Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.

[Paxaeon]

`

"....So what’s a ratings hungry network to do? Easy! Everything humanly possible to hobble a Clinton candidacy.

My prediction is that we will see journalistic standards fall to a new low. The dozens of debunked (and rather silly) Clinton conspiracy theories will be resurrected and “reported” without question. The “murder” of Vince Foster, the black helicopters, Whitewater, etc. etc. will embark on a grand reunion tour and the “liberal” media will gleefully present it as “both sides” of the “controversy.” And remember! Oklahoma City happened on Bill’s watch! Will Hillary be just as divisive as Obama? Is she really a lesbian? Will Bill be sleeping with the interns again? Oh yeah! I almost forgot! BENGHAZI!!!!

A “liberal” media would never do this. But a corporate media that favors the conservative status quo? They’ll be the unofficial smear machine for the GOP. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?" source: – Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.
`
​

`
`
There is no liberal media and I doubt that there ever was, leastways in the last 30 years since the for-profit corporations bought out the MSM and turned it into the circus it is today. I stopped watching TV and radio (except for Wisconsin Public Radio) about eleven years ago and get all my news online, from many different sources, none tied to the MSM. But that's me. However there are still a few souls out there whom are convinced that a conspiratorial liberal news exists.

Prior to the corporate buyout of the MSM, the networks treated news as a "public service" as opposed to a "profit center."

The days of real journalists like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Edward R. Murrow, et al, are long gone only to be replaced bimbos and bozo's. News is a ratings game where profit trumps accuracy and integrity.

 

[Grim17]

`

"....So what’s a ratings hungry network to do? Easy! Everything humanly possible to hobble a Clinton candidacy.

My prediction is that we will see journalistic standards fall to a new low. The dozens of debunked (and rather silly) Clinton conspiracy theories will be resurrected and “reported” without question. The “murder” of Vince Foster, the black helicopters, Whitewater, etc. etc. will embark on a grand reunion tour and the “liberal” media will gleefully present it as “both sides” of the “controversy.” And remember! Oklahoma City happened on Bill’s watch! Will Hillary be just as divisive as Obama? Is she really a lesbian? Will Bill be sleeping with the interns again? Oh yeah! I almost forgot! BENGHAZI!!!!

A “liberal” media would never do this. But a corporate media that favors the conservative status quo? They’ll be the unofficial smear machine for the GOP. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?" source: – Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.
`
​

`
`
There is no liberal media and I doubt that there ever was, leastways in the last 30 years since the for-profit corporations bought out the MSM and turned it into the circus it is today. I stopped watching TV and radio (except for Wisconsin Public Radio) about eleven years ago and get all my news online, from many different sources, none tied to the MSM. But that's me. However there are still a few souls out there whom are convinced that a conspiratorial liberal news exists.

Prior to the corporate buyout of the MSM, the networks treated news as a "public service" as opposed to a "profit center."

The days of real journalists like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Edward R. Murrow, et al, are long gone only to be replaced bimbos and bozo's. News is a ratings game where profit trumps accuracy and integrity.

What's so sad about this is, when the media rallies behind Hillary (which they most assuredly will) and refuses to talk about all the negative issues that have followed her throughout her life in the political realm, and they dig up every negative story on her republican opponent that they can find, people like yourself will pretend it never happened and still claim that the media doesn't have a liberal bias, just as you have done in the face of the overwhelming evidence that's existed for more than 2 generations.

There hasn't been a republican presidential candidate in my lifetime that's received better press coverage from the main stream media than his democratic opponent did... Something I'm sure you will either pretend isn't true, or have long list of excuses handy explaining why liberal bias had nothing to do with it.

 

[rhinefire]

The Clinton "Sphere of Influence and Power" extends far beyond politicians as they include the majority of media outlets and we will witness the destruction of a free press when she enters the White House. I guarantee it.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Even CNN is getting FOXized because I find that compared to before CNN is just a whackjob news channel that still obsesses over the Malaysian airline plane for weeks on end and then they finally get the ****ing paper that says nothing... Maybe its just that stations are running out of news to report? You can only report so much 24/7, after 10 minutes every news channel starts getting freakin repetitive.

For FOX its after 1 second.

 

[pbrauer]

`

"....So what’s a ratings hungry network to do? Easy! Everything humanly possible to hobble a Clinton candidacy.

