so-called court of appeals ruling

[Enoch]

 

 

Maybe Im just oversaturated. When everything is news, then nothing is news. The press and public are so damn angry that Trump won that they are going out of their way to bag on him, or his wife, or his kids...and at least to me, they come off looking like the d-bags. Trump is going to crater all on his own, theres no need to go apes**t over everything, real or perceived. #mystruggleisreal

But Trump constantly insults the media and makes it personal, naturally that is going to increase the whole " us VS them " view some in the media feel

 

A free media is a cornerstone of freedom of speech, when you call the media " the opposition " or " fake news " for many people you are actually attacking the principle of free speech

 

So Trump plays a big part in this negative perspective the media have towards him

Media fired first and hasn't stopped. Why place blame on him when he is firing back? Media has been firing since the election.

Unfortuantly the media has shown that it hasn't learned its lesson and from the get go Trump has made it clear his personality, those 2 prideful bastards will keep going on until one is dead.

Media can lay off the blantant pushing of their view that they want u to believe is true.

Trump can stop being so triggered and quit giving them a lot of ammo.

 

 

Maybe there are some in media who are taking things personally.  But what I've been reading is much less personal feuding and more real concern about the actual stuff that DJT is doing. 

 

Refusal to divest his business interests (or even release enough financial information so that we know what they are); appointing folks with disturbingly pro-facist advocacy histories to positions of power; the close ties between other senior staff and the kleptocratic government of one of our chief geopolitical antagonists; the constant stream of leaks out the White House pointing at a non-functioning national security apparatus; appointing other folks with no serious qualifications for Cabinet-level jobs; making statements challenging the legitimacy of the federal courts; repeatedly making confirmably false statements about crime stats, terrorism, voter fraud, and other issues (crowd size LOL).

 

These are things that an independent media should be informing the public about, even if the President is nothing but nice to them, and even if they agree with the policy positions he staked out in his campaign. 

Edited February 13, 2017 by Enoch

[Wrath of Dagon]

Who has a pro-fascist advocacy history and what's your evidence?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Steve Bannon said something about Evola once.

[Pidesco]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/31/14439908/steve-bannon-worldview-visa-ban

 

Nationalism and traditionalism seem to be basic underpinnings of his philosophy.

 

Also, is that specific point in Enoch's post the only thing you have issue with? It's just that the rest of the other factual things read like a deliberate undermining American democracy.

 

Finally, the idea that media has a chip on its shoulder regarding Trump is kind of a joke. Trump was already widely considered a bumbling fool 10 years ago, 20 years ago, perhaps even 30 years ago. It's not like he sprang up into prominence unsullied and unvarnished just the other day, and now the media are doing an hatchet job on the guy. He was always a raging dumpster fire.

 

I've been reading late 80s and early 90s marvel comics recently and, once in a while I come upon derisive quips referring to Donald Trump. He was kind of a joke.

[Meshugger]

Steve Bannon said something about Evola once.

 

Kennedy praised Hitler, so there's that.

[BruceVC]

 

Steve Bannon said something about Evola once.

 

Kennedy praised Hitler, so there's that.

 

Demonstrating Godwins law isnt an admired outcome , lets not play the HItler card at all  ?     

[BruceVC]

Who has a pro-fascist advocacy history and what's your evidence?

Bannon would definitely be in my list 

[Wrath of Dagon]

Steve Bannon said something about Evola once.

I had just posted this link in the politics thread: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444839/washington-aims-destroy-steve-bannon-hysterical-character-assassination

 

 

Also, is that specific point in Enoch's post the only thing you have issue with? It's just that the rest of the other factual things read like a deliberate undermining American democracy.

No, but it's the most egregious. Others vary in validity, but I didn't feel like going through all of them in detail.

[Gromnir]

am finding wod umbrage regarding enoch post is a little hard to take serious.  given how universal is wod world-view stalinists in media and education, a pov made possible by only the most comical broad interpretation o' stalinism, one would hope he would give enoch similar latitude.  

 

perhaps if enoch were railing 'gainst the girl scouts as fascist?  no, 'cause obvious the Girl Scouts is indoctrinating young women to follow a strict hierarchical structure with each cell having a supreme authority who instills traditional anti-liberal and anti-communist values in still developing minds. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

Don't think I ever said anything about Stalinists being universal, but lets talk specifics, OK? Edit: For example, here's a specific nazi: http://heatst.com/culture-wars/black-lives-matter-leader-says-white-people-are-sub-human-and-suffer-from-genetic-defects/

Edited February 13, 2017 by Wrath of Dagon

[Enoch]

OK, I'll cop to overstating that particular point.  A hypothetical reporter who supports Trumpy policies and approves of the guy's general approach to issues is probably not too bothered by (or surprised by) the authoritarian impluses exhibited by some in Trump's orbit.  But they should still absolutely be reporting on all the other stuff I mentioned, or they're doing their audience a disservice. 

[redneckdevil]

 

 

 

Maybe Im just oversaturated. When everything is news, then nothing is news. The press and public are so damn angry that Trump won that they are going out of their way to bag on him, or his wife, or his kids...and at least to me, they come off looking like the d-bags. Trump is going to crater all on his own, theres no need to go apes**t over everything, real or perceived. #mystruggleisreal

But Trump constantly insults the media and makes it personal, naturally that is going to increase the whole " us VS them " view some in the media feel

 

A free media is a cornerstone of freedom of speech, when you call the media " the opposition " or " fake news " for many people you are actually attacking the principle of free speech

 

So Trump plays a big part in this negative perspective the media have towards him

Media fired first and hasn't stopped. Why place blame on him when he is firing back? Media has been firing since the election.

Unfortuantly the media has shown that it hasn't learned its lesson and from the get go Trump has made it clear his personality, those 2 prideful bastards will keep going on until one is dead.

Media can lay off the blantant pushing of their view that they want u to believe is true.

Trump can stop being so triggered and quit giving them a lot of ammo.

Does it not concern you that any president is this openly hostile to the media which as I mentioned are an extension to the principle of free speech?

Ive said before Trump was even elected that I'm concerned with the media's antics and if continued I'm worried about them losing rights because of their own reckless biased actions.

Trump's hostility towards the press I see as cause and effect.

 

Freedom of speech is VERY important BUT if the media continues this way (akin to someone who has a gun and starts brandishing it in a reckless fashion and is taking shots in the air around civilians) I very well do see restrictions being placed on THE media because of their own actions.

Here in America we strongly believe in the 2nd amendment, but because of recklessness and inoppribriate behavior, we have seen restrictions start on it. The media right now is on the verge of having that placed upon them.

So it's the media I'm more worried about because of biasedness and "sensationalist" (view point more important than what actually happens) is giving govt and the population reason to start tightening up and start restricting them. I don't want that but at the same time, they are shooting themselves in the foot (fox, CNN, msm, etc) and once they cross that line (Trump may very well be that line), unfortuantly there's no going back.

 

So yes I'm worried about Trump but in a way that he is the effect and the media is the cause. Look at how the media was with Obama, one side he could do no wrong when he messed up and one side had him painted as doing wrong when he had done good or nothing at all.

 

Tldr-the media needs to shape up or else since they can't handle the free speech responsibly for their position, will find it lost and while we may all mourn, ultimately it will be because of their own undoing. Of course imho.

[Malcador]

How is the media being irresponsible with their free speech? Onus is on Trump to deal with it as he's part of the State and (in theory) the media is to be an adversary of the state. Other than that, he should be a bigger man as he just surrenders initiative otherwise.

[Gromnir]

Don't think I ever said anything about Stalinists being universal,

o' course you didn't claim stalinism were universal.  duh.  as you were using pejorative it would be self defeating to see universal.  you do seem to misunderstand the definition, and as we noted already, insofar as traditional  media and education is concerned, you see stalinists with comic frequency. is why such became a running joke on this board.  

 

is an odd criticism given your own overbroad (to point o' humor) application o' ideological labels.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't even remember referring to someone in the media as Stalinists, I usually refer to them as Democrat operatives. As far as education, quite a few of the more radical professors are Stalinists or at least lean in that direction, even though I don't remember actually talking about them either. The running joke is mostly because of KP's usual trolling btw.

[redneckdevil]

How is the media being irresponsible with their free speech? Onus is on Trump to deal with it as he's part of the State and (in theory) the media is to be an adversary of the state. Other than that, he should be a bigger man as he just surrenders initiative otherwise.

I fully agree the media should be an adversary of the government when it does wrong, the media should be all over it.

The problem is with media they get extra previleges for that free speech, because they are supposed to tell the truth. Free speech doesn't cover lying.

The recklessness comes from instead of focusing on the truth without biasness, media is now a "chose ur own adventure" (words from a dude at CNN) in which u hear/find out about events but how it happens depends on which site u go to.

U want news of what happened but in a good light of such and such, u go here and u can find out all about what happened and how it was a great thing.

U want news of what happened but in a bad light of such and such, u go here and u can find out all about what happened and how terrible and horrendous it was.

Of the same event.

Twisting the truth to push a narrative. It's not getting to outright lying (if u believe that) but the embellishing and the knowingly absence is skirting the edge pretty damn close.

 

Obama stated that there is a problem with information with the media and that something should be changed with them. That was someone they loved, now they going bigger and badder on Trump. Problem is they doing when he is doing something horrible or controversial but also they doing it the damn man sneezes, there's something bad that went on.

[Zoraptor]

How is the media being irresponsible with their free speech?

