Women have the same legal rights as men; it's just that there other things that work for and against them. Equality of the vote doesn't necessarily mean equality in all other respects.
Agreed, as I mentioned to @smeagolheart . If unequal pay and such was the only thing that women based their votes on then there would be nothing stopping them from getting their way. There's obviously something that the Democrats aren't getting. Unless they figure that out then the only chance they have is the passage of time or amnesty...
I'll give the Democrats a hint. If they abandoned their pro-choice stance they'd be in power for many years. Pro-choice women will NOT switch to voting Republican and I think many women and moderate Republicans would switch. That one single issue is killing the Democrats. I truly believe that one issue is why they can't get a huge majority of female votes. About 40-45% of women are just not for abortion on demand. I believe 100% of women are for equal pay. The Republicans simply can't counter this because the pro-lifers would ditch them in a split-second if they went pro-choice. I'm telling you it's the low-hanging fruit and it's there for the taking. Let the States decide and you've got your majority...
There's an interesting profile of Trump in the New York Times. The title is a little clickbaity, but it sheds some light into what Donald Trump does on an ordinary day, drawn from interviews with five dozen White House officials.
I'll give the Democrats a hint. If they abandoned their pro-choice stance they'd be in power for many years. Pro-choice women will NOT switch to voting Republican and I think many women and moderate Republicans would switch. That one single issue is killing the Democrats. I truly believe that one issue is why they can't get a huge majority of female votes. About 40-45% of women are just not for abortion on demand. I believe 100% of women are for equal pay. The Republicans simply can't counter this because the pro-lifers would ditch them in a split-second if they went pro-choice. I'm telling you it's the low-hanging fruit and it's there for the taking. Let the States decide and you've got your majority...
I think it's a little late for these sides to switch now. That would be like saying Trump could get to 60% approval if he supported single-payer healthcare. On the flip-side, Republicans could not win a single election without the religious right, and the same goes for Democrats and minority women. They do get a huge amount of female voters, just not WHITE female voters.
I continue to just believe alot of the abortion debate is disingenuous on the pro-life side. And one of the reasons I think this is that abortion rate declined to the lowest it has been since Roe v. Wade in 1973 under Barack Obama, and you can probably rack that up to more women being able to get easy access to birth control under Obamacare. So for all the crowing and harping from every Republican in the country, it was a Democratic healthcare plan that dropped the number to a historic low. You'd THINK that would be a good thing:
Ronald Reagan 1981 – 1989
Abortion rates hovered at 24-23 per every 1,000 women between the ages of 15-44, ending at 24 in 1989.
George H. W. Bush 1989 – 1993
Abortion rates fell from 24 to 23 per every 1,000 women.
Bill Clinton 1993 – 2001
Abortion rates fell from 23 to 16.2 per every 1,000 women.
George W. Bush 2001 – 2009
Abortion rates hovered at about 16 per every 1,000 women for most of Bush’s time in the White House, then dropped from 15.8 in 2008 to 15 in 2009.
Barack Obama 2009 – 2017
Abortion rates plunged from 15 per every 1,000 women in 2009 to 12.5 in 2013, the latest year for which we have data.
As you can see, there is essentially NO movement on the number of abortions during the Reagan, Bush the First, and W.'s Presidencies. During the Clinton Presidency, abortion went down massively. During the Obama Presidency, it was roughly half as much, but still 3 times as much as any of the Republican Presidents. Over 85% of the decline in abortions occurred under the so-called baby murdering Democrats.
There's an interesting profile of Trump in the New York Times. The title is a little clickbaity, but it sheds some light into what Donald Trump does on an ordinary day, drawn from interviews with five dozen White House officials.
Wow, if this is true I almost feel sorry for Trump. I quite possibly have more self-esteem than a billionaire who's arguably the leader of the free world. That would be scary and pathetic. I'm not saying I believe this necessarily...
. Everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt with one accuser (at least initially), that could be anything. Once more start coming out of the woodwork, game over. It's not a coincidence that the #metoo movement sprung up after Trump got elected. It's by and large woman who are coming for Trump and the Republican's political heads. Throwing Franken and Conyers aside is a no-brainer.
Sexual assault is not the only reason numbers show women are gunning for Republicans. They (usually) take care of healthcare arrangments in the household. This is about the GOP's endless quest this year to take away healthcare.
