Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, October 17, 2016

We figured the establishment media was in the tank for Hillary Clinton. Now we know for sure, thanks to WikiLeaks. Not only are the elites supporting her candidacy, they are part of her campaign.

John Harwood writes for the New York Times, and appears on CNBC. He was a debate moderator. He reported back to Hillary's campaign on how nasty he had been to trump. They love him!

The New York Times itself allowed Hillary to veto certain quotes: if she didn't like 'em, they were out. This is the New York Times giving its coverage to a candidate, handing over the writing, while claiming fairness.

Donna Brazille told Hillary, in advance, about a question that would be asked by CNN at a town hall debate. Can you say collusion?

The Boston Globe got together with Hillary's campaign to "maximize her presence" in the paper. Where would you like to be? How can we make you more prominent?

Univision, a Spanish language station, offered campaign suggestions: Hit Trump hard they said.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I'm most interested in hearing Rcade's opinion as this is in his wheelhouse.

4 specific examples:

John Harwood writes for the New York Times, and appears on CNBC. He was a debate moderator. He reported back to Hillary's campaign on how nasty he had been to trump. They love him!
The New York Times itself allowed Hillary to veto certain quotes: if she didn't like 'em, they were out. This is the New York Times giving its coverage to a candidate, handing over the writing, while claiming fairness.
Donna Brazille told Hillary, in advance, about a question that would be asked by CNN at a town hall debate. Can you say collusion?
The Boston Globe got together with Hillary's campaign to "maximize her presence" in the paper. Where would you like to be? How can we make you more prominent?

On a scale of 1-10 (10 being en epic fail in journalistic standards), where do these rate?

To me they rate pretty high. I'm genuinely interested to hear where Rcade rates them and why.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:02 PM | Reply

I want to add a qualifier for Rcade:

Forget that this is campaign season as it makes people unreasonable. Please put on your journalist hat when rating these.

Thank you!

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:08 PM | Reply

Can you say collusion?

LOL.
Where's the crime?

Donna Brazille told

Any reason to think the other campaign also didn't know the questions ahead of time?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:08 PM | Reply

Any reason to think the other campaign also didn't know the questions ahead of time?

#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Yes. Have you seen what Jake Tapper had to say about what Brazille did?

This is why I singled out Rcade. He knows this business. You don't (nor do I).

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:10 PM | Reply

But let's pretend it's nefarious.
Let's say an anonymous pro-Trump employee at CNN tipped off the Trump campaign to a question.
Is it wrong for them to prep their candidate accordingly?

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:10 PM | Reply

"It's horrifying, journalistically it's horrifying, absolutely and I'm sure it will have an impact on partnering with this organization in the future,"

www.aim.org

#6 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:12 PM | Reply

#5

Ask Jake Tapper.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:13 PM | Reply

From the same link:

Tapper went on to say that they wanted to ask Clinton a tough question about her support of the death penalty after CNN had found a prisoner who had been freed from death row, thanks to the Innocence Project, and that finding out that someone was tipping off the Clinton campaign was "very, very upsetting."

#8 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:13 PM | Reply

Jake Tapper

Isn't that the protagonist from that pro-waterboarding 24 Hours show on Fox? No, I have not heard what he said.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:14 PM | Reply

Have you ever noticed how many in the media float in and out from journalism to gigs with members of the Democratic Party? It's a revolving door.

#10 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:14 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Who is Jake Jack Tapper?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:15 PM | Reply

No, I have not heard what he said.

#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I've provided you some of what he said and I provided a link.

He's one of the most even-handed left in the media - seems to try to emulate Tim Russet.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 06:16 PM | Reply

Have you ever noticed how many in the media float in and out from journalism to gigs with members of the Democratic Party? It's a revolving door.

I even made a thread about the modern version, when there's no revolting door, you just work for both at the same time www.drudge.com

Checkmate atheists.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:17 PM | Reply

Have you even read the leaked emails Snoofy? Like downloaded them and read them (illegal according to CNN, will give your house and car viruses according to the DNC), and not just formed an opinion based on what MSM has told you to believe?

