The figures, obtained through the government's FOIA online database, reveal a clear increase in requests for information from the agency once Trump was elected president.
The New York Times, for example, made just 13 FOIA requests during the four years of Obama's second term, sending 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 7 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. The number of FOIA requests the Times sent for Obama's entire second term was nearly quadrupled in the first year of Trump's presidency alone, when the Times sent 59 FOIA requests to the EPA.
Reporters at the Times have made 100 FOIA requests since Trump took office just over two years ago, a 669 percent increase of the number of FOIA requests it made during the four years of Obama's second term.
Reporters at the Washington Post sent just a single FOIA request to the EPA during Obama's entire second term, and have sent 43 FOIA requests to the agency since Trump took office.
The sharp increase in FOIA requests to the EPA was also apparent at Politico (15 requests in Obama's second term, 198 since Trump took office), The Hill (20 requests in Obama's second term, 67 since Trump took office), CNN (25 requests in Obama's second term, 47 since Trump took office), Buzzfeed (18 requests in Obama's second term, 38 since Trump took office), and ABC News (4 requests in Obama's second term, 32 since Trump took office).
But we already had plenty of proof of this before this latest report was compiled, and it comes from a story we were covering heavily all through the first half of 2018. Do you remember the endless media stories about the “scandal” surrounding Scott Pruitt and his trip to the G7 in Italy when he was the EPA boss? The Washington Post ran a breathless headline describing how Pruitt and his security detail ran up more than $30,000 in bills for that meeting. In that article, they also had a quote from someone criticizing Pruitt’s itinerary, saying that a visit to the Vatican made it look more like a vacation than business travel.
After submitting some requests of my own to the EPA, we learned something remarkable. In 2015, while Barack Obama was in charge, his EPA boss Gina McCarthy had made the exact same trip to the G7 and her detail ran up a bill of $56,192… nearly double what Pruitt’s team spent. Oh, and they also went to the Vatican and met with precisely the same officials there for the same reasons. The few reports of the trip that showed up in the media only mentioned that McCarthy was there and discussing the important subject of climate change. The cost of the trip never came up.
In before our? Proggies but but but TRUMP: This isn't about how Trump is untrustworthy. That's implied, he's a politician. And but but but Obama is a politician too. I'm not criticizing press practices on Trump, but how they failed under Obama. The differences in this EPA case are stark, and I have no reason to believe it's any different with other agencies.
Flame away, statists.
Obama was boring and didn't do shit. Water is wet. Why don't you also look at Fox news foia requests?
What a simple response. There's more outlets covered in the Free Beacon article, look at it yourself. I chose to quote the parts about two of the four or five most important newspapers in the country, ones that assure the country they are holding those in power to account.
Your Obama-was-boring refrain is always lame, but particularly stupid here as it relates to the due diligence of a free press.
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?
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president? I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines. Obama was faced with a press where nearly 90% of the people who covered and reported on him voted for him.
God you're a mouthy Kunt who didn't refute a word I just said. If Sinclair News is such a right-wing behemoth how is that nearly 90% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Obama? Where are all those right-wing reporters who work of Sinclair?
God you're a drive by Kunt.
90% plus percent of DC didn't vote for Trump. What's your point? I totally didn't know the Washington press corps was representative of the media across the country now.
The figures, obtained through the government's FOIA online database, reveal a clear increase in requests for information from the agency once Trump was elected president.
The New York Times, for example, made just 13 FOIA requests during the four years of Obama's second term, sending 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 7 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. The number of FOIA requests the Times sent for Obama's entire second term was nearly quadrupled in the first year of Trump's presidency alone, when the Times sent 59 FOIA requests to the EPA.
Reporters at the Times have made 100 FOIA requests since Trump took office just over two years ago, a 669 percent increase of the number of FOIA requests it made during the four years of Obama's second term.
Reporters at the Washington Post sent just a single FOIA request to the EPA during Obama's entire second term, and have sent 43 FOIA requests to the agency since Trump took office.
The sharp increase in FOIA requests to the EPA was also apparent at Politico (15 requests in Obama's second term, 198 since Trump took office), The Hill (20 requests in Obama's second term, 67 since Trump took office), CNN (25 requests in Obama's second term, 47 since Trump took office), Buzzfeed (18 requests in Obama's second term, 38 since Trump took office), and ABC News (4 requests in Obama's second term, 32 since Trump took office).
But we already had plenty of proof of this before this latest report was compiled, and it comes from a story we were covering heavily all through the first half of 2018. Do you remember the endless media stories about the “scandal” surrounding Scott Pruitt and his trip to the G7 in Italy when he was the EPA boss? The Washington Post ran a breathless headline describing how Pruitt and his security detail ran up more than $30,000 in bills for that meeting. In that article, they also had a quote from someone criticizing Pruitt’s itinerary, saying that a visit to the Vatican made it look more like a vacation than business travel.
After submitting some requests of my own to the EPA, we learned something remarkable. In 2015, while Barack Obama was in charge, his EPA boss Gina McCarthy had made the exact same trip to the G7 and her detail ran up a bill of $56,192… nearly double what Pruitt’s team spent. Oh, and they also went to the Vatican and met with precisely the same officials there for the same reasons. The few reports of the trip that showed up in the media only mentioned that McCarthy was there and discussing the important subject of climate change. The cost of the trip never came up.
In before our? Proggies but but but TRUMP: This isn't about how Trump is untrustworthy. That's implied, he's a politician. And but but but Obama is a politician too. I'm not criticizing press practices on Trump, but how they failed under Obama. The differences in this EPA case are stark, and I have no reason to believe it's any different with other agencies.
Flame away, statists.
Obama was boring and didn't do shit. Water is wet. Why don't you also look at Fox news foia requests?
What a simple response. There's more outlets covered in the Free Beacon article, look at it yourself. I chose to quote the parts about two of the four or five most important newspapers in the country, ones that assure the country they are holding those in power to account.
Your Obama-was-boring refrain is always lame, but particularly stupid here as it relates to the due diligence of a free press.
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?
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president? I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines. Obama was faced with a press where nearly 90% of the people who covered and reported on him voted for him.
God you're a mouthy Kunt who didn't refute a word I just said. If Sinclair News is such a right-wing behemoth how is that nearly 90% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Obama? Where are all those right-wing reporters who work of Sinclair?
God you're a drive by Kunt.
Bob: "The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines."
The figures, obtained through the government's FOIA online database, reveal a clear increase in requests for information from the agency once Trump was elected president.
The New York Times, for example, made just 13 FOIA requests during the four years of Obama's second term, sending 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 7 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. The number of FOIA requests the Times sent for Obama's entire second term was nearly quadrupled in the first year of Trump's presidency alone, when the Times sent 59 FOIA requests to the EPA.
Reporters at the Times have made 100 FOIA requests since Trump took office just over two years ago, a 669 percent increase of the number of FOIA requests it made during the four years of Obama's second term.
Reporters at the Washington Post sent just a single FOIA request to the EPA during Obama's entire second term, and have sent 43 FOIA requests to the agency since Trump took office.
The sharp increase in FOIA requests to the EPA was also apparent at Politico (15 requests in Obama's second term, 198 since Trump took office), The Hill (20 requests in Obama's second term, 67 since Trump took office), CNN (25 requests in Obama's second term, 47 since Trump took office), Buzzfeed (18 requests in Obama's second term, 38 since Trump took office), and ABC News (4 requests in Obama's second term, 32 since Trump took office).
But we already had plenty of proof of this before this latest report was compiled, and it comes from a story we were covering heavily all through the first half of 2018. Do you remember the endless media stories about the “scandal” surrounding Scott Pruitt and his trip to the G7 in Italy when he was the EPA boss? The Washington Post ran a breathless headline describing how Pruitt and his security detail ran up more than $30,000 in bills for that meeting. In that article, they also had a quote from someone criticizing Pruitt’s itinerary, saying that a visit to the Vatican made it look more like a vacation than business travel.
After submitting some requests of my own to the EPA, we learned something remarkable. In 2015, while Barack Obama was in charge, his EPA boss Gina McCarthy had made the exact same trip to the G7 and her detail ran up a bill of $56,192… nearly double what Pruitt’s team spent. Oh, and they also went to the Vatican and met with precisely the same officials there for the same reasons. The few reports of the trip that showed up in the media only mentioned that McCarthy was there and discussing the important subject of climate change. The cost of the trip never came up.
In before our? Proggies but but but TRUMP: This isn't about how Trump is untrustworthy. That's implied, he's a politician. And but but but Obama is a politician too. I'm not criticizing press practices on Trump, but how they failed under Obama. The differences in this EPA case are stark, and I have no reason to believe it's any different with other agencies.
Flame away, statists.
Way to bury the lede:
Under the watch of Jackson's replacement Gina McCarthy, it was revealed that an agency employee was habitually watching porn on his government computer. The porn-watcher remained on the payroll for months.
The figures, obtained through the government's FOIA online database, reveal a clear increase in requests for information from the agency once Trump was elected president.
The New York Times, for example, made just 13 FOIA requests during the four years of Obama's second term, sending 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 7 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. The number of FOIA requests the Times sent for Obama's entire second term was nearly quadrupled in the first year of Trump's presidency alone, when the Times sent 59 FOIA requests to the EPA.
Reporters at the Times have made 100 FOIA requests since Trump took office just over two years ago, a 669 percent increase of the number of FOIA requests it made during the four years of Obama's second term.
Reporters at the Washington Post sent just a single FOIA request to the EPA during Obama's entire second term, and have sent 43 FOIA requests to the agency since Trump took office.
The sharp increase in FOIA requests to the EPA was also apparent at Politico (15 requests in Obama's second term, 198 since Trump took office), The Hill (20 requests in Obama's second term, 67 since Trump took office), CNN (25 requests in Obama's second term, 47 since Trump took office), Buzzfeed (18 requests in Obama's second term, 38 since Trump took office), and ABC News (4 requests in Obama's second term, 32 since Trump took office).
But we already had plenty of proof of this before this latest report was compiled, and it comes from a story we were covering heavily all through the first half of 2018. Do you remember the endless media stories about the “scandal” surrounding Scott Pruitt and his trip to the G7 in Italy when he was the EPA boss? The Washington Post ran a breathless headline describing how Pruitt and his security detail ran up more than $30,000 in bills for that meeting. In that article, they also had a quote from someone criticizing Pruitt’s itinerary, saying that a visit to the Vatican made it look more like a vacation than business travel.
After submitting some requests of my own to the EPA, we learned something remarkable. In 2015, while Barack Obama was in charge, his EPA boss Gina McCarthy had made the exact same trip to the G7 and her detail ran up a bill of $56,192… nearly double what Pruitt’s team spent. Oh, and they also went to the Vatican and met with precisely the same officials there for the same reasons. The few reports of the trip that showed up in the media only mentioned that McCarthy was there and discussing the important subject of climate change. The cost of the trip never came up.
In before our? Proggies but but but TRUMP: This isn't about how Trump is untrustworthy. That's implied, he's a politician. And but but but Obama is a politician too. I'm not criticizing press practices on Trump, but how they failed under Obama. The differences in this EPA case are stark, and I have no reason to believe it's any different with other agencies.
Flame away, statists.
Obama was boring and didn't do shit. Water is wet. Why don't you also look at Fox news foia requests?
What a simple response. There's more outlets covered in the Free Beacon article, look at it yourself. I chose to quote the parts about two of the four or five most important newspapers in the country, ones that assure the country they are holding those in power to account.
Your Obama-was-boring refrain is always lame, but particularly stupid here as it relates to the due diligence of a free press.
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?
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president? I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines. Obama was faced with a press where nearly 90% of the people who covered and reported on him voted for him.
God you're a mouthy Kunt who didn't refute a word I just said. If Sinclair News is such a right-wing behemoth how is that nearly 90% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Obama? Where are all those right-wing reporters who work of Sinclair?
God you're a drive by Kunt.
Bob: "The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines."
APAG: Sinclair
Bob: gets pissed and fucks a strawman
So you can't tell me why 90% of the reporters covering the WH are liberals.
Got it.
Sinclair owns local TV stations they aren't a National Broadcaster, and I was clearly comparing Fox News to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC and PBS which are all national broadcasters so go fuck yourself.
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?
The figures, obtained through the government's FOIA online database, reveal a clear increase in requests for information from the agency once Trump was elected president.
The New York Times, for example, made just 13 FOIA requests during the four years of Obama's second term, sending 3 in 2013, 1 in 2014, 7 in 2015, and 2 in 2016. The number of FOIA requests the Times sent for Obama's entire second term was nearly quadrupled in the first year of Trump's presidency alone, when the Times sent 59 FOIA requests to the EPA.
Reporters at the Times have made 100 FOIA requests since Trump took office just over two years ago, a 669 percent increase of the number of FOIA requests it made during the four years of Obama's second term.
Reporters at the Washington Post sent just a single FOIA request to the EPA during Obama's entire second term, and have sent 43 FOIA requests to the agency since Trump took office.
The sharp increase in FOIA requests to the EPA was also apparent at Politico (15 requests in Obama's second term, 198 since Trump took office), The Hill (20 requests in Obama's second term, 67 since Trump took office), CNN (25 requests in Obama's second term, 47 since Trump took office), Buzzfeed (18 requests in Obama's second term, 38 since Trump took office), and ABC News (4 requests in Obama's second term, 32 since Trump took office).
But we already had plenty of proof of this before this latest report was compiled, and it comes from a story we were covering heavily all through the first half of 2018. Do you remember the endless media stories about the “scandal” surrounding Scott Pruitt and his trip to the G7 in Italy when he was the EPA boss? The Washington Post ran a breathless headline describing how Pruitt and his security detail ran up more than $30,000 in bills for that meeting. In that article, they also had a quote from someone criticizing Pruitt’s itinerary, saying that a visit to the Vatican made it look more like a vacation than business travel.
After submitting some requests of my own to the EPA, we learned something remarkable. In 2015, while Barack Obama was in charge, his EPA boss Gina McCarthy had made the exact same trip to the G7 and her detail ran up a bill of $56,192… nearly double what Pruitt’s team spent. Oh, and they also went to the Vatican and met with precisely the same officials there for the same reasons. The few reports of the trip that showed up in the media only mentioned that McCarthy was there and discussing the important subject of climate change. The cost of the trip never came up.
In before our? Proggies but but but TRUMP: This isn't about how Trump is untrustworthy. That's implied, he's a politician. And but but but Obama is a politician too. I'm not criticizing press practices on Trump, but how they failed under Obama. The differences in this EPA case are stark, and I have no reason to believe it's any different with other agencies.
Flame away, statists.
Obama was boring and didn't do shit. Water is wet. Why don't you also look at Fox news foia requests?
What a simple response. There's more outlets covered in the Free Beacon article, look at it yourself. I chose to quote the parts about two of the four or five most important newspapers in the country, ones that assure the country they are holding those in power to account.
Your Obama-was-boring refrain is always lame, but particularly stupid here as it relates to the due diligence of a free press.
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?
2) do you think it has anything to do with the actions of the president? I'd be curious to see this extended to Obama's first term. Maybe experience of his cabinet has to do with it?
3) with this information, exactly what point are you trying to make?
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines. Obama was faced with a press where nearly 90% of the people who covered and reported on him voted for him.
God you're a mouthy Kunt who didn't refute a word I just said. If Sinclair News is such a right-wing behemoth how is that nearly 90% of the Washington Press Corp voted for Obama? Where are all those right-wing reporters who work of Sinclair?
God you're a drive by Kunt.
Bob: "The conservative media is one cable TV outlet and a few small circulation news papers and magazines."
APAG: Sinclair
Bob: gets pissed and fucks a strawman
So you can't tell me why 90% of the reporters covering the WH are liberals.
Got it.
Sinclair owns local TV stations they aren't a National Broadcaster, and I was clearly comparing Fox News to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC and PBS which are all national broadcasters so go fuck yourself.
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?
I'll ignore your classlessness and answer anyway. You've moooooved the goalpoasts.
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.
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?
I'll ignore your classlessness and answer anyway. You've moooooved the goalpoasts.
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.
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.
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?
I'll ignore your classlessness and answer anyway. You've moooooved the goalpoasts.
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.
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.
Are you really this fucking stupid? Answer the question Bob.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I'll ignore your classlessness and answer anyway. You've moooooved the goalpoasts.
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.
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.
So no link on 90% of journalists covering the White House being liberal. Lil lyin Bob
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hearings
That's why you don't have a source for your bullshit
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting article, thank you. But I’m not seeing anything as granular as Free Beacon’s research.
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.
1) why are they primarily looking at outlets that are perceived to be liberal? Why not look at all the media on both sides?
Ahhhhh nummmm nummmm nummmm
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.
4) do you really think the conservative media ignored Obama and was easy on him?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
Comments
APAG: Sinclair
Bob: gets pissed and fucks a strawman
Under the watch of Jackson's replacement Gina McCarthy, it was revealed that an agency employee was habitually watching porn on his government computer. The porn-watcher remained on the payroll for months.
Got it.
Sinclair owns local TV stations they aren't a National Broadcaster, and I was clearly comparing Fox News to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC and PBS which are all national broadcasters so go fuck yourself.
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.
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
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
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.