Jump to content

Reporter Sharyl Attkisson resigns from CBS - claims liberal bias


Recommended Posts

This truly is like arguing with the gatortard. I call for a link when someone is making a specific claim usually involving numbers. There was already a link in this thread that was not contrary to any statement I made here.

 

I've never been "privy" to her relationship with upper management. What I know on the subject is what I've read for nearly a year now.

 

You said she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious. The only way you could possible know she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious is if you were privy to what went on between her and management prior to 2009. At this point you're guessing it started then.........correct??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

Is there something special you'd prefer we call it when you play it or can we refer to it as the "dick" card then too?

 

So she's had issues since 2009. What about the other 15 years she was there. Were you privy to her relationship with upper management then?

And how was her first day on the job? Or day 1000? For the life of me I don't understand how you can't accept that over the course of 20 years her job may have changed, and not to her liking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious. The only way you could possible know she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious is if you were privy to what went on between her and management prior to 2009. At this point you're guessing it started then.........correct??

 

Are you being this obtuse on purpose? I'm going by what I've read starting nearly a year ago. I didn't sit in on any meetings. I don't know her. I gained my knowledge of the situation from what I read online, the same way anybody else could have gained the same knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious. The only way you could possible know she STARTED catching **** during Fast and Furious is if you were privy to what went on between her and management prior to 2009. At this point you're guessing it started then.........correct??

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/09/nameless-CBS-Sources-Smear-Sharyl-Attkisson

 

Only thing I've found so far.

 

While I don't consider it a reliable source, it does reference some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sharyl Attkisson approach

 

Politico 5/24/13

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-sharyl-attkisson-approach-164751.html

 

FTA:

Attkisson’s one piece of solace may come from finally gaining some like-minded colleagues in the media. For years, Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream reporters pursuing critical stories about the Obama administration.

 

Attkisson is a dogged reporter, driven by a strong skepticism of government. Producers at CBS News once nicknamed her “Pit Bull,” a source said, because she gets on a story and won’t let go. But that is seen as both a strength and a weakness. Her drive can produce great journalism, but it can also cause her to push stories to the point that colleagues, especially those of a more progressive bent, suspect a political agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you being this obtuse on purpose? I'm going by what I've read starting nearly a year ago. I didn't sit in on any meetings. I don't know her. I gained my knowledge of the situation from what I read online, the same way anybody else could have gained the same knowledge.

 

Ok I'm just trying to figure out what you meant when you said this. And mainly the part in bold.

 

She started catching schit from CBS executives during her "Fast and Furious " investigative reporting and into her Benghazi reporting. It didn't start 20 years ago, so referencing her 20 year relationship with CBS is meaningless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'm just trying to figure out what you meant when you said this. And mainly the part in bold.

 

Simply put she may have had a wonderful relationship with CBS for her first 15 years but it would appear from all accounts that it started going downhill in her last 5 years. The 20 years was meaningless because it isn't like she put up with schit for 20 years. Like JiA stated, things change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put she may have had a wonderful relationship with CBS for her first 15 years but it would appear from all accounts that it started going downhill in her last 5 years. The 20 years was meaningless because it isn't like she put up with schit for 20 years. Like JiA stated, things change.

 

I disagree with that. The last five years may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but the previous 15 could have been pretty crappy too. Do you really think CBS just earned it's "Liberal Biased Wings" five years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. The last five years may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but the previous 15 could have been pretty crappy too. Do you really think CBS just earned it's "Liberal Biased Wings" five years ago.

 

Well, it's possible she worked there for the first 15 years and it was crappy then too but CBS, althouth it has been biased to the left for quite some time has always had a fair amount of investigative reporters and programs like 60 Minutes. What changed around 2009? Did you read the article that I gave you a link for? If not, you should. Here's another snippet:

 

I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the situation whatsoever – just an astonishing coincidence for those future historians to marvel over – but CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, who just happens to have been involved in preparing the bogus Benghazi talking points that Sharyl Attkisson was so justifiably skeptical of. The Democrat-media axis is so very cozy, isn’t it? But I’m sure those family ties and revolving doors between Big Media and Even Bigger Government do not influence editorial decisions in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's possible she worked there for the first 15 years and it was crappy then too but CBS, althouth it has been biased to the left for quite some time has always had a fair amount of investigative reporters and programs like 60 Minutes. What changed around 2009? Did you read the article that I gave you a link for? If not, you should. Here's another snippet:

 

I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with the situation whatsoever – just an astonishing coincidence for those future historians to marvel over – but CBS News President David Rhodes is the brother of Barack Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, who just happens to have been involved in preparing the bogus Benghazi talking points that Sharyl Attkisson was so justifiably skeptical of. The Democrat-media axis is so very cozy, isn’t it? But I’m sure those family ties and revolving doors between Big Media and Even Bigger Government do not influence editorial decisions in any way.

 

Thanks but I'm not going to read snippets. I'll wait for her book. That should be a lot of fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chirst

I disagree with that. The last five years may have been the straw that broke the camel's back but the previous 15 could have been pretty crappy too. Do you really think CBS just earned it's "Liberal Biased Wings" five years ago.

No one here claimed CBS suddenly became liberal. That's been the case since Walter Cronkite or before. But will you admit that her critical reports about Obama may have been received a lot differently in the CBS board room then a [good work!] knock down of Bush? You seem to not understand that CBS is in the business of supporting Obama.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chirst

No one here claimed CBS suddenly became liberal. That's been the case since Walter Cronkite or before. But will you admit that her critical reports about Obama may have been received a lot differently in the CBS board room then a [good work!] knock down of Bush? You seem to not understand that CBS is in the business of supporting Obama.

 

No but you're all claiming her job all of a sudden became ****ty. I'm a little more cynical that that. She has an agenda, she's writing a book and her book need promotion. So you think there's a slight possibility that she's blowing this out of proportion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but you're all claiming her job all of a sudden became ****ty. I'm a little more cynical that that. She has an agenda, she's writing a book and her book need promotion. So you think there's a slight possibility that she's blowing this out of proportion?

 

Why isn't Simon and Schuster publishing the book?

 

You're not being cynical, you're being reactionary. Only a fool would blindly accept the story, but there's certainly enough questionable behavior to justify a hypothesis that CBS over time became more partisan than she was willing to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No but you're all claiming her job all of a sudden became ****ty. I'm a little more cynical that that. She has an agenda, she's writing a book and her book need promotion. So you think there's a slight possibility that she's blowing this out of proportion?

Oh come on. She quit a high paying job to boost her book sales? Good lord the women was probably making 2-3 million a year at CBS. She quit that to sell some books?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on. She quit a high paying job to boost her book sales? Good lord the women was probably making 2-3 million a year at CBS. She quit that to sell some books?

 

Good point. No one has ever left a high paying job to write and promote their book(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but you're all claiming her job all of a sudden became ****ty. I'm a little more cynical that that. She has an agenda, she's writing a book and her book need promotion. So you think there's a slight possibility that she's blowing this out of proportion?

 

The book was in no way a part of your original argument. It would appear that her job became schitty back about 5 years ago when it first became apparent that the media was going to go full out Obama PR Department. We praised her here as a reporter that was doing her job and as an honest reporter doing her job I'm sure she had an uncomfortable work environment at CBS. She fought with her employer for 5 years over CBS's increasing censorship. It's been common knowledge for the last year that she and Rhodes were at a loggerhead. I think you are:

post-9928-0-49655700-1394681399_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...