Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 11, 2020

The Democrats are such a mess at the start of their presidential primaries, experts say it's hard to find anyone offering the beleaguered political party safe harbor, even in its friendliest media ports. The New York Times declared that the Iowa Caucuses were an "epic fiasco for Democrats" that "demoralized" the party. In a separate piece, Times columnist David Leonhardt admitted it was a "rough week for Democrats" when Trump was acquitted on the heels of the Iowa debacle. Recent headlines published by the Washington Post opinion section include "Democrats might be undecided for a long time," "Biden is the most electable candidate, just not right here or right now," "Enough of the quadrennial bed-wetting, Democrats," "There are two Joe Bidens, the wrong one is running for president" and "No, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are not centrists.'"

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The bottom has fallen out ... tough week hey Libbies?

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

So you implicitly seem to be admitting that the so-called MSM reports accurately.

Thanks for that admission. ;)

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-11 10:48 PM | Reply

But to your point, yeah, I am still waiting (probably fruitlessly) for the Democrats to realize that eventually they will need to run a campaign to win the Oval Office.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-11 10:51 PM | Reply

#1

That would be not quite, if you had actually read the article you would have seen this:

"DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall said the function of journalism is to "provide news consumers with a picture of reality" but the current reality is loaded with various issues related to the stumbling Democratic Party.

"It would seem that some of the historically left-leaning mainstream media outlets have become more aggressive recently in their coverage of Democratic Party troubles. This has to be done for these media outlets to maintain any sense of credibility," McCall told Fox News. "The news coverage just has to reflect the real struggles associated with the Iowa caucus counts, the relatively low debate ratings, confusion on debate rules, Biden's lackluster campaign, and so on."

McCall said the aggressive posture on mainstream reporting of Democrat challenges "isn't a reflection of an ideological shift," but "rather just a reflection that they have no choice but to report what even casual news observers can see with their own eyes."

The Hill media reporter Joe Concha told Fox News that the current landscape is like 2016 all over again because liberal outlets didn't make necessary changes.

"Perhaps the New York Times -- which hasn't endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since 1956, and the Washington Post -- which has never endorsed a Republican presidential candidate ever -- would have seen this coming if they actually had a few more columnists supportive of the president in their opinion sections... and a few more reporters who share less of their feelings and more of the facts on the ground from places outside of Washington, D.C.," Concha said."

#3 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2020-02-11 11:10 PM | Reply

@#3 ... That would be not quite, if you had actually read the article you would have seen this: ...

I did read the article, and my comment stands.

Of course, I consider the Washington Examiner to be MSM, as is FoxNews, etc.

So I guess i have to wonder why the acronym MSM is used. Does it really mean, "a news sources that I don't like because it reports things I disagree with"?

Or does it mean "the news sources that have a large audience" as indicated by the "main stream" portion of the moniker.

If the former (which seems to be the way MSM is usually used), then FoxNews channel (with its high ratings) blows that out of the water.

So basically, I am saying that MSM has become a label used to denigrate things you do not like, and little else. Similar to the "fake news" appellation.

Now when I see anything talking about MSM, I look at it as the commenters talking more about labels than anything resembling reality.



#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-02-11 11:46 PM | Reply

I saw a statistic cited from a heavily biased site called NewsBusters that impeachment coverage was 100% negative for Trump. Now, I'm guessing they didn't include Fox News or the WSJ opinion pages because that number seems impossible. Nevertheless, the Democrat primary has been a dumpster fire so far in every way imaginable. But even here, notice the tone - these people are apoplectic. Their team should be in a strong position and they are performing horribly. Switch the parties and these same media figures would be filled with glee. I see them as hard-core college football fans - they root HARD for their team but do see, and grouse about, major flaws when they are so manifestly obvious that even a casual observer can't help but notice.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-02-12 07:16 AM | Reply

Mattress proves everyday he overdoses on Fox News.
Fascist POS.

#6 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2020-02-12 07:22 AM | Reply

"So you implicitly seem to be admitting that the so-called MSM reports accurately."

Accurately? I'm flagging this post for overstatement. Chris Matthews said that Bernie would be the guy to execute him in central park. Chuck Todd calls Sanders supporters Brown shirts. Iowa reporting on NPR focuses on state delegate equivalents when they have no bearing on the number of delegates sent to the national convention.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-02-12 09:47 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort