I’m Shocked, Shocked To Find Liberal Bias At This Major Journalism Conference -

[stephanie]

Spoken by someone who was there. But they will scream at you how there is NO BIAS from the left/dem/commies in these lapdog lamestream medias and their propaganda arms on the Internet, like Hufferpufferpost, mediagarbageisallthatmatters, etc. Time to start letting these medias Know what you think about it and let them know you will boycott them. $$$$$$ is one way to change things, and maybe when they start losing enough they will become Fair and balanced. probably fat chance, but you can get it off your chest anyway...

Snip:


During training sessions I watched top professionals in their fields encouraging political bias against conservatives before reporters’ pens could even hit paper.





Kelsey Harkness
By Kelsey Harkness
July 5, 2016



In June, I had the honor of attending one of the top journalism conferences in the country, if not the world. For three days, I rubbed shoulders with reporters from places such as The New York Times, USA Today, and ProPublica.


Call me naïve, but I expected to learn about fairness, integrity, and hard work. This means giving equal weight to politically divisive issues such as gun rights, women’s health, and policing. Instead, during some training sessions I watched top professionals in their fields encouraging political bias against conservatives before reporters’ pens could even hit paper.






Bias at a lefty news organization would be expected, and the same for those on the Right. (For full transparency, I am employed at a news organization that is openly affiliated with the conservative Heritage Foundation.) But to preach political bias at a conference that represents the gold standard in journalism is alarming, and is something that we, as journalists, have a duty to address.


The purpose of the 2016 Investigative Reporters and Editors conference was to share investigative journalism tips and tricks from one reporter to another. The concept behind the conference is selfless: fellow journalists openly share their most successful secrets so we competitors in the field can come together for the greater cause. Attendees could choose from more than 100 sessions with hundreds of speakers representing a diversity of topics.


To be clear, only a select few appeared politically charged. But those that were reflect a dangerous outlook for the future of journalism, and it’s time they were called out.


Two panels in particular caught my attention. The first was called “How to investigate the war on women’s health.

-------------------------------

The ‘War on Women’s Health’

“How to investigate the war on women’s health” is described publicly online as such:



How to investigate the war on women’s health
Speakers: Hannah Levintova (Mother Jones), Molly Redden (The Guardian US, formerly Mother Jones), Nina Martin (ProPublica)

**Moderated by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, Mother Jones

In the first quarter of 2016, state lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 restrictions on sexual and reproductive health—more than 400 related to abortion alone. This election season, this conflict will rage on and will touch millions of lives. That’s why this realm is ripe for investigative reporting. A panel of reporters and editors who cover this beat will offer advice on how to dig deeper on reproductive rights. They’ll discuss intersections with other beats, the unique challenges of interviewing sources on either side of a stark ideological divide, and best practices for researching the major players involved—the donors, lobbyists, scientists, and politicians.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For starters, “The war on women’s health” has no basis in fact. The language assumes lawmakers deliberately aim to harm women, which is an extremely bad-faith assumption.

----------------------------------Snippet:
Reporting on Guns

The second panel that failed to encourage the best journalism practices was called “Reporting on guns.” The description, according to the IRE website, is as follows:



all of the article here:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/05/im-shocked-shocked-to-find-liberal-bias-at-this-major-journalism-conference/

[gabosaurus]

So tell us, who is NOT the scumdog left-leaning "mainstream media?" Should we only trust right-wing blogs?

[stephanie]

I figure this would go here too. take a good look at what we the people are UP AGAINST in this country. not only our Political parties and Federal government. but these medias have also become an enemy to us. Well enemy to anyone not a Democrat

snip:
By L. Brent Bozell III and Tim Graham | July 6, 2016 | 8:09 AM EDT









It's a paradox. The liberal media champion themselves as the most open-minded people on planet Earth who are devoted to the freedom of speech. How can intelligent people be so wrong?

In reality, liberal elites have a nasty tendency to dismiss "conservative thought" as an oxymoron. They don't read conservative books or magazines, and they wouldn't lower themselves to watching conservatives on television. They have disdain for conservative talk radio. They're virtually illiterate on conservatives and conservatism.

What happens in the event that the inclusive and tolerant elites identify some spark of conservative brain activity? They respond with journalistic censorship.

This gets more interesting when a conservative book charges the left with seeking to crush conservative freedom of speech, seeing it as the quickest route to political victory. Oh, the irony!

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel has written a book called "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech." The New York Times is not under obligation to review it, nor is any conservative surprised that it won't. But it has no right to misrepresent its circulation. This is precisely what the Times is doing: playing games with sales figures to suppress Strassel's book from its best-seller list.

In its first week in print Strassel's book ranked sixth on the Nielsen BookScan list of best-sellers. Somehow the Times couldn't find a space anywhere in its top 15, despite including on its list books that sold less than Strassel's did on the Nielsen list.

Best-sellers beget more sales, and The New York Times is trying to thwart that possibility. Conservative authors, from Ted Cruz to David Limbaugh, have seen these games before. But this book is about suppressing free speech, so the shamelessness is even deeper.

Strassel's book paints a broad picture of liberal intimidation at the highest levels. It tells the real story that the pro-Obama press refuses to report regarding the efforts of the IRS to harass tea party groups, deconstructing Barack Obama's fiction that this campaign was limited to a few low-level agents in Cincinnati, Ohio. It reveals how Democratic senators have misused their positions to hassle universities that offended them by employing the "wrong" kind of climate scientists.

Here's another story the left-wing "news" media have refused to report: how liberal Wisconsin prosecutors used secret subpoenas and predawn raids in an attempt to criminalize some 30 conservative groups that had dared to supported Gov. Scott Walker's attempt to reform state government. Strassel also tells a sad story about how average Americans have had their cars keyed and their businesses flash-mobbed for having the temerity to support conservative ballot initiatives.

The title "An Inconvenient Truth" was taken. But that's what Strassel does. She tells inconvenient truths that liberals want to hide — first by refusing to report the stories and then by censoring those who do.

all of the article here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/left-vs-free-speech

[gabosaurus]

I find it intriguing that you are complaining about left-wing media "distorting" the news while using right-wing media as your base. :rolleyes:

[Elessar]

I find it intriguing that you are complaining about left-wing media "distorting" the news while using right-wing media as your base. :rolleyes:

I find it intriguing that you totally ignore an opinion that is contrary to yours.

[gabosaurus]

I find it intriguing that you totally ignore an opinion that is contrary to yours.

I don't ignore anyone's opinion. I am not the person who accuses someone of "trolling" when their views are disputed.