My prediction is that we will see journalistic standards fall to a new low. The dozens of debunked (and rather silly) Clinton conspiracy theories will be resurrected and “reported” without question. The “murder” of Vince Foster, the black helicopters, Whitewater, etc. etc. will embark on a grand reunion tour and the “liberal” media will gleefully present it as “both sides” of the “controversy.” And remember! Oklahoma City happened on Bill’s watch! Will Hillary be just as divisive as Obama? Is she really a lesbian? Will Bill be sleeping with the interns again? Oh yeah! I almost forgot! BENGHAZI!!!!

A “liberal” media would never do this. But a corporate media that favors the conservative status quo? They’ll be the unofficial smear machine for the GOP. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?" source: – Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.
`
​

`
`
There is no liberal media and I doubt that there ever was, leastways in the last 30 years since the for-profit corporations bought out the MSM and turned it into the circus it is today. I stopped watching TV and radio (except for Wisconsin Public Radio) about eleven years ago and get all my news online, from many different sources, none tied to the MSM. But that's me. However there are still a few souls out there whom are convinced that a conspiratorial liberal news exists.

Prior to the corporate buyout of the MSM, the networks treated news as a "public service" as opposed to a "profit center."

The days of real journalists like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Edward R. Murrow, et al, are long gone only to be replaced bimbos and bozo's. News is a ratings game where profit trumps accuracy and integrity.

You are correct, I remember when the news departments ran as a loss and as a public service, Back then IIRC the news programs were only 15 minutes long and straight reading of the news.. Today the news departments report to the entertainment division and must run a profit. Today they will put on any story they think will boost their ratings.

 

[sangha]

What's so sad about this is, when the media rallies behind Hillary (which they most assuredly will) and refuses to talk about all the negative issues that have followed her throughout her life in the political realm, and they dig up every negative story on her republican opponent that they can find, people like yourself will pretend it never happened and still claim that the media doesn't have a liberal bias, just as you have done in the face of the overwhelming evidence that's existed for more than 2 generations.

There hasn't been a republican presidential candidate in my lifetime that's received better press coverage from the main stream media than his democratic opponent did... Something I'm sure you will either pretend isn't true, or have long list of excuses handy explaining why liberal bias had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it really is a shame the way the media refuses to post stories about Clinton scandals :roll:

 

[pbrauer]

What's so sad about this is, when the media rallies behind Hillary (which they most assuredly will) and refuses to talk about all the negative issues that have followed her throughout her life in the political realm, and they dig up every negative story on her republican opponent that they can find, people like yourself will pretend it never happened and still claim that the media doesn't have a liberal bias, just as you have done in the face of the overwhelming evidence that's existed for more than 2 generations.

There hasn't been a republican presidential candidate in my lifetime that's received better press coverage from the main stream media than his democratic opponent did... Something I'm sure you will either pretend isn't true, or have long list of excuses handy explaining why liberal bias had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it really is a shame the way the media refuses to post stories about Clinton scandals :roll:

He whines a lot.

 

[Paxaeon]

Even CNN is getting FOXized because I find that compared to before CNN is just a whackjob news channel that still obsesses over the Malaysian airline plane for weeks on end and then they finally get the ****ing paper that says nothing... Maybe its just that stations are running out of news to report? You can only report so much 24/7, after 10 minutes every news channel starts getting freakin repetitive.For FOX its after 1 second.

`
I don't even consider faux a legitimate news service. They are more like info-entertainment.

 

[Grim17]

Oh I get it... This was just another launching pad so the left could bash Fox News... God knows there aren't enough of those threads around here...


Carry on then (it's not if you all could control your rage anyway)

 

[Gipper]

Why do we need news when we have ignorant, loudmouthed bloggers? We should just shut down all major outlets and only listen to any jackass with a computer and a grudge.

 

[sangha]

Why do we need news when we have ignorant, loudmouthed bloggers? We should just shut down all major outlets and only listen to any jackass with a computer and a grudge.

That's a very self-serving statement

 

[Removable Mind]

We only have tabloid media. You pay (by supporting companies who spend tons of money for ads) and any of the media outlets will tell you anything you want to hear.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

What's so sad about this is, when the media rallies behind Hillary (which they most assuredly will) and refuses to talk about all the negative issues that have followed her throughout her life in the political realm, and they dig up every negative story on her republican opponent that they can find, people like yourself will pretend it never happened and still claim that the media doesn't have a liberal bias, just as you have done in the face of the overwhelming evidence that's existed for more than 2 generations.