Goodness me. I doubt this is what a de-facto bi-party system does to people, but maybe it does encourage lack of fact and abundance of fantasy.
Fact: "MeToo" came forth from NY Times running a story on Harvey Weinstein.
Did Weinstein not fund the Democrats, i.e. he was negatively connected to Trump being elected?
If you wanted to see this in a source critical manner, you can validate that:
- women are harassed fouking too much - like ever - victims' believability tends to be discounted - so it takes a lot of women to come forth for a story to get traction, and best be the victim be quite privileged (now) herself - > Weinstein pimp was supposed to be damasked earlier, but Hollywood movers and shakers Crowe and Damon purportedly personally intervened to kill the story, Cosby victims are still at limbo
- Bill Cosby and then Harvey Weinstein - NOTHING to do with Trump - thank u investigative media, and victims willing to speak
Some republicans are in some positions of power, so in a position to abuse that power. The propensity to do - ?
Don't pretend that is a conspiracy. You can easily track the media trail, and be just a little source critical.
Let's also not forget that most female journalists appeared to know about Conyers behavior. Not a single one of them came out with any information. Seems like they were more willing to protect the reputation of Democrats than to dispense justice to men who sexually assault.
Let's also not forget that most female journalists appeared to know about Conyers behavior. Not a single one of them came out with any information. Seems like they were more willing to protect the reputation of Democrats than to dispense justice to men who sexually assault.
You think Cokie Roberts, the women famous for saying that Barack Obama seemed "foreign" because he was born in Hawaii, is in the business of protecting Democrats?? The same Cokie Roberts that suggested Hillary Clinton might be replaced as the Democratic candidate because she got sick for a few days on the campaign trail?? That Cokie Roberts?? There may be Democratic partisan journalists, but Cokie Roberts is without question NOT one of them.
The comment section of that article is apparently just as......ah, forget it. I can't implant years of watching her on TV into someone's head to explain why the idea that Cokie Roberts going out of her way to protect a Democrat is absurd, so I won't even bother. There isn't a single liberal anywhere you will get to defend or say a good word about her. She's practically the definition of a both-sides, centrist hack. I'd be fine if she disappeared forever, likely much happier than you'd be.
Let's also not forget that most female journalists appeared to know about Conyers behavior. Not a single one of them came out with any information. Seems like they were more willing to protect the reputation of Democrats than to dispense justice to men who sexually assault.
Lots of folks knew about Trump's behavior, too. Are we going to claim that they were all just trying to protect a fellow Republican?
Well she's the daughter of a democrat politician, worked for NPR and ABC, both left leaning and the latter just this week pushing anti Trump lies. 96% of journalist political donations went to democrats....the topics of her books are so women obsessed i'd mistake her for a feminist....having a hard time seeing a republican hardliner here.
Let's also not forget that most female journalists appeared to know about Conyers behavior. Not a single one of them came out with any information. Seems like they were more willing to protect the reputation of Democrats than to dispense justice to men who sexually assault.
Did you just voluntarily post a link under your moniker boiling down to:
"Townhall.com" & ""oh we all knew" ?
Be one a young or a bit old or very cynical indeed - and wishing gullible beings all around source criticality is quite fine.
I never knew NY Times was a republican mouthpiece! (sarcasm here, to help with your source criticism) But I trust you can find that "townhall.com" link to help me understand...
Harassment or sexual misconduct is not a bi-party issue, beyond anyone malicious in power being liable to conduct it. Hey, an issue, simply, maybe?
Well she's the daughter of a democrat politician, worked for NPR and ABC, both left leaning and the latter just this week pushing anti Trump lies. 96% of journalist political donations went to democrats....the topics of her books are so women obsessed i'd mistake her for a feminist....having a hard time seeing a republican hardliner here.
What does "women obsessed" mean?? And besides her father being a Democrat in the 1970s (which is now 47 years ago) she also served on George W. Bush's Council on Service and Civic Participation. And, again, the two recent incidents I mentioned, which were mocked mercilessly by every liberal and Democrat I know, online and elsewhere. She also called for Social Security and Medicare cuts in a 1992 interview with Al Gore. Cutting Social Security and Medicare, as we all know, are two very high priorities for Democrats.......oh wait, no. No they aren't. I don't know what she is, except a joke who has had a bullet-proof decade long career in the DC media. Which makes her one of dozens of similar examples. I think the lesson here is that many of the journalists the right hates are ALSO hated by the left for entirely different reasons. Because I can tell you right now that in 2008 when she said that about Barack Obama taking his vacation in Hawaii (where he was born, and one of the 50 states of this country) and she said it made him seem "foreign", most liberals viewed it as veiled racism and her being in the tank for John McCain. And still do to this day.
Also, I went and looked for the video about Obama you mention, and it sounds like she's lamenting the fact that what he's doing might hurt the democrats because he doesn't have enough of a lead. Have you another interpretation?
Well she's the daughter of a democrat politician, worked for NPR and ABC, both left leaning and the latter just this week pushing anti Trump lies. 96% of journalist political donations went to democrats....the topics of her books are so women obsessed i'd mistake her for a feminist....having a hard time seeing a republican hardliner here.
My argument was not that this person, whoever she is, is a Republican rather than a Democrat. My argument was that, by your own reasoning--
Let's also not forget that most female journalists appeared to know about Conyers behavior. Not a single one of them came out with any information. Seems like they were more willing to protect the reputation of Democrats than to dispense justice to men who sexually assault.
--you could also say that anyone who failed to report any form of sexual harassment is secretly covering up for a political ally. Which would mean that all manner of people, including journalists, were secretly covering up for Trump and Moore and Franken and Conyers and everyone else who has ever done anything.
You suggested that "most female journalists" were covering up for Conyers' behavior. You're launching an extremely serious accusation at hundreds of people here. But the basis of this accusation is "They didn't talk, but I bet they all knew."
You yourself have stressed many times in this thread that we can't convict Trump, for example, of a given crime based only on vague suspicions. I have agreed with you many times--and this, too, is a very, very vague suspicion that you have for these women. I don't think "they must have known" is sufficient evidence to throw out an accusation as incredibly serious as saying hundreds of women were knowingly covering up sexual harassment.
Do I have any theories about why the media is biased so strongly towards the left? None that are particularly conspiratorial or interesting. It's just a reality we have to deal with regardless of it's origins.
But the basis of this accusation is "They didn't talk, but I bet they all knew."
Well that's not true, the basis of the accusation isn't me betting on anything. It's the words of one of the journalists herself. But you're right, she could absolutely be lying, and we shouldn't assume, and this is in line with my stated thinking. No one has attempted to correct her, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's true either.
Also, I went and looked for the video about Obama you mention, and it sounds like she's lamenting the fact that what he's doing might hurt the democrats because he doesn't have enough of a lead. Have you another interpretation?
My interpretation is that it was a ridiculous assertion that never would have been leveled at a white candidate. I'm wondering if you aren't familiar with the type of people who populate these Sunday shows. It's all horse-race coverage about who is in the lead and who has the advantage and disadvantage. They are like political bookies (except often not very good ones). I have no idea if Cokie Roberts wanted Obama or McCain to win in 2008, but of all the things to be worried about down the stretch in 2008, the idea that Obama was going to visit his grandmother in Hawaii (who died a few days before the election, incidentally, so it was good he did go when he had the chance) was not on the mind of 99% of the people planning on voting for him. I don't know what Democrat would have brought up such a ridiculous assertion, that visiting one's terminally ill grandmother for two days would have been something to even consider, much less broadcast on national TV to give Republicans another talking point for the week.
Do I have any theories about why the media is biased so strongly towards the left? None that are particularly conspiratorial or interesting. It's just a reality we have to deal with regardless of it's origins.
Not exactly. I was asking about individual journalists, not media institutions, although the two are obviously linked. And I'm not trying to fish for conspiracy theories or make a point.
When people talk about journalists mostly being liberals, my internal response is usually "Of course they're liberals; being good at their job requires inquisitiveness, education, and empathy." Since you presumably associate fewer virtues with journalism and liberalism than I do, I was just curious about your thoughts on the phenomenon.
Perhaps they didn't report the harassment for a couple reasons. One they didn't know for sure. Like they heard from someone who knew someone who heard something. What do you do with that? Were they given police reports? Of course not.
Also they may have thought the the process was working. IF Conyers was doing something then he was paying the price for it because the women were not talking about it anymore. So they must have been satisfied with the results. He probably learned his lesson they assumed but yeah they probably realized not to get in an elevator with him.
Look these sexual harassers like Bill Oreilly, Eric Boiling, and Roger Ailes they pay off their accusers and as part of that they make them take a vow of silence to not discuss the matter basically - they make them sign nondisclosure agreements and hand them million dollar checks then they go do the same thing again. And people don't know because of the non disclosure agreements. Donald Trump has done this with Ivana Trump and probably others that we don't know about because of the agreements.
As the article itself says, "however, this isn't too surprising, as unemployment is so low". A 16 year low actually. Although quite astute in picking out virtually the one seemingly negative area in the entire data set.
Unemployment being low is a misleading statistic, as it doesn't include people who are no longer looking for work.
That's exactly what the conservatives were saying the entire time Obama was president! Why do we even pay attention to the unemployment rate anymore?
I've seen that criticism lots over the years from both progressive and conservative sources.
And IDK why we pay attention to it in isolation. I think it helps if other statistics are included to contextualize it better.
Another reason they may not have brought the harassment out into the open is that historically, such disclosures don't get much traction. There's also probably an element of the "missing stair" going on, in that people just tend to work around the harassment rather than deal with it directly.
Another reason they may not have brought the harassment out into the open is that historically, such disclosures don't get much traction. There's also probably an element of the "missing stair" going on, in that people just tend to work around the harassment rather than deal with it directly.
I hate to say it but with the older voters there may also he the fact that sexual harassment was an everyday thing when they were working back in the 50's, 60's, 70's and even as recently as the 80's and 90's. I joined the workforce in the late 80's and I can tell you it was pretty bad for women then. Men were decorating their lockers and work areas with Playboy centerfolds, many of their female colleagues were mocked and/or seen as sex objects behind their backs, I didn't witness any overt physical harassment but I heard about it. And this was only 20-30 years ago!
If you cut your teeth in this environment and possibly worked your entire career surrounded by it you might have a tendency to downplay it or just think of it as normal. If you actively participated in it you certainly wouldn't want to think of yourself as a bad person! The best way to protect your own self-image would thus be to ignore it or pretend it wasn't that bad. Human nature...
Things have gotten remarkably better in the last 20 years. Its certainly not perfect but I don't think folks who joined the workforce in this century would have any idea how bad it really was for women back then. I think Hollywood, the modeling industry, and politicians are a bit behind the times in this regard but they're finding out pretty quickly!
Additionally there's a lot of blowback. A disappointing number of people blame the victims for being harassed rather than the accuser. And sometimes the assaulter gets to drag the accuser through the mud, like we've seen with Roy Moore'and Trump's accusers. It's like the victims are victimized twice.
Additionally there's a lot of blowback. A disappointing number of people blame the victims for being harassed rather than the accuser. And sometimes the assaulter gets to drag the accuser through the mud, like we've seen with Roy Moore'and Trump's accusers. It's like the victims are victimized twice.
What happens to sexual assault accusers is the same thing that happens to black victims of police violence. Someone tries to find some photo, some statement, some prior minor conviction that has nothing to do with getting murdered or assaulted or raped, throws it into the air, and then watch as it gets used as justification for what happened. Whether it's smoking weed as a teenager being a reason for extra-judicial killing or a short skirt causing a rape, certain people will always find a way to wrap their head around it rather than admit the obvious. Such as latching onto what is fairly obviously a notation made as a child in a yearbook in a transparent attempt to protect......Roy Moore?? A guy who EVEN IF he was innocent of the nearly dozen claims against him in regards to preying on children, is STILL someone who believes being gay should be illegal, and is another one of these "black people were better off during slavery" folks. Imagine going that far, digging that deep, to protect such an obviously vile person.
You cannot be even a remotely flawed person in this society if you want to speak out about ANYTHING, because someone will dig up something. In sexual assault cases, they'll point to any discrepancy in anything you have ever said about any subject. They'll spread rumors that you were "loose" back then. If you're Trayvon Martin, they'll point to the fact that you smoked pot, and use that as the BASIS for why he should have been murdered by some psychotic vigilante. In the case of Al Franken's initial accuser, some liberals went to the excuse that she is friends with Sean Hannity. With one of Trump's accusers, it was some arcane bullshit about what airplane seats were like in the '70s. Some of it is just lies, some of it is just attacking and preying on that fact that most people don't have perfect memories, especially when traumatized. But, as I've said before, 90% of sexual assault claims are true. 9/10. So think long and hard about what the actual chances of Trump, Franken, Moore, Conyers etc etc etc being innocent are before claiming so. Because the odds are not in your favor if you believe that.
When people talk about journalists mostly being liberals, my internal response is usually "Of course they're liberals; being good at their job requires inquisitiveness, education, and empathy." Since you presumably associate fewer virtues with journalism and liberalism than I do, I was just curious about your thoughts on the phenomenon.
My thoughts are that no amount of baseless back-patting and self congratulations about the inherent virtues of liberal journalism will make examples of it appear out of thin air or make the consistent examples of the opposite not relevant.
When people talk about journalists mostly being liberals, my internal response is usually "Of course they're liberals; being good at their job requires inquisitiveness, education, and empathy." Since you presumably associate fewer virtues with journalism and liberalism than I do, I was just curious about your thoughts on the phenomenon.
My thoughts are that no amount of baseless back-patting and self congratulations about the inherent virtues of liberal journalism will make examples of it appear out of thin air or make the consistent examples of the opposite not relevant.
I'm confused here. It looks like you're saying that examples of liberal journalism are hard to find, but surely that isn't what you meant.
I agree with what you seemed to be saying before, which is that most journalists are liberals. I'm also acknowledging that my understanding of that phenomenon involves a lot of bias. My goal was only to understand a different perspective on this.
Examples of liberal journalism that embody the virtues of inquisitiveness, education, and empathy you claim it does would seem to be exceedingly rare. They clearly appear to lack inquisitiveness when it comes to the accuracy of what they publish against their political opponents, judging by the amount of retracted false stories last week. So its hard to see the rationale for believing they posses these qualities in general.
I still can't find even one retracted false MSM story damaging on Obama but i'm all for being enlightened on the matter.
I was hoping to have a more constructive and less contentious conversation by acknowledging my bias, not trying to convince you to share it. Never mind, I guess.
Comments
I continue to just believe alot of the abortion debate is disingenuous on the pro-life side. And one of the reasons I think this is that abortion rate declined to the lowest it has been since Roe v. Wade in 1973 under Barack Obama, and you can probably rack that up to more women being able to get easy access to birth control under Obamacare. So for all the crowing and harping from every Republican in the country, it was a Democratic healthcare plan that dropped the number to a historic low. You'd THINK that would be a good thing:
Ronald Reagan 1981 – 1989
Abortion rates hovered at 24-23 per every 1,000 women between the ages of 15-44, ending at 24 in 1989.
George H. W. Bush 1989 – 1993
Abortion rates fell from 24 to 23 per every 1,000 women.
Bill Clinton 1993 – 2001
Abortion rates fell from 23 to 16.2 per every 1,000 women.
George W. Bush 2001 – 2009
Abortion rates hovered at about 16 per every 1,000 women for most of Bush’s time in the White House, then dropped from 15.8 in 2008 to 15 in 2009.
Barack Obama 2009 – 2017
Abortion rates plunged from 15 per every 1,000 women in 2009 to 12.5 in 2013, the latest year for which we have data.
As you can see, there is essentially NO movement on the number of abortions during the Reagan, Bush the First, and W.'s Presidencies. During the Clinton Presidency, abortion went down massively. During the Obama Presidency, it was roughly half as much, but still 3 times as much as any of the Republican Presidents. Over 85% of the decline in abortions occurred under the so-called baby murdering Democrats.
Fact: "MeToo" came forth from NY Times running a story on Harvey Weinstein.
Did Weinstein not fund the Democrats, i.e. he was negatively connected to Trump being elected?
If you wanted to see this in a source critical manner, you can validate that:
- women are harassed fouking too much - like ever
- victims' believability tends to be discounted - so it takes a lot of women to come forth for a story to get traction, and best be the victim be quite privileged (now) herself
- > Weinstein pimp was supposed to be damasked earlier, but Hollywood movers and shakers Crowe and Damon purportedly personally intervened to kill the story, Cosby victims are still at limbo
- Bill Cosby and then Harvey Weinstein - NOTHING to do with Trump - thank u investigative media, and victims willing to speak
Some republicans are in some positions of power, so in a position to abuse that power. The propensity to do - ?
