Have you reached out to the police department for comment? There are a lot of broad, sweeping generalizations made here about their motives. Sure, it may be propaganda, but NPR did an interview with the department and asked them questions on their reasoning. The primary reasoning was that there is a drug epidemic in…

I’ve just read a couple of articles on Cosmo and I am so baffled and impressed. If this is indicative of their content overall now, my interest is piqued.

The New York Times’ coverage has been abysmal and embarrassing this election. The editor’s op ed trying to defend their coverage was also embarrassing. The Washington Post has been fantastic, and David Fahrenthold should get a Pulitzer.

For real? A Republican hasn’t been elected on policy solutions since Nixon. It’s been “Real America!” and “I got Mine!” and “Queerz!” since Ronald Reagan’s ‘Morning in America’ speech.

They only get complaints from liberals because only liberals read.

But I’m sure it has nothing to do with misogyny.

And, the scary thing is that the AP has been about ten times worse than the Times, quite honestly. Like, lying to the point and being pressured to a point that they had to retract tweets and such and defend themselves on television.

I don’t get how that fact hasn’t been better highlighted this election cycle—that one candidate has actual policy solutions (ones that are practical and the result of careful listening) and one doesn’t.

It’s 2003 all over again!

Ian Millhiser from ThinkProgress had a great tweetstorm about this the other day. Spayd is literally chasing horses that left the barn years ago. Refusing to fact check Trump is not going to make conservatives start subscribing to the Times. They all subscribe to the NYP and the Wall Street Journal already. It’s just…

And their lily-livered Public Editor thinks that because they only get complaints from liberals about their distorted coverage, that proves that all the complaints are just partisan nonsense. And in the process of defending her paper against the claim that they investigate Clinton much more than Trump, she couldn’t…

The Times’ “journalism” has been disgraceful recently. It’s like they can’t believe this is really happening so they’ve given up.

Right? He was dead to rights in an outright lie but calling it out would be an “opinion.”

The fucking Times referred to Trump as “stretching the truth” when he said Clinton didn’t have a plan. That’s an interesting way of saying “knowingly and shamelessly lying”.

I never thought that Cosmo would be more willing to ask substantive questions than the New York Times, and yet here we are.

Her “you know, I think you’re asking very negative questions” line drove me nuts. Ooohhhhh no, I’m being asked a very valid question that’s tough for me to answer.... I know, I’ll deflect and call the interviewer a big meanie weanie and not actually answer the question!

What kills me about this latest Trump “revelation” is that Hillary has been stumping for this sort of thing for years, and her plan is actually more practical, inclusive, and circumspect. Yet ... crickets.

And there you have it... An empty, orange suit says things, and a derelict media lets him phone in his performance without any real follow up or questioning about any number of scandals that would automatically eject any other “normal” candidate. But because he’s Donald Trump.

Trump lies. It would only be news if he actually told the truth for once in his live.

Huffpo did a follow-up on her claims that her father provided paid maternity leave for his workers. Surprise! He doesn’t!