There hasn't been a republican presidential candidate in my lifetime that's received better press coverage from the main stream media than his democratic opponent did... Something I'm sure you will either pretend isn't true, or have long list of excuses handy explaining why liberal bias had nothing to do with it.

You confusing liberal with a party label. The media that chooses to rally behind Clinton will be the corporation that buys her.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

`

"....So what’s a ratings hungry network to do? Easy! Everything humanly possible to hobble a Clinton candidacy.

My prediction is that we will see journalistic standards fall to a new low. The dozens of debunked (and rather silly) Clinton conspiracy theories will be resurrected and “reported” without question. The “murder” of Vince Foster, the black helicopters, Whitewater, etc. etc. will embark on a grand reunion tour and the “liberal” media will gleefully present it as “both sides” of the “controversy.” And remember! Oklahoma City happened on Bill’s watch! Will Hillary be just as divisive as Obama? Is she really a lesbian? Will Bill be sleeping with the interns again? Oh yeah! I almost forgot! BENGHAZI!!!!

A “liberal” media would never do this. But a corporate media that favors the conservative status quo? They’ll be the unofficial smear machine for the GOP. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?" source: – Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.
`
​

`
`
There is no liberal media and I doubt that there ever was, leastways in the last 30 years since the for-profit corporations bought out the MSM and turned it into the circus it is today. I stopped watching TV and radio (except for Wisconsin Public Radio) about eleven years ago and get all my news online, from many different sources, none tied to the MSM. But that's me. However there are still a few souls out there whom are convinced that a conspiratorial liberal news exists.

Prior to the corporate buyout of the MSM, the networks treated news as a "public service" as opposed to a "profit center."

The days of real journalists like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Edward R. Murrow, et al, are long gone only to be replaced bimbos and bozo's. News is a ratings game where profit trumps accuracy and integrity.

Don't forget this Hillary scandal. Apparently Pre-president Clinton was not involved here; she created this one on her own.

when she was an attorney working on the Watergate investigation, she was fired by her supervisor for “lying, unethical behavior.”

Jerry Zeifman, who said he is a lifelong Democrat, was a supervisor for 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. When the investigation was complete, Zeifman said he fired Hillary and refused to give her a recommendation.

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.

Hillary Fired For

I'm glad she's so much more ethical now, and worthy of the democratic party's consideration for POTUS.

 

[mac]

`

"....So what’s a ratings hungry network to do? Easy! Everything humanly possible to hobble a Clinton candidacy.

My prediction is that we will see journalistic standards fall to a new low. The dozens of debunked (and rather silly) Clinton conspiracy theories will be resurrected and “reported” without question. The “murder” of Vince Foster, the black helicopters, Whitewater, etc. etc. will embark on a grand reunion tour and the “liberal” media will gleefully present it as “both sides” of the “controversy.” And remember! Oklahoma City happened on Bill’s watch! Will Hillary be just as divisive as Obama? Is she really a lesbian? Will Bill be sleeping with the interns again? Oh yeah! I almost forgot! BENGHAZI!!!!

A “liberal” media would never do this. But a corporate media that favors the conservative status quo? They’ll be the unofficial smear machine for the GOP. I guess we’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?" source: – Will The ‘Liberal’ Media Cripple Hillary Clinton If She Runs? Hint: Hell. Yes.
`
​

`
`
There is no liberal media and I doubt that there ever was, leastways in the last 30 years since the for-profit corporations bought out the MSM and turned it into the circus it is today. I stopped watching TV and radio (except for Wisconsin Public Radio) about eleven years ago and get all my news online, from many different sources, none tied to the MSM. But that's me. However there are still a few souls out there whom are convinced that a conspiratorial liberal news exists.

Prior to the corporate buyout of the MSM, the networks treated news as a "public service" as opposed to a "profit center."

The days of real journalists like Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, Edward R. Murrow, et al, are long gone only to be replaced bimbos and bozo's. News is a ratings game where profit trumps accuracy and integrity.

An immensely naive, and deluded post.

 

[Grim17]

You confusing liberal with a party label. The media that chooses to rally behind Clinton will be the corporation that buys her.

Horse feathers... The main stream media always rallies behind the democrats, because they are the party of liberals.

The only reason Hillary was thrown under the bus in 2008, was because Obama was far more liberal and viewed as their coming messiah... I don't give a damn what "corporations" choose, or don't choose to "buy" Hillary Clinton in 2016, if she is the democratic nominee for president, she will get far better coverage from the main stream media no matter who her opponent is.

