It's not just that, but the media's Russia narrative, despite two years of investigations and coming up dry is looking worse than the far right constantly harping on Clinton's emails. Every week it seems there is a new bombshell that turns out to come up empty because there isn't any evidence.

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-w...

If there is collusion with Russia, at least wait until there is proof of it before running with the story as if there were. I just roll my eyes now. Maybe focus on some of the other things Trump is doing, goodness knows, there is enough. All the media is doing by constantly doing this is seem like they're constantly crying wolf and supporting the narrative on Trump's side that the media is simply out to get him because of their bias.

The idea that the investigation is coming up dry, or that there's no evidence, seems like willful ignorance.

34 people have been indicted, including the president's campaign chairman (Paul Manafort), campaign manager (Rick Gates), lawyer (Michael Cohen), and national security advisor (Michael Flynn). Just today Roger Stone was indicted. Many of these people have pled guilty.

Indicted, yes, but for things unrelated to collusion with Russia. They've been going after them for other things, because they can't produce evidence of the Russian collusion, just a lot of unethical stuff.

Roger Stone was indicted because he tried to dig up the "emails" and for witness tampering. That's unethical/illegal but not collusion with Russia.

"They found no Russian collusion or they would have charged him with it," Smith said. Jay Sekulow, an attorney for the President, told CNN in a statement: "The indictment today does not allege Russian collusion by Roger Stone or anyone else. Rather, the indictment focuses on alleged false statements Mr. Stone made to Congress."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/25/politics/roger-stone-arrested...

The media insinuates it has to do with Russia, and thus you believe it does and there is something to all this talk of Russia, which is disingenuous, because none of the charges have anything to do with that. This is almost like a media backed conspiracy theory. The willful ignorance isn't on my side. I at least read the article.

The Buzzfeed News article was debunked and denied by Mueller himself, its part of the Intercept article I linked and what prompted it. The fact you still believe that proves the point.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/18/politics/mueller-statement-bu...

Again, they run the headlines at the top, then issue the retractions quietly, and nothing happens. Public opinion is changed, but no one goes to jail (for collusion) because they so far, don't actually have anything.

Democrats were running a false flag operation during the last election to make it look like Russian bots were supporting Moore so they can say, "Hey look, the Russians want you to vote for this guy" and the media reported on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/19/us/alabama-senate-roy-jon...

All I'm saying is, the next bombshell you hear about Russians, wait a month and see if anything happens with it, otherwise, you're just being manipulated. Stick to what Trump is actually doing that's bad.

There hasn't been a time when the media haven't been biased and often knowingly dishonest.

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinoviev_letter

...Which was 95 years ago.

The difference now that is the rhetoric is often more obviously slanted and more likely to be nakedly inflammatory.

The 50s/60s/70s had more of a tradition of restrained debate. But the politeness was always superficial. Politics was at least as murderous and corrupt as it is now. But the more measured tone, and the superficial respect for critique and analysis, made it appear more civilised.

Now the tone is more likely to be extreme, which creates the illusion that obviously manipulative "fake news" is more the rule than the exception - and that this is historically different, when in fact it isn't at all.

> The difference now that is the rhetoric is often more obviously slanted and more likely to be nakedly inflammatory.

Nah. The difference is that fact-checking and reading multiple sources is way easier these days.

Yup. It was arguably even worse before. Pulitzer himself ran fake news about the Spanish in Cuba as propaganda to support the Spanish-American War:

    By the time [Joseph Pulitzer] actually composed his thoughts for the North American Review, his bed chart included rheumatism, dyspepsia, catarrh and a bad case of shame for the Spanish atrocities in Cuba deliberately invented by his reporters to goose the circulation of his newspapers. - Michael Lewis (1)

It was a part of the news culture of the time, too. It wasn't just restricted to Pulitzer. (2)

[1] Michael Lewis, "J School Confidential", 1993 [2] David R. Spencer, "The Yellow Journalism", 2007

> There hasn't been a time when the media haven't been biased and often knowingly dishonest.

Perhaps, but surely the media used to be less biased, and it’s worth striving to get back to that place.

When?

In my lifetime less the last decade. For instance, during the Iraq war, it wasn't uncommon for NYT or other publications to take a moderate right-wing perspective. Now that's virtually unheard of outside of the opinion section, and even there it's only token "conservatives" (quotes because "conservative" means a lot of different things to different people in the era of Trump).

That was a bizarre article they do mention these people spout out terrible insults and threats and are categorized as a hate group but it turns around and excuses that because it's well, Trump's fault of course, and it's not all that bad because they see it as "preaching".

How do you consider this flattering?

"If their interaction with the Catholic students seemed like an expression of bigotry toward white people, some of their most vile language is reserved for black people in the communities where they preach."

"The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, categorized at least 80 groups nationwide that follow Hebrew Israelite theology as hate groups."

Would you rather that NY Times not report on confrontations like this?

That article describes their hateful rants as 'street sermons.' To describe this activity (https://youtu.be/Eg3OihbIaig?t=167) as 'street sermons' is flattering.

This is a group on par with the Westboro Baptist Church, possibly worse. That NYTs article tries to play it neutral, and that is itself a form of bias when you're talking about a group like this. If the NYTs finished off an article about the WBC with a quote from somebody willing to call the WBC a "harmless part of our community," I think you'd see people accusing the NYTs article of being overly sympathetic in that hypothetical too.

(If you think this group is harmless, just look at the comment section of that video and see what kind of people are praising and adoring the Black Hebrews.)

> How do you consider this flattering?

Because it went on after that to blame Trump for it. "We live in these dangerous times so expect people to do more of this, don't blame them...". Then something to the effect of "let's not judge too much their verbal assaults as it's just their preaching style".

I think that's the kind of spin people complain about and call NYT "Fake News". They narrate a story based on an agenda. Try doing a mental experiment and switch sides. Imagine it was the kids with the red hats yelling things these people were yelling at passers by. Take your pick between homophobic rants, c*unt, the n-word etc, and then imagine NYT covering it and saying. "This is a hate group however these are dangerous times we live in and it's just a way for these groups to express their frustration. They use an unorthodox style, and the community doesn't mind it too much, there are far worse things to worry about".

Would you call that a "flattering" report of red hat wearing teenagers? Yeah, I would too. That's the point I think the OP was making here.

straight up, you don't know how to read.

>But what Mr. Yasharahla might view as great, others call something else: hate. >But Ms. Beirich said that groups like Hebrew Israelites were also anti-gay, anti-white and anti-Semitic.