Hot Cup of MSM Bias Anyone? - CNN Host Using Left-Wing Blog as Source To Debate Her Guest?

So yeah, I'm not really surprised, and I know Faux News is right-leaning, but this is pretty bad.

She's supposed to be doing an interview to get a different voice on the pick of Ryan for VP candidate. Instead, she tries to inject her own political bias ... and doesn't even hide her sources?

While filling in for Anderson Cooper, O'Brien was actually caught on screen looking at an article from the left-wing website Talking Points Memo to assist her in a heated debate with Romney campaign senior adviser Barbara Comstock Read more: newsbusters.org...

News Busters

Um... opinion shows and "op-ed" have no place on the "news". Isn't the number one rule of journalism to report the news, not make the news?

Honestly - this is why people NEED to read ATS and other alternative media... Most of this site is a bunch of crazy, but there is real news here that the MSM twists and/or ignores.

If it wont sell ratings, or fit their preconceived political agenda, it must not be "newsworthy"...

And we wonder why the fringe think they're mainstream. When the fringe the one controlling the damn TV channels... the fringe get the impression they're in the majority.

reply to post by gncnew


Did you even watch the interview from your source?

She had a bunch of papers, one of which was from TPM. Who knows where the others were from.

And the tag line from your source.

EXPOSING & COMBATING LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

Not exactly an unbiased source is it?

Originally posted by BritofTexas
reply to post by gncnew

 

Did you even watch the interview from your source?

She had a bunch of papers, one of which was from TPM. Who knows where the others were from.

And the tag line from your source.

EXPOSING & COMBATING LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS

Not exactly an unbiased source is it?

Hmm.. attacking the source of information does not in any way actually address the point. And yes, I did watch the interview. Did you happen to read at the bottom where they showed how she QUOTED the blog?

My goodness. Does it really matter if she's a biased hack for your side or not? You should have a problem with her being a biased hack.

Faux News does this all the time as well - News Busters is a great site for seeing lies in the media. Just because they focus on liberals doesn't make them untruthful OR wrong.

Originally posted by gncnew

Hmm.. attacking the source of information does not in any way actually address the point. And yes, I did watch the interview.

If the point is media bias, the source of information is the point.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by gncnew

Hmm.. attacking the source of information does not in any way actually address the point. And yes, I did watch the interview.

If the point is media bias, the source of information is the point.

Hmmm.. Ok, so an internet source that establishes their bias in their mission statement versus a "news" channel that purports to be "objective"... oh yes, I see you point

/sarcasm.

Originally posted by gncnew

Hmmm.. Ok, so an internet source that establishes their bias in their mission statement versus a "news" channel that purports to be "objective"... oh yes, I see you point

/sarcasm.

So, Soledad O'Brien (whom I'd never heard of until this post) uses a left wing blog as part of her research.

She then gives the interviewee chance to respond.

Unlike your source, that does a Hatchet Job piece on her with no way for her to respond.

Is it just the fact she did some research that offends you? Should she have just quoted the rabid right talking heads? Should she have not let the interviewee respond?

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by gncnew

Hmmm.. Ok, so an internet source that establishes their bias in their mission statement versus a "news" channel that purports to be "objective"... oh yes, I see you point

/sarcasm.

So, Soledad O'Brien (whom I'd never heard of until this post) uses a left wing blog as part of her research.

She then gives the interviewee chance to respond.

Unlike your source, that does a Hatchet Job piece on her with no way for her to respond.

Is it just the fact she did some research that offends you? Should she have just quoted the rabid right talking heads? Should she have not let the interviewee respond?

In an "Interview" you pretty much have to let them "respond"... but when you're just nothing something you see on a website - how are they supposed to let her respond?

You're trying to compare apples and oranges, and then worse, you're trying to discredit the story based on the source it's coming from.

Note - I'm not saying what she said was "inaccurate" or untrue, just noting the source. You're trying to discredit the validity of what they said based upon who they are...

Very very different.

reply to post by gncnew

Hmm.. attacking the source of information does not in any way actually address the point.

Isn't that the main premise of your thread...you are attacking the CNN Host's source???

How about you address the content of the source they were using and prove that it is somehow false...because what she used was a direct quote from a politictian that was first reported on that "blog"....nothing else.

So you, and Newsbusters, want to ignore the content which exposed the Romney spokesperson as trying to put forth false information, and attack the source.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Missing the point. A "neutral" news source is reading Democratic talking points like cue cards.

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Missing the point. A "neutral" news source is reading Democratic talking points like cue cards.

What talking point was she reading like a cue card???

She was reading a quote from Ron Wyden...this is the "talking point" she read.

“I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.’ I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare. Several months after the paper came out I spoke and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. Governor Romney needs to learn you don’t protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won’t help promote real bipartisanship.”

It is a statement from the person that the Romney campaign is saying helped Ryan write the legislation...which is a lie.

So why are you more concerned about CNN reading a direct statement to set the facts straight and not about the Romney spokesperson lying about it???

reply to post by gncnew


She's a leftist. To her, she probably thought giving the person a chance to respond to a liberal blog WAS unbiased.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by gncnew

 

She's a leftist. To her, she probably thought giving the person a chance to respond to a liberal blog WAS unbiased.

A direct statement from a US Senator is pretty unbiased...wouldn't you say so???


The Romney campaign was caught in a lie...plain and simple...the quote was reported in many different places...does it matter which source she used when they all have the same statement???

Does one source make it bias and another make it unbiased...even if it is the exact same statement???

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Oh puh-leeze!

Sources are torn apart here on a daily basis and you have the temerity to validate an opinion piece as a valid sourse?

psst, OutKast, your bias is showing.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by gncnew

 

Hmm.. attacking the source of information does not in any way actually address the point.

Isn't that the main premise of your thread...you are attacking the CNN Host's source???

How about you address the content of the source they were using and prove that it is somehow false...because what she used was a direct quote from a politictian that was first reported on that "blog"....nothing else.

So you, and Newsbusters, want to ignore the content which exposed the Romney spokesperson as trying to put forth false information, and attack the source.

Ok, I know this is hard, I get it... especially because it directly disagrees with your political views.. BUT.

The point of the thread was that CNN, a supposed "objective" news reporting outlet - is using very biased references to "report" the news.

The "source" that this story came from does NOT pretend to be objective, and all they did was NOTE that it was clearly visible - on air - that she was reading and referencing a very left wing blog.

The "non-objective" source (NB) wasn't pretending to also be objective, they were noting that CNN - a party that does pretend to be objective - is obviously not trying very hard to remain objective, if their sources are far left-wing blogs.

Does this make sense?

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Missing the point. A "neutral" news source is reading Democratic talking points like cue cards.

Hmm, I need to take a cue from you - much more succinct, many less words.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by gncnew

 

She's a leftist. To her, she probably thought giving the person a chance to respond to a liberal blog WAS unbiased.

A direct statement from a US Senator is pretty unbiased...wouldn't you say so???


The Romney campaign was caught in a lie...plain and simple...the quote was reported in many different places...does it matter which source she used when they all have the same statement???

Does one source make it bias and another make it unbiased...even if it is the exact same statement???

Did you watch the whole interview? The "Direct Quote" was what NB used in conjunction WITH the screenshot to corroborate what her "source" was.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but she looked down more than a few times at her "source".

BTW: Corroboration is what most news outlets use to verify their stories before they report them... unlike CNN

This just in. Please do not have any liquid in your mouth when you read this quote as you may choke or end up having it come out your nose:

Soledad O'Brien "I don't think I show bias in my TV show." "Am I a liberal or conservative? I'm neither."

CNN's Soledad O'Brien Responds to Critics Who Claim She's Biased"

Oh yeah right, she just needed the left wing talking points printed out so she could read a quote. LOL! She couldn't get that same quote from anywhere else eh? Had to be a liberal talking point source?

I'm amazed this thread is still going.

Let me explain how research works.

The team of researchers look at every source they can find, left wing and right wing sources, to find questions, comments and anything else they need to prepare for an interview.

One piece of paper was from a left wing source. Where were the rest from? Who knows, one may have even been from Fox News.

The Right wing propaganda machine is really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.

Unfortunately the following website does not exist.

nicequestionstoasktheromneycampaign.com

Originally posted by BritofTexas
I'm amazed this thread is still going.

Let me explain how research works.

The team of researchers look at every source they can find, left wing and right wing sources, to find questions, comments and anything else they need to prepare for an interview.

One piece of paper was from a left wing source. Where were the rest from? Who knows, one may have even been from Fox News.

The Right wing propaganda machine is really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one.

Unfortunately the following website does not exist.

nicequestionstoasktheromneycampaign.com

If a member of ATS created a thread and used a blog as a souce, (s)he would be vilified. It happens all the time. Hell, just look at peoples reactions to sources like FOX, or MSNBC or Sorcha Fall.

The story may have merit, the issues may be valid, but blogs are peoples OPINIONS on the stories. Not unbiased reports stating facts.

Originally posted by beezzer

If a member of ATS created a thread and used a blog as a souce, (s)he would be vilified. It happens all the time. Hell, just look at peoples reactions to sources like FOX, or MSNBC or Sorcha Fall.

The story may have merit, the issues may be valid, but blogs are peoples OPINIONS on the stories. Not unbiased reports stating facts.

If she was using a left wing blog as 'evidence' then I would agree.

However it was one sheet of many that she had in her hand. Surely the Blogosphere on both sides of the fence should be used to find what people are talking about when researching an interview. We have no way of knowing where the other sheets of paper were from.

Who knows she may even have had notes on Spatulas and Kittens.