• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12618446/ap-clinton-foundation-meeting

Tuesday afternoon, Stephen Braun and Eileen Sullivan of the Associated Press released the results of a review of State Department appointment data that they used to make some striking claims about Hillary Clinton’s schedule as secretary of state.

According to their reporting, Clinton spent a remarkably large share of her time as America’s chief diplomat talking to people who had donated money to the Clinton Foundation. She went out of her way to help these Clinton Foundation donors, and her decision to do so raises important concerns about the ethics of her conduct as secretary and potentially as president. It’s a striking piece of reporting that made immediate waves in my social media feed, as political journalists of all stripes retweeted the story’s headline conclusions.

Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct. In fact, they found so little unethical conduct that an enormous amount of space is taken up by a detailed recounting of the time Clinton tried to help a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Here’s the bottom line: Serving as secretary of state while your husband raises millions of dollars for a charitable foundation that is also a vehicle for your family’s political ambitions really does create a lot of space for potential conflicts of interest. Journalists have, rightly, scrutinized the situation closely. And however many times they take a run at it, they don’t come up with anything more scandalous than the revelation that maybe billionaire philanthropists have an easier time getting the State Department to look into their visa problems than an ordinary person would.

A case study in Clinton Rules reporting

More than a year ago, Jon Allen wrote for Vox about the special "Clinton Rules" that have governed much reporting on Bill and Hillary Clinton over the past 25 years. On the list are the notions that even the most ridiculous charges are worthy of massive investigation, that the Clintons’ bad faith will always be presumed, and that actions that would normally be deemed banal are newsworthy simply because the Clintons are involved.

The blockbuster AP story released Tuesday afternoon fits the model to a T.

Start with this card the AP used to promote the story on social media.....
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/08/...ne-trump-fan-wholl-unhappy-flips-deportation/

““This could be the shortest book tour ever...what he should keep doing is what he’s been doing,” says Ann Coulter, who may be the first person to say that about the Trump campaign since the conventions. But look. As much as people are goofing on her for rolling out a book titled “In Trump We Trust” the very week he’s climbing down on his grand mass-deportation promise, give her credit at least for actually criticizing him for his flip. ......
 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-ca...w-much-good-work-the-clinton-foundation-does/

Trump Campaign Manager Can’t Stop Saying How Much Good Work The Clinton Foundation Does

The latest controversy to envelop former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to do with her family’s charitable Clinton Foundation, and allegations that donations were given to the foundation in exchange for access to Hillary during her tenure at the State Department. One theme that has been emerging on the sidelines of this story, however, is the work that the Clinton Foundation actually does, which is apparently pretty good.

How good? In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign manager was compelled to mention the “good work” that the Clinton Foundation does not once, not twice, but three times during the same interview:....
 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/chic...meeting-top-cop-to-talk-tough-police-tactics/

Chicago Police Say Trump Lied About Meeting ‘Top’ Cop to Talk ‘Tough Police Tactics’

Earlier this week, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump recounted, in great detail, a conversation he says he had with a top police source in Chicago. According to the Chicago Police Department, however, that conversation never happened.

On Monday’s episode of The O’Reilly Factor, Trump explained to host Bill O’Reilly just how quickly a Trump administration could restore law and order by relating a conversation he’d had with a “top police officer”:

I went to a top police officer in Chicago, who is not the police chief, and he—I could see by the way he was dealing with his people, he was a rough, tough guy. They respected him greatly, he said. I said, ‘How do you think you do it?’ He said, ‘Mr. Trump, within one week, we could stop much of this horror show that’s going on.’

On Tuesday, the Chicago Police Department refuted Trump’s account in a statement to the local NBC station:

We’ve discredited this claim months ago,” CPD spokesperson Frank Giancamilli said in a statement. “No one in the senior command at CPD has ever met with Donald Trump or a member of his campaign.”

…”Beyond that, the best way to address crime is through a commitment to community policing and a commitment to stronger laws to keep illegal guns and repeat violent offenders off the street,” Giancamilli added.
 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/sanj...nable-doctor-and-hyperbolic-letter-of-health/

Despite the fact that Donald Trump — and his surrogates — have tried to recently put the focus of emphasis squarely onto Hillary Clinton‘s health, the tactic seems to be backfiring in a disastrous way.

