....Logan called the media “mostly liberal,” criticized overwhelmingly one-sided coverage of President Trump, and said there was “some merit” to calling those in the media “propagandists.”

“You say the media is mostly liberal,” she said to Ritland. “I agree with you. It’s true. Why can I say that with certainty? Well first of all I’ve been part of this for all my life, I’m 47 now and I’ve been a journalist since I was 17 and the media everywhere is mostly liberal not just in the U.S, but in this country 85 percent of journalists are registered Democrats so that’s just a fact.”

She made an analogy between media organizations and the way prayer is divided at the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men,” she said. “To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them.”

“That’s a problem for me,” she explained. “My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.”

She said that one way you can tell you’re being “lied to” by the media is if everything looks simple and black and white.

“When they simplify it all [and] there’s no grey,” she emphasized. “It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong.” 

“For example, the coverage on Trump, all the time, is negative,” she continued. “There’s no mitigating policy, or event or anything that has happened since he was elected that is out there in the media that you can read about, right? Well, that tells you, that’s distortion of the way things go in real life.”

“Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today,” she said. “We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”...https://townhall.com/tipsheet/laurettabrown/2019/02/18/cbss-lara-logan-says-media-is-mostly-liberal-its-coverage-of-trump-is-a-distortion-of-real-life-n2541659

The Title of the seed has been modified to match the actual current title of the seed online at The Daily Caller.

Lara Logan left CBS months ago. 

The Town Hall URL also incorrectly identifies Logan as CBSs in error.

Breitbart issued a correction/update here. 

breitbart

What reality and truth of the content?  Sounds like opinions to me.  

So what? That's pretty much common knowledge.

Apparently not. Why did the headline proclaim her as a CBS employee, as did the first sentence of the seed?

I corrected the title to match the source, primarily to protect the integrity of NT and protect it from copyright complaints or legal actions by The Daily Caller.

I’d have preferred to seed the one from Breitbart.  It’s the best of the three sites.  I actually liked Town Halls headline as seen in the link from my first post.  For the record, when I seeded the Daily Caller article, I seeded it with the exact headline that they provided at the time, directly cut and pasted.

I’d have preferred to seed the one from Breitbart

Thank goodness that conspiracy site isn't allowed to be seeded here.  The best way to be stupid is to read Breitbart.  Talk about actual fake news - they're one of the worst.

They are discriminated against simply because they support the President and much of his base uses it.  There are no rational or objective reasons for the rating Breitbart got.  Nothing but hate and bigotry from the rater itself out of anger over their role in the President’s election. It’s not legitimate.  Thanks I guess for your admitted preference for content control and censorship of news sources of opposing perspectives of your own. 

Breitbart consist of various sections called Big Government, Big Journalism, Big Hollywood, National Security, Tech, Sports, and Wired.

Breitbart uses sensational emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Obama Loses 2 Million+ Followers During Twitter Fake Account Purge.”  They utilize sources such as tabloid entertainment magazine Variety, and credible sources such as Bloomberg.   as well as factually mixed sources such as the  Daily Mail . Under the Big Hollywood section they publish tabloid stories such as “Fashion Notes: Melania Trump is Posh and Proper for Final Day in England” utilizing fashion sources such as farfetch.com

In general, the majority of published stories favor the right and are highly pro-Trump in tone and story selection.

A factual search reveals numerous failed fact checks by IFCN Fact Checkers.  Here are just a few of many as an example:

• Breitbart Duped by Fake News (Again)  (False)
• Following Joe Kennedy’s speech, Breitbart says Fall River, Mass. not built by immigrants  (False)
• Breitbart gets the wrong Loretta Lynch in Whitewater claim  (Pants on Fire)
• Did Planned Parenthood ‘Team Up’ With Satanists to Promote Abortion Rights in Missouri?  (False)
• Trump’s ISIS Conspiracy Theory  (False)

Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right wing bias and publication of numerous false claims.

They are sensationalist bullshit artists who specialize in fake and misleading news.  Alex Marlow even admitted it, when discussing their coverage of Roy Moore. 

But keep drinking the koolaid.  MASA.

What does the existence of a section on Hollywood and entertainment have to do with what is in hard news and political opinion?  Absolutely nothing.  Just a sorry excuse to rationalize their bigoted rating.  Of course nothing about that so called fact checking rating site is of any value as conservatives have nothing but sheer and unmitigated contempt for it, it’s persons, and it’s libetal bias.  It is of no value to reasonable thinking people.  