#14 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-17 06:30 PM | Reply

I'm waiting for Trump's emails to come out.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 06:33 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Journalists in the tank for Clinton, you say?

Well, yes, Trump continues to see zero endorsements from any major reputable US News Papers.

Ya know when the last time a major candidate went the entire election without so much as a single major endorsement?

Never!

Do journalists prefer Hillary? You maroons needed Wikileaks to tell you they all think Trump is unworthy of consideration for the Presidency?

Wowsers.

#16 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-10-17 10:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Way to completely avoid the point, OWS.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 10:37 PM | Reply

Your point does not exist in isolation, is the point.

Journalists don't have to forgo their own moral compass of loyalty and patriotism to perform their task.

That's their job. To rummage through the facts until they get to the truth.

It's not "paritsan" for a journalist to speak out against a moral outrage because the person behaving poorly has a political affiliation.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 10:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Journalists don't have to forgo their own moral compass of loyalty and patriotism to perform their task.

In the specifics I cited they are flagrantly choosing sides and in at least one example it greatly disturbed someone who works in the business and clearly cares about public trust in journalism.

This thread is screaming for input from Rcade.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 11:14 PM | Reply

There's a very real reason why Tapper was so distraught over the Brazille thing.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-17 11:15 PM | Reply

JeffJ,
I believe it is you who has missed the point.

Not a single legitimate News Paper In America has been foolish enough to endorse Trump.

America's Journalists are overwhelmingly endorsing Sec Clinton.

Not a single one.

That's the point.

But you needed Wikileaks to blow the lid off that one for ya, did ya?

Sheesh.

#21 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-10-17 11:36 PM | Reply

JeffJ this is reminiscent of you thinking Obama is being deliberately racially divisive. Only you can see it.

Zero papers support Trump. Nothing is more flagrant this election.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-17 11:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm not talking about paper endorsements, Snoof.

I cited 4 very specific examples of, what I construed to be, acts of journalistic malpractice.

You, and OWS, are moving the goalposts in a major way. Major.

#23 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 12:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clinton is a bigger threat to our liberties than Trump.

That's not enough to make me vote for him, but it's an argument I can easily make.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 12:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Donna Brazile isn't a journalist, so how can she commit journalistic malpractice?

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 12:45 AM | Reply

In what capacity was she acting?

Why is Jake Tapper so distraught over what she did? - This is a question you've avoided like a plague.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 12:48 AM | Reply

John Harwood writes for the New York Times, and appears on CNBC. He was a debate moderator. He reported back to Hillary's campaign on how nasty he had been to trump.

It was a Republican primary debate. He's from the New York Times. He's probably got an opinion of Trump simply by being a New Yorker.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 12:53 AM | Reply

In what capacity was she acting?

Isn't she a DNC or HRC staffer?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 12:54 AM | Reply

Here is Harwood's email, he's commenting that the GOP has run off the rails. www.redstate.com

You agree with him, JeffJ.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 12:56 AM | Reply

I would expect the Wikileaks release of Trump emails would show all the same stuff, except replace sane journalists with their bizarro "Alt-Right" media counterparts.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 01:00 AM | Reply

...that Obama feels same (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.

I certainly am feeling that way with respect to how I qusetioned Trump at our debate.

John Harwood

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 01:09 AM | Reply

#16 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-10-17 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#21 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2016-10-17 11:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

OWS - What is the point of responding to Jeff without addressing the actual issue being raised?

You're obviously missing the point. The two possible explanations are that you have very low reading comprehension OR you are disingenuously trying change the subject.

It has to be one or the other. So what is the point of repeatedly posting stuff that forces us to ask ourselves whether you are dishonest or simply unintelligent?

#32 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-18 01:13 PM | Reply

Clinton is a bigger threat to our liberties than Trump.

That's not enough to make me vote for him, but it's an argument I can easily make.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Of course she is. She has most of the media in her pocket to an extent that would make a third world dictator jealous.

Even if you support her, you should want her to be accountable.

I don't get what it is about party membership that makes people completely lose their common sense.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-18 01:17 PM | Reply

- She has most of the media in her pocket

So that's why they spent the entire campaign giving Trump free airtime and publishing her emails... and why they call her Ropeline Hillary because they can't get close enough to her for an interview.

