https://www.allsides.com/news-source/daily-beast-media-bias

Left leaning American news and opinion website focused on politics and pop culture.

I'm not going to read this because that takes me out of my bubble! I skipped over your quotes as I don't want to waste time out of my precious life! Not only would I have to read, but I could then spend even much more time fact checking it! What a waste.

AunBear89 said:

---

!!!False equivalency klaxon!!!

---

You realize the purpose of citing examples of hypocrisy doesn't inherently imply and equivalence exists between the two?

FACT: multiple posters rejoiced in dismissing content they did not read.

FACT: multiple posters used political affiliation as reasonable justification to dismiss their content

FACT: OP was from a partisan publication, thus using their own logic, it's reasonable to dismiss out of hand

The difference between the authors profession or reputation is tangential to the point being made. In principle, objecting to content one has not exposed themselves to is a dare I say TRUMPTARD move.

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.

I basically only read leftist media, much of it is trash and/or tainted by blind ideology. Know thy enemy.

dajo9 said:

---

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.

---

Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.

GBear4Life said:

---

AunBear89 said:

---

!!!False equivalency klaxon!!!

---

You realize the purpose of citing examples of hypocrisy doesn't inherently imply and equivalence exists between the two?

FACT: multiple posters rejoiced in dismissing content they did not read.

---

Rejoicing must have a different definition in your timeline.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.

---

Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.

---

no it doesn't

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.

kelly09 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

In fairness, I won't touch any Breitbart article. Breitbart being a platform for the alt-right, according to Steve Bannon. No way will I support that with my clicks.

---

Breitbart as an outlet also has a history of promoting lies and distortions.

---

no it doesn't

---

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/breitbart-fake-news-alex-marlow/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.

https://money.cnn.com/2017/12/08/media/cnn-correction-email-story/index.html

https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/06/23/politics/editors-note/index.html

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2017/12/08/politics/email-effort-give-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents/index.html

oski003 said:

---

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.

---

AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/trump-doj-wiretap/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Famp-dailycaller-com.cdn.ampproject.org%2Fv%2Fs%2Famp.dailycaller.com%2F2018%2F08%2F31%2Fcnn-list-bungled-reporting-fake-news%3Fusqp%3Dmq331AQCKAE%253D%26amp_js_v%3D0.1

You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.

...

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.

---

AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.

---

You do realize my initial post here attacks the daily beast and the response is, yeah, but the person quoted by the daily beast...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

sycasey said:

---

You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.

---

Posting retractions is the clearest way to show CNN's biased reporting. They jump on stories from anonymous biased sources and then edit the article days or weeks later, which nobody reads, or puts a retractions in the editorial section, which nobody reads.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Should we also disregard anything AOC says without reading it? She lies and makes bold, exaggerated accusations.

---

AOC is an elected official so her words have meaning. Accordingly, of course it's fair game to practice skepticism with respect to statements of elected officials, more so when they have a history of untruthful speech. No one should take what an official says as the gospel.

I don't really see what that has to do with people who choose not to provide business to serial and intentional purveyors of false stories like Breitbart, Zerohedge, Infowars, etc. AOC making false statements is still worth examining and discussing.

Comparing a politician to a fake news source really portrays a misunderstanding of the situation.

---

You do realize my initial post here attacks the daily beast and the response is, yeah, but the person quoted by the daily beast...

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

---

Words have meaning dawg. I'm not criticizing your choice not to read the daily beast. I am criticizing your inapt comparison with statements from an elected official.

---

Thanks dawg!

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.

---

I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.

---

Well that all sounds profound and highly naive. Law is a lot of things to a lot of people, usually based on their pre-conceived notions and biases. Just look at the post about what the federal law is supposed to be in the Epstein thread, where the guy just made up utter BS about the federal law on minor prostitution. Citing some law professor's interpretation of the law does not make what he says either correct or the law. What Congress does in the Mueller hearing is not law, it is politics.

The law, and criminal justice in particular (as a system) is made up of cops, courts, lawyers, legislators (when actually passing laws), an executive branch, regulators, etc., each with their own ideas and agendas of "justice" or what the "law" actually is or should be. They are political and arbitrary (even under the color of law) given elected and appointed officials and a dual system of government that seeks checks and balances. They operate in silos, and not cooperatively with each other. If I had a dollar for every time some law professor said what the law was only to be overturned by the courts, particularly a case before SCOTUS, I would be off in some palace in the Italian Lake District, discussing issues of importance with George and Amal.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

You'll notice that these CNN articles are examples of the network noticing something that was not factual and correcting it. Breitbart tends to not do that.

A politician like AOC is not necessarily held to the same journalistic standards. Indeed, it's the role of the press to hold a politician to account for such statements.

But if you really want to get into whatabouting on that scale, then I don't think any Democrat can match Trump for lies and exaggerations.

---

Posting retractions is the clearest way to show CNN's biased reporting. They jump on stories from anonymous biased sources and then edit the article days or weeks later, which nobody reads, or puts a retractions in the editorial section, which nobody reads.

---

Bias is not the same thing as lying.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

The Dems bashing Mueller in public would be a major mistake IMO. Everyone has moved on, and it looks like sour grapes. There is lot of bad stuff out there regarding Trump that it would seem much more fertile ground to investigate and have in front of the public.

---

I'm a strong believer in the law. I think it should be followed, particularly when America is under attack.

---

Well that all sounds profound and highly naive. Law is a lot of things to a lot of people, usually based on their pre-conceived notions and biases. Just look at the post about what the federal law is supposed to be in the Epstein thread, where the guy just made up utter BS about the federal law on minor prostitution. Citing some law professor's interpretation of the law does not make what he says either correct or the law. What Congress does in the Mueller hearing is not law, it is politics.

The law, and criminal justice in particular (as a system) is made up of cops, courts, lawyers, legislators (when actually passing laws), an executive branch, regulators, etc., each with their own ideas and agendas of "justice" or what the "law" actually is or should be. They are political and arbitrary (even under the color of law) given elected and appointed officials and a dual system of government that seeks checks and balances. They operate silos, and not cooperatively with each other. If I had a dollar for every time some law professor said what the law was only to be overturned by the courts, particularly a case before SCOTUS, I would be off in some palace in the Italian Lake District, discussing issues of importance with George and Amal.

---

Fine but I think history will judge AG William Barr and what was done with the Mueller investigation very negatively. I think history will be shocked at our collective inaction. In the future I think they'll look at the idea that "everyone has moved on" while the Russians are still attacking our electoral integrity as something like a befuddled modern reading of the jubilation at the time of the Compromise of 1850 (we were in Civil War 11 years later). Time will tell.

---

You may be correct on Barr, or not. But what does that have to do with bashing Mueller in a political forum?

Again, Trump has a lot of skeletons that could be investigated. As for Russia, Congress has imposed sanctions which I believe Trump has imposed. Also, the US has been quite public that is has invaded the government computers of China and Russia and that any attacks, political, economic, etc. will be met with retaliation. If tested, I guess we may have to see if we mean what we say.

Trump is the new Teflon don. System is rigged. Mr grab the ______ is going nowhere. Unless Putin's turns on him.

It's a whole new ballgame now

Nobody is bashing Mueller. He's more popular than they are.

Did you notice how many questions there were about Mueller at the Democrats debates? And these from their lapdogs at MSNBC! Even they realize the MSNBC fantasies don't play with a national audience. Only the truthers remain and predictably it's the savior Mueller's fault!.

The pro-anarchist talking about fantasies. This is a wonderful board.