Which MSM Outlet Would You Trust to Accurately Report an Unflattering Story...

[CorpGovActivist]

... about your candidate of choice, whoever s/he might be?

- Dave

[Nickster]

1. Honestly, the only outlet I'd trust at this point is MSNBC, and that's contingent on it being

reported by Keith O. Other than that, I wouldn't trust the MSM to accurately report if the sky was blue or not.

[CorpGovActivist]

2. I Give KO High Marks...

... for accuracy in both his organization's research and its reporting.

- Dave

[Nickster]

4. Oh wait, almost forgot Jim Lehrer. I'd trust him as well.

[CorpGovActivist]

5. Newshour Is Sleepy...

... but its viewers sure aren't!

: )

- Dave

[Nickster]

7. I think adding all the flash and entertainment to the news is what has killed it. Just give me the

straight news. I don't give a damn what Britney is doing, if I did, I'd watch the E! Channel.

[CorpGovActivist]

8. Glitz, Glamour, and Packaging...

... still don't measure up to simple, straightforward reporting of the classic journalistic questions, in my book.

: )

- Dave

[Mutineer]

39. Please. He's a total Clinton crony.

My answer? None. they're all biased in their own ways.

[CorpGovActivist]

70. What Makes You Think So? n/t

[babylonsister]

3. No specific outlet, but I'd listen really intently to KO, Moyers, and

Jon Stewart, who's an equal opportunity basher.

[CorpGovActivist]

6. Stewart Rocks!

He truly understands Mark Twain's saying about the assault of laughter.

- Dave

[KoKo]

9. none....why do you ask?

You'd have to parse newspaper and online sites and even then not really know if it's accurate. We live in a Spy Novel...twists and turns and so many vested interests that getting "accurate" info...takes much work.

[CorpGovActivist]

10. Hence the Free Marketplace of Ideas

Assuming that your candidate of choice (and you, as his/her supporter) woke up to a very hard-hitting and unflattering piece tomorrow, s/he'd have access to all the tools of the free marketplace of ideas (e.g., to point out inaccuracies, provide context that might have been missing from the article, etc.).

Even at this late stage, where I'm 90% sure who I will vote for in the primary, I would still sit up and take notice if such an article ran about my choice, especially if it broke out of certain quarters that I have found to be reliable in the past.

- Dave

[liberal N proud]

11. If I can't confirm on the internet, then I don't trust it

Until I can confirm a story, it nothing more than a story.

[CorpGovActivist]

12. How Do You Feel about Unredacted Primary Documents...

... posted for you to peruse as thoroughly as you like?

- Dave

[liberal N proud]

15. If it is from an official source or can be confirmed as authentic, why not

We must have something we can trust.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. "We must have something we can trust."

Exactly. Eventually, common sense has to take hold, and - to the greatest extent possible - we have to refrain from applying shifting or double standards when it comes to the meanings of things like smoking gun documents.

If the exact same primary documents give rise to reasonable inferences about Rove, Bush, Cheney, Card, etc., then they should apply equally to closed-government types who wear the D label as a fashion choice.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

17. Primary docs occur in a context. Words really don't speak for themselves. n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

21. While I Agree, to a Point...

... I also think that asking questions and asking for the context to be supplied is a reasonable function of representative democracy.

Some primary documents speak for themselves on their face; others bear contextualization, but the burden of proof then falls to the source best positioned to supply said context.

- Dave

[EFerrari]

13. None of them.

Edit: I don't trust their reporting on anyone else either.

[CorpGovActivist]

14. What Outlets Do You Trust? n/t

[EFerrari]

16. None, really. I read a lot and try to decode a lot.

I watch Amy Goodman's show, maybe I trust her more than anyone. I try to check the headlines that Washington Journal identifies every day to know where the pulse is -- even if the stories are skewed as read on air, at least I know what topics are under the warmer.

I tend to trust Greg Palast, Bill Moyers, the folks from Freepress.net. Documentarians.

No teevee news, no cable news, no papers. It's sad really. This is a houseful of writers and we used to enjoy our two papers with coffee in the morning. Now, it's more like we have to try to track down the sourcing on important stories because the media is too dirty to take at their word.

[CorpGovActivist]

18. Documentarians!

Good choice of words.

"Now, it's more like we have to try to track down the sourcing on important stories because the media is too dirty to take at their word."

Favorite fact-checking resources?

