Sharyl Attkisson Exiting CBS News

Schottey · Mar 14, 2014

Journalists leaves newsroom complaining about bias while bemoaning the fact she didn't get to continue covering the pet news stories of the right wing. Meanwhile, she had been discredited about:

Obamacare: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/11/13/another-cbs-news-story-comes-under-attack/
"New Solyndras":http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/01/13/cbs-runs-error-ridden-report-on-new-solyndras/186583
Benghazi: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/27/the-benghazi-report-darrell-issa-would-rather-y/196119

(N.B. I'm sure some will "consider the source" on all of those links, especially the last two, cause—you know—bias only runs one way.)

She also accepted an award form CPAC for "accuracy in media" along with Dana Loesch—a right-wing media flack for Andrew Breitbart's "Big Journalism" and commentator for Glenn Beck's "The Blaze." Because, nothing says unbiased like going into a room full of people with one single viewpoint and telling them all their viewpoint is the correct one, because they've told you yours is too!

TLDR: Attkisson will be working at FOX News very soon where she will be very happy.

Joe Williams · Mar 14, 2014

Schottey said:

Because, nothing says unbiased like going into a room full of people with one single viewpoint and telling them all their viewpoint is the correct one, because they've told you yours is too!
Click to expand...

You're right! ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and the Washington Post have been working that forever. Somewhere north of 80 percent of professional journalists in big-time newsrooms vote for Democrats. That's really lousy diversity-hiring.

Media Matters, eh? You drink Kool-Aid when you visit that site?

Still waiting for defenders of mainstream media to explain the disparity in aggressiveness and difference in tone in coverage of WH administrations right vs. left, red vs. blue. This is their team that's at the wheel now, and it shows to an embarrassing degree.

Why haven't the big boys tugged at a thread like this one, a bald-faced conflict of interest that serves as backdrop to the Attkisson saga:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/03/10/sharyl-attkisson-resigned-cbs

Back in May, Breitbart News reported that the President of CBS News, David Rhodes, is the brother of President Obama's National Security advisor, Ben Rhodes. According to ABC News, Brother Ben was very much involved in the Benghazi scandal, specifically the infamous talking points that -- with the help of the mainstream media -- misled the nation for weeks in the heat of Obama's 2012 re-election campaign.

Just ask the freakin' questions, lap dogs. Do. Your. Jobs.

PCLoadLetter · Mar 14, 2014

They're biased. Breitbart says so.

Schottey · Mar 15, 2014

Joe Williams said:

Media Matters, eh? You drink Kool-Aid when you visit that site?
Click to expand...

My entire point was that your Kool-Aid is just another color and that Attkisson shares your love for it.

MisterCreosote · Mar 15, 2014

Joe Williams said:

We have not heard from victims' families. We have not had full accounting from Leon Panetta as for what he told Obama. The orders to stand down still are in dispute. Suspicions as to the underlying facts about the Benghazi outpost and its use by CIA have not been quelled. The Susan Rice Sunday-morning fable tour of the networks remains unexplained and unjustified, as do comments at the funeral ceremony by Ms. Clinton to victims' families. Obama's grab at the word "terror" as evidence that he defined the attack all along as an "act of terrorism" is as dishonest as Mr. Clinton's old toying with the meaning of "is."

There was outrageous CYA behavior going on the night of the attack and in its aftermath that has not been properly explained. The perpetrators who were going to be stalked to the ends of the Earth remain at large.

And PolitiFact.com ought to give itself a Mostly False for its very use of the word "fact" in its name. That site has been discredited for its bias here ( http://www.politifactbias.com/ ) and elsewhere.

So there clearly are things that need further unbiased, aggressive reporting. Your other "Tell me" demands are unknowns as long as that work does not get done. Your not wanting to know and your disliking those who might seek further information is about as far from anything related to journalism as one can get.

If that's the level of inquisitiveness you would have regardless of which party was in the WH, you're too big a lap dog to be much of a newsperson. If it's not, then you're too dishonest to be much of a newsperson.

