Here's what I was getting at.

The day after the state of the union address, MSNBC showed the clip of Rubio getting a drink of water, more than 100 times.

A few days before, Sen Menendez was on the air at MSNBC with Red Shultz. Schukltz, being the hard-hitting journalist he is, never mentioned Menendez's ethical lapses.

If you point out that the NYT ran a story (or stories), that is certainly relevent. It would be more relevent if you compared the exposure that the NYT gave to the Menendez story, versus the Rubio (GASP!) water drinking controversy.

By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/ny...anted=all&_r=0

"the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear. "

Does the NYT suggest anywhere that 100% of the media frenzy focusing on Rubio's taking a sip of water, is political smear?

I'm sure the NYT is correct that there is politics involved in the Menendez investigation. But why didn't the NYT similarly dismiss the absurd notion that Rubio's taking a sip of water, means anything whatsoever?

Post links to all the NYT stories about Rubio gulping the water since you seem to imply they spent more time discussing that vs. Menendez. Then we'll see which has more print.

I don't consider the NYT credible.
That's why I said " perhaps"
Call it an educated guess if you like! . Clever use of dashes 😏
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So, what do you consider credible media then?

Jim, your leaving out the beginning of that quote from the NYT changes the intent of the sentence.

That's the point Brian !!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In what way? The NYT admits there are serious allegations, then states that some of the hubub is nothing more than political smear.

When the NYT ran a front-page story claiming that John McCain's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter with a mistress, and there was no truth to that...did the NYT admit that it was all political smear? Or is 'smear' only involved when conservatives point out wrongdoing of liberals?

You need to re-read the article.

The quote is as follows:

"To Mr. Menendez and his staff, the work going on at this suburban Washington office suite, paid for by donations from prominent Republicans nationwide, is proof that the news media frenzy focusing on his actions to help a Florida eye doctor is at least in part a political smear."

You said that "By the way, here is a piece in the NYT suggesting that at least part of the Menendez investigation is nothing more than a political smear..." Then you quoted part of the sentence from Menendez or a staffer giving the impression the sentence was from the NYT when infact it was by Mendendez/staffer.

The very next paragraph says "But the results have been troubling revelations. Those documented by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other newspapers involve serious accusations of favoritism by the senator."

That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges).

Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them.

"That and the whole article indicate that the NYT thinks there is merit to the accusations (other than the child prostitute charges)."

I didn't deny that. But why do you think the NYT found it relevent to mention that some paid GOP operatives are involved? If the story is true, why mention the source? The answer, is to diminish the seriousness of teh charges, and shift some of the blame to Senator Menendez's political opponents.

"Did you find any links to Rubio and his water problem in the NYT yet? I'd like to see them"

Earlier, you made some smug comment to one of the conservatives here about the fact that if he couldn't do the google searches on his own, you'd help him with it. Let's assume you are capable of doing the same Google search I did.

I found coverage in the NYT of the Rubio water drinking. Even if I hadn't, my point about media bias was still valid. I did not say that every single liberal media outlet, with zero exceptions, was trumping up the Rubio water thing. Had I said that, your responses would be relevent. Since I didn't say that, your responses are not as relevent, though they are somewhat relevent. Pointing out one single exception does not refute a generalized statement.

I see you won't comment on MSNBC's coverages of the Rubio water drinking, versus their coverage of the Menendez thing. I wonder why that could be? Hmmm, that's a real head-scratcher.


.

nm

Paul, here is why you are not someone to be taken seriously.

In my first post, I stated that the NYT admitted the charges against Menendez were serious. You keep saying that I somehow "altered" the article to make it seem like the NYT wasn't admitting to the seriousness of the charges. What you are accusing me of, simply didn't happen. It. Did. Not. Happen. Am I going too fast for you?

When I make generalized statements (and I use hyperbole a lot) you think you can refute them by pointing to one exception. Yet you allow yourself the liberty to say things like "Rubio leeching water like a dehumidifier". If you can use hyperbole, why can't anyone else?

The Rubio water thing was all over NBC, MSNBC, and CNN. I haven't seen much coverage of the Menendez story on those outlets, and I follow these things pretty closely. Can I mathematically prove that those stations gave more coverage to Rubio than Menendez? No, I cannot, I don't have the resources to do that. Nor can I prove mathematically that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I'm pretty sure it's the case.

So your "emotions" are telling you that they gave more press to Rubio than Menedez :biglaugh: Stick with #s, you're not cut out for this word thing:uhuh:

My emotions say, that if it had been Obama had drank the water, Fox News would have changed their logo to a gif of it on a continuous loop....

And there in lies the problem, "emotions."
The press is supposed to keep things honest by reporting the facts and keeping both sides honest.
The water thing is not newsworthy because it only means the man was thirsty.
So the man does what we all do everyday, drink when we're thirsty.
Does this mean his message was flawed??? No, but the reporting trys to evoke an emotion that makes
him look inadequate.

Paul, apparently you like the NYT. To their credit, the NYT reported on the Menendez case, although they went out ot their way to state that the story only broke because of political smear. If the allegations are true, who cares about the motives of the people who first reported the ethical violations? Why is that important?

Paul, let me ask you this. The NYT ran an unsubstantiated, front-page story during the 2008 election. The story claimed that John McCaon's adopted daughter was actually his biological daughter that he fathered with a mistress.

Let's forget about McCain's politics (although, his politics are literally all that matter to the NYT). McCain is a hero to any rational person. During a dangerous war, he volunteered to fly jets off of an aircraft carrier and repeatedly put himself in harm's way. As a result, he spent several years getting tortured in a POW camp, as a direct result of his service to his country.

How does the NYT feel that this man deserves to be treated? By taking another heroic act (adopting a daughter from a 3rd world country), and using that heroic act as a club against him.

The NYT is a joke. That's why, until recently, one copy of the Sunday edition was more expensive than one share of stock in the company that prints that liberal rag.

Your emotions would be 100% wrong. Hannity might use that image to mock the President. I don't think anyone else would. Your 'emotions' have apparently convinced you that Foxnews is the right-wing equivalent of MSNBC. Not even close. Foxnews isn't even as radical as CNN (Hannity being the exception), let alone MSNBC.

Obama has legitimately and honestly made an idiot out of himself so many times, his critics don't have to invent buffoonery where it doesn't exist.

Obama can say that there are 57 states in the US, and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama insults special olympians on national TV (saying he was so bad at bowling, he looked like one of those special olympians), and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama has several close friends who clearly hate this country, and that doesn't say anything about him. Obama supported infanticide as a state senator, and he gets a pass. Obama adds $5 trillion to our debt, with a net gain of almost zero jobs and a huge drop in median wages, and he's not held accountable. But Rubio awkwardly reaches for a bottle of water, and that says somethiing about his qualifications?

MSNBC showed the Rubio water clip over 100 times. CNN asked if it was a "career ender". Brian Williams, the NBC anchor, said teh water reach "just might live on forever". Wolf Blitzer said Rubio's drinking water was "profoundly depressing".

The Mainstream Media Are Even Dumber Than You Thought

And when the NYT gets around to mentioning the Memendez allegations, they can't do it without stating explicitly that part of this is nothing more than "political smear".

Here's more...

Rubio vs. Menendez: A tale of two Hispanic senators and media hypocrisy - The Hill's Pundits Blog


"Media Research Center reports that there have been only seven stories on CBS, ABC and NBC about Menendez in three weeks, yet the Mark Foley story of his racy emails to pages warranted 152 stories by those same networks in a two-week period."

CBS, NBC, and ABC are the 3 major networks. Combined, the 3 of them did a whopping 7 stories on Menendez, in 3 weeks. Yet those same 3 netwoks did 152 stories about Mark Foley's actions?

So no, it's clearly not just my emotions at play here. What's on display here is my ability to see things as they are, and draw correct conclusions, regardless of political ideology.

Your response?

The only thing I remember about McCain's baby was that the Bush campaign was putting out flyers in the 2000 primary (one of the nastiest campaigns ever) with that story, that he committed treason as a POW in Vietnam, he was mentally unstable b/c of being a POW, a homosexual and an addict (and also said his wife was an addict). I'd be interested in seeing how the Times 8 years later would have brought up the same thing???

Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected.

Paul, I posted a fair amount of evidence, from multiple sources, that directly supports my claim of liberal bias. Your response is to say that as long as Bush did it as well, then it's therefore OK?

Wow. Now that is a creative (read: desperate) way of trying to get out of the intellectual corner I backed you into. According to you, the media code of ethics should come from the campaign tactics of George Bush. Got it.

Once again, you ask me to do your research for you? On the NYT hit piece on McCain? That's interesting, because earlier in this very thread, you smugly claimed that you could show someone else how to research things on the net. Now all of a sudden, you need help to see if the NYT really ran that hit piece on McCain?

I don't need to Google that, because it happened, and I remember it, because it was so unethical and so widely condemned (maybe not widely condemned by those in your circles who routinely resort to such tactics). If you were so out of touch that you aren't aware of a media smear perpetrated by (what used to be) a major newspaper against a titanic hero, that's your issue, not mine. Google it, you'll see.

"Still going on about a mistatement on the # of states. That is petty - but not unexpected"

Huh? What am I misstating?

OK. So you remember that Bush's political team (a bunch of conservatives) was unethical, but you have no knowledge of the NYT (a bunch of liberals), which you apparently are a fan of, doing something equally loathsome to the same Senator McCain.

You might want to either work on your memory, or more likely, reconsider where you get your information.

See, as I said you have a reading problem. I didn't say you made a mistatement. It obviously referred to Pres. Obama making a simple mistatement and that you're a petty person to keep bringing that up as if he doesn't know how many states there are.

Maybe I do have a memory problem but rather than continuing to throw insults around pls. post some links to the story. I've asked you politely a few times.

Paul, I agree that Obama simply mis-spoke about the number of states. I don't think that mis-statement says anything at all about his qualifications.

But the same folks who agree that Obama's mis-statement was not a big deal, are now going berserk about Rubio's reaching for a glass of water. That's exactly the bias I'm talking about. The media barely mentioned Obama's mis-statement (which was the correct thing for the media to do), but the media was obsessed with Rubio's reaching for a glass of water (which was ridiculous for them to do).

Can you honestly tell me that you see no discrepancy between the coverage of those 2 events?

"I've asked you politely a few times"

John McCain lobbyist controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



.

Obama is starting to get some tough hard hitting questions from
interviewers. Example-
"Mr President, are you considering Hawaii as the place for your
Presidential Library?"
I kid you not.

I think our nations economic issues would be resolved if you people spent more time producing "ouput" other than Blab on the internet!

"output", you mean like hard work leading to feelngs of accomplishment,
self worth,self determination and a job well done?
That's so old 50s and just leads to independence.

I have those things most of the year until I do my taxes......

I feel your pain on the taxes, punishment for being a hard worker. :(
I'll still take the self worth a job well done produces though.

I know that I'm going to probably have to cut a $7k-10k check when I finally get around to doing the taxes.

The firmest kick in the balls is thinking "okay, I need to produce about $12k in revenue so that I have enough money after taxes to *pay my taxes*."

Ya JD, right now your working close to 1/2 the year to pay your taxes.
But don't worry, Obama will see to it that you will pay more.