Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Is the NYT really as liberal as it's made out to be?

Is the NYT really as liberal as it's made out to be?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2018, 06:37 PM
 
Some circumstantial evidence:
Obama Jobs #s


Trump Jobs #s


Government shutdown:


Add in their near obsession with Hillary's emails and contrast it with the fact that they reported Trump's campaign was being investigated but had no links to Russia, while sitting on the Steele Dossier.

Add in their penchant with reporting on Trump voters for additional context.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2018, 09:01 PM
 
The NYT (along with WAPO) got hung with the “librul” moniker largely because of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. The Times has never been overtly liberal, save for the occasional editorial piece. Post 9-11, they’ve certainly shown themselves more than willing to err on the conservative side of things.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2018, 10:10 PM
 
Don't forget, the liberal media has almost never been as liberal as the conservative media is conservative.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2018, 10:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
The NYT (along with WAPO) got hung with the “librul” moniker largely because of Watergate and the Pentagon Papers. The Times has never been overtly liberal, save for the occasional editorial piece. Post 9-11, they’ve certainly shown themselves more than willing to err on the conservative side of things.
I think you're giving people too much credit. Most of the people who complain about the MSM probably don't remember Watergate or the Pentagon Papers.

I would characterize these instances as center-right. Whether that's a function of their personal bias or a concerted editorial effort, I can't claim to say.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2018, 11:11 PM
 
I think it is more of a branding issue where you brand “to the left of you” (whatever that means) as “the left”, and because many people conflate the urban perspective with liberalism. In my view the NYT has tried very hard to avoid this moniker, to the detriment of the country. Instead of being critical of the Bush 2 Administration's claims, they were being cheerleaders for most of the policies. They gave tons of free attention to Trump before the election and they have hired quite a few neo cons who are now being celebrated as the pinnacle of conservatism because they are anti-Trump.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2018, 02:56 PM
 
I think it’s fair to say the NYT is the most conservative of the MSM outlets, but I wouldn’t actually call them conservative.

To me the most stark contrast was their treatment of surveillance for Bush versus Obama.

They got about equivalent coverage, the slight difference being one was emergency wiretaps ultimately needing a FISC sign-off, versus sucking-up the entire internet.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2018, 07:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think it’s fair to say the NYT is the most conservative of the MSM outlets, but I wouldn’t actually call them conservative.
I would locate them smack in the center actually, they want to be one of the main stream news outlets in the US (and I use main stream non-derisively). I always have the impression they feel under pressure to show their conservative bona fides, a fundamental insecurity flaw.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
To me the most stark contrast was their treatment of surveillance for Bush versus Obama.
I'm not sure whether this is only attributable to political bent. When Obama became President, he immediately had to deal with a situation that could lead to the collapse of a substantial part of the American and world economy. And given how it turned out, that is a crisis Obama managed well. But I do agree that the coverage as not as adversarial when it came to warrantless surveillance and e. g. the Obama Administration's zeal to pursue leakers. The sad thing about the Obama Presidency to me is that the wasted a lot of ink on complete non-sense (e. g. “death panels” and Benghazi commission #2-#8) and had less space left for the important stuff such has holding his feet to the fire for (not) delivering on campaign promises. (Similar to the 2016 campaign where policy issue only got a minuscule amount of air time.)

But I have to say that looking just at the latest re-authorization bill, I would attribute the lack of coverage to the fact that support for warrantless wiretapping is bipartisan. That's also the dark spot of papers that want to be in the center: they tend to be less vocal on topics that have bipartisan support. That's why they didn't really give issues such as problems associated with global trade as much room as they perhaps should have.

Edit: I would also add the way drones have been used to the list of issues that haven't seen sufficient coverage.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 22, 2018 at 07:52 PM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2018, 10:26 PM
 
News outfit X is exactly in the center.

News outfit Y, after bowing to pressure and compensating for insecurities, is exactly in the center.

One of these is actually in the center. The other is left and faking it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2018, 11:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think it’s fair to say the NYT is the most conservative of the MSM outlets, but I wouldn’t actually call them conservative.

To me the most stark contrast was their treatment of surveillance for Bush versus Obama.

