More fake news which perhaps you have forgotten? The violence at Trump rallies, it was reported, was Trump people being stirred to violence.
Then project Veritas interviewed the DEMOCRATIC operative who arranged the violent acts - hired street people, union workers, etc. to perpetuate the fights and disturbances to make Trump look bad.
Those are the pesky facts, again. No media bias? Open your eyes.
But I say the bias is deliberate and encouraged - by the networks. As opposed to something like the BBC, that tries to be objective.
Now when I watch a BBC news cast, they fill the news with stories around the world. And mention things happening in countries, we wouldn’t consider newsworthy.
There’s only so many times, when a massacre occurs. Or North Korea fires a missile. So what do you fill the news hour or half hour with? Well, what Trump is up to. Or his administration. Or whoever is in power. And encourage the commentaries, to get folks up in arms.
Why? So you turn to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, etc. Watch the station. Boost the ratings. And - most importantly - buy the sponsors products.
It’s show business.
As far as the global hack goes, here’s an informative article from Scientific American:
Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers
HFPZ said
I am surprised at you Randy, you have to know that the BBC is their top notch version of ‘network media news’ 
More fake news which perhaps you have forgotten?
They don’t let us forget even if you want to forget! Recently the left wing media AKA “groupthink” accused Trump of firing Comey because he was getting close to proving collusion between Trump and Russia! After 10 months of investigation there is not a shred of evidence to support this but the “groupthink” party on the left wants a special prosecutor. The law says to have a Special Prosecutor you need “probable cause” and there isn’t any, not a shred.
Today the Wash Post runs a story that when Team Trump met the Russian Ambassador recently at the White House, Trump disclosed highly classified info to the Russians! The “leftist, groupthink” media like CNN,MSNBC,NY Times,NBC,ABC & CBS immediately copied the story even though the source is the well known “unnamed sources.” The folks at the meeting with Trump were H.R. Macmasters & Secy of State Rex Tillarson & Dana Powers and they all deny the story. They all say Trump did not disclose military info but talked about possible methods of attack by ISIS since Russia & the USA have a common enemy. But “the left” just got their fresh batch of red meat to energize them for another run at Trump and they are not going to be influenced by any silly facts.
You think there may be bias in the media? It’s way beyond just bias!
Well said.
Here’s a new, free, downloadable pamphlet - a .pdf - 95 pages but they are short.
Anyone of us on this thread is aware of the deep deep divide in the country, and there seems to be absolutely no middle ground.
The booklet tries to show the reasons for the predicament. It’s very well researched and written, educational, and it will convince NOBODY. Because, it appears, everyone is already convinced of things, facts notwithstanding.
And by the way, it’s written by a conservative, so not worth the cyberspace it’s written on. 
So with a deep sense of futility, here’s the link to the download.
Yesterday, I walked into a Dollar General store. I glanced at the National Enquirer, on the shelf. There was a picture of Trump. The headline was Trump’s plan for world peace. If I had more time, I would have glanced through the publication - for more details.
But it got me to thinking. The National Enquirer has been around, for a long time. So I can assume the story is 100% accurate - with no bias. Right 
This headline raises so many questions. Like:
What is a definition of bias?
How do we know something is bias?
Can we measure and/or prove bias scientifically, through any of our known academic disciplines?
Does some “expert” or “respectable” media outlet….labeling something as “bias” - make it so?
Or to put it in terms of epistemology: how do we know what we know, in regards to bias?
How do we know, for example, that this headline wasn’t true A horrifying thought crossed my mind. We might even have aliens, advising Trump and his administration 
What is a definition of bias?
How do we know something is bias?
Can we measure and/or prove bias scientifically, through any of our known academic disciplines?
Does some “expert” or “respectable” media outlet…labeling something as “bias” - make it so?
Years ago a Supreme Court Justice was asked to define pornography and he couldn’t but he did say he will know it when he sees it!
