CNN's chief media strategist,
analyst, I'm sorry,
chief media analyst Brian Stelter,
he's onto something.
He noticed that many right wing and
conservative outlets have more
opinion-based people on air than
they do reporters that
are reporting fact.
So he really wants to point that
out, and he's seeing this problem
within their sphere.
But as he's going through it,
he found the problem within his own
sphere, let's listen.
>> CNN for example, has news
bureaus all around the world, all
over the place, all the red dots,
that's a lot of reporting power.
Fox, just to show the contrast,
has very few bureaus by comparison,
they only have reporters in a
couple of international locations.
So Fox does a lot less reporting
and a lot more repeating.
Why is it the right wing media
outlets do so little reporting?
Why do they employ so
few reporters and so
many commentators and
columnist and opinion writers?
Why aren't there massive American
newsrooms dedicated to journalism
from a conservative point of view,
a reality based
conservative point of view?
Why isn't there a New York Times of
the right?
Why doesn't that exist?
Is it because the audience doesn't
want that?
Or is it because the audience isn't
being given a chance to support it?
>> Where is The New York Times of
the right, because we definitely
have a New York Times of the left?
I did want to point out,
in case you're the only ones who
are screaming, going, what?
David Sirota did tweet, and
he quoted a New York Times of the
right, as he put up four different
headlines from the New York Times,
apparently of the left.
This one says,
have Democrats pulled too far left?
Are Democrats moving too far left?
[LAUGH] Is there such a thing as
too far left?
And how far left is too far left
for 2020 Democrats?
[LAUGH] I couldn't make this up
>> That is literal
headlines from New York Times, and
this is apparently the people
are too far left.
But the chair's slightly wrong
about one thing.
Put the graphic back up, and
I want to put your attention to
this third title that he read.
You said it as a question and
I understand why.
No, it's just a statement from
the New York Times, there is a such
a thing as too far left.
It's not a question,
it's a statement, okay.
>> They ask questions and
they also give you the answer.
>> Right. >> But apparently,
there's something as too far left,
apparently it's
called The New York Times, and
The New York Times doesn't know it.
Anyways, also Andrew Perez also has
send in, when will we have
a New York times for the left?
It's pretty obvious that he's
joking there.
Because New York Times is,
I feel like it's one of those
organizations similar to CNN.
They don't like those labels, and
like we're down in the middle, so
they're sprinkling these types
of things.
Because a lot of times if they do
report facts, everyone on
the conservatives will say, my god,
you guys have being such leftists.
It's a shame that
the facts make you think that.
It's more of an indictment of your
point of view.
So anyway, first off,
there was that point, but we go to
this next one really fast first,
we'll discuss all of it.
Also, Stelter went on to
point out some of the negative
effects of the way the news media
affects liberals and, I guess,
versus conservatives, just because
of the way that they look at how
fake or real the news media is.
Let's listen to that excerpt real
quick >> Democrats say
they generally trust mainline
news sources,
Republicans say they do not.
The space between them is
Grand Canyon sized.
And as Matt Gertz of the Liberal
Media Matters noted, the thing
about that partisan skew is it
means that negative press coverage
is much more damaging to Democrats,
whose voters will believe it.
And less damaging to Republicans,
whose voters generally won't
believe it.
It's an interesting point >> And
that's why a lot of times,
I talk about the fight that we have
to have, and when I say fight I
mean the arguments you have with
folks who just kind of don't accept
the facts that you give them.
So if the media is
telling you facts and then certain
groups of people go, yeah.
That situation is that maybe I
followed up, looked it up for
myself, did some background
information searching, and found
out that yeah, that makes sense.
And others,
if it doesn't fit their agenda,
they just go, that's fake.
And who's the one who's pushing
that harder and harder?
It didn't start with Donald Trump,
but he definitely
helped perpetuate it.
But it kind of plays for
an uneven playing field when
it comes to discussing things.
>> Yeah, so look, first of all,
I want to give Stelter credit for
even bringing up the issue and
I understand where he's driving at.
I think his base assumptions
are wrong, but at least he's trying
to have a conversation about it.
And I think that he's,
in his own mainstream media way,
making the argument without
saying so, but there's no right
wing version of New York Times
because they don't want the facts.
Now, they realize the underlying
problem for mainstream media, which
is that they know that the right
wing doesn't want the facts.
The facts are not in dispute on
many issues, they are in some, and
you could have opinions on
abortion.
But on the facts,
well, there was 60 court cases,
Donald Trump did not
win the election, period, right?
99% of the world's scientists say
that climate change is real and
is man made, and that the planet is
warming, and it's leading to more
extreme weather and we see it with
our own eyes, that's a fact.
You can call it 50 50, but
it's a fact, right?
But he cannot get himself to
say it.
He has to do it in
the form of a question,
because they have all been taught,
you must call it 50 50, you cannot
insult Republicans with the truth.
Now, if Brian is watching this or
anybody in mainstream media,
because it's not about Brian, they
will immediately be repelled by it.
So you guys think you
have the facts, but we do, we do.
And by the way, we're not like
the right wing, you want to call
out something we did wrong, and
you have facts to back it up,
we'll instantly agree.
We'll edit it, we'll change it,
we'll talk about it,
we'll acknowledge it, right?
The right wing doesn't
have original reporting.
Even their so called reporting is
things like Project Veritas,
which edits the videos, doctors
the videos, and lies on purpose,
and is meant for propaganda.
because they're not interested
in the facts,
they're interested in propaganda.
It's not complicated,
it's not at all complicated.
Roger Ailes, when he was setting up
Fox News, brazenly talked about how
they weren't going to have bureaus.
This is not new news, and
by the way, CNN and all the rest of
cable news treated Fox News as
perfectly legitimate for 20 years.
Why, because they thought, hey,
maybe I can get a job at Fox News.
In fact,
Brian Stelter's predecessor,
Howard Kurtz, used to be on CNN.
And Fox News is asked for
all that time, and
he was rewarded with a job at
Fox News right afterwards, right?
And that's why nobody on Cable news
said anything, because
of the money, the money, the money.
My god, maybe one
day Murdock could hire me.
Now, they passed it largely and
realizing Murdock is not
going to hire them.
And so we're more split, so
they're a tiny bit more honest, but
now the massive errors.
So there is a New York Times of
the right, it's
called the New York Times, when you
talk about economic issues.
I don't know why this is so hard.
Everybody's always like,
is the media liberal or
is it conservative?
The question is, what issue?
If you're talking about rights for
African Americans or the LGBTQ
community, no, The New York Times
is not monstrous.
They don't say like the right
wing does.
Gay marriage, that's terrible.
Gay people shouldn't be allowed to
adopt, having the same rights of
straight people, outrageous.
So they're not conservative
like that.
So when you have a critique of them
saying they're not monsters,
that is correct.
On social issues, they generally
lean left, which is leaning towards
being a decent human beings, right?
But on economic issues,
they're massively conservative.
Show me one place where
they're progressive.
Health care,
how are you going to afford that?
No way.
You're telling me the Canadians and
the Mexicans afford it?
Hell no, it costs $34 trillion.
They say it at The New York Times,
they say it on CNN,
your buddy Jake Tapper says it
more than anyone else.
I'm sorry,
he says it cost 32 trillion, but
they never finished the thought and
say it saves 34 trillion, why?
You have giant drug companies
that advertise for you, and
you know it and you know it.
Go ahead, do a segment against drug
companies, about how they're
robbing Americans blind,
saying that the government cannot
negotiate drug prices, you're
not going to do that segment.
Do a story on corruption in
politics.
Rick Sanchez once did it on CNN, he
was fired a couple of weeks later,
based on some charges that
had nothing to do with that.
Okay, so good luck, do it,
do it every week,
I guarantee you'll get fired.
I guarantee it, okay?
So New York Times and
CNN on economic issues
are massively conservative.
And look, the last point
I'm going to do reference from
Media Matters, is a really,
really good one, and it's the one I
made about Afghanistan.
When Trump does something wrong,
Fox News, Newsmax, etc,
they all circle the wagons and
go nope, he's right, he's right,
he's right.
Even if we have to lie, lie,
lie, we don't care, nobody cares
about facts on our side.
But when the Afghanistan withdrawal
was messy, the right wing piles on
Biden, but so does the left wing,
so do Democrats, so
do mainstream media.
And all of a sudden it looks like
Biden is the worst, Democrats
are the worst, everybody agrees.
But when it's the right wing, nope,
we don't agree 50 50.
And that's how you create an uneven
playing field where they win and
the truth is manipulated against
reality, more important than
progressive or conservative,
it's against reality and facts.