are interested in fact rather than pushing a convenient but provably false narrative.

A d this is a perfect example of right wing media misleading the gullible...

 

[Rawley]

In his statement before Congress he said exactly that outlining at least ten counts of obstruction...

If he said exactly that, it'd be a breeze to provide the quote. Have at it.

 

[trixare4kids]

quote
Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

Over the last decade, however, Sheffield — who founded NewsBusters with his brother Greg and worked there until 2014 — has come to believe that he was part of a problem, not a solution, and is now working to correct that error.

The problem, as he describes it, is that most conservatives think the purpose of journalism is to wage partisan political warfare, and that has created an ecosystem on the right where facts and truth are increasingly irrelevant.

This dynamic is at play most recently in the move by many Trump supporters to stop watching Fox News because, while it is conservative, it is not slavish enough toward the president. Instead, many Trump supporters are moving toward channels that repeat the president’s lies about a stolen election without any scrutiny or standards for fact checking.
“If you go to and look at the history of conservative media enterprises that are large scale and exist presently, every single one of them was created to "propagate and propagandize for a particular political viewpoint", literally without exception,”
end quote

This is the mess of conservative media, created under the Reagan Administration championed by Rodger Ailes as a strategy tool to use for future campaign management agenda to push a narrative for its candidates .... it has less concern with facts, but more driven and directed toward indoctrinations, via the efforts to propagate and propagandize a particular political viewpoint. it uses "drama incitement" wrapped in a bastardized play on religious principle, and negligence and selective disregard of the true and full spectrum of principles and values laid out in The Preamble.

quote
The Reagan Administration created "The Federalist Society'... to promote an agenda
“Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order…

In its mission and purpose, the Federalist Society is unique. By providing a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, academics, and the architects of public policy, the Society has redefined the terms of legal debate.
end quote

You probably don't care nor would you probably know but Matthew Sheffield now considers himself a "former conservative". Matthew Sheffield (@mattsheffield) / Twitter

His viewpoint seems almost apologetic since he was also one of those who pushed more conservative punditry than journalistic fact. Of course he's not entirely wrong when it comes pointing out the tribalistic writings meant to harm the other side, but this goes both ways. Sheffield conveniently skips over the part where liberals do the same thing to their opposing political opposites.

 

[GDViking]

If he said exactly that, it'd be a breeze to provide the quote. Have at it.

You have already been given those links.
Clearly you ignored them...

 

[Rawley]

You have already been given those links.
Clearly you ignored them...

I ignored nothing. You claimed Mueller had said "exactly" that he was prohibited from including conclusions regarding obstruction in his report. He didn't. And now you are dodging supporting your claim.

 

[lemmiwinx]

You might want to avoid proving the point of the OP in your first rebuttal


Just sayin'...

It is what it is, what's left to say? All that matters is Trump lost so we have a male version of Nancy Pelosi as our Commander in Chief. Until they decide to make the switch to Harris I should say.

 

[Rudy]

Backatcha "my friend"

Dude doesn't know when he is owned. He has chugged the Trump koolaid.

 

[apdst]

CNN, MSNBC, NYT and Wapo aren't partisan news sources?...lol

 

[apdst]

It is what it is, what's left to say? All that matters is Trump lost so we have a male version of Nancy Pelosi as our Commander in Chief. Until they decide to make the switch to Harris I should say.

You're going to **** around and lose your Liberal priveledge card...lol

 

[RealityNow]

You probably don't care nor would you probably know but Matthew Sheffield now considers himself a "former conservative". Matthew Sheffield (@mattsheffield) / Twitter

His viewpoint seems almost apologetic since he was also one of those who pushed more conservative punditry than journalistic fact. Of course he's not entirely wrong when it comes pointing out the tribalistic writings meant to harm the other side, but this goes both ways. Sheffield conveniently skips over the part where liberals do the same thing to their opposing political opposites.

It is implicit that he's conservative, his aim was to create a conservative platform... he now says... he has to fix the mess he made, because conservative don't understand fact of journalism they think its simply an "Attack Platform".

As to Liberal Media.. they don't spend all their time talking about Conservatives, they report on issues that related to policy and position within policy and how it impacts the advancements of society.

Conservatives stand against progressive development, and attack the base principle of American Democracy

 

[watsup]

quote
Most conservatives don't understand purpose of journalism, says founder of website on media bias

Over the last decade, however, Sheffield — who founded NewsBusters with his brother Greg and worked there until 2014 — has come to believe that he was part of a problem, not a solution, and is now working to correct that error.

The problem, as he describes it, is that most conservatives think the purpose of journalism is to wage partisan political warfare, and that has created an ecosystem on the right where facts and truth are increasingly irrelevant.

This dynamic is at play most recently in the move by many Trump supporters to stop watching Fox News because, while it is conservative, it is not slavish enough toward the president. Instead, many Trump supporters are moving toward channels that repeat the president’s lies about a stolen election without any scrutiny or standards for fact checking.
“If you go to and look at the history of conservative media enterprises that are large scale and exist presently, every single one of them was created to "propagate and propagandize for a particular political viewpoint", literally without exception,”
end quote

This is the mess of conservative media, created under the Reagan Administration championed by Rodger Ailes as a strategy tool to use for future campaign management agenda to push a narrative for its candidates .... it has less concern with facts, but more driven and directed toward indoctrinations, via the efforts to propagate and propagandize a particular political viewpoint. it uses "drama incitement" wrapped in a bastardized play on religious principle, and negligence and selective disregard of the true and full spectrum of principles and values laid out in The Preamble.

quote
The Reagan Administration created "The Federalist Society'... to promote an agenda
“Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order…

In its mission and purpose, the Federalist Society is unique. By providing a forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, academics, and the architects of public policy, the Society has redefined the terms of legal debate.
end quote

None of this happens without the multitudinous tentacles and deep pockets of the Koch Brothers.

“FEDERALIST SOCIETY FUNDS FROM THE KOCH BROTHERS: $7,962,499
Koch Industries, Koch Foundations, and David H. Koch gave a combined amount exceeding $7,962,499 from 1997-2019.”

The Federalist Society | PolluterWatch

polluterwatch.org

 

[The Mark]

How long would it take a dozen or so monkeys typing randomly on typewriters to come up with that exact same story? Not very long I'd wager. Conservatives by and large understand liberal anti-conservative reporting is biased.

Bias doesn't mean something is wrong.

It just means it's biased, and you have to check it's facts, logic, and conclusions to see if they're wrong.

Like, if I see an article from a right biased source, I have to check it's facts, logic, and conclusion to see if they're flawed, and in what way.

I should do the same for a left biased source, but I probably don't do so enough.

The problem is that if I spent the time necessary to confirm the facts, logic, and conclusions of every article I read, I'd have no time to do anything else.