Rather than a full-throated investigation into Clinton’s health woes, the media have begun poking holes into a bizarre letter written in December about Trump’s health instead. The letter — from a Dr. Harold Bornstein of New York — reads as if Trump himself blurted out honorifics about his health and had a quack doctor sign his name to it. The deeper that Trump pushes into Clinton’s health questions, it seems that more and more is coming to light about the strange language contained in Bornstein’s letter.

To investigate further, CNN’s Sanjay Gupta visited New Day to discuss Bornstein and the unusual language of the letter, which at one point refers to laboratory results as, “astonishingly excellent.”

“Interestingly we called that number,” said Gupta about the phone number listed on the letter’s masthead for the College of American Gastroenterology. “They said he was a member, but he hasn’t been a member in over twenty years.”

“There are some things in the letter with regards to his qualifications that are questionable,” he continued.

The letter, dated December 4, 2015, firmly states, “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency,” something Gupta thought was completely off.

“How do you know that? How would you — that’s unknowable! One is part doctor, one part historian. That type is hyperbole is typically never used. Strength and stamina — you know when we measure strength, you can actually measure strength. None of that objective data was in the letter,” said Dr. Gupta.

“Here you have a lot of language, with not a lot of data to back it up,” he continued. “They say he’s on a statin; what’s his cholesterol? You’ve indicated in some way that he has some these types of medicines he taking — for what, exactly? Does he have a risk of heart disease?”

Gupta pointed out that we have no indication about the Republican nominee’s past medical history either, based on Bornstein’s letter or otherwise. “We know he brags about not needing to sleep much [and] he eats fast food.” Though, as Gupta admits, there is no law that stipulates that a candidate running for office must disclose his or her medical records.
 
Ben Carson has now publicly called on Trump to release his medical records on CNN and NBC.

Has he given up on Trump too?
 
http://www.vice.com/read/donald-tru...campaign-money-vgtrn?utm_source=vicetwitterus

Donald Trump Bought a Bunch of His Own Books with $55,000 of Campaign Money

While Donald Trump continues to brand his opponent as the most "crooked" presidential candidate to ever run for office, Federal Election Commission documents show that the GOP nominee used over $55,000 of campaign donations to buy his own book—which is illegal, if the money made it back into his own pocket.

The Daily Beast reports that back in May, the Trump campaign spent that large chunk of change at Barnes & Nobel, buying thousands of copies of his book, Crippled America. While it's not illegal or unheard of for politicians to buy their own books in bulk for gifts, they do need to forgo the royalties to adhere to federal election guidelines.

A spokeswoman from the Trump campaign told the Beast the books were bought for the Republican National Convention, and delegates did received a copy of the book in their Trumped-out swag bags.

This isn't the first instance of speculation into how Trump's campaign funds are being used to pad his business empire. The campaign office's rent at Trump Towers has reportedly been steadily increasing since the mogul won the nomination and secured fundraising from the RNC—from $35,458 a month when he was self-financing, to $169,758 in July. Trump also likes to hold press conferences and campaign events at his various golf courses or hotels around the country.

Both the Trump campaign and the book's publisher, Simon & Schuster, have declined to comment on whether or not the Republican nominee received the royalties from the $55,000 purchase.
 
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12552602/breitbart-trump-explained

It’s hard to grapple with where the conservative movement is today without understanding Breitbart.com. The publication has long had a huge audience, but its larger influence became clear last week after Donald Trump appointed Breitbart’s longtime chair, Steve Bannon, to be his campaign’s CEO.

Breitbart is now the in-house publication of the Republican nominee for president in all but name. What it publishes explains a great deal of Trump’s appeal — and is helping to define what “Trumpism” means.

So what is Breitbart’s oeuvre? Well, it’s the kind of site that has an entire category of articles called “black crime.” It once reported a photo of an old Adidas shirt as evidence that Islamist terrorists are sneaking across the Mexican border. It has referred to conservative writer Bill Kristol as a “renegade Jew.” This is the norm, not the exception: One of Breitbart’s key distinguishing features today is lurid, fearmongering coverage of minority groups, particularly African Americans and Muslims.

On one level, the significance of a publication like Breitbart taking over the GOP is obvious: The Trump campaign is, to an unprecedented degree, openly catering to racists and xenophobes.

But the real story here is a great deal more subtle. Breitbart’s ascendancy isn’t an accident. It’s a microcosm of the broader story of conservative institutions. The story of Breitbart is the story of the traditional conservative movement being defeated by a force, a kind of white populist nationalism, that it had previously depended on.

Understanding Breitbart, then, isn’t just important for understanding Trump and his presidential campaign; it also helps us understand the rot eating away at the foundations of American conservatism.......


.....In addition to his live-hard lifestyle, he differed from normal conservatives in another respect: He never really cared that much about policy. While other conservative writers defined themselves by issues like fighting abortion or the Iraq War or battling health care reform, Breitbart saw the important battles as taking place outside of Washington.

“It's like when people are like, 'What do you think we should do on health care?' I don't ****ing have a clue. It's too complicated for me,” he told Slate’s Christopher Beam in 2010. "I'm trying to shift the focus of conservative movement from the narrow — the policy — to a much higher elevation, granting them a greater perspective."

Breitbart saw the enemy as something that he called “cultural Marxism” (importantly distinct from the actual approach to cultural studies inspired by Marx).

Breitbart believed that in the mid-20th century, a series of European intellectuals immigrated to America and developed a plot to destroy it. According to Breitbart, these intellectuals — mostly Frankfurt School thinkers like Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer — saw America’s “Judeo-Christian heritage” as the key peg underpinning American capitalism.

“In the 1940s, the left came in and said, ‘America is not susceptible to the argument that its economic system, capitalism, is wrong,’” Breitbart said in a 2011 lecture. “These social engineering ingrates — ingrates! — who came from the University of Frankfurt ... they were the ones that devised that America’s capitalism could not survive an assault on its checks and balances, and that was its Judeo-Christianity.”

Breitbart believed, very firmly, that today’s left was executing on this plot — that the mainstream media, the academy, and Hollywood were all leftist-dominated institutions working to transform American society to lay the groundwork for a Marxist revolution. Their weapons, he says, are “political correctness [and] multiculturalism.” Breitbart’s mission was to fight back, to liberate culture from leftist political correctness......

.....All journalists make mistakes, even egregious ones, from time to time. But Breitbart’s errors were repeated and endemic. They were the logical result of its core editorial commitment to journalism as more of a culture war than the reporting of facts. The goal, for Breitbart, wasn’t accuracy first; it was victory over cultural Marxism......

.....This appeal came from a disconnect between the Republican elite and its voters. Republican leaders were more motivated by conservative dogma on the economy and foreign policy. They thought cultural grievances about issues like immigration were sideshows, and they appealed to those sentiments while really pushing on the issues that mattered to them.

Breitbart was consciously founded on the idea that those leaders were wrong, that Republican voters really cared about the culture war, and that conservative ideology was the discardable bit. The site’s growing influence on the right proved its vision right, making it impossible for the conservative mainstream to purge it even if they wanted to.

The mainstream conservative movement has mostly been in denial on this point.....
 
Last edited:
Vox definitely has a left bias, but they have substantial articles. And that article isn't even a critique really - just an explanation and you'd likely agree with all of it, Johnny.

As for Mediaite it has every bias you can think of, both ways.
 
Vox and Vice are both decidedly left-leaning, but they both provide the type of cutting edge investigative journalism that is decidedly lacking in virtually every mainstream news source nowadays.

They've always been staple in my list of news information sites the past few years.
 
There is no unbiased media left, the reader needs to be able to look past the obvious slant and disseminate facts.
 
Vox and Vice are both decidedly left-leaning, but they both provide the type of cutting edge investigative journalism that is decidedly lacking in virtually every mainstream news source nowadays.

They've always been staple in my list of news information sites the past few years.

+1

I can live with a slant when it's legitimate investigative journalism and not just opinion pieces by partisan muppets.
 
Back
Top