@ Vermonter"I guess (like most people) I tend to acknowledge
information that confirms my worldview..."Agreed. We all do it.
It's human nature."...reputable sources show..."Yes, I think the research clearly shows that people of a liberal bent
are more likely to be drawn to a career in journalism. But I don't think
you can argue that the conservative view is under-represented in the field as a
whole. For every outlet with a liberal POV, there's one with a
conservative POV."...Democrats...seemed much more willing
to...facilitate a President Hillary Clinton agenda than...Republicans [seemed]
willing to work with a President Trump agenda."Of course. Trump
isn't a Republican and neither is some of his agenda. Not the case with
HC. So put DJT in a lifelong Republican's shoes and IMO we would've
seen what we did on the Dem side.I felt sad as I voted against Trump
(and thus for HC). I didn’t want HC to have the distinction of being the
first female POTUS. But IMO Trump was clearly unfit for and unworthy of the
job. IMO he proves this with nearly every tweet.
I disagree, we do not have freedom of the press in America. The MSM has become a
one sided (90+%) unelected, unaccountable liberal Group with an agenda to attack
Trump 24/7, to remove him from office and eliminate our liberty, freedom, and
independence. They embrace the "we know better than you" attitude,
trying to force government control into every aspect of our lives. They are the
the true danger to our countries existence. Talk radio, outlets and, internet
sites have broken exposed and removed the MSM's propaganda stranglehold and
monopoly of the news. They are mad and have declared "War" on anything
and everything conservative. Unfortunately for them, we understand, they have
@Karen R. (continued)One other concept that influenced my vote for Trump
is the idea that, at least for some in Washington, HRC and her husband are the
ultimate insiders who know how to pull the levers of power much better than Mr.
Trump. Mr. Trump is, of course, the most "outside" outsider
Washington has ever seen in my lifetime. You could say Reagan was an outsider.
But, Reagan had a genial and respectful way of working with people that is
totally lost on Donald Trump.Additionally, rank-and-file Democrats
in Congress seemed much more willing to work with and facilitate a President
Hillary Clinton agenda than rank-and file Republicans in Congress willing to
work with a President Trump agenda. While many congressional Democrats were
downright giddy at the prospect of an HRC presidency, many of the most powerful
Republicans in Congress had the temerity to publically express their disdain and
disgust with Donald Trump prior to November 8.Anyway, that's
how I am thinking right now. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, too, and I
would love to hear your response to my last 2 posts, if you can spare the time.
@Karen R.I appreciate the points you made. You've made me think
deeper than I usually do. My overall sense of what I think is best for America
has not changed. But, you reminded me that things are not always as
black-and-white as I would like. I guess (like most people) I tend to
acknowledge information that confirms my worldview, and I tend to discount
information that conflicts with my worldview.Mainstream ("old
school") media may not be as liberal as I imagine them to be. But,
reputable sources show that around 28% of MSM journalists are registered
Democrats, while 7% are registered Republicans, with remainder being independent
or some other party affiliation. As much as dedicated beat reporters try to
keep bias out of their work, it does come through to one degree or another
because they more easily latch onto information that confirms their worldview.
And the more ethically-challenged reporters don't try to mask their bias
much if at all.Since I believe that Trump and HRC are fairly equally
ethically-challenged, I'm still happy with Trump getting elected because
fewer MSM journalists are willing to give him a pass.
@ Vermonter"I do think liberal thought is overrepresented in the
'old school' media..."And conservative thought is
over-represented in conservative media. To be expected. But my question was,
do you believe the conservative view is under-represented in the media as a
whole. IMO, this is what the "MSM" tag implies and I don't see the
case for this."As for Hillary, she got her biggest pass last
year when Comey..."Comey isn't the media.So she
wasn't charged with a crime, but she was held accountable, wasn't she?
She isn't the President. That took disaffected left-leaners staying home,
voting 3rd party, or even voting for Trump to make that happen, right? How did
they get to be disaffected if news of HC's behavior wasn't getting
reported in the "MSM" outlets, the outlets they presumably would
prefer?HC didn't get vilified in left-leaning outlets like she
did in right-leaning ones, but her behavior and that of her cronies WAS
reported. And the evidence shows that it was clear-eyed enough to do her
damage. I can only hope the same happens to Trump.
"Watergate has taught us that a free press is still vital to
America".It didn't teach all of us. Ted Kopel has come out
in favor of government licencing of journalists.
@Karen R.I too, always appreciate the sincere, civil dialogue we have.
I'll attempt to explain my thoughts a little more. I do think
liberal thought is overrepresented in the "old school" media--i.e. ABC,
NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post. "New" media
(internet, social media) is more evenly split. But reliable, non-biased sources
are much fewer and harder to identify in "new" media. As
for Bill and Hillary getting passes for past misdeeds, the first pass was
impeachment. The "old school" media of that time wanted it to define the
issue as merely an affair. But underneath all the noise, Bill lied under oath to
a grand jury. As for Hillary, she got her biggest pass last year
when Comey identified in detail actionable evidence of criminal activity, but
refused to recommend prosecution since she did not, in his opinion, intend to do
it. As for Trump, the "old school" media will never, ever
give him a pass as long as he is president. And I am glad. I hope
this clarifies my thinking.
Well stated, Ben!
@ Vermonter"Over the past 20 years, the 'free press'
(at least the 'mainstream' part of it) has shown a distinct preference
for letting Bill and Hillary Clinton off the hook..."And over
those same 20 years, the conservative press has shown a distinct preference for
not doing so, right? So what is the complaint? To my ears, when
"mainstream press" is invoked, it's meant to suggest, "My side
is under-represented or at a disadvantage in some way." Is this what you
mean? If so, what is your case for this being true? If you mean something
else, can you please explain further? I'm always interested in your point
The trump administration is clearly willing to do things they'd rather we
not know about. I'm glad the press is there to hold them accountable.
But we don't have a truly free (i.e., independent) press today. From the
New York Times (the reported newspaper of record for the US on), most of
today's newspapers are like sharks smelling blood for Trump. The damage to
newspaper credibility is big; even to the Deseret News (by association).In a very real way, that damage to news reporting credibility is why
this reader no longer believes the presentation of most news stories, including
international ones. The (hard) left bias and the amazing numbers of stories that
are opinions masquerading as new has left me saddened.What's
more is that the liberal left seems bent on silencing dissent. Those who
disagree with the "talking points" seem to be labeled with unsavory
epithets.We don't have a "free" press any longer, and I
feel it will take a very long time for that sentiment to change.
One of the phenomena that grips me and pains me greatly is the claim by
Conservatives that the mainstream media is biased.Since Nixon, and
continuing on, the Conservative monied interests have set up and established a
alternative "news" outlets. Fox, Limbaugh and Breitbart to name a few.
Most of these so-called news outlets are little more than opinion outlets that
don't really deal in hard news. They deal in outrage.Sadly
most Conservatives don't even know what news is anymore. News is fact
unadulterated by commentary. And a proper journalist reports facts, and prints
corrections when needed. Good news goes after the rich and the powerful when
these folks abuse their already lofty positons of authority. And good
journalism reports only that which may be verified and substantiated. Rumor has
no place in news. None of the above mentioned characteristics are
displayed by the Right wing press. And sadly, a great many folks believe that
mainstream media is out to fool them. Yet it is the Right Wing Media that is
guilty of fooling the public with opinion (not news), protecting the powerful
and passing off gossip as fact.Sad, sad, sad. This is how we lose
"Yes, certain events that happened during President Barack Obama’s
terms of office, including the Fast and Furious scandal and the targeting of
conservative groups by the IRS, deserved more investigating and coverage from
the media."If you really believe that, Mr. Tullis, start right
now. Demonstrate that those are not the words of a charlatan, a serial abuser of
the public trust. Let's see the stories about Fast & Furious, IRS
Targeting, ObamaCare lies, Benghazi lies, Clinton email lies, Clinton sexual
assaults, and last but certainly not least, the concocted narrative about
President Trump's Russian collusion, fascism, and dictatorship allowed to
sully the reputation of this venerable institution.Members of
President Obama's government should have been investigated, prosecuted, and
likely incarcerated. Instead, the press, including the Deseret News, protected
them; kept their dark deeds in the shadows. That ought to be a source of guilt
and shame, the purpose of which is to motivate corrective action.Speak the truth boldly without partisanship. You have years of catching up to
When a newspaper controls what is published and whose voice is heard, it's
not at all surprising that if you're not part of the "rah-rah"
crowd, you're denied a voice. Is that what journalism is all about? Is
that what I learned as a journalism student at BYU? I'm afraid not. We
were told to write the truth regardless of the consequences. Dan
Rather's assaulted us about Bush and the Air National Guard, a story that
cost Rather his job. Brian Williams assaulted us with his account of being
under fire in near-enemy territory, a story that cost him his job. But,
we're expected to shout "hooray for the news reporters".Take a hard look at the front page stories for the last six months. Look at
how many of those stories used anonymous sources to link Trump to some misdeed.
Look at Comey's testimony before the Senate and see who "deep
throat" was. Now look long and hard for retractions. There aren't
any, but the media wants us to stand up and cheer them.It takes a
life-time to gain trust and only a single false story to destroy that trust.
@ Vermonter""We believe in freedom of speech! Except Hate
speech, of course! Who could possibly want hate speech? And what is hate speech?
Why, Speech we, the left, hate! Ban every voice that disagrees with us now and
embrace true tolerance, where only one point of view--our view-- is
allowed!"Keep in mind Kathy Griffin was universally condemned
last week and rightfully so. Also Bill Maher the week before that. Both also
apologized.There's nothing wrong with tolerance.
The free press is not a monolith. One aspect of a free press is having
different competing news organizations. For people who like their
news leaning a little left, there's organizations like the New York Times.
For people who like their news leaning a little to the right,
there's organizations like the Wall Street Journal.For people
on the far right who wish to have their prejudices reaffirmed while they bask in
adulation for their dear leader and hatred for minorities and liberals,
there's organizations like Breitbart.There's something for
Remember, Pravda was threatened with torture and death if they didn't toe
the Communist party line.Our media people happily volunteer to lie
on behalf of Democrats and the state. And this paper is no exception. It should
be an exception, but it isn't. Remember, it goes like this:
Liberals say "We believe in freedom of speech! Except Hate speech, of
course! Who could possibly want hate speech? And what is hate speech? Why,
Speech we, the left, hate! Ban every voice that disagrees with us now and
embrace true tolerance, where only one point of view--our view-- is
In theory a "free press" is great. In practice, it has become a nearly
unanimous propaganda chorus where partisan leftist ideology formerly restricted
to editorial pages now fills the paper or broadcast instead of factual
reporting. The decimation of local reporting has limited the
ability to report local news, and the reliance on notoriously biased sourced
like the Associated Press and New York Times for national or international
stories means that virtually every paper sings from the same script. Omitting
or twisting much of the truth in the process.No wonder that the
circulation of every major paper is steadily declining. And, that the actual
number of pages in a paper (as well as the size of the sheet of paper itself) is
getting smaller and smaller.In these days of easy availability of
all sources of news it is much clearer how biased the "lamestream" media
really is, and their propensity to spread "fake news" to support their
agenda.If not for a 60 year habit of reading the paper, and the need
for fish wrap and puppy training supplies I would drop my subscription to this
@ Vermonter"But, every day that the press attacks Trump proves
that I made the right choice."The wall is not being built and
the Dreamers are being allowed to stay.The media is reporting that.
Those were Trump campaign promises. Most people can do the math; except, of
course, for those people who consider reporting facts as "media
Interesting how if not for a New York Times article, Trump would have never
fired Paul Manafort.Similarly, Trump would have never fired Michael
Flynn were it not for a Washington Post article.Two bad apples no
longer poisoning government. Can the media get rid of one more bad apple?
This is exactly why I (and probably quite a few others) voted for Donald
Trump.Over the past 20 years, the "free press" (at least the
"mainstream" part of it) has shown a distinct preference for letting
Bill and Hillary Clinton off the hook--of not holding them accountable and
responsible for their mistakes, misdeeds and even illegal behavior.I
rightly believed that the press would tenaciously (and somewhat unethically)
hold Donald Trump accountable.I (and probably many many others) was
worried that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were highly ethically and
morally challenged. I hated to make such a choice between Trump and Hillary.
But, every day that the press attacks Trump proves that I made the right choice.
Free press! Yes.Lying press! No.Right or wrong. Good
or bad. The press control public opinion.