It all makes sense now..... It's an E'bil MSM Conspiracy!!

Well, from a mindless haters perspective.

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:25 PM | Reply

So that's why they spent the entire campaign giving Trump free airtime and publishing her emails

#34 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're lying.

They stopped giving Trump air time where he can say whatever he wants months ago. Now its all coverage of his lewd comments and the various accusers that are coming forward.

And 95% of the email coverage comes from smaller web sites, not the mainstream media. The big corporate owned outlets have barely touched on the emails and the misdeeds they reveal.

I don't know why you bother to make misleading statements that have zero chance of fooling anyone.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-18 02:35 PM | Reply

#35

not true. He manages to fool himself every day here.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2016-10-18 02:54 PM | Reply

#35

Hilarious blind hatred. Trump only stopped getting millions in free TV when the scandals broke and he quit demanding the free time.

- 95% of the email coverage comes from smaller web sites, not the mainstream media. The big corporate owned outlets have barely touched on the emails

More non-factual absurdity. Big media has been all over this 24/7 from the start.... well, on planet Earth. On planet Hate, it may seem different.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 03:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And 95% of the email coverage comes from smaller web sites, not the mainstream media. The big corporate owned outlets have barely touched on the emails and the misdeeds they reveal

95% of UFO coverage comes from smaller sites too.
Because of left-wing anti-UFO bias, or some other reason?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 04:33 PM | Reply

...that Obama feels same (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.
--John Harwood

It's veered so far off the rails Sully has turned Green.
And JeffJ is voting for the spoiler McMullin.
Eberly is voting for LauraMorh I guess.

Why are you arguing this point?
You guys are living proof!

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 04:36 PM | Reply

We just have to block wikileeks - John Kerry

Besides leeks are only good on the grill. And nobody got time fer dat.

#40 | Posted by Mutant at 2016-10-18 04:39 PM | Reply

#38

There goes Snoofy with his equivalencies again. As if the content of these emails is even in the same ballpark as UFO sightings.

As to the 4 examples I singled out at the top of the thread, I'd like to add one:

Glenn Thrush at Politico working hand-in-hand with Podesta.

townhall.com

Come on, Rcade! This thread desperately needs your input.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 04:48 PM | Reply

As if the content of these emails is even in the same ballpark as UFO sightings.

They might as well be. They are the result of illegal hacks ( Possibly even Russian Hacks) and could easily be edited for effect. We know their release was obviously timed to effect the American Elections.

www.nytimes.com

Does that even bother you a little bit?

Why aren't Donald Trumps or the RNC campaign emails being hacked and released at the same time.

Does that bother you even a little?

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2016-10-18 05:22 PM | Reply

all i see on tv is Trump rallies.

#43 | Posted by ichiro at 2016-10-18 05:58 PM | Reply

There goes Snoofy with his equivalencies again. As if the content of these emails is even in the same ballpark as UFO sightings.

Speaking of equivalency, where's the Trump emails, so we can compare and contrast them with Clinton's emails?

Hmm?

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 05:59 PM | Reply

As to the 4 examples I singled out at the top of the thread, I'd like to add one:

How about you respond to the two examples I explained were dumb.
You still haven't told me what kind of journalist Donna Brazile is.
Are you withdrawing your claim of journalistic malpractice on her part, or just pretending you never parroted it? Jeffy want a cracker! Benghazi, Benghazi!

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:01 PM | Reply

John Harwood writes for the New York Times, and appears on CNBC. He was a debate moderator. He reported back to Hillary's campaign on how nasty he had been to trump. They love him!

I don't see your accusation about that post-debate email in a Breitbart piece slamming Harwood.

If you hacked the email of any big-name political reporter on TV, you'd find them buttering up top sources in every campaign. That's common in journalism. Harwood may have crossed a line, but it's not as obvious as you think it is. Many reporters working a big source try to sound like your best buddy. His boss could order him never to send emails like that again and he'd be doing it in six months. To do otherwise is to get beat by your competition.

The New York Times itself allowed Hillary to veto certain quotes: if she didn't like 'em, they were out. This is the New York Times giving its coverage to a candidate, handing over the writing, while claiming fairness.

I don't know this charge. In general, newspapers forbid giving anyone quote approval. The New York Times has a policy against it. But sometimes a reporter will double-check some quotes with a source to make sure it was accurate. My guess is that it happens sometimes with big-name sources, but it shouldn't.

I wrote for Wizard comics magazine once and sent the whole thing to the interview subject in advance. I figured it was just a comic book magazine so why not? The guy called my editor right before the issue went to press to change quotes. I caught hell from the editor and never did that again.

Donna Brazille told Hillary, in advance, about a question that would be asked by CNN at a town hall debate. Can you say collusion?

If this is true, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did. Brazile's a political operative. If she finds information she's going to use it to help her side.

The problem is with the journalist at CNN or TV One who gave an outside party a debate question in advance. That should be a firing offense.

The Boston Globe got together with Hillary's campaign to "maximize her presence" in the paper. Where would you like to be? How can we make you more prominent?

This offer was made by the Globe's opinion page editor and was entirely about when an op-ed from Hillary's campaign would run in the paper.

For this reason, I don't have a problem with it. The same thing happens all the time with prominent people who write commentaries. The timing of the piece is negotiated.

Speaking as a former newspaper reporter for 10 years, the news is like sausage. The public wouldn't like seeing what we do to make it.

The more famous or important the reporter, the more likely that person has crossed some lines to get the best sources and information. But even some no-name reporters for local papers like I was sometimes have to test the ethical boundaries.

These days, I assume the big names I see on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News are excessively buddy-buddy with sources on one side or even both sides. Today Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were throwing such a big pity party for Trump voters I told my wife "they must have landed a Trump interview that's happening soon." I'm cynical about the big names in political media.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2016-10-18 06:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

These are particularly fatuous alt righter whines about Clinton when we know CNN has paid Trump staffers also paid to comment on CNN.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 06:19 PM | Reply

#46

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in. I really appreciate it.

There was one more example I provided later in the thread, it was Glen Thrush at Politico. See #41

If you have the time I'd love to hear your opinion on that one as well.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:20 PM | Reply

#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I am not in the mood to respond to immaturity.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:21 PM | Reply

From your link in #41

"Thrush knows he's violating multiple tenants of standard practices"

There's your a journalistic malpractice.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:22 PM | Reply

Speaking of equivalency, where's the Trump emails, so we can compare and contrast them with Clinton's emails?

He probably ponied up for better protection from hacking.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:22 PM | Reply

I am not in the mood to respond to immaturity.

No, just to post it night and day, then run away.
RCade said the same thing I did about Brazile.
Do you get it yet, or are you still playing dumb?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:23 PM | Reply

I am not in the mood to respond to immaturity.

Followed by

He probably ponied up for better protection from hacking.

Sure you're not.

And Obama is the real racist.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:25 PM | Reply

JeffJ do you think the NSA could hack Trump if they wanted to?
Don't you think they should, in the name of fairness and transparency?

Does it not bother you in the slightest that you are being spoon-fed private information to construct a narrative?

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:26 PM | Reply

Glenn Thrush at Politico working hand-in-hand with Podesta.

That's incredibly unethical and potentially a firing offense at many media outlets. Reporters have said for years that Politico does that kind of thing often. I bet there are emails where Thrush or someone else did the same thing for a powerful Republican source.

If Trump wins, I believe Politico would do the same for top figures in his administration.

#55 | Posted by rcade at 2016-10-18 06:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#53

You think that is a sensical rejoinder?

How much have you been toking this afternoon?

#56 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:27 PM | Reply

#55

Thank you again for your input.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:28 PM | Reply

You think that is a sensical rejoinder?

I think it shows you were lying when you said I am not in the mood to respond to immaturity.
You clearly are, when you think it scores enough points on the snark-meter.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:28 PM | Reply

JeffJ do you think the NSA could hack Trump if they wanted to?

Probably.

Don't you think they should, in the name of fairness and transparency?

Nope.

Does it not bother you in the slightest that you are being spoon-fed private information to construct a narrative?

#54 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Nope. The MSM has inundated its coverage with non-stop negative reporting and opining on Trump. If anything, Wikileaks is simply leveling the playing field.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:30 PM | Reply

#58

Whatever.

You're being combative for the sake of being combative. It's annoying.

#60 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:31 PM | Reply

If. The sos followed known protocols perhaps this would not be the current real issue.

#61 | Posted by mutant at 2016-10-18 06:31 PM | Reply

Server security protocols that would be.

#62 | Posted by mutant at 2016-10-18 06:32 PM | Reply

Top secret is for the top - not for us plebes. But it is fun to get a glimpse of what royalty thinks of us.

#63 | Posted by mutant at 2016-10-18 06:34 PM | Reply

You're being combative for the sake of being combative. It's annoying.

You regurgitate right-wing talking points that are combative for the sake of being combative, without realizing that's what you do, every day.

Still waiting to find out what kind of journalist Donna Brazile is.
Or are you going on the record as you shouldn't have parroted that claim?
Well, which is it?

And you agree with John Harwood's comment about the GOP, right? They've gone off the rails so far you're hoping McMullin can somehow reclaim the mantle. So where's the scandal?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 06:36 PM | Reply

FYI - I am done with this thread.

I got what I wanted - an insider's take from someone who has worked in this industry and understands how things work behind the scenes. Our blog-master graciously obliged. Nothing else to discuss.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nope. Not going to give you the pleasure. Go troll someone else.

#68 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:41 PM | Reply


Speaking as a former newspaper reporter for 10 years, the news is like sausage. The public wouldn't like seeing what we do to make it.

I am altogether beginning to feel uncomfortable with the amount of sausage talk we've had during this election season.
(But that was a great comment and insight, rcade)

#69 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2016-10-18 06:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#69

It was why I created this thread (the insight, not the sausage).

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 06:48 PM | Reply

What is funny is people having any trust in the media at all, from papers referring to Lincoln as an ape, to William Randolph Hearst starting wars to the NY Times flogging the flames of the Iraq war.

You are being lied to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by the media.

The fact that Trump could go 15 months as a candidate for President without --------- becoming an issue is truly reflective of our American media.

#71 | Posted by truthhurts at 2016-10-18 06:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I am altogether beginning to feel uncomfortable with the amount of sausage talk we've had during this election season.

You've never had access to what goes on behind the scenes like you now have thanks to Clinton's emails being hacked by Russia.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:08 PM | Reply

Go troll someone else.
#68 | Posted by JeffJ

Grow a spine.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:10 PM | Reply

Grow a spine.

#73 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Grow a pair.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:13 PM | Reply

You're the one throwing in the towel, chump.
What kind of journalist is Donna Brazile in your world?
I know what kind John Harwood is: The kind you agree with when he says what Obama says about GOP.
But you can't admit that either.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:15 PM | Reply

I'm not playing your childish games.

You are not the boss of me.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:45 PM | Reply

Take your toys and go home, nobody will miss you.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:47 PM | Reply

I'd say the same to you except that you spend 100% of your waking hours posting your inanities on this blog.

#78 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You posted inanity about Donna Brazlie and you just can't admit you did it.
Why is that?

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:51 PM | Reply

I laugh uproariously when Eberly lays into you about that.

#80 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:51 PM | Reply

I didn't post anything about Donna Brazile.

#81 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:51 PM | Reply

Donna Brazille told Hillary, in advance, about a question that would be asked by CNN at a town hall debate. Can you say collusion?
#1 | Posted by JeffJ

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:52 PM | Reply

So I guess you're saying.... you merely parroted it, unthinkingly, like a useful idiot?
I will accept either answer.
But not a flat denial about what you actually did.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:55 PM | Reply

I didn't post that - it was a quote from the linked article.

#84 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:56 PM | Reply

I did no such thing.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:56 PM | Reply

I didn't post that

You should have taken your toys and gone home.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 07:58 PM | Reply

The issue is how was Donna Brazille tipped off in the first place?

Apparently you have no problem with a candidate being tipped off about an upcoming debate question that she's not supposed to be privy to in advance. Well, as long as it benefits the Democrat. Situational ethics and all that.