You can take that to the bank.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Horse feathers... The main stream media always rallies behind the democrats, because they are the party of liberals.

The only reason Hillary was thrown under the bus in 2008, was because Obama was far more liberal and viewed as their coming messiah... I don't give a damn what "corporations" choose, or don't choose to "buy" Hillary Clinton in 2016, if she is the democratic nominee for president, she will get far better coverage from the main stream media no matter who her opponent is.

You can take that to the bank.

Obama was also bought and paid by corporate money. You are missing the point because of your blind spot.

 

[Grim17]

Obama was also bought and paid by corporate money. You are missing the point because of your blind spot.

You are the one with the blind spot... A politically motivated, self-created blind spot designed to falsely convince people that liberal bias in the media is a myth, and the inevitable favoritism that the media will show Hillary in 2016, has nothing to do with any "so called" liberal bias.

It's transparent, completely dishonest, and quite laughable that you think anyone with half a brain will actually buy into such nonsense.


The media will back the liberal candidate as they have done for my entire adult life and corporate money will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Thrilla]

well, the media should BBQ her.. both left and right media.... but they aren't really interested in facts.

facts aren't as important as politics.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You are the one with the blind spot... A politically motivated, self-created blind spot designed to falsely convince people that liberal bias in the media is a myth, and the inevitable favoritism that the media will show Hillary in 2016, has nothing to do with any "so called" liberal bias.

It's transparent, completely dishonest, and quite laughable that you think anyone with half a brain will actually buy into such nonsense.


The media will back the liberal candidate as they have done for my entire adult life and corporate money will have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The word liberal bias in itself is an oxymoron. Anyway, not only is the company that owns media corporate owned, but also they are sponsored by corporations. The news lacks substance because if this conflict of interest. All candidates that even make it as far as a Obama or the Clintons have been vetted by their corporate masters. Then, their campaigns are financed by them. The news media and sponsors are part and parcel to the sell of these people. You won't hear much about candidates left, right, middle that are not funded through the money machine.

 

[Grim17]

The word liberal bias in itself is an oxymoron. Anyway, not only is the company that owns media corporate owned, but also they are sponsored by corporations. The news lacks substance because if this conflict of interest. All candidates that even make it as far as a Obama or the Clintons have been vetted by their corporate masters. Then, their campaigns are financed by them. The news media and sponsors are part and parcel to the sell of these people. You won't hear much about candidates left, right, middle that are not funded through the money machine.

That is just bull... You damned well know that if Hillary is the nominee, she will be given substantially better press coverage than her republican opponant receives... In fact, even if Hillary isn't the democratic nominee and it goes to someone else, that someone else. no matter who it might happen to be, will also receive the same preferential press coverage as Hillary would have.

Short of a surveilence tape showing the democratic nominee raping little children, or murdering a bus full of nuns, that's just the way it's going to be.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

That is just bull... You damned well know that if Hillary is the nominee, she will be given substantially better press coverage than her republican opponant receives... In fact, even if Hillary isn't the democratic nominee and it goes to someone else, that someone else. no matter who it might happen to be, will also receive the same preferential press coverage as Hillary would have.

Short of a surveilence tape showing the democratic nominee raping little children, or murdering a bus full of nuns, that's just the way it's going to be.

Never mind. You haven't responded to what I posted.

 

[Grim17]

Never mind. You haven't responded to what I posted.

I certainly have responded... I made it quite clear that Hillary will get preferential treatment from the main stream media, regardless of the corporate backing either candidate receives.

 

[sangha]

Horse feathers... The main stream media always rallies behind the democrats, because they are the party of liberals.

The only reason Hillary was thrown under the bus in 2008, was because Obama was far more liberal and viewed as their coming messiah... I don't give a damn what "corporations" choose, or don't choose to "buy" Hillary Clinton in 2016, if she is the democratic nominee for president, she will get far better coverage from the main stream media no matter who her opponent is.

You can take that to the bank.

Yes, I remember how the media rallied to support Howard Dean and Michael Dukakis.

And then there was the way they went gaga for the Green Party and Communist Party candidates. I don't think the media said one bad thing about them

 

[pbrauer]

I certainly have responded... I made it quite clear that Hillary will get preferential treatment from the main stream media, regardless of the corporate backing either candidate receives.

Grim's Crystal Ball​