Additionally as i mentioned before the anti-Trump media is well beyond bias, it’s a consistent coordinated attack to discredit him. Even the Russians hacking the election story the Dems have relentlessly pushed may not be true. Seth Rich the DNC staffer who was murdered allegedly sent Wikileaks 44K e-mails with 17K attachments. The story that the Russians hacked the DNC was not determined by the FBI because the DNC wouldn’t let the FBI inspect it’s computers. It was determined by a firm the DNC privately hired.
Wiki gave a definition of “I know it when I see it” at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it:
I think the last part of the definition, is very important:
Reminds me of this guy
I think that if person X supports and defends person Y, no matter what Y does, and if any negative stories about person Y comes out in most media, but are dismissed by Y and his supporters as “false news”, and if the reports of media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are regarded as “lying”, and their news reports are regarded as false, by Y and his supporters, while media 13 and 14 which report only positive things about Y are regarded by Y and his supporters as “the truth”, then I think X is biased in favour of Y.
think that if person X supports and defends person Y, no matter what Y does, and if any negative stories about person Y comes out in most media, but are dismissed by Y and his supporters as “false news”, and if the reports of media 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12 are regarded as “lying”, and their news reports are regarded as false, by Y and his supporters, while media 13 and 14 which report only positive things about Y are regarded by Y and his supporters as “the truth”, then I think X is biased in favour of Y.
Paidion
Media 1-12 almost always quote “unnamed sources” and almost always immediately copy each other real time without verifying anything. I receive this on my phone on a regular basis, it’s more like a game show then news.
So you don’t think news orgs should ever use sources that wish to be anonymous?
Certainly an anonymous story is a lot more unreliable although it can be true, but also it can be untrue. So when it already is anonymous and comes out and is immediately copied by the same news org over and over when the subject matter is anti-Trump it’s beyond bias or left leaning IMHO.
BTW i have no special affinity to Trump, i just believe in free markets and free speech and honestly if it were up to me i’d rather see Mike Pence as President.
Actually, Steve, I am 100% in accordance, with that statement 
P.S. Most of my Zombie friends, also agree. 
P.S. Most of my Zombie friends, also agree.
Yes they look like yuge Mike Pence supporters!
Actually i think many of the hard core left wing think if Trump gets impeached then Hill would be Pres!
Well this guy does NOT like Mr. Trump. But he’s such a good writer, and writes incisively about so many things, that it’s only fair he gets recognition here and I think you will find him stimulating. If you are a Trump supporter, take a xanax before reading.
IN full:
I haven’t written much about the ongoing siege of the Trump presidency; I haven’t frankly, had much to add. But I should say something, I suppose.
First, I should say that Donald Trump is proving to be everything that all of us knew or feared he would be: a vain, impulsive, unlettered vulgarian bigmouth, ignorant, undisciplined, and unreflective. I’ll say also that he’s been, just in terms of keeping his campaign promises, a disappointment to many millions of voters who supported him not just to stop Hillary Clinton, but in the hope of aggressive and effective reversal of decades of managerial-state growth, suicidal immigration policy, and race-baiting “social-justice” warfare against the traditional American nation.
That said, it should be obvious to all that a bloodthirsty coalition of the media and members of the United States Government (especially, in the latter category, members of the judiciary and the intelligence community) are waging a bitter, take-no-prisoners campaign against this sitting President, using everything they can lay a hand on. From the start there has been a torrent of leaks, obviously coming from people with privileged access (and therefore also, obviously in many cases felonious), and the press has, in every news cycle, done everything in its power to damage and destabilize Mr. Trump’s administration. Every day is another barrage of unsourced accusations, and (in particular) charges of treasonous collusion with Russia for which no evidence is ever given.
There is not the least attempt at coherence or consistency. Things that were defended (or, at least, ignored) when Democrats did them — like sharing anti-terror intelligence with Russia, or alleged carelessness with classified material, or believing James Comey shouldn’t be the FBI director — are front-page scandals for Mr. Trump. (What this shows is simply that looking for such consistency, is naive, as we’ve pointed out before.)
Now Ross Douthat of the New York Times is calling for the removal of Mr. Trump using the mechanism outlined in Section IV of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment: the Vice-President and Cabinet declare him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” — and should the President disagree, a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress chucks him out anyway.
I doubt that this could happen, but you never know. I do know that if it does happen, it will be seen by scores of millions of Americans as a forcible usurpation of the man they sent to Washington to “drain the swamp” — by the very snakes, leeches and reptiles they sent him there to do battle with. It will ratchet the nation another step closer to dissolution (or worse).
I’ve said for a while that politics in America are divided beyond all hope of healing, and that the civic and social cohesion that is absolutely essential for the central governance of such a vast and diverse nation is irreparably destroyed. It has seemed inevitable to me for at least five years that the United States, as presently constituted, will not exist very much longer. One metaphor I’ve used for the state of our politics is the way a car goes off the road: the driver sees, almost too late, that he’s drifted out of his lane, steers wildly back to center, overcorrects, yanks the wheel even more frantically back the other way, and after a few iterations of this ends up losing control altogether, with disastrous consequences.
With that metaphor in mind: if you’re wondering about the title of this post, here’s a video that should make it clear.
For me, really, the media bias question has been completely settled. The ‘anonymous sources’ angle is covered pretty well here:
YMMV
frontpagemag.com/fpm/266714/ … greenfield
And a recent Harvard study. If you’re a doubter, take a xanax before reading.
I think Trump forgot about one thing, in building this wall. That’s the resourcefulness, of the Mexican zombies
qaz, I am not an expert on this particular issue. I have read a few things, and this article, written by a very animal-welfare proponent, shows the history of Obama’s horrible attitude toward animals throughout his presidency. The Act you are referring to was signed 2 days before he left office.
Excerpt:
While supposed animal welfare advocates everywhere are busy … their favorite animal abuser, let’s run down just a few examples of some of Obama’s most ridiculously anti-animal/anti-animal advocate actions as president:
Provided a $12 million grant through the USDA’s Dairy Management Council of the American Dairy Association to (get this) Domino’s Pizza in exchange for (wait for it) using 40% MORE cheese on pizzas;
The legalizing of the hunting and slaughter of America’s wild horses for human consumption, after promising to ban the act during his campaign for the presidency;
The backing of Ag Gag bills across the country that aim to unconstitutionally ban filming inside slaughterhouses, and criminally charge anyone caught doing so;
The signing into law of Senate Bill 1867 which not only lifted the ban on bestiality in the military (I must have missed all those US soldiers clamoring for the right to rape animals), but also, thanks to Obama’s predecessor and The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which classifies animal activists as potential terrorists, now legally allows for their detainment indefinitely. And here we all thought that Bush and Obama weren’t alike!
The purchasing of millions of chickens, hogs, lambs, and fish from farms and slaughterhouses across the US to, according to USDA spokesperson, Tom Vilsack, “Help bring supply in line with demand.” The Defense Department was even enlisted to “speed up purchases,” and said it “would review its meat purchases and see if they can be accelerated.” While campaigning in Iowa and bragging about the $170 million dollars in federal funds he had just dropped to “help the farmers through this crisis,” Obama is quoted as saying, “We’ll just freeze it for later. We’ve got lots of freezers.” Where is Michelle’s anti-obesity campaign when you need it?
The above statistic paves the way for Obama’s next act; the “by dark of night” signing of the 2012 Farm Bill, which, hidden amidst a massive “Fiscal Cliff” package, not only continued exorbitant government subsidies to farmers and ranchers, but also required the USDA to begin buying up dairy products. Wow! Screw the free market (and the animals)! Obama proved that the government can simply create supply and demand! Who knew?
And finally, a $15 million grant through the Dept. of Health and Human Services to build Arizona State University’s “Research Park,” which has become one of the world’s largest animal testing facilities, housing more than a quarter of a million animals, and unabashedly performing vivisection despite outcry from animal advocates.