Anonymous wrote:Why is Joe afraid of getting investigated?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, I am sure they are shaking in their boots.
They actually reported the news as it came out. They reported her statements. They reported the Biden campaign statement. That is what the media is supposed to do - report.
The reporters did not editorialize. They reported.

This is NOT what other media did. The story had been "out there" for a month before some of the media even acknowledged it. And, don't try to explain this away as "Well, they were investigating it." Nope. It doesn't work. Their job is not to decide who is telling the truth. It is to report the statements and let the consumer decide.

And, if you want to go the "fake news" route.... we can talk about CNN and MSNBC and nearly 3 years of fake news when it came to Russia and the Trump campaign. And, there have been NO retractions from these networks.

You seem to have a different opinion about what reporting is that most journalists and many people who are media consumers. What you call reporting is just documenting what happened. That is not reporting. Reporting is not just documenting what happens, but also researching information about what happened, verifying that what is said or done is in fact true and making sure to present things in context. Journalists should be able to give you a whole story, not just a scene.

So, reporting is not just videotaping someone on a soapbox. If you do that, then you're just letting that person proselytize their view. Presenting something out of context is editorializing it instead of reporting it. Real journalists pride themselves on trying to research a story and ensure that the snippets of video or recording actually get presented in context and actually inform the audience what is going on. But journalistic standards have been dropping steadily over the last several years. Social media and social documentary are the norm rather than journalism.

Tara Reade's story was not journalism. That was just a part of the story and without researching, confirming and investigating, it was just an allegation not a full story.

+1. Fox giving Reade a soap box without reporting that none of her "alibis" checked out, not a single one, is not reporting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, I am sure they are shaking in their boots.
They actually reported the news as it came out. They reported her statements. They reported the Biden campaign statement. That is what the media is supposed to do - report.
The reporters did not editorialize. They reported.

This is NOT what other media did. The story had been "out there" for a month before some of the media even acknowledged it. And, don't try to explain this away as "Well, they were investigating it." Nope. It doesn't work. Their job is not to decide who is telling the truth. It is to report the statements and let the consumer decide.

And, if you want to go the "fake news" route.... we can talk about CNN and MSNBC and nearly 3 years of fake news when it came to Russia and the Trump campaign. And, there have been NO retractions from these networks.

You seem to have a different opinion about what reporting is that most journalists and many people who are media consumers. What you call reporting is just documenting what happened. That is not reporting. Reporting is not just documenting what happens, but also researching information about what happened, verifying that what is said or done is in fact true and making sure to present things in context. Journalists should be able to give you a whole story, not just a scene.

So, reporting is not just videotaping someone on a soapbox. If you do that, then you're just letting that person proselytize their view. Presenting something out of context is editorializing it instead of reporting it. Real journalists pride themselves on trying to research a story and ensure that the snippets of video or recording actually get presented in context and actually inform the audience what is going on. But journalistic standards have been dropping steadily over the last several years. Social media and social documentary are the norm rather than journalism.

Tara Reade's story was not journalism. That was just a part of the story and without researching, confirming and investigating, it was just an allegation not a full story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, I am sure they are shaking in their boots.
They actually reported the news as it came out. They reported her statements. They reported the Biden campaign statement. That is what the media is supposed to do - report.
The reporters did not editorialize. They reported.

This is NOT what other media did. The story had been "out there" for a month before some of the media even acknowledged it. And, don't try to explain this away as "Well, they were investigating it." Nope. It doesn't work. Their job is not to decide who is telling the truth. It is to report the statements and let the consumer decide.

And, if you want to go the "fake news" route.... we can talk about CNN and MSNBC and nearly 3 years of fake news when it came to Russia and the Trump campaign. And, there have been NO retractions from these networks.

You seem to have a different opinion about what reporting is that most journalists and many people who are media consumers. What you call reporting is just documenting what happened. That is not reporting. Reporting is not just documenting what happens, but also researching information about what happened, verifying that what is said or done is in fact true and making sure to present things in context. Journalists should be able to give you a whole story, not just a scene.

So, reporting is not just videotaping someone on a soapbox. If you do that, then you're just letting that person proselytize their view. Presenting something out of context is editorializing it instead of reporting it. Real journalists pride themselves on trying to research a story and ensure that the snippets of video or recording actually get presented in context and actually inform the audience what is going on. But journalistic standards have been dropping steadily over the last several years. Social media and social documentary are the norm rather than journalism.

Tara Reade's story was not journalism. That was just a part of the story and without researching, confirming and investigating, it was just an allegation not a full story.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, I am sure they are shaking in their boots.
They actually reported the news as it came out. They reported her statements. They reported the Biden campaign statement. That is what the media is supposed to do - report.
The reporters did not editorialize. They reported.

This is NOT what other media did. The story had been "out there" for a month before some of the media even acknowledged it. And, don't try to explain this away as "Well, they were investigating it." Nope. It doesn't work. Their job is not to decide who is telling the truth. It is to report the statements and let the consumer decide.

And, if you want to go the "fake news" route.... we can talk about CNN and MSNBC and nearly 3 years of fake news when it came to Russia and the Trump campaign. And, there have been NO retractions from these networks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this isn't really working for the cons. Here's a poll that was taken April 30-May 4, before even Fox abandoned Reade.

About 37% of those surveyed said Reade's allegation was "probably true. But 1/3 of that group said they were voting for Biden anyway, proving that this election is really a referendum on whether people want 4 more years of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-monmouth-poll/index.html

And, you see.... this is why we call out the hypocrisy of the left.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Stop deliberately misinterpreting.

Of the 37% who believe Reade, there's no evidence a single respondent said assault is OK. As CNN points out, they apparently think Trump's many assaults are worse and outweigh this single claim against Biden. Or they aren't voting on this single issue because they're also appalled by Trump's COVID mismanagement/racism/childish narcism/the list goes on and on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Left twitter has integrity.

Trying to undermine the Dem primaries based on fake news is not integrity.

No. Your premises are incorrect. By the way, NY will be voting. Left twitter dies by like corporatist neoliberals.

^ does not like

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Left twitter has integrity.

Trying to undermine the Dem primaries based on fake news is not integrity.

No. Your premises are incorrect. By the way, NY will be voting. Left twitter dies by like corporatist neoliberals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Left twitter has integrity.

Trying to undermine the Dem primaries based on fake news is not integrity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this isn't really working for the cons. Here's a poll that was taken April 30-May 4, before even Fox abandoned Reade.

About 37% of those surveyed said Reade's allegation was "probably true. But 1/3 of that group said they were voting for Biden anyway, proving that this election is really a referendum on whether people want 4 more years of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-monmouth-poll/index.html

And, you see.... this is why we call out the hypocrisy of the left.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this isn't really working for the cons. Here's a poll that was taken April 30-May 4, before even Fox abandoned Reade.

About 37% of those surveyed said Reade's allegation was "probably true. But 1/3 of that group said they were voting for Biden anyway, proving that this election is really a referendum on whether people want 4 more years of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-monmouth-poll/index.html

And, you see.... this is why we call out the hypocrisy of the left.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Anonymous wrote:Even Tucker Carlson is questioning Reade's story... LOL

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tucker-carlson-questions-timing-tara-reade-allegations-against-joe-biden-081305195.html

I have no doubt that Biden touched her in a manner that would be a no no today, but back then, this kind of stuff was more accepted. #metoo... when I was in my 20s. However, I would never call touching my hair or shoulder sexual harassment. I doubted the story about him putting his hand on her privates, and I still don't believe that one. I don't like Carlson, but he is saying what I have been saying all along.

why did her story change from "he touched my neck and shoulders" back then to now "he put his hands on my privates" just as he got the D nomination? And I am no huge Biden fan. Never was, but he's certainly better than Trump, whom we know by his own words that he would grab women by the pu**ies.

She said not that she was fired for complaining about harassment, much less being penetrated by Joe Biden. She then said she was fired because she refused to serve drinks at an event.”...“It’s notable that before Joe Biden started beating Bernie Sanders in the primary, Tara Reade wasn’t attacking Joe Biden, instead she had effusively positive things to say about him. In 2017, Tara Reade repeatedly praised Joe Biden for his work against sexual assault.”

I actually did have on a few occasions have a man put his hands on my behind, and I would never praise such a man about his work on sexual assault. I would either keep my mouth shut or I would call him out.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting that this isn't really working for the cons. Here's a poll that was taken April 30-May 4, before even Fox abandoned Reade.

About 37% of those surveyed said Reade's allegation was "probably true. But 1/3 of that group said they were voting for Biden anyway, proving that this election is really a referendum on whether people want 4 more years of Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-monmouth-poll/index.html