Politico Article

[Michael Walton]

3 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I am very resistant to the idea there is a body of media outlets (The 'liberal blogosphere') that resists a frightening truth.

Yellow cake anyone?

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Really?

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias

Did you read the article or just the headline?

<quote on, emphasis added>

Politico's media bias, given by the AllSides Bias Rating™, is center. Politico says that they “strike a perfect balance” in regards to demographics. Thirty-six percent of Politico readers are democrats, twenty-seven percent are republicans, nineteen percent are independent, and eighteen percent are other. The Daily Caller and Breitbart each published stories in 2011 and 2012, respectively, claiming that Politico has a liberal bias in its news coverage. As of July 2016, over half of the 6,000 AllSides users who voted disagreed with our rating of center, and those who disagree have an average rating of center, with a small lean toward left. Our March 2013 blind survey produced results closer to lean right, though not far from center. More research to determine the bias of Politico is still needed.

Politico is a political journal that focuses on United States and international politics and policy. It was founded recently in January of 2007, based in Arlington, Virginia. John F. Harris and Jim VandHei both left their jobs at The Washington Post to work for Politico as editor-in-chief and executive editor. Politico's main publications are based in Washington D.C., Manhattan, and Brussels. As of January 2016, in Washington D.C., the daily circulation of Politico was about 30,000 papers. Politico's American website has about 12 million different visitors each month, and about 1.5 million each month to the European website. The paper is ranked as “the number one most-read Capitol Hill publication online and in print.” Although Politico is based in Washington D.C., 83 percent of Politico readers reside outside of D.C.

<quote off>

At FireDogLake we used to tear up the Washington Post on a regular basis.

VandHei was a favorite target -- a bald-faced reactionary whose wife worked for right-wing Congressman Tom Delay.

[Michael Walton]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Did you read the article or just the headline?

February 1, 2018: After analyzing results from our most recent blind bias survey and editorial review, the Politico media bias rating has moved from Center to Lean Left.

[Cliff Varnell]

4 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

February 1, 2018: After analyzing results from our most recent blind bias survey and editorial review, the Politico media bias rating has moved from Center to Lean Left.

<quote on>

As of July 2016, over half of the 6,000 AllSides users who voted disagreed with our rating of center, and those who disagree have an average rating of center, with a small lean toward left. Our March 2013 blind survey produced results closer to lean right, though not far from center. More research to determine the bias of Politico is still needed.

<quote off>

So because Politico went from slightly right to slightly left it gives you license to smear liberals?

Politico has never been part of the liberal blogosphere.  Period. 

[Ron Bulman]

Liberal blogosphere or not this article makes them sound like part of the 1% owned msm.

[James DiEugenio]

I agree.  

And recall, last year when everyone thought Trump was going to declassify everything, their man on the case was Shenon.

BTW, in addition to Alec Baldwin, if you listen to my interview with John Barbour, when he called up Tom Brokaw to ask if he wanted to include anything on his upcoming special at the fiftieth, Tom, who was his friend, said, "No Garrison John." Brokaw did not really become a big name at NBC until he did the Today Show in 1976.

To me, its really hard to understand what the force is that keeps this up.  What I usually settle into is  that its institutional memory.  The dying MSM does not want to admit just how bad and how compromised it was at a key point in the 20th century.  To the point that they actually lie about what the ARRB produced.

Edited February 27, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree.  

And recall, last year when everyone thought Trump was going to declassify everything, their man on the car was Shenon.

BTW, in addition to Alec Baldwin, if you listen to my interview with John Barbour, when he called up Tom Brokaw to ask if he wanted to include anything on his upcoming special at the fiftieth, Tom, who was his friend, said, "No Garrison John." Brokaw did not really become a big name at NBC until he did the Today Show in 1976.

To me, its really hard to understand what the force is that keeps this up.  What I usually settle into is  that its institutional memory.  The dying MSM does not want to admit just how bad and how compromised it was at a key point in the 20th century.  To the point that they actually lie about what the ARRB produced.

That and the fact that you and the JFKA Master Class can't come up with a snappy media-friendly case for conspiracy.

And thus the Mock Trial loss...

Edited February 27, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

That and the fact that you and the JFKA Master Class can't come with with a snappy media-friendly case for conspiracy.

And thus the Mock Trial loss...

