Good piece. Thanks for covering this. The WSJ’s editorial page once was a more coherent forum for conservative points of view, now it is just a less rabid version of Fox. I ended my subscription when Murdoch bought it.
As for Twitter...it has become the more rabid version of Fox.
I agree with you on the WSJ; it sure has egg on its face after the more recent story Pro Publica broke.
Pro Publica is also the repository (with Guidestar ) of all the public tax filings of 501c3 nonprofits. Want to know the budget of the local nonprofit, you can find it here, along with info on its Board, leadership and donors. A very useful resource.
I would like to learn more of your thinking on the Dominion lawsuit. Fox's behavior was disgraceful, but we are certainly crossing a Rubicon if we hold them accountable for defamation. Maybe it's time to do that, but the consequences will be pretty dramatic for journalism in general. I think this is among the biggest news out there right now ( and there is a lot of big news out)
When I was an editor we took responsibility for our reporting. We knew the bar was high for proving libel (that we printed information we knew to be false), but that did not make us any less responsible. We were always trying to get it right. In this case, Fox did know that the information it was reporting was false and that is egregious. If this lawsuit makes journalists - especially TV talking heads - think twice before saying something, it might be worth it.
What do you think about, if Fox loses, that it might open the door to lawsuits against other news outlets, including the little guys, who have less resources to defend? Will there be more (inappropriate) self-censoring to avoid that?
I had dozens and dozens of people threaten to sue the newspaper over the years, but I was confident that our standards guarded us against us. The Fox case is unique because it is obvious they knew they were reporting lies. That makes all of us trying to report the news look bad. I don’t think this will weaken the First Amendment. Perhaps, it might even strengthen it.
I appreciate your thoughts. I agree anyone can sue, but on the flip side, it costs money to defend, even against weak suits. I just feel like mud splatters... just as Fox's lack of standards undermines trust in all journalism, whatever new mechanisms that spring up as a result will increase accountability for all as well. I run a little nonprofit; every time some other (usually much bigger) nonprofit does some bad thing, all of us get the hairy eye. And I always seem to end up with more compliance and paper work thanks to those bad actors. It is what is, but I can't help but feel we might see some unintended consequences from this.
I didn't think about this, but I think you are right.
Though I have to say the reason you are right --- from what I see -- is odd.
That is I see a lot of Republicans defend fox by saying "MSNBC is just as bad."
My thought is MSNBC (or any media that right-wingers have deemed bad) might lean one way, but the reporters and pundits aren't openly admitting they are lying.
I am not sure if, like your non-profit, the burden of proof will increase for media, I am sure republicans don't want it. If it was increased, it would mean that politicians like stefanik would lose their 'liar's megaphone.'
But to the non-profit nothing. I am a volunteer for two organizations. One I had to have a background check...references.. I literally was more scrutinized for this smallish non-profit than any job I had.
The other, I did 20 years ago and started up again this year. The amount of paperwork I have to do now...is not insurmountable, but so much more than it was 20 years ago...
In both cases.. I am sure it is because of what others did
MSNBC hosts can certainly be insulting to Republicans and conservatives - although sometimes they deserve it - but I have never found them to be lying deliberately about the facts.
Dominion is a pretty straightforward case, if you ignore the spin. Fox repeatedly peddled a lie, and did so knowingly and willfully over a long period. Does this constitute "malice," as the law requires? I think so: Dominion's damage was Fox's aim.
This coming from a lefty reporter who cites leftist media and the Poynter Institute. Hmm...
You, lefty that you are, say this about NPR, "I've never found it to be biased in any way." There's goes your credibility. As a less lefty than I used to be, I left NPR years ago because I couldn't stomach how incredibly bias they were/are.
Media trustworthiness is VERY hard to come by these days.
I've only read pieces on this site a few times. Mine are the only comments that challenge the writers. This place is an echo chamber. Disappointing.
Of course I'm not. Don't trust them either - too politicized. Roberts is a disappointment. I've lost my trust in him. 'Seems' is the operative word here. Bring on the investigation!
It's been so long since I listened to NPR, I'll refer you to YouTube Professor Peter Boghossain, his co-host and an ex-NPR reporter -- All Things Re-Considered.
I think you lean left or are liberal, but what is often missed.. what does that mean?
I think NPR is ‘left leaning’ or liberal. But mostly because I believe it is factual.
This is probably wrong on my part because.. I am saying when you are criticizing #pos_tefanik you are being ‘factual’ and the only ones being factual about stiffy are people who are on the left.
Name one right-wing media that admits steffaLIElie is circumventing democracy - Not just fox, newsmax or oan.. any right-leaning? Wall Street Journal for example (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ I guess they are ‘mostly factual’)
I think it is difficult to address the word ‘left’ in the political sense because that is the center has moved so far to the right.
Put this in perspective: #pos_tefanik/mt greene/lauren boebert are now main stream repubican. Even 10 years ago, they would be considered crazy liars, by even the GOP leadership and by the WSJ. And 10 years ago, regardless of where the center was... the facts would be stated as: “a fair election was undermined by #pos_tefanik.”
This discussion falls into that ‘facts have a liberal bias.’ It is ironic, because facts do not have a bias. However, it appears people on the ‘left’ are he only ones using facts.
I ask a friend the other night: “why do you think the stories in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise are so ‘bias’ and bias to the left --- do you have an example.” The response was: “The words they use.”
Again, I asked, can you give m an example. And the response was: “in the articles.”
In the other words -- No they have no examples, but that they don’t like the facts being reported.
You BELIEVE NPR is factual. I haven't for years, believed that.
Did I comment on Stefanik?
I agree completely that Repubs will not criticize her. Even as a left-leaner, I read Repub articles all the time. And give them hell all the time.
Name one left media that will criticize AOC?
I agree labels have moved. As a lefty, mostly, I've moved a little conservative because I support Repubs actions on the woke and transgender crap. The left reports like -- Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill is dishonest. It does not exist. That's a left factual lie. For SURE lefties are not using facts here. There all up in arms about the evil Repubs on those issues. But, the Repubs are NOT lying. If not for those issues I wouldn't have looked elsewhere for the truth. Libs don't have it.
I would ask anyone reading and posting here not to get caught up in the liberal media on this issue. Do some research. Lots of it.
Of course, it is true - it's majorly frustrating is the words BOTH sides use.
I've written all this and I'm not really sure you were addressing me.
LL
You think left has moved to far to the RIGHT?
Green's a problems for sure. Still, I'm careful not to buy into the left's demonization of her.
For SURE lefties are not using f
I'm not a New Yorker. I'm not going to comment on Stefanik. except to say some of her statements are shocking. she is blindly Repub, wouldn't admit the Dems could be right about anything if
You will find in one of my comments, the name of lefty YouTubers who say, with examples, that NPR doesn't merely lean left. They lie.
I guess what you believe is often wrong, but you can believe it HARD and it ll be true (in your mind)
=====
btw, you believing something
and not being able to prove it
not having a source
======
lastly -- you have proved my point in spades. instead of addressing the issue at hand, you through a LOT of 'what-about-ism' in hopes people won't notice you are wrong
“Mine are the only comments that challenge the writers.”
And you “challenge” by calling them lefties and labeling their sources as leftist?
Ad hominem fallacy: “This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”
I used that definition from Texas State College because I figured they couldn’t possibly be lefties.
There are foreigners owning America.. I think we hear #pos_tefanik talking about it all the time
(here is a NPR story, showing not only is it happening, but how amazing stiffy's fake outrage is since they own about 0.9% of of all forign-owned farm land--- https://www.npr.org/2023/03/01/1160297853/china-farmland-purchases-house-hearing-competition ! Of course, if you were one of #pos_tefanik's unedcated rubes and only listened to her.. you would think it was 90%.)
By the way she is really pissed at NPR because of their bias reporting on her (i.e. using facts).
no, I showed you how you are dishonest and have no proof.
No sense going on from there...because after asking you for proof once, then twice.. it is clear you don't have it.. I listed sources for you.. I did make the assumption you would act like the typical right wingo... and you have proved it wasn't an assumption, but a fact. thanks
Issue 1: There are two WSJs -- the newspaper (emphasis on news reporting) and the editorial page, where former conservatives go to join the right wing. Sad, but true for many years.
Issue 2: The recent Justice Thomas story speaks volumes about Thomas, so willing to evade responsibility, and, sadly, about SCOTUS if no others at the Court could see anything wrong with the Harlan Crowe favors. At least, that's Thomas' (self-serving) story.
Thanks, Ken. I am speechless after reading your article about WSJ. Yours is valuable reporting even for those of us who are attempting to keep on top of the issues!
Excellent! We knew that the minute Rupert Murdock acquired the Wall Street Journal that it would no longer be a credible source. I cancelled subscription when he acquired as I no longer had faith in it being objective or fair in its reporting.
Again, a very good analysis of what happens to a supposed objective source when it is owned and operated by the forces of power and greed and money. They all use the exact same language, as does our Stefanik: left leaning, "smearing," "phoney ethics. Facts, evidence, investigative reporting are seen as partisan, as witchhunts, as endangering our democracy....Their lies are the only truth...The same line, the same lie....an impermeable wall of intentional misinformation for political power."
Good piece. Thanks for covering this. The WSJ’s editorial page once was a more coherent forum for conservative points of view, now it is just a less rabid version of Fox. I ended my subscription when Murdoch bought it.
As for Twitter...it has become the more rabid version of Fox.
I agree with you on the WSJ; it sure has egg on its face after the more recent story Pro Publica broke.
Pro Publica is also the repository (with Guidestar ) of all the public tax filings of 501c3 nonprofits. Want to know the budget of the local nonprofit, you can find it here, along with info on its Board, leadership and donors. A very useful resource.
I would like to learn more of your thinking on the Dominion lawsuit. Fox's behavior was disgraceful, but we are certainly crossing a Rubicon if we hold them accountable for defamation. Maybe it's time to do that, but the consequences will be pretty dramatic for journalism in general. I think this is among the biggest news out there right now ( and there is a lot of big news out)
When I was an editor we took responsibility for our reporting. We knew the bar was high for proving libel (that we printed information we knew to be false), but that did not make us any less responsible. We were always trying to get it right. In this case, Fox did know that the information it was reporting was false and that is egregious. If this lawsuit makes journalists - especially TV talking heads - think twice before saying something, it might be worth it.
From what I have read. Not only did the talking heads KNOW they were lying
they lobbied to have the News end of fox lie too..
What do you think about, if Fox loses, that it might open the door to lawsuits against other news outlets, including the little guys, who have less resources to defend? Will there be more (inappropriate) self-censoring to avoid that?
I had dozens and dozens of people threaten to sue the newspaper over the years, but I was confident that our standards guarded us against us. The Fox case is unique because it is obvious they knew they were reporting lies. That makes all of us trying to report the news look bad. I don’t think this will weaken the First Amendment. Perhaps, it might even strengthen it.
Sorry to jump in here.. but anyone can bring a suit, but can they win.
If Dominion loses, (I believe) democracy has lost.
The fact is they have fox news saying under oath, they were lying. The burden of proof in their own words
I appreciate your thoughts. I agree anyone can sue, but on the flip side, it costs money to defend, even against weak suits. I just feel like mud splatters... just as Fox's lack of standards undermines trust in all journalism, whatever new mechanisms that spring up as a result will increase accountability for all as well. I run a little nonprofit; every time some other (usually much bigger) nonprofit does some bad thing, all of us get the hairy eye. And I always seem to end up with more compliance and paper work thanks to those bad actors. It is what is, but I can't help but feel we might see some unintended consequences from this.
I didn't think about this, but I think you are right.
Though I have to say the reason you are right --- from what I see -- is odd.
That is I see a lot of Republicans defend fox by saying "MSNBC is just as bad."
My thought is MSNBC (or any media that right-wingers have deemed bad) might lean one way, but the reporters and pundits aren't openly admitting they are lying.
I am not sure if, like your non-profit, the burden of proof will increase for media, I am sure republicans don't want it. If it was increased, it would mean that politicians like stefanik would lose their 'liar's megaphone.'
But to the non-profit nothing. I am a volunteer for two organizations. One I had to have a background check...references.. I literally was more scrutinized for this smallish non-profit than any job I had.
The other, I did 20 years ago and started up again this year. The amount of paperwork I have to do now...is not insurmountable, but so much more than it was 20 years ago...
In both cases.. I am sure it is because of what others did
I'm smiling. Not at all surprised that your self-righteous virtue signalling would be revealed, lefty.
MSNBC hosts can certainly be insulting to Republicans and conservatives - although sometimes they deserve it - but I have never found them to be lying deliberately about the facts.
Dominion is a pretty straightforward case, if you ignore the spin. Fox repeatedly peddled a lie, and did so knowingly and willfully over a long period. Does this constitute "malice," as the law requires? I think so: Dominion's damage was Fox's aim.
I think you have to add that
not only did text messages show that fox and fox staff were peddling lies
Those same texts show they did it for profit, knowing what it would do to the mindset of their viewers
This coming from a lefty reporter who cites leftist media and the Poynter Institute. Hmm...
You, lefty that you are, say this about NPR, "I've never found it to be biased in any way." There's goes your credibility. As a less lefty than I used to be, I left NPR years ago because I couldn't stomach how incredibly bias they were/are.
Media trustworthiness is VERY hard to come by these days.
I've only read pieces on this site a few times. Mine are the only comments that challenge the writers. This place is an echo chamber. Disappointing.
This i
So you are OK with Supreme Court justices being bribed? That sure seems like what is happening here.
Of course I'm not. Don't trust them either - too politicized. Roberts is a disappointment. I've lost my trust in him. 'Seems' is the operative word here. Bring on the investigation!
here is the thing that always silences someone (usually a radical right-wing person)
how about some proof
Low: Your gotcha question didn't get me.
Proof about what? Question too vague.
Radical right wing?! Ignorant accusation. At least I heard Tingley interviewed.
This coming from a lefty reporter who cites leftist media and the Poynter Institute. Hmm...
done
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/poynter-institute/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
the new mantra -- "it is left-wing"
because that makes it so you ignore that it is highly factual
Also curious about what make me a “left.” I’ve always considered myself more of a moderate.
On NPR, a moderate you are not.
Then what makes them “lefty.” What I hear on the radio and I do not listen every day is good news stories, especially the feature material.
It's been so long since I listened to NPR, I'll refer you to YouTube Professor Peter Boghossain, his co-host and an ex-NPR reporter -- All Things Re-Considered.
I'd be interested in your comments.
This post wins the internet
"It's been so long since I listened to NPR,"
ha ha and now tell us how you are an expert on the content there
crist you can't make this kind of dishonesty up
"left"
I think you lean left or are liberal, but what is often missed.. what does that mean?
I think NPR is ‘left leaning’ or liberal. But mostly because I believe it is factual.
This is probably wrong on my part because.. I am saying when you are criticizing #pos_tefanik you are being ‘factual’ and the only ones being factual about stiffy are people who are on the left.
Name one right-wing media that admits steffaLIElie is circumventing democracy - Not just fox, newsmax or oan.. any right-leaning? Wall Street Journal for example (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ I guess they are ‘mostly factual’)
I think it is difficult to address the word ‘left’ in the political sense because that is the center has moved so far to the right.
Put this in perspective: #pos_tefanik/mt greene/lauren boebert are now main stream repubican. Even 10 years ago, they would be considered crazy liars, by even the GOP leadership and by the WSJ. And 10 years ago, regardless of where the center was... the facts would be stated as: “a fair election was undermined by #pos_tefanik.”
This discussion falls into that ‘facts have a liberal bias.’ It is ironic, because facts do not have a bias. However, it appears people on the ‘left’ are he only ones using facts.
I ask a friend the other night: “why do you think the stories in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise are so ‘bias’ and bias to the left --- do you have an example.” The response was: “The words they use.”
Again, I asked, can you give m an example. And the response was: “in the articles.”
In the other words -- No they have no examples, but that they don’t like the facts being reported.
Confusing post.
I'm not following your factual argument.
You BELIEVE NPR is factual. I haven't for years, believed that.
Did I comment on Stefanik?
I agree completely that Repubs will not criticize her. Even as a left-leaner, I read Repub articles all the time. And give them hell all the time.
Name one left media that will criticize AOC?
I agree labels have moved. As a lefty, mostly, I've moved a little conservative because I support Repubs actions on the woke and transgender crap. The left reports like -- Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill is dishonest. It does not exist. That's a left factual lie. For SURE lefties are not using facts here. There all up in arms about the evil Repubs on those issues. But, the Repubs are NOT lying. If not for those issues I wouldn't have looked elsewhere for the truth. Libs don't have it.
I would ask anyone reading and posting here not to get caught up in the liberal media on this issue. Do some research. Lots of it.
Of course, it is true - it's majorly frustrating is the words BOTH sides use.
I've written all this and I'm not really sure you were addressing me.
LL
You think left has moved to far to the RIGHT?
Green's a problems for sure. Still, I'm careful not to buy into the left's demonization of her.
For SURE lefties are not using f
I'm not a New Yorker. I'm not going to comment on Stefanik. except to say some of her statements are shocking. she is blindly Repub, wouldn't admit the Dems could be right about anything if
You will find in one of my comments, the name of lefty YouTubers who say, with examples, that NPR doesn't merely lean left. They lie.
I don't beleive NPR is factu
so your 'believe' is what facts are
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2023/04/11/aoc-mocks-constitution-texas-judge-abortion-pill-ruling/11634125002/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/
remember, you are easy to show how dishonest you are
+
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Radio Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
I guess what you believe is often wrong, but you can believe it HARD and it ll be true (in your mind)
=====
btw, you believing something
and not being able to prove it
not having a source
======
lastly -- you have proved my point in spades. instead of addressing the issue at hand, you through a LOT of 'what-about-ism' in hopes people won't notice you are wrong
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article259861000.html
feel free to ignore the facts
usually when someone doesn't have facts
they feel it is a 'win' if they ignore the facts and sources that show they are wrong?
“Mine are the only comments that challenge the writers.”
And you “challenge” by calling them lefties and labeling their sources as leftist?
Ad hominem fallacy: “This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.”
I used that definition from Texas State College because I figured they couldn’t possibly be lefties.
There are foreigners owning America.. I think we hear #pos_tefanik talking about it all the time
(here is a NPR story, showing not only is it happening, but how amazing stiffy's fake outrage is since they own about 0.9% of of all forign-owned farm land--- https://www.npr.org/2023/03/01/1160297853/china-farmland-purchases-house-hearing-competition ! Of course, if you were one of #pos_tefanik's unedcated rubes and only listened to her.. you would think it was 90%.)
By the way she is really pissed at NPR because of their bias reporting on her (i.e. using facts).
Guess what she doesn't have a problem with...? Rupert Murdoch media monopoly https://www.forbes.com/profile/rupert-murdoch/?sh=69568a05b1af
---
which makes this column all the more insightful
Done. Love it. That's exactly what lefties do. Silence.
no, I showed you how you are dishonest and have no proof.
No sense going on from there...because after asking you for proof once, then twice.. it is clear you don't have it.. I listed sources for you.. I did make the assumption you would act like the typical right wingo... and you have proved it wasn't an assumption, but a fact. thanks
Remember you accused me of "Ignorant accusation"
Thanks for being that person.
what is simply hilarious about this post, this faux victory dance.
Is you did it in a post that wasn't a response.. I guess you can pat yourself on the back for your clandestine dishonesty. bravo
Wonderful, great superb articles this morning on the WSJ and NPR!!! Keep up the good work of keeping people like me informed! THANK you!
Issue 1: There are two WSJs -- the newspaper (emphasis on news reporting) and the editorial page, where former conservatives go to join the right wing. Sad, but true for many years.
Issue 2: The recent Justice Thomas story speaks volumes about Thomas, so willing to evade responsibility, and, sadly, about SCOTUS if no others at the Court could see anything wrong with the Harlan Crowe favors. At least, that's Thomas' (self-serving) story.
The WSJ has some more explaining to do with the revelations about the Thomas/Crow real estate transactions.
Good for NPR ditching Twitter. There’s less and less reason to be on it everyday. I’d rather comment in a Substack thread.
I seldom get called a leftie 😅 in them, but still that’s pretty mellow compared to the dumpster fire Elon Musk has ignited.
Oh NO!!! I called them lefties. Burn me to the stake.
Still not seeing any challenges to the article here. Sheep.
now we know
What is your definition for 'dishonest troll'?
hint, rhymes with 'sophia' or so so phia
I guess I don’t encounter that many trolls in Substack threads. I forgot the rule about not feeding them. 😖
Thanks, Ken. I am speechless after reading your article about WSJ. Yours is valuable reporting even for those of us who are attempting to keep on top of the issues!
Excellent! We knew that the minute Rupert Murdock acquired the Wall Street Journal that it would no longer be a credible source. I cancelled subscription when he acquired as I no longer had faith in it being objective or fair in its reporting.
Again, a very good analysis of what happens to a supposed objective source when it is owned and operated by the forces of power and greed and money. They all use the exact same language, as does our Stefanik: left leaning, "smearing," "phoney ethics. Facts, evidence, investigative reporting are seen as partisan, as witchhunts, as endangering our democracy....Their lies are the only truth...The same line, the same lie....an impermeable wall of intentional misinformation for political power."
I suspect the WSJ will ignore the story as of it doesn't exist.