#87 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:59 PM | Reply

I tossed out the bait and have been reeling in.

#88 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 07:59 PM | Reply

The issue is how was Donna Brazille tipped off in the first place?

You've already decided it's collusion.
Or at least, your copy-paste job parroted that opinion for you.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:10 PM | Reply

Apparently you have no problem with a candidate being tipped off

Apparently you didn't hear a thing RCade said.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:12 PM | Reply

Apparently you didn't hear a thing RCade said.

#90 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

This is what he said:

If this is true, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did. Brazile's a political operative. If she finds information she's going to use it to help her side.
The problem is with the journalist at CNN or TV One who gave an outside party a debate question in advance. That should be a firing offense.

Do you agree with what is in bold, yes or no?

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:16 PM | Reply

And then you have the Fox News Network, totally in the tank for Trump. It's sort of ridiculous to pretend that somehow Hillary has an advantage with the media when one network supports anything the Republicans put forth and they have the most viewers of any other cable network. What is encouraging though, is that even with their viewership they are losing. They lies aren't working with more and more viewers, then the Fox scandals around Roger Ailes has further reduced their credibility. When their own anchors attack the network it helps Democrats. And we appreciate it.

#93 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-18 08:20 PM | Reply

Do you agree with what is in bold, yes or no?

Do you agree with what was posted about Brazile in #1, yes or no?
I've only been asking for about 24 hours now.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:22 PM | Reply

If this is true, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did. Brazile's a political operative. If she finds information she's going to use it to help her side.
The problem is with the journalist at CNN or TV One who gave an outside party a debate question in advance. That should be a firing offense.

Do you agree with what is in bold, yes or no?
#91 | Posted by JeffJ

Do you agree with that other part in bold, yes or no?

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:22 PM | Reply

Danni,

Compare the viewer numbers of ABC, NBC and CBS with that of Fox.

#94 - No., She was conflated with whomever leaked the information to her. Now, it's your turn to answer.

#96 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:23 PM | Reply

#95 - Yes. Now, it's doubly your turn.

#97 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:24 PM | Reply

I've only been asking for about 24 hours now.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Posts 24 hours a day

#98 | Posted by nullifidian at 2016-10-18 08:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Unfortunately RCADE is himself a biased source as evidenced by his numerous censorships.

#92 | POSTED BY MSGT

He may be biased but he appears to have worn his journalism hat when weighing in on this thread. I thought he provided really good insight that only someone who has worked in this industry can deliver.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:25 PM | Reply

Why do you post quotes you don't agree with, JeffJ?

If you don't think Brazile did anything wrong, then why post "Collusion much?"
Or... did you need RCade to explain it to you first?

#100 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:26 PM | Reply

I admitted the error. What else to you want? Blood?

Why don't you man up and answer my question now seeing as I've answered yours twice.

#101 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:27 PM | Reply

The problem is with the journalist at CNN or TV

Obviously.
CNN is beyond "problem" this election.
I even posted a thread about how they have people on the Trump payroll on the CNN payroll.
That's a journalistic catastrophe which you should be able to recognize, even without RCade holding your hand.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:28 PM | Reply

Clearly there was collusion between someone at CNN or TV One and the Clinton campaign. That's why "collusion much?" is relevant.

Now, instead of nitpicking endlessly, why don't you address the actual thrust, if that's possible for you...

#103 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:28 PM | Reply

I admitted the error.

You did? That's news to me. Now you're acting like you said something I didn't ever hear you say, which is that you were wrong about Brazile.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:29 PM | Reply

#102 You are a seriously petty dude. It's unbecoming.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:29 PM | Reply

#104

I acknowledged it twice, Mr. Petty. I overslept 5 minutes this morning too. Are you going to spend the next 24 hours harping endlessly on that?

#106 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:30 PM | Reply

Clearly there was collusion between someone at CNN or TV One and the Clinton campaign. That's why "collusion much?" is relevant.

