Washington week in Review (PBS) has become just as bad as Fox, re: emailgate

[Gabi Hayes]

anybody see that? PURE republican talking points, ending with the reason for the massive mistrust of her being her refusal to hand over documents during Whitewater, which they admitted was nothing. the public got used to distrusting from there, and it's stayed that way since, according, of course to the CW, into which miasmic trough they dove tonight.

seriously! I could not believe my eyes/ears

one twit even opened up the discussion for deriding her for not admitting missteps, and DARING to push back a bit against Comey's smear tactics! must be seen to be believed.

NOT ONE WORD about the mistakes Comey made, the mis marked emails, the unethical editorializing he did.

not ONE defense of anything related to Clinton, other than the fact she wasn't indicted; just that Comey left PLENTY of ammo for the pugs to use throughout the election.

simply astoundingly one sided presentation, includingly smug laughter at her predicament, and how poorly she handled it. reminded me EXACTLY how they acted toward the Clinton's all during the run up to the impeachment

Fools for Scandal! hasn't changed a bit at PBS in over 20 years

never going to watch this garbage again

[merrily]

1. .

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Washington Week in Review was first broadcast on 23 February 1967 on NET, and was picked up by PBS in 1970. Since moving to PBS, Washington Week has used a panel discussion format, moderated by a host. Gwen Ifill has been the host since Ken Bode was fired in 1999.[1] Ifill shortened the name when she took over, as a sign that "the show would spend more time looking forward".[2] In 2006, Washington Week made an agreement with National Journal which ensures that at least one National Journal reporter is on the show.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Week

The National Journal receives substantial financial support from the Gates Foundation ($240,000+) to provide coverage of education-related issues that are of interest to the Gates Foundation and its frequent partner in education policy initiatives, the Lumina Foundation.[6][7] Critics have suggested that this funding may lead to biased coverage and have noted the Lumina Foundation's connections to the private student loan company Sallie Mae.[8][9][10] Gates-funding of the National Journal is not always disclosed in articles or editorials about the Gates Foundation or Bill Gates, or in coverage of white papers by other Lumina or Gates Foundation grantees, such as the New America Foundation.

......


As of 2006, National Journal has an agreement with Washington Week which ensures that at least one National Journal reporter is on the show.[19]

In 2010, buyouts were offered to the entire magazine's staff. The magazine was relaunched in October, along with a new, free website.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Journal&oldid=631555350

NOTE: The above quote is from an older version of the wiki of the National Journal. The latest version is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Journal

The National Journal, formerly Congress Daily, was a more liberal publication prior to 2010, when, as the above quote indicates, its entire staff was replaced and writers like Ron Fournier (of Rove and AP fame) were brought on and the publication went to a free online model. The publication underwent another restructuring in 2015. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/10/national-journal-to-cut-staff-shifts-to-subscription-only-215190


Plus, in general, in my view, PBS changed noticeably during and after the Bush administration.



tritsofme for catching my error in the original version of this post. (I had quoted from the wiki of the National Review, instead of the National Journal.

[tritsofme]

3. National Journal and National Review are not in any way related...

[Gabi Hayes]

5. should have caught that. lowry has been at the william buckley toilet paper stand

for many years

that said, any so-called journalistic enterpfise that features Ron Fournier has no business associating itself with the J word.

I once heard him on Jim Warren's radio show at WGN call the Clintons "hillbillies!" not kidding. that was when he was with the AP. I was able to get through and call him on that, as well as his clearly biased, to say the least, coverage of Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, etc.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/24/1424556/-GOP-s-press-pal-Ron-Fournier-at-it-again-spewing-anti-Hillary-crap

[merrily]

7. Derp. I will fix my prior post. Thanks.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. wow....knew about national journal. at one time they were a semi-rational RW

mag, but I had no idea that delusional simp rich lowry took over.

seen this? special

http://www.spinsanity.org/debates/franken-lowry.html

Al Franken on Rich Lowry's Legacy - Paying the Price for the Clinton Years (3/15)

The genesis of all this - reviewing each other's books here on Spinsanity - can be found in Chapter 38 of my book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.

Rich followed with this ridiculous column.

And the story of our subsequent agreement to review each other's books can be found on the National Review website.

There. Now you're all caught up. But in summary: Rich said on C-SPAN that Democrats had sissified politics;
I challenged him to a fight in my parking garage; he demurred like a little girl;

I wrote about the incident honestly in my book; he wrote a column that gave his readers a totally misleading characterization of my book, which he later admitted he hadn't read;

I challenged Rich to another fight; he demurred again, but challenged me to a contest of ideas. So here we are. (Read the whole column.)

going to go to bed tonight with my copy of Lying Liars, chapt. 38

aaaaand.........
I've never been able to stand smug condi pal Ifill....had my fill of her a long time ago. I occasionally catch this show, but tonight had me gasping in disbelief. thought I was watching scarborough, or whoever that guy is who's inhabiting Steve Kornacki's body.

[merrily]

8. I'm sorry I misled you. It's National Review. Please see the corrected version of my Reply 1. Thanks

[Gabi Hayes]

9. just two different spots on the right wing spectrum. Fournier is probably worse than Lowry, because

he has some sort of unearned plausibility among so called unaligned media

[merrily]

10. Thanks. He deserves zero cred as a journalist. Less than zero, really.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/07/22/the-ap-has-a-ron-fournier-problem/144113

[YOHABLO]

2. PBS sold out long ago. It's become so 'milk-toast' Washington insider cocktail circuit party.

[MADem]

6. GW Bush stuffed PBS full of wingnuts. They'll be entrenched for a generation. nt

[bigtree]

11. host is a personal friend of Barbara Bush

...don't need to look much further than that.