- Dave

[EFerrari]

19. Search engines. I tracked three sources reported as

"expert observers" in the Miami Herald on a story about Chavez to their rightwing, expat roots. To the material written about them and by them on rightwing sites. To the fact that of the three, only one was actually in Venezuela. When I brought that up to the Herald, they deleted my comment. lol

It really is a hard slog to double check in that way. Who has that kind of time or interest? I'm job hunting so I've too much time on my hands. Most people don't.

I have some favorite sites but, they are just favorites. Doing a search such as "Coffer Black Blackwater Torture" for example, can pull up leads where going to "opensecrets" or any other favorite site doesn't. My assumption is that I don't know what I need to know, so I prefer doing open searches rather than relying on any site or group of sites.

[CorpGovActivist]

20. "My assumption is that I don't know what I need to know,"

What a very subversive assumption!

; )

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

22. I don't think I trust any "outlets" entirely.

More important than whatever "outlet", do the "documents" speak for themselves and can they be confirmed and vetted. Is it a legitimate and important story or a red herring or innuendo or dead-end.

I think your challenge is less about finding the most perfect outlet than finding one that is willing to put energy into looking into whatever thing you're talking about, and if they find it legitimate and important, to be willing to report it.

[CorpGovActivist]

31. First Things First

"I think your challenge is less about finding the most perfect outlet than finding one that is willing to put energy into looking into whatever thing you're talking about, and if they find it legitimate and important, to be willing to report it."

Check. Well beyond that point, so the luxury of figuring out which outlets will be most impactful is one that can be afforded under this scenario.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

34. You feel utterly assured that any and all outlets will report it?

Pretty interesting considering your previous thread on this topic was locked as "rightist Republican smears against Democrats". But I guess that's the sort of thing the MSM does report, after all.

[CorpGovActivist]

59. Utterly Confident? No. Based on Prior Experience, However...

... and the bona fides I've established with investigative journalists who've published stories I've brought to their attention, I'm confident enough.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

73. 7-Figure and 8-Figure Mystery Donations Revealed...Eye-Popping Names...

... yeah, the story is more than "newsworthy," it's also downright interesting.

As for your contention that major foundations don't disclose donors, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2522831&mesg_id=2522831">the largest, transparently-operated charitable foundation in the world - run by Clinton's former Deputy White House Chief of Staff - might argue otherwise.

You might also do your homework on the facts. For example, http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html">you might examine the Form 990s of the top 100 foundations by assets.

Like I said, I don't mind having a civil, fact-based, profanity-free discussion of the actual facts. But it's called "rapid response," not "rabid response," for a reason.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

37. Do let us know when you are done taking advantage of this "luxury" and finally bother to

put out your story.

Thus far, all you have done is post implications, spin smear, and innuendo against a particular Dem candidate (who you named in your previous locked thread). You let that crap stand without any backup, while taking the "luxury" of waving this ugly shit out there, unsubstantiated by anything.

If you have information, fucking spill it... broadcast it. Quit dropping smears and accusations against a Dem candidate unless you are willing to provide information and evidence.

Jeez, we don't have enough rightwingers to do this sort of work posting unsubstantiated accusations against our candidates?

Yeah, do let us know when this amazing story "hits the most impactful outlets". :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

60. Right on

:thumbsup:

Frankly, I'm allowed this thread is allowed to remain open. Usually, continuing a discussion from a locked thread is grounds for getting the thread locked.

And asking for ways to disseminate smears against Democrats is grounds for getting a thread locked.

[CorpGovActivist]

65. Your Avatar Is Showing

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2522831&mesg_id=2522831">By the way, a few more inconvenient facts about donor disclosure.

- Dave

[MonkeyFunk]

66. This has nothing to do with my avatar

it has to do you with you continuing this smear, and asking for ways to promote it, after your previous thread doing so was locked.

[CorpGovActivist]

69. Re-Read the OP...

... and you'll find that I'm asking supporters of any candidate to express a source of information that would cause them to pause and read something that is unflattering about their candidate.

Maybe if you participated and answered the actual intent of the OP, instead of harping on any seemingly anti-Hillary thread, you might learn something. I know I often do when people give honest exchanges of views, without devolving into petty censorship and namecalling.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

62. When Healthy Skepticism Gives Way to Blind Scorn...

... I find it best to just let events speak for themselves.

Stay tuned, and please at least read thru the donor list names when they become public.

- Dave

[riderinthestorm]

23. I listen to Diane Rehm. I don't do teevee anymore

and definitely no newspapers. It's been a long time since I trusted a single source - I glean information from sources online that range from the BBC to Democracy Now. I now tend to trust individuals rather than any one "big" MSM outlet.

[CorpGovActivist]

27. Kudos to You on Staying Awake...

... for an entire Diane Rehm show on NPR. God bless her, though.

- Dave

[Echo In Light]

24. Are you f***ing kidding me? NONE. They obediently abide the aims of their corporate pay masters

[NorthCarolina]

28. I Agree, None

The "success" of the surge is simply to divert attention from the war during an election season. The Republicans will fare better in the elections if the media can give the public the impression that we're winning, They're sticking to the script on this one.

[Echo In Light]

29. "What?...oh, you mean you guys weren't happy with the republicans?...Really?!"

[Garbo 2004]

25. Knight Ridder DC Bureau reporters IIRC did a credible job prior to the Iraq invasion,

countering the credulous reporting of the Judy Miller's NYT and the WaPo. Of course they didn't get the attention the "newspapers of record" did. McClatchy bought Knight Ridder but McClatchy has kept some of the KR staff/reporters & I think has still broken some stories since then. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/140

One online site that continued to cover the US Attorneys firings from early on and the story finally actually got traction in MSM is Josh Marshall's TPM. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

With MSM, even if they have the goods and it's a legit story will they cover it? NYT/Time Mag/CBS known to sit on significant stories in the past, for example. Owners have their own agendas and look to their interests in the present and future. And they hedge their bets.

That said, there's Olbermann on MSNBC, although I think it would have to be a legit newsworthy story and not something he'd regard as simply a hit piece against a candidate.

[CorpGovActivist]

26. Some of the DC Bureaus Are...

... absolutely top-notch, top-drawer, top-shelf investigative journalists (and that goes doubly so for some of the foreign press stationed in DC).

- Dave

[Cass]

30. Keith Olbermann. nt

[CorpGovActivist]

32. Undoubtedly Influential n/t

[Echo In Light]

33. If it's on TV, at best, a segment of Book Notes via C-SPAN. That aside, forget it

[CorpGovActivist]

35. Would Any MSM Outlets Pique Your Interest Enough...

... to pursue the story through your own more trusted channels?

- Dave

[Doctor_J]

36. Air America or Novam - that's it

No TV station, no newspaper.

[CorpGovActivist]

38. Current TV/Gore? n/t

[UTUSN]

40. Why, umm... YOU, of course, especially regarding the CLINTONs!1 n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

43. I Respect Senator Clinton, to a Point, and My Vote Was Hers to Lose...

... but the more I informed myself about the facts, the less apt I grew to help catapult her from her Senate seat.

If, for example, the currently-secret Clinton donor lists are leaked before Iowa, do you think the names on them are newsworthy? If so, what outlet would you be most likely to note, with it at least leading you to look at the documents for yourself?

- Dave

[UTUSN]

44. We've gone through this before. If "secrecy/corruption" is your issue,

I submit that CHEENEE/Shrub FAR outdistance any of our Dems. I just notice that you're always harping on our Dems. Is asking you to explain a fair question?!1

[CorpGovActivist]

45. I Think My Bona Fides in Taking on BushCo. Are Intact...

... but I also think that it is entirely fair to fully vet the Dem candidates, and make the primary a crucible to hone the eventual nominee for the general.

- Dave

P.S. For more information on how I've helped delve into BushCo.'s secrecy/corruption: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=david+smith+halliburton

[troubleinwinter]

47. You are posting the exact shit that got your previous thread locked.

"LOCKING. Pure flame-bait, seeking greater circulation for rightist Republican smears against Democrats."

[CorpGovActivist]

48. Your Profanity? Fine. My Honest Expression of Misgivings and Facts?

Says a bit about how tolerant some are of the free marketplace of ideas.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

50. You haven't posted anything at all of substance, and certainly no facts. Merely innuendo.

I don't even want to argue some of the crap you posted in the previous locked thread, for concern over giving publicity to your nonsense.

The candidate being spoken of is my very least favorite in the Dem race, but I abhore your tactics of posting unsubstantiated bullshit and innuendo. You imply nefarious actions of 'Quid Pro Quo', in reference to IRS law, but as related to IRS law, it has a completely different meaning than generally meant. You like using the phrase because it sounds bad and is an inflamatory phrase.

Your posts are cheap and low. If you have any pertinant information, post it, broadcast it, or leave off with your nonsense posts.

I could post that I'm seeking an outlet to report that your mother wears army boots and that she got them without ever legitimately or legally paying for them, and that I have documentary evidence to prove it. I guess this looks bad if I don't actually post your gift tag to her that says, "Dear Mom, Merry Christmas and I hope you enjoy these army boots!"

I asked your concern about the 501(c)(3) non-profit, charitable organization, if you had any issues with the mission or purpose, or any improprieties in the filings and your response was merely "Quid Pro Quo" with a link to the IRS requirements. This only states that the org must give a receipt to the donor deducting any item of value such as prizes, t-shirts, books, etc., so that the donor knows what portion of the donation is tax deductable. So what is your problem here? Are you concerned that donors are confused about what portion of their doations are tax deductable or are you just interested in laying unsubstantiated suspicion and smear around?

If you have any subtantial information that matters, whip it out.

[CorpGovActivist]

51. Thanks for That Belly Laugh n/t

[troubleinwinter]

53. Yer most welcome. Got any facts you'd like to post?

[CorpGovActivist]

54. The Redacted Primary Documents That I've Already Posted...

... are factual, are they not?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

55. The 990 filings posted on Guidestar are factually the documents rec'd by the IRS. And????

This is a news story??!! Ohkayyy. A nonprofit charitable organization receives donations. I've actually seen this happen before.

[CorpGovActivist]

56. No, Those Are NOT the Filings the IRS Received...

... those copies show the donors.

I don't mind discussing this factually with someone amenable to changing their mind based on facts.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

57. They are the copies provided by the IRS to Guidestar.

The IRS may or may not have received redacted copies, there is no requirement to provide donor info to the IRS with the filing (IRS instructions say NOT to furnish the info with the filing). The IRS instructs that Public Inspection copies should be redacted of donor info. The IRS redacts donor info when furnishing copies to Guidestar and the public.

Exactly what interests you about donor info to a nonprofit charitable organization? You do not seem to find anything amiss in the 990 filings, do not seem to take issue with the mission or purpose of the charity, your reference to IRS instructions in giving receipts to donors doesn't seem to indicate any important issue, redaction of donor info is standard IRS procedure, so WHAT is your point??!!! Just snide innuendo?

When do you expect this stunning news story to come out? I wait breathlessly.

[CorpGovActivist]

61. Factually Wrong Again

You might care to read how GuideStar obtains these filings.

- Dave

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. Bill Moyer, PBS. He's not MSM, but I'd trust him. I trust KO also, but his corporate owners can

control what he does.

[CorpGovActivist]

52. Moyers Is Extremely Responsible; KO Could Probably Transcend...

... his "corporate masters," given his fan base. If someone like Imus can land on his feet...

- Dave

[porphyrian]

42. None. News with an agenda is propaganda, not news.

I don't mind propaganda that's in line with my beliefs, but calling it news is a lie. The corporate media puts their profits before my better interests, and their propaganda is not in line with my beliefs, so the can kiss my ass. I don't watch them.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. What Non-Traditional Sources Could Get You to Read an Unflattering...

... article about your chosen candidate, regardless of who s/he is.

- Dave

[porphyrian]

74. We're here. -n/t

[wildbilln864]

46. narry a frickin one! n/t

[avrdream]

58. Keith, baby.

Down here in Oz, we only get Fox for 24 hours and CNN America part of the time so I have to go on my memory of KO being fair. I read most of his stuff on-line and watch on youtube whenever I can.

Chris Matthews can go drown in a sewer somewhere for all I care. ICK!

[CorpGovActivist]

63. Are You an American Expat, or an Aussie Hoping for a Progressive Dem in the WH? n/t

[LynnTheDem]

64. Pretty much any outside of the USsA.

Being #46 in freedom of the press makes the US "media" rather untrustworthy.

[CorpGovActivist]

68. I'm Partial to the Citizen-Printers ...

... the ones who realize that Paine, Hamilton, and Franklin would be blogging till their fingers bled if they were alive today.

; )

- Dave

[blogslut]

67. Ever read Stephen King's Firestarter?

Rolling Stone, baby!

[CorpGovActivist]

72. Rolling Stone?

I can see that.

- Dave