Don't pretend that is a conspiracy. You can easily track the media trail, and be just a little source critical.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/11/27/cokie-roberts-oh-we-all-knew-to-avoid-getting-in-an-elevator-with-rep-conyers-n2414826
The comment section of that article is apparently just as......ah, forget it. I can't implant years of watching her on TV into someone's head to explain why the idea that Cokie Roberts going out of her way to protect a Democrat is absurd, so I won't even bother. There isn't a single liberal anywhere you will get to defend or say a good word about her. She's practically the definition of a both-sides, centrist hack. I'd be fine if she disappeared forever, likely much happier than you'd be.
Did you just voluntarily post a link under your moniker boiling down to:
"Townhall.com" & ""oh we all knew" ?
Be one a young or a bit old or very cynical indeed - and wishing gullible beings all around source criticality is quite fine.
I never knew NY Times was a republican mouthpiece! (sarcasm here, to help with your source criticism) But I trust you can find that "townhall.com" link to help me understand...
Harassment or sexual misconduct is not a bi-party issue, beyond anyone malicious in power being liable to conduct it. Hey, an issue, simply, maybe?
I think it is a bi-party issue actually, in that both parties are liable to hold predators. Do you mean partisan?
You suggested that "most female journalists" were covering up for Conyers' behavior. You're launching an extremely serious accusation at hundreds of people here. But the basis of this accusation is "They didn't talk, but I bet they all knew."
You yourself have stressed many times in this thread that we can't convict Trump, for example, of a given crime based only on vague suspicions. I have agreed with you many times--and this, too, is a very, very vague suspicion that you have for these women. I don't think "they must have known" is sufficient evidence to throw out an accusation as incredibly serious as saying hundreds of women were knowingly covering up sexual harassment.
When people talk about journalists mostly being liberals, my internal response is usually "Of course they're liberals; being good at their job requires inquisitiveness, education, and empathy." Since you presumably associate fewer virtues with journalism and liberalism than I do, I was just curious about your thoughts on the phenomenon.
Also they may have thought the the process was working. IF Conyers was doing something then he was paying the price for it because the women were not talking about it anymore. So they must have been satisfied with the results. He probably learned his lesson they assumed but yeah they probably realized not to get in an elevator with him.
Look these sexual harassers like Bill Oreilly, Eric Boiling, and Roger Ailes they pay off their accusers and as part of that they make them take a vow of silence to not discuss the matter basically - they make them sign nondisclosure agreements and hand them million dollar checks then they go do the same thing again. And people don't know because of the non disclosure agreements. Donald Trump has done this with Ivana Trump and probably others that we don't know about because of the agreements.
And IDK why we pay attention to it in isolation. I think it helps if other statistics are included to contextualize it better.
If you cut your teeth in this environment and possibly worked your entire career surrounded by it you might have a tendency to downplay it or just think of it as normal. If you actively participated in it you certainly wouldn't want to think of yourself as a bad person! The best way to protect your own self-image would thus be to ignore it or pretend it wasn't that bad. Human nature...
Things have gotten remarkably better in the last 20 years. Its certainly not perfect but I don't think folks who joined the workforce in this century would have any idea how bad it really was for women back then. I think Hollywood, the modeling industry, and politicians are a bit behind the times in this regard but they're finding out pretty quickly!
You cannot be even a remotely flawed person in this society if you want to speak out about ANYTHING, because someone will dig up something. In sexual assault cases, they'll point to any discrepancy in anything you have ever said about any subject. They'll spread rumors that you were "loose" back then. If you're Trayvon Martin, they'll point to the fact that you smoked pot, and use that as the BASIS for why he should have been murdered by some psychotic vigilante. In the case of Al Franken's initial accuser, some liberals went to the excuse that she is friends with Sean Hannity. With one of Trump's accusers, it was some arcane bullshit about what airplane seats were like in the '70s. Some of it is just lies, some of it is just attacking and preying on that fact that most people don't have perfect memories, especially when traumatized. But, as I've said before, 90% of sexual assault claims are true. 9/10. So think long and hard about what the actual chances of Trump, Franken, Moore, Conyers etc etc etc being innocent are before claiming so. Because the odds are not in your favor if you believe that.
I agree with what you seemed to be saying before, which is that most journalists are liberals. I'm also acknowledging that my understanding of that phenomenon involves a lot of bias. My goal was only to understand a different perspective on this.
I still can't find even one retracted false MSM story damaging on Obama but i'm all for being enlightened on the matter.