The mainstream media is not infallible. But they get the story mostly right most of the time. Fringe outlets do not.

Newsweek sat on and refused to publish the Monica Lewinsky scandal which was later published by Matt Drudge at the DrudgeReport, launching his website into stardom.

Please let us know when these outlets start investigating the charges against Biden

https://reason.com/2020/03/26/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-me-too-believe-women/?itm_source=parsely-api

Probably as soon as FOX News and Breitbart start investigating any of the 20+ allegations against Trump

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

Oh so, now we no longer believe women? And the charges don't need to be investigated because of whataboutism...Yup..standard KylieFan double standard and intellectual dishonesty.

FBI statistics say we should believe *most* women, not all women.

So to recap: You want the "liberal" MSM to run down a single claim brought against Biden, yet don't expect the right-wing media to run down the multiple accusers of Trump.

Okay

The funny thing is, the MSM very likely will cover this Biden claim. They always do. The claim was brought all of 2 days ago. The MSM has several other things in the world to cover right now: but we'll see!

Interesting stuff: When we get a dozen or so accusers of Biden to hold up against Trump then we'll be in a position to talk nitty-gritty details

"FBI statistics say we should believe *most* women, not all women."

We are not talking about what the FBI has said, so stop dealing up red herrings. We are talking about what LIBERALS HAVE SAID, and specifically what JOE BIDEN HAS SAID. They said BELIEVE ALL WOMEN.

"Journalist are trained to get the bottom of a story and the follow the facts wherever they lead".

When the leading liberal paper has to issue an editor's apology letter for their coverage of the 2016 election because their coverage was beyond bad, then proceeds to spend 3 years pushing a collusion hoax, publishing one anonymous source stories that are routinely debunked yet continuing to publish anonymous source stories...you need to start asking yourself "are they really trained"

Where do you go for unbiased news?

What sources do you consult for unbiased news coverage?

I read mostly. I prefer news aggregation sites. Drudge, Real Clear Politics, Real Clear Markets, Real Clear Investigations.

You highlighted opinion journalism, that is the problem with today's journalism. There is very little objectivity. Opinion journalism accounts for an out sized majority of what is out there today.

Tell us more oh lover of media

CBS News Busted Using Overwhelmed Italian Hospital Video During Report About New York City

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cbs-news-busted-using-overwhelmed-italian-hospital-video-during-report-about-new-york

More about this "Tyler Durden" and the doxxing actions that got your lovely source Zero Hedge permanently banned from Twitter:

--"In a piece titled ‘Is This The Man Behind The Global Coronavirus Pandemic?’, Durden included a picture of a scientist at Wuhan’s Institute of Virology and suggested users could pay him “a visit” to find out more about what caused the outbreak."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-01/zero-hedge-permanently-suspended-from-twitter-for-harassment

Interesting stuff!

attacking the source doesn't stop the content....Zerohedge is not the source of the claim...try reading things.

CBS News admitted to a "mistake" on Monday after airing footage of an overcrowded hospital room that was allegedly in New York City but was actually from a hospital in Italy.

"It was an editing mistake. We took immediate steps to remove it from all platforms and shows," a CBS News spokesperson told Fox News.

Just another "mistake"....so they admit to running Italian footage.

Sad day for you, Daisy

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-news-admits-mistake-after-airing-footage-of-overcrowded-nyc-hospital-that-was-actually-in-italy

Network admits innocent mistake

Credibility destroyed forever

Again, it's the pattern

So far you've showed me one irrelevant mistake by NBC in running a 15-second stock footage clip that was quickly admitted and corrected

The link you showed me is from a right-wing conspiracist who has no problem with doxxing doctors

Based on the evidence you've presented, the MSM is looking better than it did before

You claim the source is bunk, but the story was confirmed by both Fox and CBS's own admission of airing the footage.

You ignore the massive pattern on display throughout this thread. Again your bias is pathetic.

Indeed

CBS's decision to run footage of an Italian hospital rather than a New York hospital completely destroys their credibility in all respects

Now I will go and get my news exclusively from folks on far-right libertarian blogs going by the pen name Tyler Durden

You've convinced me

I find the decision to run stock footage of an Italian hospital vs. a New York hospital in a coronavirus segment to be totally meaningless.

There are a hundred innocent explanations you could reach for first before concluding it's evidence of anything nefarious.

I'm finding interesting stuff about this blog Zero Hedge though. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-01/zero-hedge-permanently-suspended-from-twitter-for-harassment

KylieFan Logic: Far Left Twitter Bans Website. Website must lack credibility.

Do you support doxxing doctors?

Whether or not I support doxxing anyone, doesn't mean their credibility is shot...you realize that's not logical right.

I'll stick with CBS for now

I see you are once again ignoring the pattern. Carry on.

See meme title: "The mainstream media is not infallible."

I knew this before you showed me anything

Have you actually watched this? The allegedly offending clip is 15-seconds long and shows nothing important.

Non-exhaustive list of the first few innocent explanations of this that come to mind:

--CBS didn't have any New York Hospital footage ready to roll.
--CBS couldn't clear the rights to any New York Hospital footage they had.
--HIPAA protections against disclosure apply to patients on U.S. soil; CBS didn't want to run a segment with redacted footage or just couldn't redact images on time.
--CBS simply didn't think about it at all because the country of origin in a 15-second stock footage clip of a hospital really isn't that important.

"--CBS didn't have any New York Hospital footage ready to roll.
--CBS couldn't clear the rights to any New York Hospital footage they had.
--HIPAA protections against disclosure apply to patients on U.S. soil; CBS didn't want to run a segment with redacted footage or just couldn't redact images on time.
--CBS simply didn't think about it at all because the country of origin in a 15-second stock footage clip of a hospital really isn't that important."

SO DONT F**KING RUN THE FOOTAGE

The New York Times and other outlets attribute their sources when they agree to be named.

Particularly after what happened to Sondland and Vindman -- the blatantly retaliatory dismissals that Trump supporters cheered -- it is natural that some folks criticizing Trump might be loathe to go on record.

Why can you never stay on topic? I will engage this issue, but you should really stop with red herrings. We are discussing media ethics, not Trump.

These men work for the President. They serve at his pleasure. He has every right to terminate anyone in his employ. This is reality.

Trump has the right to terminate anyone he wants to who is serving at his pleasure for any reason. No, it is not “illegal.”

That doesn’t mean we have to view blatant retaliation by the President against two critical impeachment witnesses occurring 2 days after his acquittal in impeachment as anything other than what it is.

The dismissals sent a very clear and unmistakable message to all those remaining in his Administration.

Many Republican Senators (Collins, etc.) voting against impeachment said they were hopeful the process taught Trump a lesson. They were wrong.

Well, not exactly. Trump did learn a different lesson: That he is effectively above the law.

Now that we have learned impeachment is a dead-letter provision of the Constitution, U.S. Presidents are answerable only to two things: their own conscience, and to voters on Election Day.

Well, not exactly. Trump did learn a different lesson: That he is effectively above the law."

Well, he didn't violate a single law. Sooooo.....

A President has the right to keep anybody or dismiss anybody under his branch.

There is a reason Trump waited until after his acquittal. These dismissals would have provided additional support for Art. II — Obstruction of Justice.

But he didn’t wait long at all!

Why didn’t Trump wait until two or three months later to dismiss them on some other trumped-up grounds?

Because he wanted to send a message.

He wasn't charged in Impeachment with Obstruction of Justice...he was charged with a non existent crime of Obstruction of Congress

Obstruction of Congress*

Congress has the “sole power of impeachment” and the right to declare obstruction of its investigatory powers.

Otherwise, the Executive Branch has unfettered freedom block all Legislative subpoenas to it whatsoever.

Don’t let the fact it’s not a codified crime under the U.S. Code blind you to necessary principles of constitutional design and checks-and-balances.

If you’re okay with a totally unfettered Executive Branch, fine, own it. I’m not.

Corporate needs you to find the code that list the crime of Obstruction of Congress...

"Otherwise, the Executive Branch has unfettered freedom block all Legislative subpoenas to it whatsoever."

You certainly are no lawyer. The Executive Branch is not beholden to Congress. They can seek JUDICIAL RELIEF from complying with Congressional Subpoenas. Which the Trump Administration did, they took the subpoenas to court. And instead of letting the court settle the issue, the Democrats invented a crime out of whole cloth.

The Trump Administration's argument against enforcement of the subpoenas is legal malarkey.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/trumps-defense-against-subpoenas/605635/

To wit:

"Therefore, under the Constitution, Congress has both a responsibility and a right to inquire closely into the operations of the federal agencies, programs, and employees it authorizes, regulates, and funds. The power of inquiry includes the power to use subpoenas to compel production of testimony and documents. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized this 'oversight power' and held it to be 'coextensive with the power to legislate.'"

Also:

"The 'sole power of impeachment' granted to the House of Representatives by Article II, Section 3, would be meaningless if the House could not compel production of the evidence necessary to determine whether impeachable conduct had occurred."

The best precedent for this is the Supreme Court case U.S. v. Nixon (1974), where the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon had to turn over the Watergate tapes. Nixon resigned shortly thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

That the Trump Administration took these subpoenas to court is irrelevant. They had no leg to stand on. The tactic was to stall out the clock, and it worked. They basically just ignored them and shouted "Executive privilege!" into the microphones and on Twitter.

Obstruction of Congress is a thing and it looks exactly like this.

f your allegation that the defense is "legal malarkey" is true, then why not wait for the court's to say so? Why instead did Democrats decide not to wait, and instead created a charge out of thin air that doesn't exist.

Multiple Administration's prior to Trump has sought judicial relief from the courts in regards to Congressional subpoenas. There is NO LAW that compels the Executive Branch to simply comply with subpoenas. They have every right to challenge the subpoenas through the courts. You cannot allege they are violating the law BY EXERCISING THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.

What they cannot do, is simply not respond. They just can't say "meh, sorry, we don't want to". And, the Trump Administration did not do that. They sought legal judicial relief.

When, and how, and where is the evidence of motive?

And how is HRC responsible for what Weinstein did again?