They got about equivalent coverage, the slight difference being one was emergency wiretaps ultimately needing a FISC sign-off, versus sucking-up the entire internet.
I like this example. How would you classify their treatment of surveillance under Trump?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2018, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it is more of a branding issue where you brand “to the left of you” (whatever that means) as “the left”, and because many people conflate the urban perspective with liberalism. In my view the NYT has tried very hard to avoid this moniker, to the detriment of the country. Instead of being critical of the Bush 2 Administration's claims, they were being cheerleaders for most of the policies. They gave tons of free attention to Trump before the election and they have hired quite a few neo cons who are now being celebrated as the pinnacle of conservatism because they are anti-Trump.
The problem is I see with media in this country is they are afraid to take a stand on certain facts because those facts are no longer accepted by one side. So instead, they'll often give a platform to the opposing arguments under the guise of presenting 'both sides' in attempt to diffuse accusations of bias.

This is moronic because it only both reinforces bad information and muddles things up for anyone using the media to get informed.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 12:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
News outfit X is exactly in the center.

News outfit Y, after bowing to pressure and compensating for insecurities, is exactly in the center.

One of these is actually in the center. The other is left and faking it.
I don't think the last statement makes any sense. News outlets cannot be “exactly in the center” because that is ill-defined. News outlets give voices to a wide variety of people adhering to journalistic standards, and their position on a simplistic “left-right axis” isn't so much a point but a circle of some size. For a good newspaper, the circle should be fairly large. You should regularly read editorials that you disagree with, but still benefit from.

You are right that the NYT was easy on Obama on some subjects (warrantless wiretapping, drone strike policies and the way leakers were handled). But they went easy on George W. Bush on a variety of subjects, too, e. g. when it came to WMD claims. (Have a look at the international press back then that was overwhelmingly on the side that the claims were BS.) I don't want to re-litigate each of these cases, but it isn't as simple as “the MSM” having a consistent left-wing bias. Or you can imagine how Obama would have been treated if by the NYT (in terms of amount of coverage) if it came out that he had an affair with a porn star while married to Michele and he paid her off during the campaign to keep quiet.

You can see this now with Trump, too: the reason why the press rejects Trump isn't (purported) liberal bias, but because most of Trump's views aren't located anywhere near the center. Just imagine how the GOP would have reacted in 2008 or 2012 if Obama had called for not negotiating or cancelling TTP and TTIP. Free trade is a centrist view and Trump is going against it. (Ditto for Sanders here, but Sanders isn't President.) The same goes for, say, funding for CHIP or support for the Dreamers.

My criticism of the NYT's insecurity is that because they hate the “liberal bias” stigma, they are giving questionable people a voice. They are helping to rehabilitate neo cons (such as David Frum) simply because they happen to be against Trump and for some of the other previously Republican values (free trade and so forth). My criticism is that the NYT is too afraid to stand by facts because some pundits and politicians twist this insistence on the validity of some facts as partisanship. You don't need to give equal space to the opposing view if the opposing view has no factual validity.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 23, 2018 at 01:00 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The problem is I see with media in this country is they are afraid to take a stand on certain facts because those facts are no longer accepted by one side. So instead, they'll often give a platform to the opposing arguments under the guise of presenting 'both sides' in attempt to diffuse accusations of bias.

This is moronic because it only both reinforces bad information and muddles things up for anyone using the media to get informed.
That's a very good point: good news papers should be biased towards facts backed by evidence, and shouldn't feel the need to give “the other side” of an issue air time if there is no evidence. Claims need to be backed up by evidence. And politicians should be held accountable, especially for their hypocrisy. Doing that doesn't put the journalists in the camp of the “opposing party”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 08:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I would locate them smack in the center
Originally Posted by subego View Post
News outfit X is exactly in the center.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
News outlets cannot be “exactly in the center”

     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 09:56 AM
 
My last comment was in response to your example, although I do see that this may be confusing if you take my comments out of context. I was criticizing your example as a false dichotomy.