Except it's not criminal for those questions to even be leaked, so "collusion" is not really the right word. "Favoritism" would have worked. But that's not edgy enough for you to post -- and later disavow.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:33 PM | Reply

I didn't say it was "criminal".

col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

It was done in secret. The only reason we know about it is Wikileaks. Collusion is an apt description of what took place.

#108 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:36 PM | Reply

But that's not edgy enough for you to post -- and later disavow.

I did not disavow collusion, Mr. Petty Straw.

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:37 PM | Reply

Collusion is an apt description of what took place.

The names mentioned are Brazlie, Clinton, and CNN.
Which ones(s) colluded with which?

Did whoever leaked Trump's taxes collude with the New York Times?

#110 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:41 PM | Reply

The collusion took place between someone at CNN or TV One and Donna Brazile.

Did whoever leaked Trump's taxes collude with the New York Times?

#110 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Different scenario. But then, we know all about you and equivalancies....

Of course, you have yet to answer my straightforward question, but that it unsurprising, and we all know why.

#111 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:44 PM | Reply

The collusion took place between someone at CNN or TV One and Donna Brazile.

vs. what RCade said, that you said you agreed with, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did.

Either you're confused again, or you think there's nothing wrong or unethical with collusion.

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:48 PM | Reply

#112

Are you really this dumb?

I have acknowledged, several times now, that Brazile did nothing wrong.

The fault, that Rcade forcefully pointed out, was the collusion between a journalist at CNN or TV One and Brazile.

I have now asked you several times if you agree with Rcade's assessment. I know why you won't answer and I know why you are playing games.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:51 PM | Reply

Did whoever leaked Trump's taxes collude with the New York Times?
#110 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Different scenario.

Of course it's a different scenario. Was I supposed to ask you about the scenario we're already discussing, which you first thought was collusion, then didn't after RCade talked you down, but now have gone back to calling collusion by Brazile?

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:51 PM | Reply

#114

Reading comprehension is fundamental, and you sir are utterly lacking.

#115 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:52 PM | Reply

I have now asked you several times if you agree with Rcade's assessment.

I agree with all of it, with regards to the Brazile leak.
You said you agreed with RCade, but then you just said it was collusion again.

#116 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:52 PM | Reply

I have acknowledged, several times now, that Brazile did nothing wrong.

Then what's this?

The collusion took place between someone at CNN or TV One and Donna Brazile

#117 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:53 PM | Reply

It was collusion - between a journalist at CNN or TV One and Brazile. I've said this several times now. Yet you continue to erect the same straw man over and over. It's lame.

#118 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:53 PM | Reply

JeffJ: It was collusion - between a journalist at CNN or TV One and Brazile.
vs
RCade: If this is true, there's nothing wrong or unethical with what she did.

Well?

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 08:57 PM | Reply

#117 OMG! Really?

Alright, I'll try explaining it differently.

A journalist at CNN or TV One came across a debate question that he thought would be troublesome for Clinton. So, this journalist shared the question with Brazille. This journalist was colluding with the Clinton campaign - from the definition I provided above:

"secret cooperation, especially in order to deceive others."

The definition has a couple of "or" so I eliminated what wasn't relevant while still maintaining the integrity of the definition.

The journalist is the guilty culprit. The guilty act was collusion.

#120 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 08:59 PM | Reply

#119

Stop it. Look, I get that this place has become your life and thus you need to draw out discussions as long as possible. I am done with this. You are either being deliberately obtuse or you are a fricking idiot, and I don't think it's the latter.

#121 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The journalist is the guilty culprit.

In collusion only one party is guilty?

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 09:07 PM | Reply

Collusion is the act of 2 parties sharing secret information, or more specifically, one party sharing secret information with another party.

I am not sure why you are so hung up on this. Should we parse the definition of "is" next?

#123 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:22 PM | Reply

CNN holds itself out as independent, objective and fair. The Clinton campaign holds itself out as being held to the same media standards as Trump. Yet, behind the scenes we find that a journalist at CNN or TV One colluded with Donna Brazile to tilt the debate in Clinton's favor. This is likely an FEC violation to the nth degree.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:27 PM | Reply

Collusion is the act of 2 parties sharing secret information, or more specifically, one party sharing secret information with another party.

