FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
What the New York Times did is called “burying the lead”—hiding the most important aspect of the story—even though, technically, it’s right there at the end of the lead paragraph. In another story, Times readers had to read quite a bit farther down to get to the real point of the story.
Factchecking website Snopes cited FAIR’s work, among others, in warning readers not to take at face value videos by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas alleging Democratic election skullduggery.
Moyers & Co.’s Karin Kamp cited FAIR’s figures on presidential debate topics in a preview of the final Clinton/Trump face-off.
Russia, ISIS and taxes overwhelmed all other topics during the four presidential and vice-presidential debates, totaling 429 mentions from both candidates and questioners.
Donald Trump is now claiming that if he doesn’t win, the thing must be rigged. It’s concerning that his supporters may believe that, but also concerning that others might imagine that the fact that Trump mentions the idea of voting improprieties must mean there is no such thing.
The presidential debates used to be the best opportunity to shed some light on key issues things. But as the debates have gone from substance to show biz, it doesn’t work that way anymore.
Despite the fact that the world has endured 16 consecutive months of record-breaking heat, not one of the debate moderators saw fit to ask about climate change in any of 2016’s general election debates.
The response to Clinton campaign leaks from some journalists has been to analyse, dissect and find the most newsworthy bits. For others, the reaction has been to dismiss and downplay, turning the often cynical meatgrinder of American politics into a snooze barely worthy of discussion.
North Dakota District Judge John Grinsteiner stood up for the First Amendment by dismissing “riot” charges against Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman. That’s more than you can say for most of Goodman’s corporate media colleagues.
“It’s inherently hard to get at what income is. And, thus, it can’t be as simple as people want it to be, because the accountants always try to figure out ways to get around them.”
Sinclair Broadcast Group’s Stephen Loiaconi quoted FAIR’s Jim Naureckas on the legitimacy of examining Donald Trump’s treatment of women as a campaign issue.
Why haven’t questions of discriminatory policing played a bigger role in election coverage? There was an opening recently when Republican candidate Donald Trump stated to CNN that five teenagers exonerated for the 1989 rape and assault of a woman jogging in Central Park were actually guilty.
A review of topics mentioned and questions asked in the first three presidential/vice-presidential debates shows a significant emphasis on Russia, terrorism and taxes—pushing aside most other issues, including climate change, abortion, education, campaign finance and LGBTQ rights.
There’s an attempt by some pundits to blame Millennials for the rise of Trump, bending logic and basic social science in the process. These attempts come in different forms, but one recent gambit is to point the finger for Trumpism on the falling standards of civic education, a thesis that either implicitly or explicitly indicts younger voters
Compared with registered voters, those who don’t register are more likely to be young, lower-income people of color. Despite this—or perhaps because of this—corporate media have done little to alert the public about voter registration deadlines.
From vanishing ice to animal die-offs to increasing wildfires, scientists use words like “unprecedented” and “staggering” to describe the evident impacts of human-driven climate disruption. Elite media say they take it all very seriously…. How far are they from taking it seriously enough?
The vice presidential debate provided a stark picture of just how distorted corporate media’s priorities are compared to issues of actual consequence in people’s lives. Issues such as abortion, poverty, LGBTQ rights and climate change were never asked about.
Spreading Rumors of Spreading Rumors of Electoral Fraud… ‘What Is Aleppo?’ Turns Out to Be a Tough Question… To NYT, British Public Is Mostly ‘Fringe’… Buying Bylines—by the Thousands Each Year… Now With 50 Percent Less Journalistic Skepticism
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Times throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro–trade deal agenda. Therefore it is not surprising to see a story in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement for these trade deals.
If the Times is going to treat Bill Clinton’s record of marital infidelity as relevant to the contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, why doesn’t it treat Trump’s record of infidelity as relevant?
