Marionumber1 » Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:54 am wrote:@stickdog99: I completely agree with your analysis about acceptable vs. unacceptable conspiracy theories.
Washington Post editor attacks Bernie Sanders’ ‘conspiracy theory’
By MICHAEL CALDERONE 08/13/2019 11:49 AM EDT Updated 08/13/2019 09:22 PM EDT
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron bashed Sen. Bernie Sanders for pushing a “conspiracy theory” that the paper’s news coverage is influenced by its owner, Amazon chief Jeff Bezos.
“Sen. Sanders is a member of a large club of politicians — of every ideology — who complain about their coverage,” Baron said in a statement. “Contrary to the conspiracy theory the senator seems to favor, Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest.”
Sanders spoke Monday on the presidential campaign trail in Wolfeboro, N.H., about how Amazon paid no money in taxes last year.
“I talk about that all of the time,” Sanders continued. “And then I wonder why The Washington Post — which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon — doesn’t write particularly good articles about me. I don’t know why. But I guess maybe there’s a connection. Maybe we helped raise the minimum wage at Amazon to 15 bucks an hour.”
Sanders has long accused the “corporate media” of putting the interests of the elite above those of the majority of Americans. But Sanders’ swipe on Monday went a step beyond his usual media critique in suggesting a news organization covered him unfairly because of its owner. His comments echoed those of President Donald Trump, who has blamed Bezos for unflattering coverage in the paper, calling the Post “the Amazon Washington Post” in tweets.
POLITICO Playbook newsletter
Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
“The hyperoverreaction from many in the media to Senator Sanders' critique reveals a bias,” Sanders’ campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, wrote in an email. “There is a sneering, contemptuous disdain that infuses those comments and a willingness to put words into Bernie's mouth that he just didn't use.”
The Vermont senator’s presidential campaign has been especially critical of the news media, suggesting that journalists are dismissing his candidacy. Shakir told POLITICO last month that “there are a healthy number [of journalists] who just find Bernie annoying, discount his seriousness, and wish his supporters and movement would just go away.”
Sanders isn’t the only Democrat airing grievances about the media. Several 2020 presidential candidates took aim at The New York Times last week over a headline framing Trump's comments after two mass shootings. The Twitter backlash against the Times came a day after former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke responded to a reporter’s question in El Paso, Texas, about how Trump could improve things after the shootings with, “What the fuck?”
“A vast swath of Democratic voters are pretty angry at the media,” Dan Pfeiffer, a former senior Obama aide and current co-host of “Pod Save America,” told POLITICO. “For the first time in my career, making the press a foil is good politics in a Democratic primary.”
Former Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign isn’t happy with news coverage either. On Monday, senior adviser Symone Sanders suggested on CNN the national “press narrative” is different than the “voter narrative.”
The news media has recently covered several of Biden’s misstatements, which POLITICO’s Natasha Korecki and Marc Caputo report have undercut his message on the campaign trail. Sanders suggested the gaffes do not matter. “This is not something that’s registering with the American people,” she said.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ ... ry-1460597
"conspiracy theory," a non-sequitur so absurd and unwarranted its use is predicated on nothing more than invocation of the magic words with no engagement of theses or evidence given, or even possible.
Judge greenlights advisor Ed Butowsky’s libel suit against NPR
08 August 2019
Investment advisor Ed Butowsky’s $57 million libel suit against National Public Radio over Seth Rich reports can proceed, a judge rules.
A federal judge has given Texas investment advisor Ed Butowsky the greenlight on a $57 million libel suit against National Public Radio over news reports about conspiracy theories surrounding the death of a Democratic National Committee staffer during the 2016 presidential campaign.
The judge rejected NPR’s bid to dismiss the suit, which Butowsky filed in June 2018, on Wednesday.
Judge Amos Mazzant of US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that Butowsky made plausible claims that the media organization defamed him in online stories about Butowsky’s role in publicizing assertions that staffer Seth Rich may have been involved in leaking Democratic emails.
NPR’s attorneys argued that the reports in question, by correspondent David Folkenflik, accurately described a defamation lawsuit filed by Rod Wheeler, a private investigator and former homicide detective hired by Butowsky to explore the Rich case, against Fox News and Butowsky. Wheeler had accused Fox of fabricating quotations in a story about Rich’s murder, but his case was dismissed last summer.
2nd Circuit decision today reinstates the Rich family’s case.
Powerful passage from the Rich v. Fox ruling.
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 4816784384
stickdog99 wrote:https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives ... seth-rich/
...perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests