Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
A look at certain press practices in Obama vs. Trump presidencies
Comments
-
So no link on 90% of journalists covering the White House being liberal. Lil lyin BobSFGbob said:
No because all of the news outlets mentioned in the post that starts the thread are all National news outlets, Comparing what the local Indianapolis ABC affiliate does to what ABC news does is pretty fucking stupid. Few if any of those local stations have correspondents that cover Washington or the White House. Sinclair can push their conservative agenda all they like but it's not going to change how Chuck Todd blew Obama for 8 years and how he now trashes Trump.BennyBeaver said:
I'll ignore your classlessness and answer anyway. You've moooooved the goalpoasts.SFGbob said:Hey Benny, Sinclair own ABC, CBS and NBC local broadcasting stations. Does right-wing Sinclair change the content of what's aired by the National companies? Do they select the reporters who cover the White House? By the New outlets for ABC, CBS and NBC? Do they influence the coverage NBC gives Trump?
How exactly does Conservative Sinclair influence NBC political coverage Kunt?
First it was: "The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines." You either forgot about, willingly ignored, or were ignorant of Sinclair's reach and influence.
Next goal: is they have to cover the WH, etc.
Sinclair pushes a conservative agenda to all their stations. The facts are out there, if you care to look.
You can admit to being wrong, it won't kill you. -
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief. -
The press is close to 90% liberal. Bad press on Trump is about that same percentage. Coincidence?
-
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange. -
Hillary emails came out of the Benghazi hearings2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
That's why you don't have a source for your bullshit -
Here is a good read. Not sure who the media is but they discuss number of requests for last 4 years of Bush versus first four years of Obama. Although that isn't the best either for the same reason, I suspect the number of requests was greater during Bush's first four years.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
https://niemanreports.org/articles/fifty-years-of-foia/ -
2001400ex said:
Here is a good read. Not sure who the media is but they discuss number of requests for last 4 years of Bush versus first four years of Obama. Although that isn't the best either for the same reason, I suspect the number of requests was greater during Bush's first four years.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential -
Interesting article, thank you. But I’m not seeing anything as granular as Free Beacon’s research.2001400ex said:
Here is a good read. Not sure who the media is but they discuss number of requests for last 4 years of Bush versus first four years of Obama. Although that isn't the best either for the same reason, I suspect the number of requests was greater during Bush's first four years.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
https://niemanreports.org/articles/fifty-years-of-foia/ -
GrundleStiltzkin said:
Interesting article, thank you. But I’m not seeing anything as granular as Free Beacon’s research.2001400ex said:
Here is a good read. Not sure who the media is but they discuss number of requests for last 4 years of Bush versus first four years of Obama. Although that isn't the best either for the same reason, I suspect the number of requests was greater during Bush's first four years.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
https://niemanreports.org/articles/fifty-years-of-foia/
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Just admit you’re wrong and I’ll gladly have a broader discussion. Until then, burn books. -
I would agree with that opinion. They also represent the leading print media in the country. Missing only the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, and maybe the Baltimore Sun. Reuter’s and AP covers the gaps. Telling, yes?2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange. -
And print media isn't the only media that is responsible for journalistic activities.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I would agree with that opinion. They also represent the leading print media in the country. Missing only the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, and maybe the Baltimore Sun. Reuter’s and AP covers the gaps. Telling, yes?2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange. -
Ah fuckitall hondo, you’re obtuse tribe wins.2001400ex said:
And print media isn't the only media that is responsible for journalistic activities.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I would agree with that opinion. They also represent the leading print media in the country. Missing only the Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, and maybe the Baltimore Sun. Reuter’s and AP covers the gaps. Telling, yes?2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange. -
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
-
Sorry Race, didn't see your response to Hondo's bullshit before I posted my response.RaceBannon said:
Hillary emails came out of the Benghazi hearings2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
That's why you don't have a source for your bullshit -
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy -
How cute. Bob and race together.SFGbob said:
Sorry Race, didn't see your response to Hondo's bullshit before I posted my response.RaceBannon said:
Hillary emails came out of the Benghazi hearings2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
That's why you don't have a source for your bullshit
And both wrong. -
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
-
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
So it’s technically (I.e. actually) part of his first term.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
Essentially you're a lying dumbfuck. Obama second term didn't start until after his inauguration in January.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot.
-
You are stupid if you think that matters in the context of my quote.USMChawk said:
So it’s technically (I.e. actually) part of his first term.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
SFGbob said:
Essentially you're a lying dumbfuck. Obama second term didn't start until after his inauguration in January.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot.
Idiot -
Funny how Mr. Precise language screams like a Kunt when you hold him to the same standard.2001400ex said:SFGbob said:
Essentially you're a lying dumbfuck. Obama second term didn't start until after his inauguration in January.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot.
