The Hill is owned by a Trumpite billionaire-- don't quote them please!

[sharedvalues]

The Hill is a paper owned by Jimmy Finkelstein, a Republican billionaire who was an early backer of Trump.

The Hill hired John Solomon, known rightwing shill, who came from Circa (Sinclair website). Solomon singlehandedly created one of the worst Hillary smears of all: the deflection about uranium. Flynn was trying to do a nuclear deal with the Iranians and Russians, to enrich himself (and likely Kushner and Trump; Mueller will tell us more.) Solomon, at The Hill, with his owners’ implicit support, ran a series of propaganda articles deflecting a uranium scandal onto Hillary— and that “Uranium One” story turned out to be totally false. The worst part is that it is now harder to persuade people Flynn and Kushner were the ones involved in the real uranium scandal.

Josh Marshall at TPM has a lot of explanation about Solomon’s past:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/10/23/trump-supporters-are-being-set-up-to-dismiss-his-ties-to-russia/

And the Hill’s newsroom revolted against Solomon and the owner Finkelstein:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/01/17/staffers-at-the-hill-press-management-about-the-work-of-john-solomon/



More recently the Hill has been running Trump’s lies repeatedly, unfiltered, in headlines. The Hill is helping Trump spread his lies.

No one on DU should quote The Hill. Stand up against Republican-owned publications distorting American public debate and screwing over the country. Ignore The Hill.


Jay Rosen is a very perceptive media observer. He says “The Hill is not journalism.” Wow. Ignore The Hill, please.

Link to tweet

@jayrosen_nyu
They don't practice journalism at
@thehill
. Stenography is not quite the right term, either. Last night I watched 'Miller's Crossing' for I dunno, the 17th time? The mayor and police commissioner who just do what the gangsters tell 'em.
@thehill
is those guys. Plus Chartbeat.

[ZZenith]

1. Thanks. We need to avoid giving them clicks.

[sagesnow]

2. Thanks for this background info. n/t

[still_one]

3. while your points are valid, and I am no fan of The Hill or Politico, which I regard as gossip rags,

more interested in stirring things up rather than reporting the news, they do have various reporters from different political perspectives, so it bothers me little that articles from them are posted here. I just take them with a large grain of salt

[sharedvalues]

5. Politico and the Hill are quite different. Management matters.

Politico was founded ten or more years ago by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen.

Back then, Politico was one of the worst access journalism, savvy journalism, bothsidesist publications.

But a few years ago those two guys left. Politico has gotten WAY better- with headlines, and conveying truth not just the horse race. It’s not perfect, but it is decent. (Those two moved to Axios, which they remade in the same image. Axios itself is now in its own bad-journalism controversy, when Jon Swan ignored truth and encouraged Trump to say he could change the constitution.)

Today, the Hill has all the problems outlined above. Politico is better. We shouldn’t lump them together.

I think The Hill (And Axios) should be ignored by those who care about truth in America.

[still_one]

7. Good information to know. Thanks

[msongs]

4. twitter is full of right wing stuff as is rotstory. shall we ban those? nt

[Fullduplexxx]

6. Shall we post stuff from fox or zerohedge at some point you have to consider the source

[sharedvalues]

8. We should note agenda behind news: The Hill is a good example

For news sites- The Hill, Fox, Breitbart, Wash Ex, Free Beacon, WSJ, (all owned by Trumpite billionaires) — it is incredibly important to note who owns and manages the site.

Twitter has problems too, and the best way to vet Twitter is to see WHO posts a certain tweet. If they are taking money from rightwing billionaires, then yes you should certainly not post it here. A good example is the guy who took a picture of AOC to criticize her- he works for the DC Examiner and thus takes money from the rightwing billionaire owner, Philip Anschutz.

So yes, we should ALWAYS analyze the agenda behind news. That extends to particular reporters and to their management and ownership. On twitter, we have to think about individuals’ agenda just the same. Tweets from Robert Reich are always welcome here. Tweets from Kim Strassel or Peggy Noonan or Circa are never welcome here. Agenda matters. Where their salary comes from matters.

[sharedvalues]

9. Why The Hill's media bias rating is wrong

Those media bias ratings are BS. With capital B and S
The Hill’s real media bias rating is:
Subtle Rightwing Propaganda (with some good reporters).

See above article which contains links on: Solomon/Circa/Uranium One, Finkelstein, Josh Marshall on Solomon, Republican-amplifying headlines, rightwing crazies in op-eds falsely balanced by center-left pundits.

Oh, and notice the Hill was the first in the WHCA to criticize Michelle Wolf when she roasted Trump.

I watch national media closely. The Hill is circumspect, but they definitely reflect the rightwing bias of their owner. No one at DU should quote The Hill.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12432590

[sharedvalues]

10. A great example of Hill's rw bias

The Hill loves to surface and promote quotes and takes from Republicans that make Republicans look good, that no real news outlet would otherwise talk about. Sometimes it’s just a headline that is the key propaganda — they love to write headlines that push GOP talking points, or otherwise advantage the GOP. And the majority of news readers only read headlines.

This is a key feature of the Hill’s rightwing bias: they talk about what Republicans want to talk about, helping to move our public discourse in the direction of the GOP.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212447390#post16