She's absolutely correct.  As a former Editor-in-Chief for 2 years of my university newspaper back in 1957-58, I became very aware of media bias, and at that time we considered The Christian Science Monitor our model not only for its style and setup, but because it won the awards for being the most unbiased newspaper (although it has since turned somewhat left).  When I see headlines on the media like "Israel Kills 3 Gazans", and then have to read down about 3 paragraphs to read that the Gazans had broken through the fence and were throwing grenades and Molotov cocktails at the border-defending IDF soldiers and one of the Gazans was blown up when a grenade he was throwing blew up in his hand, and in fact they were all Hamas militants, well it doesn't take much intelligence to know what the media were doing.  So many people don't bother reading the stories,, just skim the headlines and only read a paragraph or two but the truth is buried farther down the column.  So what do you  think that does?

You are right and now one must wonder how much longer she will be a CBS reporter.  They got rid of their investigative reporter hen she wasn’t sufficiently liberal.  I also appreciated her props for Breitbart News as a well respected news source despite the jackass who questions their reporting.  

You are right and now one must wonder how much longer she will be a CBS reporter.

She left CBS several months ago according to Breitbart.

breitbart

Anytime we can get you to link Breitbart is a good thing.  

Breitbart is as usual right.  Thanks for acknowledging that point here. 

He said nothing about Breitbart being "as usual right" - are facts really that scary?

Or, watch a short video of a Native American being surrounded by boys from a Catholic school and act like the boys were in the complete wrong and should be blacklisted for their behavior.  That reporting caused even their own Diocese to condemn them to "get ahead" of the media storm.  Then, the full video is found and spread and it shows not only that the kids did nothing wrong, but that they were taking abuse long before the Native American and his companions showed up.  Also, it shows the Native American ignoring a clear path to get into the middle of the boys and then the media kept putting this guy on the air as he lied about what actually happened.  Frankly, all of the media needs to start looking for facts and reporting those facts as Walter Cronkite used to do instead of immediately trying to get a major scoop.  Accurate and factual reporting without spin is what people rely on the media for, and once you stop doing that, you are a propagandist and no better than Joseph Goebbels in regards to credibility.

"Accurate and factual reporting without spin is what people rely on the media for, and once you stop doing that, you are a propagandist and no better than Joseph Goebbels in regards to credibility."

It's too late, Tom.  The media has already stopped doing that, most likely to never again return to true facts and honest opinion.  You can no longer believe what you read and hear, and only half of what you see with your own eyes.  And there are those who criticize the media in China...They're AMATEURS compared to the so-called civilized western media.  

No.  They keep going down their path and attempt to use so called fact checkers to keep the rest of us in line and then call their propaganda community standards.  And one wonders why so many hold the msm and it’s enablers in such utter contempt.  Way to go Lara Logan!    

It's not healthy for the country for 90% of the supposedly objective gatekeepers of this country to be partisan Democrats.  The media's blatant partisanship why Obama's foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes  was able to describe the media as an echo chamber that they could manipulate at will.  They were on Obama's team and thus more than happy to carry water for him.

 The good news is that most people understand the media is not unbiased, neutral observer at this point and know to treat their claims skeptically. It'd be better if they dropped all pretense to objectivity, but at least the mask is off at this point. 

You are right on all counts.  

First of all, she's not wrong. Second, she's still hot.

 she's still hot.

Fox news has proved over and over that beauty doesn't necessarily equate to brains.

As intelligent people know, truth has a liberal bias so it makes sense that most media would be liberal.

Truth and reality have a liberal bias.

Have no idea what is going on at Breitfart and Faux 'news' but to claim all the other news is propaganda, is well, bullshit.  

Because several of their female news reporters and opinion hosts are current or former lawyers?  

Breitbart, World Net Daily, CNS, The Stream, and many other sites with the word conservative or Liberty in their names are the go to sites for real news.  CNN, New York Times, Washington Post are questionable fake news propaganda sites. 

We have all heard of her.  She was the reporter who was raped by followers of the Islamic brotherhood in Egypt when she was reporting on their Obama inspired coup against Egypt’s former President and American ally who followed the camp David accords.  

On 15 February 2011, CBS News released a statement that Logan had been beaten and sexually assaulted on 11 February, while covering the celebrations in Tahrir Square following Hosni Mubarak 's resignation. ^[20] CBS 60 Minutes broadcast an interview with her about it on 1 May 2011; she said she was speaking out because of the prevalence of mass sexual assault in Egypt , and to break the silence about the sexual violence women reporters are reluctant to report in case it prevents them from doing their jobs. ^{[21] [22] [23]} She said the incident involved 200 to 300 men and lasted around 25 minutes. She had been reporting the celebrations for an hour without incident when her camera battery failed. One of the Egyptian CBS crew suggested they leave, telling her later he heard the crowd make inappropriate sexual comments about her. She felt hands touching her, and can be heard shouting "stop", just as the camera died. One of the crowd shouted that she was an Israeli, a Jew, a claim that CBS said, though false, was a "match to gasoline". She went on to say that they tore off her clothes and, in her words, raped her with their hands, while taking photographs with their cellphones. They began pulling her body in different directions, pulling her hair so hard she said it seemed they were trying to tear off chunks of her scalp. Believing she was dying, she was dragged along the square to where the crowd was stopped by a fence, alongside which a group of women were camping. One woman wearing a chador put her arms around Logan, and the others closed ranks around her, while some men who were with the women threw water at the crowd. A group of soldiers appeared, beat back the crowd with batons, and one of them threw Logan over his shoulder. She was flown back to the U.S. the next day, where she spent four days in the hospital. ^{[21] [22]} She was contacted by President Obama when she arrived home. ^[24] CBS said it remained unclear who the attackers were, and unlikely that any will be prosecuted.

So what if 85% of journalists are liberals and where is the proof of this anyway?  

So what if 85% of journalists are liberals and where is the proof of this anyway?

A huge percentage of reporters - likely for professional appearance's sake - are not registered for either party. Something like a quarter to a third of them are actually registered as Democrats and about half are not registered at all. They claim to be independent, but they aren't.

Dear Mainstream Media: Why so liberal?

In 1990, for example, Washington City Paper — then under the leadership of current Politico media critic Jack Shafer — found that Tony Kornheiser, then a sports columnist for The Washington Post, was the only registered Republican among a sampling of 49 top editors, reporters and columnists at the newspaper. And Kornheiser was a RINO. “I don’t think the Republican Party would claim me,”

The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. 

Poll: Not a Single White House Reporter Is a Republican

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican

So what?

Great post!  Well said.  The msm needs to be boycotted by all conservatives and declared unacceptable pure political propaganda and blackballed just as they do to our sources.  It’s time for a media civil war in America.  

You ask for proof. You get it. Then you say "so what?" 

Amazing.

Well, you know what they say about polls and surveys....

if surveys were actual proof, someone else would be President.

I will say that the movement from Dems and Republicans to Independents and "other"

is indicative that only 35% of those who participated are willing to be truthful about their party identification.

“For example, the coverage on Trump, all the time, is negative,” she continued. “There’s no mitigating policy, or event or anything that has happened since he was elected that is out there in the media that you can read about, right? Well, that tells you, that’s distortion of the way things go in real life.”

What's positive to report about the turd in chief?

never heard of her before

She isn't on Comedy Central.

She isn't on Comedy Central

And yet she's telling some hilarious jokes. Most jokes are just exaggerations of something to the point of the ridiculous, and in that regard he statements fulfill the requirement. The fact is religious conservatives have enjoyed a privileged position in America and in our media for the last 240 years and as more and more media start telling it like it is instead of telling the 700 Club version the more the religious conservatives gnash their teeth feeling like they're being overshadowed and forgotten simply because they don't get to control the narrative any longer.

"When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"

Reality has a liberal bias.

And this line...

"Eighty-five percent of journalists are registered Democrats, so that’s just a fact."

So where did this number come from? The same place many conservatives get all their "facts", right out of their asses.

"Although the media has always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense or at least the effort to be objective today."

Objectivity does not mean considering the "alternative" in every story. Giving any air to bullshit nonsense stories or giving space for the "But what if..." right wing conspiracy theorists is not being "objective". Introducing any fantasy like is often spouted in right wing media like how "God" did this or that, "God" elected Donald Trump or somehow affects US politics, is not "objective".

All "right wing media" is, is a repackaging of standard media with a conservative opinion thrown in. The standard media is only "biased" in so much as it doesn't present conservative opinion as fact as the right wing media outlets do. Standard media also has a wider audience because they aren't full of fact-less bullshit conservative religious opinion, and that's a GOOD thing. Reality is winning and the bitter and angry crowd who get their facts from the bible or their gut whine and complain about not being popular enough.

And what does one say about this media:

Alabama newspaper calls for resurgence of KKK

abcnews.go

Another yawner from the cornfields.

Liberal bias in the media?  Imagine so.  Most people are not anti-choice or pro Ku Kluxer.  End of story.