More interestingly to me, though, what do you think about the rest of my post then?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I like this example. How would you classify their treatment of surveillance under Trump?
Cynical take: since surveillance may very well take down Trump, they’re “WTF, I love surveillance now!”
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 08:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's a very good point: good news papers should be biased towards facts backed by evidence, and shouldn't feel the need to give “the other side” of an issue air time if there is no evidence. Claims need to be backed up by evidence. And politicians should be held accountable, especially for their hypocrisy. Doing that doesn't put the journalists in the camp of the “opposing party”.
Oh, the other critique I have is using false statement for headlines and quotes without giving background.

i.e., you see a headline "Trump: 3 million illegal votes cast in election" which gives the statement an air of authority it wouldn't if it correctly said "Trump claims 3 million voted illegally in election" or even better, "Without evidence, Trump says millions of illegal votes cast"
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Cynical take: since surveillance may very well take down Trump, they’re “WTF, I love surveillance now!”
Joking aside, considering FISA just got passed and signed, it seems like the perfect time for you to critique their coverage.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh, the other critique I have is using false statement for headlines and quotes without giving background.

i.e., you see a headline "Trump: 3 million illegal votes cast in election" which gives the statement an air of authority it wouldn't if it correctly said "Trump claims 3 million voted illegally in election" or even better, "Without evidence, Trump says millions of illegal votes cast"
That's a very astute point, these nuances are important for a news source to be great and do its job.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 03:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Joking aside, considering FISA just got passed and signed, it seems like the perfect time for you to critique their coverage.
Honestly, I’ve been so busy lately I feel a bit out of the loop, and not necessarily able to offer an informed opinion (as an aside, it’s why I’m being so slow to respond... I’ve got at least two questions on tap each from both you and Oreo).

I saw a little coverage, but that got swamped by the shutdown and the return of the F5 o’clock.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 24, 2018 at 04:26 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Oh, the other critique I have is using false statement for headlines and quotes without giving background.
I’d say it’s even more important if you’re paywalled, thus offering a disincentive for people to read beyond the headline.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’d say it’s even more important if you’re paywalled, thus offering a disincentive for people to read beyond the headline.
Yes.

Speaking of which, feels like in the last month NYT reduced the amount of free articles per month from 10 to 5.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 08:05 AM
 
I’ve gotten pretty good at not clicking.

My politics feed is basically r/politics, where I can usually get the important parts of the article quoted in the comments.

Of course there’s porno mode, but I’m lazy and impatient.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 09:58 AM
 
Sort of like potions in video games, I hoard my ration of free clicks. I’m going to die with a sack full of them.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 10:59 AM
 
I don't click NYT links anymore unless they are explosive. Wapo usually will confirm reporting of the less glamorous headlines in short order.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 12:43 PM
 
NYT gave a platform to people against DACA today. Have they done a spotlight for dreamers lately?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 01:16 PM
 
The platform was kinda rickety.

You owe me a free click now.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 01:29 PM
 
???
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 01:31 PM
 
That article.

“Here are the people against DACA... no one really agrees with them, and a bunch are misinformed.”
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 01:38 PM
 
Yeah, so why give them a platform?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, so why give them a platform?
To cloud their elitist, cosmopolitan liberalism with the stink of plausible deniability.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 02:47 PM
 
Doesn't this reinforce my point regarding the thread title?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 03:23 PM
 
I took the title to imply their less liberalness was genuine, rather than the bullshit facade implied by my comment.

If the thread title had been “Does the Times pretend to be less liberal than they are”, my answer would have been yes.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 03:58 PM
 
It was reason undetermined. Peddling right wing crap in bad faith isn't better than doing it if you believe in it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2018, 04:12 PM
 
Under most circumstances, I’d say something done in bad faith is worse than the same thing done in good faith.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 12:54 PM
 
Is it fair to say that coming 12 hours after publishing a story about the President obstructing justice, running a negative story about Hillary from 2008 is suspect as ****?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 03:07 PM
 
Are you accusing the Times of sitting on the story until they had a Trump story they could balance it against?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 03:25 PM
 
No I imagine it got fed to them by someone in the past 12 hours.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 03:32 PM
 
So... they should have sat on it to give the obstruction story room to breathe?

Edit: I may not understand what you’re getting at... I’m reading this as a shot at the Times.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 03:55 PM
 
Pretty much.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 04:12 PM
 
Then the source goes to WaPo. Gal’s gotta eat.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 04:27 PM
 
So be it. Why would the NYT knowingly distract from their story?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2018, 11:17 PM
 
Why wouldn’t they?

The story’s going to get distracted from regardless. The choice isn’t between letting the story breathe or not. It’s not going to get to breathe. That choice was made by outside actors.

The Times can make lemonade, or make their death spiral go faster. I know what I’d pick.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2018, 01:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
My last comment was in response to your example, although I do see that this may be confusing if you take my comments out of context. I was criticizing your example as a false dichotomy.

More interestingly to me, though, what do you think about the rest of my post then?
My example was in response to your assertion the Times is “smack in the center”, but also bow to pressure to show their conservative bona fides. In this circumstance, they are mutually exclusive.

If bowing to pressure from the right is what puts them in the center, they’re not really in the center. If they’re really in the center, then bowing to right wing pressure would place them right of center... which is a pretty out there claim.


With regard to the rest of the post, if the Times (or any other outfit) “stood by the facts”, where would that place them on American spectrum?

Prediction: the answer will be “on the left”, yet there will be continued resistance to the notion the American MSM is biased left.
( Last edited by subego; Jan 27, 2018 at 03:26 AM. )
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2018, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why wouldn’t they?

The story’s going to get distracted from regardless. The choice isn’t between letting the story breathe or not. It’s not going to get to breathe. That choice was made by outside actors.

The Times can make lemonade, or make their death spiral go faster. I know what I’d pick.
So I'm hearing this story was 8 months in the making. That doesn't make the timing any better.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2018, 07:14 PM
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2018, 11:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My example was in response to your assertion the Times is “smack in the center”, but also bow to pressure to show their conservative bona fides. In this circumstance, they are mutually exclusive.
I don't think they are, because the claim of a newspaper being balanced means they give a wide variety of viewpoints a voice. It's a range on the spectrum rather than a point, and a reasonable way to say they are in the center is to look at the midpoint here.

That is also supported if you look at the flaws of the NYT: those are dominated by its mainstream bent, it tends to not see stories outside of what is perceived to be the mainstream consensus. Trump and Sanders were supported on the outer parts of the respective political spectrums. The lack of evidence of WMDs in Iraq wasn't part of the main stream in the US. Barack Obama's policies on how to use drones or investigate whistle blowers were equally supported by Republicans and Democrats alike (the only difference being the degree here).

And while it seems at first that the NYT was softer on Obama than on Bush or Obama, if you look more closely, you see tons of really important stuff politicians get away with with little to no discussion. Especially if that issue has bipartisan support (such as the re-authorization of the abandonment of privacy act).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If bowing to pressure from the right is what puts them in the center, they’re not really in the center. If they’re really in the center, then bowing to right wing pressure would place them right of center... which is a pretty out there claim.
No, it wouldn't, because where that center is changes over time, and it doesn't have to be a static equilibrium (like an egg that has been carefully balanced on its tip). It is normal that the NYT is pressured from both sides — because if it isn't, it isn't doing a good job being a thorn in the side of Congress and the President.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
With regard to the rest of the post, if the Times (or any other outfit) “stood by the facts”, where would that place them on American spectrum?

Prediction: the answer will be “on the left”, yet there will be continued resistance to the notion the American MSM is biased left.
If you stick to the facts, then you'll be to the right of the demarkation points set in the US political system. But “belief” in global climate change does not place you anywhere in particular on the political spectrum of other countries. I don't think this is a meaningful measure of political ideology, just an artifact of the of the fu**ed-upness of the current US political climate.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2018, 08:53 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 4, 2018, 09:25 PM
 
These aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2018, 09:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
They paint different pictures, tho.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2018, 12:33 AM
 
Protesters say ‘Nunes must go’ after release of controversial memo | The Fresno Bee

Several dozen people in Fresno on Saturday called for Rep. Devin Nunes to step down as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.”

I posit this isn’t national, headline news.
( Last edited by subego; Feb 6, 2018 at 01:10 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:32 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,