Showing posts with label Media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media bias. Show all posts

January 14, 2019

The Clock is Ticking and The Media Might Failed Us Again With Trump

"On at least one occasion, President Trump took possession of his interpreter’s notes after meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, U.S. officials said. There is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with Putin over the past two years, the officials said."

Related image

Frank Bruni posted on the Sunday New York Times about the complicity of the media on Donald Trump. Since there is a chance he might finish the first term is important for responsible people to recognize now what the media did wrong and remind them of it so it won't happen on the next election. There isn't much time left. I don't think the media has learn much as I watch them looking for ratings ( I hate to agree with Trump on that one) and ignoring the meat of what is going on. Never was a candidate or a President covered more than Trump. His lies taken as truth with the exuse they are only suppose to report the news.Yes report the truth!
Why has this happen with Trump? 
Because he is a clown and when you see a clown where you don't expect one it will get everyone's attention. But there comes a time that the jokes and the attacks this clown has towards everyone who doesn't agree with him become tired and yesterdays news because is the same repetition of accusations and even if now he throws Fuck, shit, whore to keep those reporters wrting on their pads. It's time to remind the clown by his own words that we know what he is because only Clowns have big red noses because they lie constantly and a funny smile put on by make up. Only a clown will honk you when he feels he is loosing your coverage. A four letter word or announcing another war he has no plan of starting will do it.  He will throw something knowing he will not be reminded of it.
Trump locked himself up with Putin for one hour or two, No cameras no pads no witnesses except the Russians. And still he is able to say everything he does is in the open. The media was suppose to be the truth seeker, the protector of our democracy but it sold itself out. I guess the reporters and talking heads forgot what their role is on our political systems and particularly at election time. 
Frank Brunicovers these subjects and remind us again where the media faulted and it mentions a second chance. I wonder when the clock will start ticking for the second chance. I think it's been ticking alredy. I recoment you reading it and hopefully it will give you ammunition to those in the media and goverment to remind them the clock is ticking.If you feel he misses something I hope you will remind him.



“Pocahontas” won’t be lonely for long.

As other Democrats join Elizabeth Warren in the contest for the party’s presidential nomination, President Trump will assign them their own nicknames, different from hers but just as derisive. There’s no doubt.

But how much heed will we in the media pay to this stupidity? Will we sprint to Beto O’Rourke, Cory Booker or Mike Bloomberg for a reaction to what Trump just called one of them and then rush back to him for his response to that response? Or will we note Trump’s latest nonsense only briefly and pivot to matters more consequential?

That’s a specific question but also an overarching one — about the degree to which we’ll let him set the terms of the 2020 presidential campaign, about our appetite for antics versus substance, and about whether we’ll repeat the mistakes that we made in 2016 and continued to make during the first stages of his presidency. There were plenty.

Trump tortures us. Deliberately, yes, but I’m referring to the ways in which he keeps yanking our gaze his way. I mean the tough choices that he, more than his predecessors in the White House, forces us to make. His demand for television airtime on Tuesday night was a perfect example: We had to weigh a request in line with precedent against a president out of line when it comes to truth. We had to wrestle with — and figure out when and how to resist — his talent for using us as vessels for propaganda. 

[Go beyond the headlines and behind the curtain with Frank Bruni’s candid reflections on politics, culture, higher education and more every week. Sign up for his newsletter.]

We will wrestle with that repeatedly between now and November 2020, especially in the context of what may well be the most emotional and intense presidential race of our lifetimes. With the dawn of 2019 and the acceleration of potential Democratic candidates’ preparations for presidential bids, we have a chance to do things differently than we did the last time around — to redeem ourselves.

Our success or failure will affect our stature at a time of rickety public trust in us. It will raise or lower the temperature of civic discourse, which is perilously hot. Above all, it will have an impact on who takes the oath of office in January 2021. Democracies don’t just get the leaders they deserve. They get the leaders who make it through whatever obstacle course — and thrive in whatever atmosphere — their media has created.

“The shadow of what we did last time looms over this next time,” the former CBS newsman Dan Rather, who has covered more than half a century of presidential elections, told me. And what we did last time was emphasize the sound and the fury, because Trump provided both in lavish measure.

“When you cover this as spectacle,” Rather said, “what’s lost is context, perspective and depth. And when you cover this as spectacle, he is the star.” Spectacle is his métier. He’s indisputably spectacular. And even if it’s a ghastly spectacle and presented that way, it still lets him control the narrative. As the writer Steve Almond observed in a recently published essay, “He appears powerful to his followers, which is central to his strongman mystique.”
Editors’ Picks 

Trump was and is a perverse gift to the mainstream, establishment media, a magnet for eyeballs at a juncture when we were struggling economically and desperately needed one. Just present him as the high-wire act and car crash that he is; the audience gorges on it. But readers’ news appetite isn’t infinite, so they’re starved of information about the fraudulence of his supposed populism and the toll of his incompetence. And he wins. He doesn’t hate the media, not at all. He uses us.

Did that dynamic help elect him? There’s no definitive answer. But we gave him an extraordinary bounty of coverage, depriving his rivals of commensurate oxygen and agency. And while our coverage of him had turned overwhelmingly negative by the final months of the 2016 campaign, it by no means started out that way.

Thomas Patterson of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy has been analyzing that coverage since Trump declared his candidacy for the presidency in 2015. Patterson found that for much of that year, the number of stories about Trump in the country’s most influential newspapers and on its principal newscasts significantly exceeded what his support in polls at the time justified.

And those stories were predominantly positive. “The volume and tone of the coverage helped propel Trump to the top of Republican polls,” Patterson wrote in one of his reports about the election. In stark contrast, stories about Hillary Clinton in 2015 were mostly negative.

Through the first half of 2016, as Trump racked up victories in the Republican primaries, he commanded much more coverage than any other candidate from either party, and it was evenly balanced between positive and negative appraisals — unlike the coverage of Clinton, which remained mostly negative.

Only during their general-election face-off in the latter half of 2016 did Trump and Clinton confront equivalent tides of naysaying. “On topics relating to the candidates’ fitness for office, Clinton and Trump’s coverage was virtually identical in terms of its negative tone,” Patterson wrote.

Regarding their fitness for office, they were treated identically? In retrospect, that’s madness. It should have been in real time, too. 

But we fell prey to a habit that can’t be repeated when we compare the new crop of Democratic challengers to Trump and to one another. We interpreted fairness as a similarly apportioned mix of complimentary and derogatory stories about each contender, no matter how different one contender’s qualifications, accomplishments and liabilities were from another’s. If we were going to pile on Trump, we had to pile on Clinton — or, rather, keep piling on her.

“It was wall-to-wall emails,” said Jill Abramson, the former executive editor of The Times and the author of a book about the media, “Merchants of Truth,” that will be published next month. She was referring to the questions and complaints about Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state. “When you compare that to the wrongdoing that has been exposed so far by Robert Mueller,” Abramson told me, “it seems like a small thing.” The considerable muck in Clinton’s background never did, and never could, match the mountain of muck in Trump’s.

Abramson, who had left The Times and was writing a column for The Guardian during the 2016 campaign, maintains that Trump also benefited from the media’s excessive faith in polls and its insufficient grasp of what was happening among Americans between the coasts. “The basic flaw of the press coverage, and I count myself in it, was the total assumption that Hillary would win,” she said. “The firepower of the investigative spotlight turned on Trump was a little bit less, because no one thought he would be the president, and that was a grave mistake.” 

I’m not certain that more firepower would have made a difference. For one thing, there were many exposés of Trump’s shady history. For another, he appealed to voters who largely disregard the mainstream media and who thrilled to his exhortations that they disregard it further. And many of those voters were embracing disruption or rejecting Clinton; the tally of Trump’s sins had little bearing on that.

Regardless, he won’t get any pass along those lines in 2020. There are formal investigations galore into his behavior. The media needs only to track them — and is doing so, raptly.

We need to do something else, too, which is to recognize that Trump now has an actual record in office and to discuss that with as much energy as we do his damned Twitter feed.

By the time the 2020 election kicks into highest gear, Trump will have been president for more than three years, barring his impeachment, his resignation or his spontaneous combustion (with him, you never know). We’ll have evidence aplenty to demonstrate that he’s ineffective and incompetent, an approach more likely to have traction than telling voters that he’s outrageous. They already know that. 

