Did he find the answer? Even if you look past the misleading statements, distortions, and glaring ommissions in the original post, the section you quote above is a huge distortion in itself based on the omission it contains. Why do you think he omits any mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed Congress and signed by President Clinton? Because it didn't have the same list of names in it? Because the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed with the support of Democrats and signed into law by a President who is a Democrat?
Feel free to read the original, which contains the endnotes. This is hardly the only time this issue has come up in the media.
It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:
In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.
In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.
In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.
In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.
In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.
In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.
In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.
In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.
Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.
All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.
In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.
In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.
In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.
A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.
These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...
Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.
Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper
Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.
I'm also wondering what you left out?
Link to Original Source
Then let's start the investigation.
What do you bet that not all of the releveant or interesting emails were turned over to State or investigating committees?
I would be surprised if there are not at least technical violations of the law, and very possibly more serious breaches. The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.
There are no left parties in the US.
You are one of the ignorant majority I see.
There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.
"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:
And they work hard to move their agendas forward.
Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.
Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)
You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.
All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.
No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.
Link to Original Source
No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there. Are you claiming that the quote was in error? Would you feel better if the quote came from another source?
Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.
When you turn on "deflectors" you aren't kidding around, although it is more of a "reality distorion field" (props Steve Jobs).
Very little of the book was affected, and it will be part of the public discussion for months, perhaps as long as Hillary is running for or in public office.
The use of a privately provisioned and held email server for use in official business while US Secretary of State was improper and should be investigated, including the question of: were all emails associated with her official duties turned over, why were they turned over so late, and was the email server hacked by foreign intelligence agencies?
Ah, "good" ol' Media Matters! When the chips for Bill and Hill are down, they'll come throught!
... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.
"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.
HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.
"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.
Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.
You need to learn to think like a politician.
Owner = 1 vote
Labor = 100 votes
Good luck winning an election if you have only owners and labor is against you. Will you argue this point?
Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.
Don't you think the public has a right to know?
Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.