That and the fact that the writers and editors won't bite the hand that feeds them.  They won't give up the swimming pool or private school for their kids.

[Cliff Varnell]

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

That and the fact that the writers and editors won't bite the hand that feeds them.  They won't give up the swimming pool or private school for their kids.

Why do so many researchers make it easy for the MSM to dismiss the subject by micro-analyzing complex proofs of conspiracy?

That approach to the case was exposed as intellectually bankrupt by the Mock Trial loss.

[Ron Bulman]

3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Why do so many researchers make it easy for the MSM to dismiss the subject by micro-analyzing complex proofs of conspiracy?

That approach to the case was exposed as intellectually bankrupt by the Mock Trial loss.

I don't know.  I'm not a researcher per se.  I'm still trying to figure out why the Main Stream Media won't address the JFK Assassination honestly in terms of it's historical relevance to the current state of affairs in the world and the USA in particular.  But I suspect the ownership of the purse strings of the editors and writers by the 1% again.

Though some tenets are open to interpretation, not a lot of this;

 https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[Cliff Varnell]

The Winner of the Snappy Proof of Conspiracy Award is Phil Dragoo's -- "Too low a hit you must acquit" -- referring, of course, to the back wound.

If you can't make your case for conspiracy in 40 words or less it isn't going to find an audience in the MSM even if one had the opportunity to present a case in such a venue.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

Vincent Salandria started pointing this out in 1964.

In the Salandria School of JFK research the clothing defects are the only evidence worth micro-analyzing, while in the Josiah Thompson School of Micro-Analysis everything is fair game for micro-research except the clothing evidence, which is either dismissed or ignored.

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

5 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't know.  I'm not a researcher per se.  I'm still trying to figure out why the Main Stream Media won't address the JFK Assassination honestly in terms of it's historical relevance to the current state of affairs in the world and the USA in particular.  But I suspect the ownership of the purse strings of the editors and writers by the 1% again.

Though some tenets are open to interpretation, not a lot of this;

 https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

And what is it's historical relevance?

[Ron Bulman]

15 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Winner of the Snappy Proof of Conspiracy Award is Phil Dragoo's -- "Too low a hit you must acquit" -- referring, of course, to the back wound.

If you can't make your case for conspiracy in 40 words or less it isn't going to find an audience in the MSM even if one had the opportunity to present a case in such a venue.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

Vincent Salandria started pointing this out in 1964.

In the Salandria School of JFK research the clothing defects are the only evidence worth micro-analyzing, while in the Josiah Thompson School of Micro-Analysis everything is fair game for micro-research except the clothing evidence, which is either dismissed or ignored.

 

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

And what is it's historical relevance?

Columbine, Sandy Hook, Iraq, Afghanistan, Virginia Tech, Iran Contra, October Surprise, a High School in Florida, a club in Florida, AK 47's, AR 15's, a Church in Texas.  A much changed world since the public daylight execution of a President on a public street.

[Kirk Gallaway]

That's very vague Ron. What do all these mass shootings have to do with the Kennedy assassination?

[James DiEugenio]

This weekend, up at one of Gary Aguilar's salons, I will be doing another of my presentations on the reversals of Kennedy's foreign policy and its ramifications in history.

What I usually do here is begin by saying something like, "I am going to show you how America's foreign policy changed after Kennedy was killed.  In doing so I am barely going to discuss Cuba and Vietnam.  I would be willing to wager that many here thought that would not be possible.  But it is."

Another thing I have added to this presentation is that I do not stop with LBJ.  I continue some of it with Nixon and Kissinger.  Because in many ways it was those two who actually put Kennedy's foreign policy in the museum, as a subject of historical inquiry.  And much of this, by both LBJ and RMN, was done deliberately.

If one counts up what happened afterwards in just two instances, Indochina and Indonesia, you are talking about at least  5 million dead, top end about 7 million.  But then there are other places where the reversals occurred and there were others killed and political movements smothered e.g. Congo, Dominican Republic, the Middle East where JFK favored Nasser as a way of getting a peace settlement, and no nukes for Israel.  

I could go on and on, but its all there in recent works by scholars from Georgetown and Stanford, among others.  Kennedy was loved in the Third World.  Today, America is largely hated there.  For good reason.  The cover up about this aspect of his murder is more methodical and systemic than the circumstances of his death.

Edited February 27, 2018 by James DiEugenio