Weinstein is one of the biggest stories of the past 3 years. The story launched a whole movement and pretty much everyone has covered it backwards and forwards.

F**k me, can you read or are just trying to muddy the waters?

"And how is HRC responsible for what Weinstein did again?

Where did I even say HRC was responsible for what Weinstein did. I said they buried the story to protect Clinton, not that Clinton was responsible. Clinton and Weinstein were very close, and her association with him would have killed her chances.

Doubtful. Trump himself was caught on audiotape bragging about grabbing pussies the month before the election, and it did not dent his chances.

I need an alternative timeline, a quote from a journalist covering the story, direct evidence of malfeasance, something to hang my hat on other than pure speculation.

The mainstream media covered every new detail of the emailgate scandal story for months and months. They were not about protecting HRC.

According to this timeline, the New York Times broke the Weinstein story in October 2017, 11 months after the 2016 elections.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41594672

Where's the evidence NBC, the NYT, or anyone else had smoking-gun evidence of Weinstein's misconduct that they sat on for at least 11+ months?

"Ronan Farrow, the investigative journalist who reported the story for The New Yorker, has been ensnared in a heated back-and-forth with NBC since he left the network in 2017. Farrow was originally investigating Weinstein for NBC News in a freelance capacity, but the network ultimately declined to publish his reporting."

https://www.businessinsider.com/ronan-farrow-nbc-harvey-weinstein-investigation-timeline-2019-10

Also, it was the NEW YORKER who broke the story, where Farrow subsequently went after NBC refused to publish it.

Both the NYT and the New Yorker won the Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Weinstein story. The NYT first broke the story on Oct. 5, 2017, and Farrow's first article followed five days later.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-new-yorker-and-the-new-york-times-win-the-pulitzer-prize-for-public-service

Any way you look at it, this story is a triumph of liberal, mainstream investigative journalism if you ask me.

A triumph is defined as a national news outlet refusing to publish a story, forcing the investigator to go another outlet? If anything this is a triumph of free market capitalism.

This isn't the first time either. ABC refused to publish allegations against Jeff Epstein as we all learned after audio was leaked of ABC report Amy Robach in which she said the network buried the story.

And now there is CBS using video of italian hospitals to report on the NY State Coronavirus...so much journalisming

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/cbs-news-busted-using-overwhelmed-italian-hospital-video-during-report-about-new-york

Citation needed

Mueller himself never said Trump himself personally colluded, but his "witch hunt" sure did catch a lot of witches and Mueller was careful to state his findings did not exonerate Trump personally.

"Mueller himself never said Trump himself personally colluded, but his "witch hunt" sure did catch a lot of witches and Mueller was careful to state his findings did not exonerate Trump personally."

Jesus H. Christ on a Popsicle stick.

Mueller report specifically stated "no American knowingly or unknowingly colluded with a foreign government."

It is also not the responsibility of an investigator to EXONERATE anyone. That turns hundreds of years of legal precedent on its head. The investigator is not the adjudicator.

37 indictments - the vast majority were RUSSIANS and never stood trial to fight the allegations. And the remaining Russian Companies charged by Mueller just had the cases dropped.

The remaining AMERICANS charged were not charged with anything related to the election. Manafort was charged with crimes that were already investigated and stemmed from work not with Russia, but Ukraine and years before the election. This was considered the biggest win for Mueller.

Stone was charged with process crimes related to impeding the investigation. Not any crime associated with the election.

You're correct: It's not a prosecutor's job to "exonerate." However, many Trump supporters still chose to interpret the lack of direct evidence against Trump that way.

The indictments against individual Russians and Russian companies protected by Putin will likely never result in conviction, due to jurisdictional issues, but these indictments still sent a powerful message against Russia's attempted election interference.

Can't say I'm upset that the Mueller probe bagged other Trump-affiliated low-lifes for little things like tax fraud (Manafort) and "process crimes" (Stone).

Mueller did exactly what a good prosecutor does: He followed the evidence where it led and only charged crimes supported by it.

"However, many Trump supporters still chose to interpret the lack of direct evidence against Trump that way."

Well thats exactly how one should interpret a lack of evidence...for just that, insufficient evidence to claim a crime was committed. But that didn't stop "trained journalist" from reporting non-stop that collusion took place, in spite of a lack of facts.

"The indictments against individual Russians and Russian companies protected by Putin will likely never result in conviction, due to jurisdictional issues, but these indictments still sent a powerful message against Russia's attempted election interference."

BAHAHAHHA...because, I am pretty liberals are still running around screaming that Russia is meddling again. Perhaps the message was lost in translation.

"Mueller did exactly what a good prosecutor does: He followed the evidence where it led and only charged crimes supported by it."

He charged one guy with crimes where did nothing to uncover evidence. The US already investigated Manafort under Obama and decided to let it go. Charging Manafort was nothing more than the prosecutor applying pressure to Manafor to try to get him to flip.

Stone, was charged with crimes that arisen solely out of Mueller's investigation. So had there been no investigation, Stone couldn't have been charged with impeding the investigation. There was no EVIDENCE that lead to Stone being investigated.