When it comes to government, "leaders" and other glorified civil servants impacting our daily lives, I want all sides' feet held to the fire 24/7. It's the only reason the media have a collective seat at the table. Otherwise, cheerleaders & hecklers alternately.
Click to expand...

First, sorry for the off-topic shot at you. It was a dick thing for me to do.

On to business:

I'm guessing there's a reason that this summation and the DOZENS of links disproving your assertion contained therein don't count or are evidence of further liberal bias, but here goes (mostly focused on the New York Times, the target of most of the Fox News Screechosphere attacks):

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/whopper-of-the-year-the-mainstream-media-ignored-benghazi/278351/

To sum up, in the 38 days following the attack, "BENGHAZI!!!!" had an A1 presence in the NYT on 18 of those days. Since then, the topic has amassed 27 PAGES of coverage on the NYT website.

The piece also notes CNN and reporter Arwa Damon were recognized for their excellence in reporting the story, including breaking this little nugget: "Damon's stories refuted reports that the attack on the consulate was part of larger anti-American demonstrations throughout the Middle East. Damon's courageous reporting showed it appeared to be a planned attack that came after U.S. diplomats had been warned days before by Libyan officials about the deteriorating security there."

Lastly, just because you don't like the answers given doesn't mean the questions were never asked. In fact, most of the conservative screechosphere thinks that anything short of 24/7 coverage eviscerating Obama and his administration is evidence of liberal bias and coverup. As if everyone in the world is wrong and ONLY Fox News and its viewers are right.

1.Effective media criticism must be specific and accurate. As noted, I have no doubt that there are any number of problems with "MSM" coverage of Benghazi. But a refusal to take the story seriously isn't one of them. The notion that the story has been ignored is fantastical and discrediting. The notion that the entire "MSM" is engaged in a cover-up is idiotic. And when your overall media narrative is wrong, your media criticism is going to suffer. Insofar as people like me tuned out the story, it is largely because so much of the conservative commentary was implausible, right from the first time that Mitt Romney accused his opponent of sympathizing with the terrorists.

2.For all its faults, "the MSM" has orders of magnitude more reporting resources and reportorial talent than the conservative media, even acknowledging the many talented journalists at conservative outlets, who are simply outnumbered. Little surprise that "the MSM" has contributed far more to our understanding of Benghazi than conservative outlets, especially the ones that only do commentary -- which isn't to say there haven't been conservative contributions.

3.Generally respectable outlets and reporters in "the MSM" and the conservative media have made mistakes on the Benghazi story. Various conservative pundits have butchered it embarrassingly.
Click to expand...

MisterCreosote · Mar 15, 2014

Just to add one thing about the CIA issue: Joe, if memory serves, I've seen you post that you served in the military. If that's the case, you would know that classified information isn't automatically declassified just because the media reports it. Unless it is officially declassified, people are under strict orders to treat it as any other classified information regardless of public leaks.

Finally, if we're going to spend 18-plus months dissecting every politician's lie, we're not going to have time to do anything else.

old_tony · Mar 19, 2014

MisterCreosote said:

This was published 10 months ago, about eight months after "Benghazi!!!!!":

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/14/fact-checking-claims-about-benghazi/

Tell me, specifically, what needs further reporting and why.

Tell me what Sharyl Attkisson reported that was different and had concrete evidence.

Tell me what further information Attkisson was seeking for which she was stonewalled by the administration, and why that information was relevant.

I'm fine with more scrutiny than attacks that didn't kill American diplomats. But tell me, specifically, why Benghazi deserves 18 months of wall-to-wall coverage any more than the consulate attacks in, say, Turkey, Yemen or Pakistan?

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

We're about 17.5 months short of 18 months of any kind of reporting from most of the left's favorite media outlets.

Baron Scicluna · Mar 19, 2014

MisterCreosote said:

Joe Williams said:

We have not heard from victims' families. We have not had full accounting from Leon Panetta as for what he told Obama. The orders to stand down still are in dispute. Suspicions as to the underlying facts about the Benghazi outpost and its use by CIA have not been quelled. The Susan Rice Sunday-morning fable tour of the networks remains unexplained and unjustified, as do comments at the funeral ceremony by Ms. Clinton to victims' families. Obama's grab at the word "terror" as evidence that he defined the attack all along as an "act of terrorism" is as dishonest as Mr. Clinton's old toying with the meaning of "is."

There was outrageous CYA behavior going on the night of the attack and in its aftermath that has not been properly explained. The perpetrators who were going to be stalked to the ends of the Earth remain at large.

And PolitiFact.com ought to give itself a Mostly False for its very use of the word "fact" in its name. That site has been discredited for its bias here ( http://www.politifactbias.com/ ) and elsewhere.

So there clearly are things that need further unbiased, aggressive reporting. Your other "Tell me" demands are unknowns as long as that work does not get done. Your not wanting to know and your disliking those who might seek further information is about as far from anything related to journalism as one can get.

If that's the level of inquisitiveness you would have regardless of which party was in the WH, you're too big a lap dog to be much of a newsperson. If it's not, then you're too dishonest to be much of a newsperson.

When it comes to government, "leaders" and other glorified civil servants impacting our daily lives, I want all sides' feet held to the fire 24/7. It's the only reason the media have a collective seat at the table. Otherwise, cheerleaders & hecklers alternately.
Click to expand...

First, sorry for the off-topic shot at you. It was a dick thing for me to do.

On to business:

I'm guessing there's a reason that this summation and the DOZENS of links disproving your assertion contained therein don't count or are evidence of further liberal bias, but here goes (mostly focused on the New York Times, the target of most of the Fox News Screechosphere attacks):

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/whopper-of-the-year-the-mainstream-media-ignored-benghazi/278351/

To sum up, in the 38 days following the attack, "BENGHAZI!!!!" had an A1 presence in the NYT on 18 of those days. Since then, the topic has amassed 27 PAGES of coverage on the NYT website.

The piece also notes CNN and reporter Arwa Damon were recognized for their excellence in reporting the story, including breaking this little nugget: "Damon's stories refuted reports that the attack on the consulate was part of larger anti-American demonstrations throughout the Middle East. Damon's courageous reporting showed it appeared to be a planned attack that came after U.S. diplomats had been warned days before by Libyan officials about the deteriorating security there."

Lastly, just because you don't like the answers given doesn't mean the questions were never asked. In fact, most of the conservative screechosphere thinks that anything short of 24/7 coverage eviscerating Obama and his administration is evidence of liberal bias and coverup. As if everyone in the world is wrong and ONLY Fox News and its viewers are right.

1.Effective media criticism must be specific and accurate. As noted, I have no doubt that there are any number of problems with "MSM" coverage of Benghazi. But a refusal to take the story seriously isn't one of them. The notion that the story has been ignored is fantastical and discrediting. The notion that the entire "MSM" is engaged in a cover-up is idiotic. And when your overall media narrative is wrong, your media criticism is going to suffer. Insofar as people like me tuned out the story, it is largely because so much of the conservative commentary was implausible, right from the first time that Mitt Romney accused his opponent of sympathizing with the terrorists.

2.For all its faults, "the MSM" has orders of magnitude more reporting resources and reportorial talent than the conservative media, even acknowledging the many talented journalists at conservative outlets, who are simply outnumbered. Little surprise that "the MSM" has contributed far more to our understanding of Benghazi than conservative outlets, especially the ones that only do commentary -- which isn't to say there haven't been conservative contributions.

3.Generally respectable outlets and reporters in "the MSM" and the conservative media have made mistakes on the Benghazi story. Various conservative pundits have butchered it embarrassingly.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'll sum these lengthy posts up: 4,489-4

Log in or Sign up

Sharyl Attkisson Exiting CBS News

Schottey Member

Joe Williams Well-Known Member

PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

Schottey Member

MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Sharyl Attkisson Exiting CBS News

Schottey Member

Joe Williams Well-Known Member

PCLoadLetter Well-Known Member

Schottey Member

MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

old_tony Well-Known Member

Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches