FBI

[57Brave]

yeah that crooked elite east coast liberal media ...

Patricia Zengerle ‏@ReutersZengerle 6m
6 minutes ago

There were some reporters who'd post every day on Twitter how long it had been since a Clinton presser. Have I missed such posts for Trump?

[57Brave]

more on the media.
Perhaps then we can talk FBI thumb on the scales.

The Rude Pundit ‏@rudepundit 6m
6 minutes ago

It's not just that most our news outlets dropped the ball on Trump. They didn't even step onto the field until October.

please stop if the media was fair non sense

[cajunrevenge]

Big picture
Anyone else concerned over the media's influence/participation in a national election?

I am still bitter about the media black listing Ron Paul. The media isnt supposed to decided who gets covered. If a candidate has like 1% support, then sure they dont deserve much coverage, but when they refuse to cover guy getting 20% of the vote for someone getting 1% then something is wrong. These same media who decided for you that Ron wasnt a viable candidate cant wait to cover how big of a **** Palin took that morning. These same people saying Ron was too extreme gave 24/7 coverage to Trump. Frustrating to no end.

[weso1]

I probably shouldn't open this can of worms either, but what the heck, can you first define who "the media" is because I think in this country we have a really really really crappy media but at least half of them don't call or consider themselves to be in it.

Television, print, internet (including google, twitter and facebook), radio and hollywood

[57Brave]

It is really simple Cajun. Sarah Palin for what ever reason sells, used to sell, - gets clicks
Ron Paul -- not so much.

That was like 4 years ago -- right ?

[weso1]

The questions are what is covered and how it is covered. For example with this email thing, many media outlets are trying to steer their viewers toward FBI and Comey rather than Hillary's mishaps and the potential cluster that we may have after the election.

[Oklahomahawk]

Television, print, internet (including google, twitter and facebook), radio and hollywood

This looks pretty reasonable to me. So, I"m taking it that you don't subscribe to the crap that we heard and saw back during W's presidency where sources like Fox would claim to be "the news" until somebody called them on their bias and then they would shift to "oh that part was opinion or me drawing conclusions". The same thing is true with talk radio and all online sources, far left or far right.

I don't think there's any doubt that the "mainstream media" like the 3 major networks, leans to the left, though I do think their god is much more ratings and attention than the Dems, but I'm not going to say they don't like the Dems more than the Repubs or that they favor the Dems over the Repubs.

I"m just glad more people are coming around to (I hope) the fact that "the media" consists of anyone we go to for our news and information, whether it be NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart (yeah I know he doesn't really do that anymore but he certainly used to), late night "entertainment", Rush Limbaugh, the far left and far right blogs and propaganda sources, John Oliver (probably the funniest of all of them IMO right now). I would include Trevor Noah, the guy who replaced Stewart, but does anybody actually watch him?

So, if all of these people constitute "the news media" shouldn't they be held to some sort of higher standard? The problem with this is, I just don't see any way to do that without choosing sides based on which BS I choose to believe on a given day. Do you have an answer for this quandary?

[weso1]

yeah that crooked elite east coast liberal media ...

Patricia Zengerle ‏@ReutersZengerle 6m
6 minutes ago

There were some reporters who'd post every day on Twitter how long it had been since a Clinton presser. Have I missed such posts for Trump?

Damn, really got her good when they did that.

[weso1]

This looks pretty reasonable to me. So, I"m taking it that you don't subscribe to the crap that we heard and saw back during W's presidency where sources like Fox would claim to be "the news" until somebody called them on their bias and then they would shift to "oh that part was opinion or me drawing conclusions". The same thing is true with talk radio and all online sources, far left or far right.

I don't think there's any doubt that the "mainstream media" like the 3 major networks, leans to the left, though I do think their god is much more ratings and attention than the Dems, but I'm not going to say they don't like the Dems more than the Repubs or that they favor the Dems over the Repubs.

I"m just glad more people are coming around to (I hope) the fact that "the media" consists of anyone we go to for our news and information, whether it be NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart (yeah I know he doesn't really do that anymore but he certainly used to), late night "entertainment", Rush Limbaugh, the far left and far right blogs and propaganda sources, John Oliver (probably the funniest of all of them IMO right now). I would include Trevor Noah, the guy who replaced Stewart, but does anybody actually watch him?

So, if all of these people constitute "the news media" shouldn't they be held to some sort of higher standard? The problem with this is, I just don't see any way to do that without choosing sides based on which BS I choose to believe on a given day. Do you have an answer for this quandary?

What percentage of media do you think hold liberal or leftist views?

[57Brave]

shouldn't before you ascribe left or right define where the middle lies ?

and, haven't we had this conversation ---- like every two weeks.

[Oklahomahawk]

What percentage of media do you think hold liberal or leftist views?

No idea on an actual number, but while I already called out certain areas of the media that are left biased, I'll see if I can form 2 groups. I would say that, generally speaking:
Those with Left Tendencies (no particular order: ABC, NBC, CBS, Hollywood sources such as Bill Maher, John Oliver (though I believe he's in NY), Jon Stewart (same as Oliver though I don't think he does much anymore), again I'd include Trevor Noah if I thought anyone actually watched him. There are also left wing blogs and websites with their version of the news.

On the right I would say (no particular order) Talk Radio such as Limbaugh and Hannity (the left has never been any good at this one) Fox overall, though there are some libs on Fox they're always about as outnumbered as Custer was at Little Big Horn, traveling pundits such as Ann Coulter, former Fox folks like Glen Beck, and the right wing blogs and websites with their version of the news.

Does this look fairly reasonable?

[cajunrevenge]

The answer is Ron would end our wars and bring the troops home. Thats why he was black listed. That should scare the **** out of everyone. I know why Palin gets her coverage, but its not just her. John Huntsman got more media coverage than Paul. When you take Ron's ideas and call it the Tea Party they loved the **** out of that.

[57Brave]

The Guardian’s Spencer Ackerman reported this week following a series of leaks from the law enforcement agency regarding alleged investigations into Hillary Clinton and her family’s foundation. “Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI,” he added.
That makes sense. White men are overwhelmingly likely to support Donald Trump, and the FBI is a culturally conservative law enforcement agency that is overwhelmingly white and male.
The FBI has actually gotten whiter in recent years. As of Aug. 1, 83.2 percent of FBI special agents were white, according to internal statistics. That’s a higher percentage than in 2008. More than 80 percent of FBI special agents are men. Last year,*FBI director James Comey joked that the fictional FBI depicted on the television show “Quantico” made FBI agents look more “attractive and diverse” than they did real life.
Trump leads Clinton by 26 points among white men, according to YouGov’s polling model. Of course, the white men in the agency aren’t a perfect mirror of the white male vote nationally. FBI special agents need a bachelor’s degree from a four-year college (Trump also leads Clinton by 14 points among college-educated white men, according to YouGov), and their security clearances and desire to work in public service also make them different from the general population.
Trump would win the election with 493 electoral votes if only white men voted, according to a recent analysis by Mother Jones (using YouGov’s data):


There’s another reason to believe FBI agents are more likely than the general population to support Trump: They work in law enforcement.*Trump has courted law enforcement and presented himself as the “law and order” candidate. He’s won the endorsement of the union that represents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, as well as that of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union. And top Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani’s former law firm has deep ties to the FBI Agents Association, which represents the interests of most FBI agents.
“If you think it’s breaking news that the culture of the agents of the FBI is a political conservative culture, that is not news,” says Tim Weiner, who wrote Enemies, the definitive history of the bureau. “The culture of the rank and file of the FBI has been a conservative culture since J. Edgar Hoover was a baby. The FBI was founded in 1908 and it is both a law enforcement agency and now after 9/11 primarily an intelligence agency. It attracts people who served as cops and spies.”
The FBI has a history of discriminating against minority special agents. Hundreds of black FBI employees sued the agency in the early 1990s for racial discrimination. “The higher you go up the agency ladder,” The Marshall Project reported last year, “the less likely you are to encounter” minorities.
The federal government counts anyone whose family origins were in “the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa” as white, so it’s not clear how many people the FBI has hired who have family backgrounds in the Middle East or North Africa. On Sept. 11, 2001, there were only eight FBI agents in the U.S. who spoke Arabic. Five years later, in 2006, the FBI faced criticism when a lawsuit revealed that, despite the agency’s central role in fighting terrorist groups composed largely of Arabic speakers, only*a handful of its special agents were fluent in Arabic. There’s no up-to-date, public data on how many special agents are of Arab or Muslim backgrounds or speak Arabic.*
Comey has called the increasing whiteness of the bureau a “crisis,” adding that he “will have failed if I don’t change this.”

[sturg33]

Watching the meltdown and spin from 57 has made this election worthwhile

[weso1]

No idea on an actual number, but while I already called out certain areas of the media that are left biased, I'll see if I can form 2 groups. I would say that, generally speaking:
Those with Left Tendencies (no particular order: ABC, NBC, CBS, Hollywood sources such as Bill Maher, John Oliver (though I believe he's in NY), Jon Stewart (same as Oliver though I don't think he does much anymore), again I'd include Trevor Noah if I thought anyone actually watched him. There are also left wing blogs and websites with their version of the news.

On the right I would say (no particular order) Talk Radio such as Limbaugh and Hannity (the left has never been any good at this one) Fox overall, though there are some libs on Fox they're always about as outnumbered as Custer was at Little Big Horn, traveling pundits such as Ann Coulter, former Fox folks like Glen Beck, and the right wing blogs and websites with their version of the news.

Does this look fairly reasonable?

I'm aware of some of the individual actors and how they lean, but If you include the entirety of media in this country, I think it's greater than 90% left leaning. And that media shapes what you and I talk about. The reason I brought it up itt, is because the liberal networks you mentioned are trying to make the issue about the FBI rather than about Hillary and the ramifications of her actions.

[weso1]

Watching the meltdown and spin from 57 has made this election worthwhile

The meltdown from certain liberal actors is the only reason I would want Trump to win.

[sturg33]

I'm aware of some of the individual actors and how they lean, but If you include the entirety of media in this country, I think it's greater than 90% left leaning. And that media shapes what you and I talk about. The reason I brought it up itt, is because the liberal networks you mentioned are trying to make the issue about the FBI rather than about Hillary and the ramifications of her actions.

How about a little honesty from the media

[Oklahomahawk]

I'm aware of some of the individual actors and how they lean, but If you include the entirety of media in this country, I think it's greater than 90% left leaning. And that media shapes what you and I talk about. The reason I brought it up itt, is because the liberal networks you mentioned are trying to make the issue about the FBI rather than about Hillary and the ramifications of her actions.

Here is where we disagree a bit, and a lot of this comes from that same W era "them vs. us" mentality that Fox and others on the right love to use to motivate their base. I do not believe that 90% of the media is left leaning. Is it a majority numbers wise? Probably, but let's look at this from the other direction. What percentage of people get their news from left leaning sources? What percentage of people get their news from right leaning sources? What are FOX's numbers ratings wise? Does it really matter that much how many people are out there from one side or the other as long as a fairly similar number of folks are getting their news from each/either side? Also, if someone is blowing smoke up your (or my) arse does it really matter if it's left wing smoke or right wing smoke? Shouldn't we be striving to get the media, and I mean ALL of the media to report the actual facts and stop there?

I know neither of us likes Trump or Hilldog and IF she has damning information in those emails fine, nail her for it, but consider these questions, why do these leaks seem to only be about stuff Hilldog has done? Are you telling me that the Trump side doesn't have any dirty laundry that hasn't come out yet? Has there been one single leak about Trump, period? Don't you find that suspicious? Also, what is Russia's role in this election? Why does Putin seem to like Trump so much? Tell me any scenario ever thought of where the Russians like a Dem candidate and that actually doesn't make the Dems look like commie sympathizers? Why doesn't the same rule apply to Trump?

[bravesnumberone]

more on the media.
Perhaps then we can talk FBI thumb on the scales.

The Rude Pundit ‏@rudepundit 6m
6 minutes ago

It's not just that most our news outlets dropped the ball on Trump. They didn't even step onto the field until October.

please stop if the media was fair non sense

Lol this completely lacks any knowledge whatsoever. Trump and his antics have been front and center in the media since he announced and began saying foolish things and rightfully so. Had they "not stepped onto the field until October," he would be 10 points ahead right now. Stop quoting **** from Twitter for once in your life.

[57Brave]

Like back during the Iowa Caucustate when the "Liberal Media " hammered non stop about Trump U knocking HRC speeches out off the front page. Those were the days.

Good lord even Mitt was incredulous at the media pass Trump was getting during the primaries.

The notion that HRC gave speeches for hire were more perinatal than Trump scamming people with a for prefit college where a degree wasn't worth a napkin.

Trump US. Look it up