" />

The Moderate Voice

An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right


You are here: Home / Media / This is why liberals are mad as hell at the press

This is why liberals are mad as hell at the press

by Leave a Comment

Three quick examples illustrate why news media — are digging their own graves with false equivalence and contorted (non-contextual) soundbites.

1. “If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president”

If you heard or read anything about Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, I’m certain that snippet was part of your news diet.

Here’s the quote in context (transcript):

But as Nate Silver — who doesn’t work for me, he’s an independent analyst, but one considered to be very reliable — has concluded, you know, if the election had been on October 27th, I’d be your president. And it wasn’t.

 

But wait? She blamed everyone else and didn’t take any responsibility for the loss, right? Right??

Wrong there, too.

AMANPOUR Q: Do you take any personal responsibility?

CLINTON A: Oh, of course. I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate. I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of, you know, the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had. Again, I will write all this out for you. But I will say this — I’ve been in a lot of campaigns and I’m very proud of the campaign we ran. And I’m very proud of the staff and the volunteers and the people who are out there day after day (emphasis added).

 

 

Funny, who quoted her accurately on Twitter?

https://twitter.com/CharlotteAlter/status/859464247201366018

And

 

Tweets in infamy:

 

Tweets with thought:

  • Charlotte Alter, Time
  • Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post

 

Clinton blame headlines

 

2. NYTimes social media editor calls out “both sides” for fibbing on pre-existing conditions

The online story headline exercises no judgment, an example of Jay Rosen’s view from nowhere: Pre-Existing Conditions: Evaluating Competing Claims

The score:
GOP: one false, one misleading
Democrats: two misleading

But wait. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wasn’t misleading at all.

The reporter claims Pelosi said one thing; quotes Pelosi saying something else; and then closes with a rebuttal that is what Pelosi actually said. No screenwriter would pen this, and no director would green light it.

NYT pelosi mis-quoted

And the other Democratic statement, from Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (NJ), is found misleading because “his figure highlights the most drastic findings.”

The paper could have been reporting news. Like this:

What’s the budget of the Consumer Reports newsroom?

 
Or this:

 

Oh! The NYT didn’t touch this one, either. Too laughable?

 

Tweets with thought:

  • Tobias Buckell, SF/F author
  • Chris Hayes, MSNBC
  • Matt Fuller, HuffPo

 

3. Clinton, again

Just read it. And you have to read it because it takes 10 times (or more) as many words to punch a lie in the face as it took to utter the lie.

And who twisted what Clinton said into a lie? Yup, a bunch of white guys.

Tweets in infamy:

  • Philip Elliott, Time (~40 yo)
  • Zach Wolf, CNN (~38 yo)
  • Clinton Soffer, National Republican Senatorial Committee (~30 yo)

 

Got mommy issues, boyz?

See, that’s what happens when you resort to snark. It’s like yawns, only not so benign. People snark back at ya, and the discourse heads into a never-ending spiral of pettiness.

Some – a handful – news media leaders are performing post mortems on 2016.

But most are not.

Instead, they — and the “journalists” who work for them — continue to try to one-up one another on Twitter and create on-air zingers for eyeballs and clicks.

It’s a recipe for a disaster: for both their business-model and our civic health.