The Benghazi report

Westside Steve

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/politics/benghazi-hillary-clinton-tyrone-woods-widow/index.html

gftChris

@westside-steve said:

It doesn't seem to me that Breitbart is as far outside as Salon or The Blaze but... Just saying that the hard left or hard right Outlets seem to be carrying this story more than what passes for the mainstream.

WSS

Perhaps, but it definitely has a distinctive spin to it that isn't exactly lock-step with occupy democrats or whoever.

It comes down to being intelligent enough to get your news from multiple sources, cross check - if something you read in one of those articles seems outrageous, you're probably being played to some degree.

calfoxwc

and yet, Chris never reads the news from sources who dare to criticize the bitchy arrogant and dangerous left.

gftChris

@calfoxwc said:
and yet, Chris never reads the news from sources who dare to criticize the bitchy arrogant and dangerous left.

Are you talking to me, or trying to insult me to others?

calfoxwc

just giving you my opinion of how you operate as a lefty.

gftChris

So what's with the arbitrary third person?

Regardless. There comes a time when you realise that a 'news' outlet just isn't worth reading any more because they're incapable of presenting the facts in anything remotely close to an unbiased way. The blaze is there, yes, but it's not the only one, and contrary to what you might think, it doesn't just apply to right wing media.

FairHooker11

https://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo

there you go leftwing media worshipping sheep

fixed....

bbedward

FairHooker11

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

from the highlights of the new revelations

FairHooker11

anything gonna happen from this? NO

Because.....

calfoxwc

lol.

nailed it.

So, Chris, what ARE these totally non-biased news reporting sites you DO read.

(this should be interesting...)

DieHardBrownsFan

gftChris

@calfoxwc said:

lol.

nailed it.

So, Chris, what ARE these totally non-biased news reporting sites you DO read.

(this should be interesting...)

There aren't really any. AP is about as non-spin as it gets but you get very little information. So, as I say, use multiple sources and try and figure it out.

calfoxwc

Thanks, and it's true. AP isn't biased, and IS very biased, depending

on who is doing the reporting.

Everytime I read or watch anything liberal - it's in full attack mode if it's a rep, and full

support mode when it's a dem.

At least Fox News has hard core liberals on the show for balance.

I despise alan colmes, the ultra kiss ass liberal sissy moron, and several other libs

who auto-defend the dems.

gftChris

Things tend to be more balanced over here - by which of course I don't mean there isn't bias, rather the bias is fairly evenly spread between the two ends, once you discount murdoch-media tabloids (daily mail, daily express, sun, etc). The Guardian is quite left, indpendent less so, telegraph quite right-wing.

So, whether you can wrap your head around it or not, I'm capable of spotting bias from both sides and try to avoid it. In fact, I usually seek out the opposite bias for important events. Like "muslims are taking over, they shouldn't get special treatment at a swimming pool!" versus "most muslim women would never be able to swim without this three hour weekly slot, so it's really great they get special treatment" (replace muslim with jewish as needed of course).

calfoxwc

What I think is dumb, is that why isn't it just women-only? Or,

what is the actual story? dumb thread.

MLD Woody

Idk, how can we be sure Chris is better at identifying biased sources than Cal?

calfoxwc

calfoxwc