We just have to wean ourselves from his Twitter expectorations, which are such easy, entertaining fuel for talking — or, rather, exploding — heads. I’ve certainly been powered by that fuel, in print and on television, myself.

“You know what would be great?” said Amanda Carpenter, who worked as a communications adviser and speechwriter for Ted Cruz and wrote the 2018 book “Gaslighting America: Why We Love It When Trump Lies to Us.” “Instead of covering Trump’s tweets on a live, breaking basis, just cover them in the last five minutes of a news show. They’re presidential statements, but we can balance them.”

We can also allow his challengers to talk about themselves as much as they do about him. In 2016, Carpenter said, that didn’t happen. “It was deeply unfair,” she told me. “When the whole news cycle was microphones shoved in Republican candidates’ faces and the question was always, ‘What’s your reaction to what Trump just said?,’ there’s no way to drive your own message.”

And when journalists gawp at each of Trump’s tirades, taunts and self-congratulatory hallucinations, these heresies blur together and he evades accountability for the ones that should stick. I asked Rather what he was most struck by in the 2016 campaign, and he instantly mentioned Trump’s horrific implication, in public remarks that August, that gun enthusiasts could rid themselves of a Clinton presidency by assassinating her.

I’d almost forgotten it. So many lesser shocks so quickly overwrote it. Rather wasn’t surprised. “It got to the point where it was one outrage after another, and we just moved on each time,” he said. Instead, we should hold on to the most outrageous, unconscionable moments. We should pause there awhile. We can’t privilege the incremental over what should be the enduring. It lets Trump off the hook.

So does anything, really, that tugs us from issues of policy and governance into the realms of theater and sport. That puts a greater premium than ever on avoiding what Joel Benenson called “the horse-race obsession” with who’s ahead, who’s behind, who seems to be breaking into a gallop, who’s showing signs of a limp.

Benenson was the chief strategist and pollster for Clinton’s campaign, and he told me: “Cable networks have figured out that the most interesting television of the week is the National Football League pregame show, and that if you put enough experts on arguing about something that hasn’t happened yet, people will watch. And that’s what we’re doing with our politics. The media is not using their strength, their franchise, to elevate and illuminate the conversation. They’re just getting you all jazzed up about the game.” 

That carried over into Trump’s presidency itself. To wit: Pew analyzed over 3,000 stories from 24 news organizations during his first four months in office to determine what the media gave the most coverage to. It wasn’t any legislative proposal or executive action such as the ban on travel into the United States from largely Muslim countries. It was his “political skills.”

I think that we’ve improved since then, and all along our efforts have included significant in-depth reporting. The Times’s acquisition and exhaustive analysis of confidential financial records of Trump’s from the 1990s — and its conclusion, in an epic story published in October, that he used questionable schemes to build his wealth — is a sterling example.

But the lure of less demanding labors (“Trump Calls Former Aide a Three-Toed Sloth Minus the Vigor!”) is always there, especially because readers and viewers, no matter how much they complain about the media’s shallowness, reward it. What they lap up most readily and reliably is Trump the Baby at the top of the newscast, Trump the Buffoon in the highlights reel, Trump the Bully in the headline. And that’s on them.

But it’s on us to try to interest them in more and to leaven that concentration of attention with full, vivid introductions to Trump’s alternatives. Dozens of Democrats are poised to volunteer for that role, and when we in the media observe — as I myself have done — that they must possess the requisite vividness to steal some of his spotlight, we’re talking as much about our own prejudices and shortcomings as anything else. We can direct that spotlight where we want. It needn’t always fall on the politician juggling swords or doing back flips.

It’s on us to quit staging “likability” sweepstakes — a prize more often withheld from female politicians than from male ones. We should buck commercial considerations to the extent that we can and give the candidates’ competing visions of government as much scrutiny as their competing talents for quips or proneness to gaffes. Every four years we say we’ll devote more energy and space to policy and every four years we don’t. But in an environment this polarized and shrill, and at a crossroads this consequential, following through on that vow is more important than ever.

It’s on us not to surrender to tired taxonomies that worsen the country’s divisions and echo Trump’s divisiveness. Black voters, white voters, urban voters and rural voters aren’t driven solely by those designations, and the soul of the country doesn’t belong exclusively to former factory workers in the Rust Belt.

“Their voices deserve to be heard, but so do the minority voices in urban America,” Rather said. “And I think we can do a better job as journalists not to overuse the phrase ‘average American,’ and also to expand the definition of it.” 

The real story of Trump isn’t his amorality and outrageousness. It’s Americans’ receptiveness to that. It’s the fact that, according to polls, most voters in November 2016 deemed him dishonest and indecent, yet plenty of them cast their ballots for him anyway.

“Trump basically ran on blowing the whole thing up,” said Nancy Gibbs, who was the top editor at Time magazine from 2013 to 2017. “So what was it that the country wanted? It’s critically important that we find ways to get at what it is people imagine government should be doing and that we really look at what kind of leadership we need.”

Nicknames have nothing to do with it. So let’s not have much to do with them.

  You can follow Frank on Twitter (@FrankBruni).
Frank Bruni has been with The Times since 1995 and held a variety of jobs — including White House reporter, Rome bureau chief and chief restaurant critic — before becoming a columnist in 2011. He is the author of three best-selling books.  @FrankBruni • Facebook

November 16, 2018

WH Ordered to Return the Press Pass to Jim Acosta from CNN




White House ordered to give back Jim Acosta’s press pass

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly ruled Friday that the White House violated CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s Fifth Amendment right by suspending his press pass, and ordered it be restored.
Why it matters: In his ruling, Judge Kelly is setting a precedent that future White House administrations and other elected officials need clear evidence of a security threat or operational burden created by reporters' actions in order to have the justification to revoke a press pass.





February 12, 2018

“Darker, Gayer, Different.” Political Correctness Defeats the Purpose of Sports (Fox)



{Frederick M. Brown-Fox} Unless it’s changed overnight, the motto of the Olympics, since 1894, has been “Faster, Higher, Stronger.” It appears the U.S. Olympic Committee would like to change that to “Darker, Gayer, Different.” If your goal is to win medals, that won’t work.
A USOC official was quoted this week expressing pride (what else?) about taking the most diverse U.S. squad ever to the Winter Olympics. That was followed by a, frankly, embarrassing laundry list of how many African-Americans, Asians and openly gay athletes are on this year’s U.S. team. No sport that we are aware of awards points – or medals – for skin color or sexual orientation.
For the current USOC, a dream team should look more like the general population. So, while uncomfortable, the question probably needs to be asked: were our Olympians selected because they’re the best at what they do, or because they’re the best publicity for our current obsession with having one each from Column A, B and C?
Some breakthroughs in American sports were historic, none more so than Jackie Robinson’s in baseball. But Robinson didn’t make the Majors because he was black. His legendary career occurred in an age of outright racial discrimination because he was better at the game than almost everyone around him. 
If someone is denied a slot on a team because of prejudice, that’s one thing. Complaining that every team isn’t a rainbow of political correctness defeats the purpose of sports, which is competition. 
As my Fox News colleague Ed Henry wrote in his excellent book, “42 Faith: The Rest of the Jackie Robinson Story,” Robinson was not a kvetcher. “Don’t complain, work harder,” was his approach to the game and the game of life.
Jeremy Lin, who played basketball at Harvard before joining the New York Knicks, did not become a media hero – remember “Linsanity?” – due to his Chinese heritage, but because he almost single-handedly turned around the struggling Knicks in 2012, and had fans delirious over his graceful shots and calm under pressure.
Back in 1993, when, it seems, America still had a sense of humor, the movie “Cool Runnings” portrayed a Jamaican bobsled team whose members willed themselves to compete in the 1988 Winter Olympics. Why was their feat noteworthy? Um … no snow in Jamaica, not racial prejudice.
That same year, Michael Edwards riveted world attention to the ski jumping competition. Didn’t matter that he finished last. “Eddie the Eagle,” as he was known, came from Great Britain, which also doesn’t get much snow and whose highest elevation is 4,400 feet. Ski off that hill and you’re more likely to land in sheep dung.
Insisting that sports bow to political correctness by assigning teams quotas for race, religion or sexuality is like saying that professional basketball goals will be worth four points if achieved by a minority in that sport – white guys, for instance –  instead of the two or three points awarded to black players, who make up 81 percent of the NBA. Any plans to fix that disparity? Didn’t think so.
If someone is denied a slot on a team because of prejudice, that’s one thing. Complaining that every team isn’t a rainbow of political correctness defeats the purpose of sports, which is competition. At the Olympic level, not everyone is a winner. Not everyone gets a little plastic trophy to take home.
Sorry. “Faster, Higher, Stronger” still works better than “We win because we’re different.”
                                                                             New York Times:



John Moody, an executive vice president and executive editor of Fox News, in 2008. In a column this week on FoxNews.com, he sarcastically suggested that the United States Olympic Committee adopt the motto “Darker, Gayer, Different.” 
CreditFrederick M. Brown/Getty Images 




 






Fox News on Friday removed an incendiary op-ed article by one of its top executives, after the piece drew criticism for mocking American Olympic officials who had emphasized the diversity of this year’s team of athletes. The column suggested, sarcastically, that the United States Olympic Committee adopt a new motto: “Darker, Gayer, Different.”
The piece, published on Wednesday and written by John Moody, an executive vice president and executive editor of Fox News, caused an uproar on social media. Some of the network’s employees expressed dismay that Fox News had allowed the article to be published on its website.
“John Moody’s column does not reflect the views or values of Fox News and has been removed,” the network said in a statement. John Moody is Executive Vice President, Executive Editor for Fox News.  

Adamfoxie🦊 Celebrating 10 years of keeping an eye on the world for You


adamfoxie.blogspot.com brings you the important LGBT news others ignore. Does not repost from gay sites [except out.sports.com only when importat athlete comes out].Will post popular items with a different angle or to contribute to our readers🦊

August 3, 2017

Main Media Refuses to Cover The Deaths and Persecution of Gays in Chechnya









In the four months since The New York Times first reported that authorities in Chechnya “were arresting and killing gay men,” evening cable and evening broadcast news programming has virtually ignored the story. Between April 1 and July 31, there were only three significant mentions in total across six networks -- two news packages and one brief exchange -- about the ongoing human rights abuses.
On April 1, The New York Times reported that “Chechen authorities were arresting and killing gay men.” Citing independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, the Times’ Andrew Kramer wrote that “men were detained ‘in connection with their nontraditional sexual orientation, or suspicion of such,’” and that “more than 100 gay men had been detained” so far. The report added that Novaya Gazeta “had the names of three murder victims, and suspected many others had died in extrajudicial killings,” and it noted that authorities posed “as men looking for dates” on social networking sites to lure in victims. Many gay men have fled the region as a result. The Timesreport quoted a spokesperson for Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov who denied the existence of gay people in Chechnya, calling the reports “absolute lies and disinformation.” “You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” he said. Kadyrov has since been interviewed for HBO’s Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel by reporter David Scott, and according to The Washington Post, during the conversation, he “laugh[ed] dismissively at questions about the allegations” and said that gay men “are not people”:
In his interview with Scott, Kadyrov initially laughs dismissively at questions about the allegations. “Why did he come here?” he says to someone off camera. “What's the point of these questions?” But as Scott presses him, Kadyrov talks angrily about the reporters and activists who write about LGBT rights in Chechnya.
“They are devils. They are for sale. They are not people,” he says. “God damn them for what they are accusing us of. They will have to answer to the almighty for this.”
Media Matters analysis of CNN's, MSNBC's, and Fox News’ weekday evening programming from 5-11 p.m. and ABC's, CBS', and NBC’s flagship evening news programs -- both weekend and weekday -- found virtual silence across the networks regarding the abuse of LGBTQ people in Chechnya. There were only three significant mentions of the story across all six networks between April 1 and July 31 and one short exchange in a broader discussion about the United States’ position on human rights around the world.


Sarah Wasko / Media Matters

Over the last four months, CNN was the only cable network to air a full segment dedicated to the subject, as well as one brief exchange during a separate interview. A special April 24 evening edition of CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper aired a package in which reporter Matthew Chance covered the subject. During the May 4 edition of CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, there was also a brief exchange between host Anderson Cooper and guest Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in which Cooper mentioned German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s request to Russian President Vladimir Putin to intervene and help protect gay people in the country. McCain did not comment on the atrocities in Chechnya specifically during the exchange.
Of the three broadcast flagship programs, there was no significant mention of Chechnya’s abuses on weekdays. On April 23, however, the Sunday edition of NBC Nightly News devoted a segment to the topic featuring reporter Lucy Kafanov. 
During the segment on The Lead, host Jake Tapper noted that the story was not “getting enough attention,” and Matthew Chance reported that the journalist who broke the story was “fleeing the country” after she received threats for her reporting. He also said that at least five other reporters at her newspaper have been killed since 2000 “in mafia-style hits.” The package also featured video of a victim speaking out about what Chance described as “horrifying abuse,” detailing the torture by authorities:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They tied wires to my hand and put metal clippers on my ears to electrocute me. When they shock you, you jump high above the ground. [via Nexis]
NBC’s report also featured interviews with a victim of the abuse in Chechnya, as well as another journalist from Novaya Gazeta. The victim, who used a pseudonym, detailed being “dragged … out of a car,” beaten, and told that “gays shouldn’t exist in Chechnya.” NBC's Kafanov added that in addition to the reporting by Novaya Gazeta, the abuses had been corroborated by human rights groups.
Prominent world leaders have spoken out against the human rights abuses in Chechnya, including Merkel and newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron. Major human rights groups such as the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Amnesty Internationaland Outright International have also launched campaigns in support of LGBTQ Chechens. Despite this international condemnation -- and human rights groups’ calls for President Donald Trump to comment -- the president has not spoken publicly about the allegations or condemned Chechnya’s actions. It should be noted that newly appointed United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley and State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert have issued statements on the reports.
Chechnya’s brutal attacks against and murders of queer men in the region have become an international human rights issue, but the American public would not know that by watching the evening news. Though NBC's and CNN’s pieces provided solid reporting, one package on each network's evening programming over a four-month span is not enough, and the utter silence of ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and Fox News does a disservice to their viewers.

Methodology:

Media Matters searched Nexis transcripts of CNN's, MSNBC's, and Fox News’ weekday 5-11 p.m. programming between April 1 and July 26 for mentions of the words “Chechnya” or “Chechen” or “Kadyrov” or “Russia” within 20 words of the terms “gay” or “LGBT” or “homosexual” or “lesbian” or “bisexual.” Media Matters also searched Nexis transcripts for those terms appearing on ABC's, CBS', and NBC’s nightly news programs ABC World News TonightCBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News, including the Saturday and Sunday editions of those shows. Media Matters also searched iQ media for those terms appearing on MSNBC’s 6 p.m. programming and the weekend broadcast news shows.
Mentions of those terms were included in the analysis if the human rights abuses of gay, bisexual, and queer men in Chechnya were mentioned as the state.

 BRENNAN SUEN

September 9, 2016

False Claim of Trump’s Assertion Briefers Disparaged The President//Clinton




I have the words of someone who covers the Pentagon and intelligence matters who explains that such a thing of intelligence briefers disparaging their boss and a person that could become their boss is just does not happen and it makes no sense. These agents briefing the candidates have knowledge and self control otherwise they would not be on their jobs. 
I don’t think that even the words of someone who is very knowable on intelligence is not needed. Would anyone with a clear mind doubt that? Then why would Trump say it?  Trump says what ever comes in his mind to squirm himself out of any situation and put people on a different direction of thought. 
He knows his supporters will buy anything. They took the hook in and now there is no place to go. Even if they don’t believe Trump they will never go for Hillary.  Trump knows this and he feels free to throw any bone on any direction because he knows that besides his followers he is got the media. The media made him and have kept him because he means ratings, ratings is money. If Hillary had put him to bed already the race will become very different and boring. Who is going to be paying attention if everybody knows the outcome?
 The electoral college votes is what makes a candidate become President.  There are 538 and one needs 270 to win.  Gore lost to Bush but he(Gore) had more popular votes than Bush but Bush had the 270 number required to win the nomination.This is why the fight is concentrated on certain states that will insure the 270 number of the electoral college. Right now (as of 60 hrs ago) you have Hillary with the number of 278 and Donald with 191 but they call it a tight race(http://www.latimes.com/projects/2016-presidential-election-map/). 
It’s all in the way you look at it. The glass is half full or half empty. All I would like you to think is that in this race the Democratic candidate is fighting two enemies. One is Trump’s lies and then the media who allows the lies to go unchallenged to the viewers. There are still a large number of people undecided and those people are affected by what they hear. No matter how the Clinton camp denies something it does not carries the weight when season reporters can challenge a lie or misstement but that does not happens.
Matt Lauer gave a pad on the back as Trump stepped up and was sat down. After that for the exception of one time I counted there was no challenged on anything he said. When you look at the woman being grilled she was interrupted on every answer and on some answers there was one question she was not allowed to give an answer to because he interrupted her and asked her a question. If you didn’t watch the show or don’t remember some details I mentioned go back and you will see for yourself.                                                                          Adam Gonzalez
Below is Greg Miller who covers intelligence agencies and terrorism for The Washington Post:
Did U.S. intelligence analysts betray disdain for President Obama and Hillary Clinton during recent classified briefings with Donald Trump, as the GOP candidate claimed Wednesday?
Doing so would represent an almost inconceivable violation of training and tradition, former U.S. intelligence officials said. They added, however, that those accused briefers may be quietly muttering and shaking their heads about at least one of the presidential candidates now.
“Those selected for this task would have been the most professional of an elite corps of intelligence officers,” said Paul Pillar, a former high-ranking CIA analyst. “One of the last things they would do is express either verbally or through body-language preferences” about candidates or policy. 
Michael Morell, a former deputy CIA director who has endorsed Clinton, put it more bluntly, saying that Trump’s comments “show that he’s got zero understanding of how intelligence works.”
Trump’s claim came during a candidates forum Wednesday when he was asked whether he learned anything that shocked or alarmed him during a pair of briefings designed to provide an overview of security issues confronting the United States.
Trump could not name anything of substance he learned from the sessions, which are part of a long tradition of giving candidates access to classified information about global trouble spots. Instead, he said he was mainly struck by the briefers’ obvious disdain for his political opponent and the current president.
“There was one thing that shocked me,” he said, suggesting that the briefers had made clear that Obama and Clinton had ignored their expertise and recommendations. He added that he is “pretty good with the body language. I could tell they were not happy. Our leaders did not follow what [the intelligence experts] were recommending.”
The assertion was delivered as a throwaway line during a lengthy discussion of foreign policy. But among U.S. intelligence officials, Trump’s claim amounts to an accusation of a serious breach of professional ethics. 
The CIA and other spy agencies are supposed to collect information and assemble analysis to help policymakers make decisions. But their roles require spy services to steer clear of seeking to influence policy. Analysts trained to remain impartial are particularly allergic to domestic politics.
A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversees the candidates’ briefings, declined to comment.
Officials said it was the first time they could recall a presidential candidate providing a readout of a briefing he had been given, let alone exploiting it to make a political point.
“This is unprecedented,” said David Priess, a former CIA officer who delivered daily briefings to senior members of the George W. Bush administration. “We’ve had other presidential candidates mention that they got a briefing and talk in platitudes about it. We’ve never had somebody talk about what happened in a session.”
Asked whether he learned anything that might make him reconsider campaign pledges, including his vow to swiftly defeat the Islamic State, Trump said, “No, I didn’t learn anything from that standpoint.”
U.S. officials had previously expressed concern that Trump might be abusive toward his briefers. Instead, he described them as “terrific people.”
Trump was accompanied during his initial Aug. 17 briefing by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, both avid supporters. Trump and Christie listened politely, but Flynn repeatedly interrupted the briefers and disparaged their work, according to former officials familiar with the matter.
“There will be other opportunities to be abusive — the higher priority now is to cast a negative light on his opponent,” Pillar said. The briefers’ reaction to Trump’s depiction of their session probably involved “shaking of heads and rolling of eyes,” Pillar said, “but part of the professionalism is to keep that thoroughly private.”
Greg Miller who covers intelligence agencies and terrorism for The Washington Post

Featured Posts

Behind The Back of The Vice-Cheney Family

The Cheneys at former Vice President Dick Cheney's swearing-in in 2005   EMILY DAVIES People ...