Jared Kushner complains to Time Warner about CNN being mean to them (not a joke)

[Hindsight was 2020]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/jared-kushner-reportedly-met-with-senior-time-warner-executive-to-complain-about-cnns-coverage/#disqus_thread

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

[President Johnson]

Just because they reporting that the Trump Admin is totally incompetent? Get your act together instead of whining, Donald & Co. I thought he's such a tough guy, why is he then permanently complaining?

[SCNCmod]

For some reason- regardless of odd things they may do... I seem to always have a positive opinion of both Jared & Melania.  Both seem very genuine and likable.

(I don't find the Trump boys nearly as likable... and I'm indifferent about Ivanka).

[ApatheticAustrian]

melania is more or less human and radiating the "hostage"-feeling.

jared seems sane...a rare sight atm.

[Rjjr77]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

[Rjjr77]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I would ignore CNN.

Slimy little end-member of the political media spectrum.

Fox up the other end.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

[Rjjr77]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

[Hindsight was 2020]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

[Rjjr77]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

The CNN and Buzzfeed reports about the unsourced sexual blackmail. Something so false even admittedly far left blogs wouldn't run it.

[SteveRogers]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

The CNN and Buzzfeed reports about the unsourced sexual blackmail. Something so false even admittedly far left blogs wouldn't run it.

Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed ever reported that the contents of the dossier were factual. CNN especially went out of their way in their story to repeatedly stress that the subject matter of the dossier could not be corroborated. CNN's initial story went so far as to emphasize that CNN was refusing to produce the dossier or to even summarize the salacious details within in. There was absolutely no mention of golden showers in the CNN story. Rather, CNN ran their story because the existence of the dossier and the fact that the CIA deemed it noteworthy made the matter newsworthy. It was Trump who childishly lumped CNN and Buzzfeed together when he first branded CNN "fake news."

[Rjjr77]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

The CNN and Buzzfeed reports about the unsourced sexual blackmail. Something so false even admittedly far left blogs wouldn't run it.

Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed ever reported that the contents of the dossier were factual. CNN especially went out of their way in their story to repeatedly stress that the subject matter of the dossier could not be corroborated. CNN's initial story went so far as to emphasize that CNN was refusing to produce the dossier or to even summarize the salacious details within in. There was absolutely no mention of golden showers in the CNN story. Rather, CNN ran their story because the existence of the dossier and the fact that the CIA deemed it noteworthy made the matter newsworthy. It was Trump who childishly lumped CNN and Buzzfeed together when he first branded CNN "fake news."

The sheer fake that CNN reported on it, when even the furthest left outfits deemed it unfit to report on. the fact that it could not be corroborated is the reason it is in fact "fake news". It's journalism 101 to source stories, major media outlets do not report unconfirmed rumors. CNN basically acted as the enquirer does. Publish every rumor maybe it will be true

[SteveRogers]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

The CNN and Buzzfeed reports about the unsourced sexual blackmail. Something so false even admittedly far left blogs wouldn't run it.

Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed ever reported that the contents of the dossier were factual. CNN especially went out of their way in their story to repeatedly stress that the subject matter of the dossier could not be corroborated. CNN's initial story went so far as to emphasize that CNN was refusing to produce the dossier or to even summarize the salacious details within in. There was absolutely no mention of golden showers in the CNN story. Rather, CNN ran their story because the existence of the dossier and the fact that the CIA deemed it noteworthy made the matter newsworthy. It was Trump who childishly lumped CNN and Buzzfeed together when he first branded CNN "fake news."

The sheer fake that CNN reported on it, when even the furthest left outfits deemed it unfit to report on. the fact that it could not be corroborated is the reason it is in fact "fake news". It's journalism 101 to source stories, major media outlets do not report unconfirmed rumors. CNN basically acted as the enquirer does. Publish every rumor maybe it will be true

The existence of the dossier was a real story that was sourced and ultimately confirmed by Clapper himself. The rumors within might have been unfit to print, which is why CNN didn't print them.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

From day one, Trump has been treated with silk gloves by the media.  Actual unfair coverage of the so-called President and his coterie of cackling cannibals would start every single mention of his name by calling him a bankrupt criminal working for the Russians and out to destroy America, and then start defaming him with lies.

I disagree, I'd actually say the media has been both. One second they are bending over backwards fawning over trump, the next the media is spewing out misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol. The manic-depressive media coverage has been painful, and bad for everyone.

Maybe silk-gloves isn't quite right. When you say, " misplaced, and poorly sourced, vitriol" there's a degree of truth to that. But if the media wanted, they could (still) go after him for his real, painstakingly documented failings (lawsuits and business failures, plus all the times he's screwed over partners, clients, or employees). And if they were going to jut make up plausibly bad stuff about him, there are far worse thing they could say.

Compared to Clinton (who Trump supporters still love to attack and blame) Trump has indeed gotten silk glove treatment.
 

In some ways trump has been taken lighter than Clinton in someways no. A perfect example was that CNN/ buzzfeed sexual blackmail fiasco, that's a garbage horrible story that would have never seen the light of day against anyone else.

You mean the way stories connecting Ted Cruz to the JFK assassination, or Hillary Clinton to pedophile rings never saw the light of day?

I missed where those stories were published in the legitimate media as fact... The sexual blackmail was.

The media has done things to trump that are appalling, while ignoring the actual faults with him. It's beyond confusing.

Example?

The CNN and Buzzfeed reports about the unsourced sexual blackmail. Something so false even admittedly far left blogs wouldn't run it.

Neither CNN nor Buzzfeed ever reported that the contents of the dossier were factual. CNN especially went out of their way in their story to repeatedly stress that the subject matter of the dossier could not be corroborated. CNN's initial story went so far as to emphasize that CNN was refusing to produce the dossier or to even summarize the salacious details within in. There was absolutely no mention of golden showers in the CNN story. Rather, CNN ran their story because the existence of the dossier and the fact that the CIA deemed it noteworthy made the matter newsworthy. It was Trump who childishly lumped CNN and Buzzfeed together when he first branded CNN "fake news."

The sheer fake that CNN reported on it, when even the furthest left outfits deemed it unfit to report on. the fact that it could not be corroborated is the reason it is in fact "fake news". It's journalism 101 to source stories, major media outlets do not report unconfirmed rumors. CNN basically acted as the enquirer does. Publish every rumor maybe it will be true

So you're saying that a source or organization that consistently promotes incorrect, unverifiable, and otherwise questionable or false information is appalling and bad for everyone? Great! We agree.

Now, once your party denounces Trump and removes him from office, you and the GOP may be taken seriously when it comes to criticizing the media. Until then,