LOL. You just make up stuff when it suits you. Your own definition requires "cooperation or conspiracy" which takes at least two to tango.

Which is why I brought up Trump's taxes. If the secret question just showed up in Clinton's inbox, how is that any different than Trump's taxes showing up in some reporter's inbox? Which is why I asked if that is also collusion.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 09:29 PM | Reply

CNN holds itself out as independent, objective and fair.

So does Fox News.
Thank the First Amendment.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 09:30 PM | Reply

I love the first amendment. It's why I think Citizens United was a great judicial ruling.

Collusion.
Seriously, how pathetic does one have to be to quibble over this?

#127 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:36 PM | Reply

How about you tell me who CNN colluded with?
If it was Brazile, you agree with RCade that she did nothing wrong, then you must think collusion itself is okay.

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 09:38 PM | Reply

The fault, that Rcade forcefully pointed out, was the collusion between a journalist at CNN or TV One and Brazile.

I know someone at TV One accused of passing along the question: former CNN talking head Roland Martin. He was a reporter at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram when my wife and I both worked there too (we weren't married yet but were shacking up).

One time I was in the paper's library and I overheard Martin and another reporter complaining to an editor about a work situation. The subject was my wife! They didn't know I was there.

Needless to say, I'm not a fan.

#129 | Posted by rcade at 2016-10-18 09:40 PM | Reply

One time I was in the paper's library and I overheard Martin and another reporter complaining to an editor about a work situation. The subject was my wife! They didn't know I was there.

Wow!

Would you like me to have Frank Cotton pay him a visit?

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 10:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

CNN holds itself out as independent, objective and fair. The Clinton campaign holds itself out as being held to the same media standards as Trump. Yet, behind the scenes we find that a journalist at CNN or TV One colluded with Donna Brazile to tilt the debate in Clinton's favor. This is likely an FEC violation to the nth degree.

#124 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 09:27 PM | Reply

You seem to be ignorant to the role of the FEC .

in 1975, Congress created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) - the statute that governs the financing of federal elections. The duties of the FEC, which is an independent regulatory agency, are to disclose campaign finance information, to enforce the provisions of the law such as the limits and prohibitions on contributions, and to oversee the public funding of Presidential elections.

#131 | Posted by Scotty at 2016-10-19 02:56 AM | Reply

Anybody notice that there's nothing about Clinton in the Wikileaks reveals? There are questions about whether staffers or journalists crossed lines, but nothing on Clinton herself.

The Clinton Derangement Syndrome crowd will just take this as evidence of how devious she is...

#132 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-10-19 03:59 AM | Reply

Anybody notice that there's nothing about Clinton in the Wikileaks reveals? There are questions about whether staffers or journalists crossed lines, but nothing on Clinton herself.
The Clinton Derangement Syndrome crowd will just take this as evidence of how devious she is...

#132 | POSTED BY PHOENIX

Well, in this particular thread, the topic is the media being in the tank for Clinton.

Also, are you trying to suggest that people like Huma and Podesta have no stake in her candidacy?

Going further, an awful lot of her actual emails have been deliberately bleached into oblivion.

If you were trying to make a point I would say that you weren't successful.

#133 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 06:53 AM | Reply

#131

I understand what the FEC is and why it was created.

I could be wrong but my understanding is that the FEC plays a role when candidates set up debates - they act as a mediator and referee.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 06:55 AM | Reply

The Clinton Derangement Syndrome

#132 | Posted by Phoenix at 2016-10-19 03:59 AM | Reply:

You know you're polishing a turd when the best you have is a silly meme that was originally created by apologists of a garbage file called Dubya.

#135 | Posted by sully at 2016-10-19 12:55 PM | Reply

#131

I understand what the FEC is and why it was created.

I could be wrong but my understanding is that the FEC plays a role when candidates set up debates - they act as a mediator and referee.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 06:55 AM

wrong again jeff

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private firm. It began in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties to establish the way that presidential election debates are run between candidates for President of the United States.

#136 | Posted by Scotty at 2016-10-19 02:41 PM | Reply

That's only strike 2, Scotty.

I am still alive at the plate. :-)

#137 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 02:43 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort