Know Your Right Wing Publications: The New York Post

[RandySF]

Before you post articles to smear the opposing candidate, I thought I would give a brief primer on a newly popular source here on DU: The New York Post.

The Murdoch-owned New York Post just published a story by Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash,” the the widely debunked book from Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing subsidiary. The Post article then became the topic of a segment on Murdoch’s Fox News program “Fox & Friends.” The article was also re-posted on the Fox News community website, Fox Nation. This is obviously an effort to flood the zone with as many Murdoch-run outlets as possible. The article features a headline that will likely score the Delusional Headline of the Week Award: “Clinton Cash Author Demolishes Hillary’s Self-Defense.” That headline is completely accurate – as long as your definition of “demolish” is “to utterly fail to rationally impair.”

Schweizer attempts to rebut some recent comments made by Clinton in response to a reporter’s inquiry. She was asked about her role in approving the sale of a uranium mining company to a Russian enterprise. She answered clearly that she had no role in the decision as it does not fall into the purview of the Secretary of State. Schweizer seems to have been incapable of understanding that response and set about to “demolish” it in three steps. Here is what Post readers and Fox viewers are supposed to think is a demolition of Clinton’s defense in Schweizer’s own words:

“First, nine investors who profited from the uranium deal collectively donated $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation … But Hillary expects Americans to believe she had no knowledge [of it].”

The issue of donations to the Clinton Foundation is old news that has been extensively analyzed and dismissed for lack of any trace of wrongdoing. There are thousands of donors to the Foundation which, unlike similar groups, fully discloses who their donors are. And with all of that information available, there has not been a single proven allegation of the Clintons trading favors for contributions. Furthermore, Clinton has never said that she had no knowledge of these affairs, just that the decisions were made at a lower level within the State Department. Therefore, there could not have been any influence peddling.

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=28952

[FreakinDJ]

1. I guess Murdoc owns the New York Times as well

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

That or your posting from a Pro-Hillary Left Leaning blog that has no publication

[riversedge]

2. Yet, these lies about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation show up repeatedly--even

here on DU.

[cantbeserious]

3. No Lies - The 1% Serving The 1%

eom

[canosoviejo]

4. Maybe no favors to this point. The big favors can come after she is elected. Agreed, 1% takes care

of the 1%.

[cantbeserious]

14. Quid Pro Quo - And - Cui Bono - The Two Key Questions To Addressed With The Specter Of HRC

eom

[Recursion]

5. They have decent local coverage. Same with the Washington Times.

Unfortunate. I wouldn't trust either with a national story, though.

[99Forever]

6. So...

... shoot the messenger, pre-censorship is the new norm for Democrats?

Fascinating.

I guess that's what you're left with when you can't refute facts.

[workinclasszero]

7. The Murdoch-owned New York Post....

That's all anyone needs to know right there.

Murdoch, the koch bros and the republican party are speaking fascism to power.

[Live and Learn]

8. Murdoch and the right wing own most of the media.

Doesn't mean we should ignore them.

And we should do something about it. I think Bernie will!

[Live and Learn]

9. Sanders: Time Running Out to Stop Media Monopoly

Sanders: Time Running Out to Stop Media Monopoly

Thursday, December 23, 2010

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday issued a draft order approving Comcast's proposed merger with NBC Universal. Sanders called the development "very bad news for the future of American media and, in my view, for the future of American democracy. A vote by the full commission is expected early next year. "Time is running out to stop this deal. I hope the American people will take notice and stand with me to demand that the FCC change course, vote down the order, and reverse the disturbing trend of media consolidation."

"If approved, this new media giant will be the largest cable provider, the largest Internet provider, and one of the largest producers of content in the United States. At a time when a small number of giant media corporations already control what the American people see, hear, and read, we do not need another media conglomerate with control over the production and distribution of media content. What we need is less concentration of ownership, more diversity, more local ownership-and more viewpoints.

"By law, the FCC may only sign off on the merger if it determines that it serves ‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity.' Far from meeting the public interest standard, Comcast's takeover of NBCU would create a monolithic media superpower and cause irreparable damage to the U.S. media landscape and society as a whole. In addition, the merger of these two media giants would likely precipitate other media mergers and make an already bad situation of media consolidation far worse. Despite the public interest standard, Chairman Genachowski appears to be charging ahead, pressuring his fellow commissioners to approve this deal.

"Some take solace in the fact that Chairman Genachowski's order would approve the merger only subject to certain conditions and regulations. This in no way changes my opinion about the scope of the damage. If this merger is approved, I have little doubt that Comcast-NBCU will retain hundreds of attorneys and lobbyists to exploit gaps and loopholes in any conditions and regulations. Once we allow companies to become this powerful, the FCC does not regulate them. They regulate the FCC."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-time-running-out-to-stop-media-monopoly

[Live and Learn]

10. Sanders has been on this issue for quite a while.

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/posts/344701758961836

December 6, 2012 ·

Media Monopolies

Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference why he is fighting a proposed Federal Communications Commission rule change which would allow media conglomerates to dominate broadcast and print media. “We’re going to do everything we can to prevent it from happening,” Sanders told Bill Moyers in an interview that will air this weekend on Moyers & Company. “We cannot live in a vibrant democracy unless people get divergent sources of information and have the opportunity to have serious debate about the major issues of the day,” Sanders said at the news conference.

[Live and Learn]

11. Bill Moyers And Bernie Sanders on this issue:

https://vimeo.com/55073967

[Jim Lane]

12. And Clinton supporters have quoted the Wall Street Journal and Forbes to attack Bernie Sanders.

My own opinion is that sources like this must be considered on a case-by-case basis. If an article takes publicly available data and analyzes them (e.g., showing that there's a correlation between Clinton Foundation donations and approved arms sales), then you can't just say "right-wing source" and shut off further inquiry. There might well be cherry-picking of data or other how-to-lie-with-statistics tricks. If so, point them out. There might well be conclusions drawn that make sense only to the rabid conspiracy theorists. If so, disagree with them.

As 99Forever points out in #6, shooting the messenger is not valid argumentation.

There are some cases in which considering the source would be valid. If a media outlet says that it has an anonymous tip from a confidential informant that X is true, then you have to consider whether you trust that outlet's evaluation of the informant's credibility. Most of the shooting of the messenger that occurs on DU doesn't fall into that category, though.

[ibegurpard]

13. let me simplify that for you a bit

It would be anything or anyone critical of the Clintons.

[99Forever]

16. Exactly.

Thou shalt not speak negatively of the Chosen One.

[Live and Learn]

15. Does that mean we can't quote certain Fox pundits that are current Hillary supporters? nt

[RandySF]

19. I don't quote Fox, NYPost, WSJ, Brietbart, Drudge, National Review

or any other right wing rag.

[Cha]

17. I've seen redstate posted here smearing Hillary.. they were fine with that until it got locked and

then a hide. HAHA.

[lovemydog]

18. Among the many inane & hilarious New York Post headlines,

here's a classic:

[Cha]

20. I see some poster got a hide for posting a rwinger NYP article.. so good on that jury.