Idiot
And December 2012 is in no way part of Obama's Second term. Liar. -
El oh el
-
I didn’t create the language, I just mastered it. If you rely on others to interpret your words don’t be a little bitch when they don’t interpret them to your liking. In this case you’ve used the words ‘essentially’ and ‘context’ to cover for a lie/misstatement. Instead of conceding the obvious you’re doubling down; HondoFS.2001400ex said:
You are stupid if you think that matters in the context of my quote.USMChawk said:
So it’s technically (I.e. actually) part of his first term.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
Read for comprehension. Seriously. Try it.USMChawk said:
I didn’t create the language, I just mastered it. If you rely on others to interpret your words don’t be a little bitch when they don’t interpret them to your liking. In this case you’ve used the words ‘essentially’ and ‘context’ to cover for a lie/misstatement. Instead of conceding the obvious you’re doubling down; HondoFS.2001400ex said:
You are stupid if you think that matters in the context of my quote.USMChawk said:
So it’s technically (I.e. actually) part of his first term.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
No. There is just you in a class all by yourself.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot. -
Did you know that Obama "essentially" served out the beginning of Trump's first term in office?pawz said:
No. There is just you in a class all by yourself.2001400ex said:
You. Sir. Are seriously the dumbest motherfucker here. And that counts sledog.SFGbob said:
Don't blame me because you have the writing skills of a retard. And of course now you're lying. You claimed that most of the FOIA requests in Obama's second term went to Hillary and Bernie. December 2012 wasn't part of Obama's second term. So not only do you write the a retard you're a fucking liar.2001400ex said:
Are you stupid. I wasn't talking about her emails in regards to "I don't have a source..." Which is why you don't pull quotes out of context. Idiot.SFGbob said:
I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.2001400ex said:
Based in fact? We both know that doesn't exist. I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.GrundleStiltzkin said:
You’re chasing the shiny light of “bias!!!” as it relates to this particular story and what I said. My concern here isn’t in biased reporting; my concern isn’t that they weren’t even looking. I’m talking about investigative effort put forth. FOIA requests are a cornerstone of governmental reporting, and the drudgery of it as well. But that’s real journalism’s job. If Hot Air was making a big deal about a 50% difference I wouldn’t pay it much mind. Four times is significant.2001400ex said:
Yes I do expect a free press to be equally critical. I'm not sure this is a good measure for that, which is my point. Not even being partisan by saying that. Just look at Trump and he he runs things. He didn't divest his assets for one, which creates conflicts that the media would want to investigate.GrundleStiltzkin said:
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm2001400ex said:
So then I have a few questions.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?The other outlets included in the analysis of mainstream media were the Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, the Los Angeles Times, NBC News, MSNBC, Reuters, Daily Beast, The Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal.
Among them, only Bloomberg sent a consistent amount of FOIA requests in the final years of the Obama administration, when the EPA released major proposals such as the Clean Power Plan and its new Waters of the United States rule.
I didn't say they were liberal, you did.
Lazy. All presidents take actions. It's the self-proclaimed job of the press to cover them, regardless of whether they like the actions or presidents.2001400ex said:
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president?
Your only mildly curious point. I'd like to see that too.2001400ex said:I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
My point is that I'm quite surprised and disappointed the requests are orders of magnitude different.2001400ex said:3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
Of course I don't, but that's a telling juxtaposition against NTY, WaPo, AP, etc. I expect a non-partisan press to expend equal effort no matter who is in office. If you were a critical thinker, you'd have the same expectations.2001400ex said:4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
I'm a believer that the media chases flashing lights like a cat does. They are lazy and don't want to do any actual investigative work. If this were a liberal that had tons of business and didn't divest them. I'm positive those same media outlets would be chasing the same things they are with Trump. Trump gives a lot of ammo for any media. Obama was boring and frankly didn't do shit and he was a thin skinned pussy about the conservative media. He hated criticism so he did what he could to minimize it. Trump seems to thrive on criticism.
If we are being honest about it. You will see the same articles critical of the Virginia governor in the NY times and WaPo. It was easy and a shiny light to chase. Even tho he's a Democrat. That's just one example, but those outlets can and are critical of liberals. Where you never see Fox news be critical of a republican unless they buck the establishment like McCain.
I would be happy to see an explanation based in fact that showed a legit reason for the difference in investigative work being done. Quite honestly, it’d be a relief.
Again, most of those sources are perceived as liberal. I want to see all requests for the last 10 years. Other than that, I can't really make a judgement based on this information. It's too small of a sample and comparing an irrelevant apple to a consequential orange.
Yeah, Hondo's all about facts. That claim is pure bullshit, your specialty Hondo. Hillary's use of a private email server was uncovered during the Congressional investigation of the Bengahzi attack not by a FOIA request. You've heard about the Benghazi investigation haven't you Hondo? That's very same investigation that you Kunts claim found nothing.
19]
Initial awareness
Edit
As early as 2009, officials with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) expressed concerns over possible violations of normal federal government record-keeping procedures at the State Department under then-Secretary Clinton.[31]
In December 2012, near the end of Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, a nonprofit group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, filed a FOIA request seeking records about her email. CREW received a response in May 2013: "no records responsive to your request were located."[32] Emails sent to Clinton's private clintonemail.com address were first discovered in March 2013, when a hacker named "Guccifer" widely distributed emails sent to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, which Guccifer obtained by illegally accessing Blumenthal's email account.[33][34][35] The emails dealt with the 2012 Benghazi attack and other issues in Libya and revealed the existence of her clintonemail.com address.[33][34][35]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
I will say that the second term of Obama he wasn't running anymore. The foia requests went towards Hillary and Bernie. I don't have a source for that but the Hillary email started as an foia request.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_presidential_election
Anything after the election, in November of 2012 is essentially his second term. Fuckstick. He has nothing else to run on after that time. Idiot.