 

Theoretically they do have an obligation to be- non ironic usage- fair and balanced plus factual in how they handle the news. If instead they are being hysterical, exaggerating and pandering explicitly to an anti Trump base then they aren't fulfilling that theoretical obligation. Some have already headed towards direct incitement as well.

 

I should probably mention again how much I utterly loathe the use of anonymous sources as the sole basis of news articles, which seems to be the popular methodology for stoking outrage at the moment.

[Gromnir]

oh, am not seeing much current irresponsibility from the press.  insider leaks from the wh is a norm, but the current volume is curious. is ridiculous to expect such sources to speak to the press w/o promise o' anonymity.  responsible news outlets still does checking to make sure the sources is legit, but yes, the media is often just a pawn for the internal politics in the wh.   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6Gho_6mJGw

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wmD8aNJn_c

 

not much has changed since video. the incredible volume o' leaks suggest lack o' unity in the wh staff.

 

we do believe there were media irresponsibility when dealing with obama's presidency, particular early in his tenure.  the kid glove treatment for obama were, at best, hypocritical.  the thing is, the relaxed standard for obama does not necessitate the media should similar roll over for trump.  sure, it may seem as if the press has sudden become a dogged watchdog o' truth and justice and democracy after near a decade o' indolence, but such is a bit unfair.  sure, the press has been less likely to go easy on trump than they did obama during the first half of his term, but never has a modern President provided so much fodder for the media to go after in such a small 'mount o' time.  multiple times a week we get clear alternative facts from the wh.  we got wh cabinet nominees who has been prepped (or not prepped) so poorly, it is disturbing to watch senate questions. we got executive orders being authored hastily and arguable unconstitutionally.  oh, and we got a President trading barbs with folks as if he is some kinda teenage drama queen who can't put down her phone.  

 

the press is needing to discover a new normal.  by covering every trump mistake during the campaign, and there were many, the public quickly became desensitized.  the ~40% o' americans who approve o' trump don't care 'bout facts, or the limits o' the Constitution.  trump represents change from the norm, and as long as trump continues to be visible and active, his people is gonna support him.  

 

'course the current divisiveness o' the country is also a factor.  US politics is gradually becoming more european.  for generations, our political parties has been largely centrist.  american notions o' liberal and conservative has for a long time been so moderate as to be confusing to european observers.  you think bill clinton were a liberal?  well guess what, he were the single greatest proponent o' deregulation we had in the wh in +60 years.  converse, when bush attempted to tighten regulations o' fannie mae and fannie mac, he were shot down by Congress, though he were hardly a champion o' banking regulation either.  kennedy, everybody's favorite liberal poster child, were the guy who got elected 'cause he convinced the public o' the growing soviet threat and the need for a greatly expanded military response-- kennedy were the hawk.  for the first time in generations we got a genuine and significant shift towards polarization.  facts and truth become less significant when politics is polarized.  people become increasing emotional invested in an ideology or cause and when that happens, uncomfortable truths and facts  become relegated to fake news or alternative facts. 

 

...

 

none o' which has anything to do with the trump's poorly written executive order. no matter the President, this kinda blunder woulda' gotten coverage. trump's silly tweets woulda' made the situation more appealing to the press as such overt animosity 'tween courts and executive is rare done in such a public fashion.  would be beyond realistic to expect press to pretend the situation were same as obama's numerous arguable extra-Constitutional executive orders.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 13, 2017 by Gromnir

[Meshugger]

My spidersenses are telling me that the media is picked for a ruse about these "leaks" and the current administration is actively engaging in disinformation through these channels. I hope that i am wrong though, because that would otherwise be quite sinister.

[Varana]

During the campaign, I often thought that the media was not critical enough of Trump. Things like basic fact-checking, calling out lies, asking back during interviews, confronting him with his own statements, calling BS what it is... all these things only gradually happened as his campaign gained more and more steam, and it's being taken seriously only now (sometimes). But that would be the actual job of the media.

It's not that the media paints Trump in a bad light. He is.

[Guard Dog]

I have no issue with the coverage the Trump administration has received from the "media" (as though it were a monolithic entity) so far. I agree completely with Grominir in that I wish they had been so diligent with the previous administration. They fact that they didn't and treated the Obama admin to nothing but fawning praise even when they were doing truly terrible things has ruined what credibility "they" had. People believe the news media is biased because it is. The bad thing is that does not mean what they are reporting is not true. It's usually more of an issue of tone or what isn't reported. The problem is once upon a time we could agree on what was true and what wasn't. Now truth is viewed through a political prism and the political leanings of the presenting media determine if the news consumer believes them or not. It's a hell of a thing really. But the blame for this lies squarely with the "media" (once again it's not a monolithic entity) but their decades of groupthink has created this situation. It was the greatest disservice "they" ever could have done to us. I worry what the ultimate consequences of this sin of hubris will be.

[Guard Dog]

During the campaign, I often thought that the media was not critical enough of Trump. Things like basic fact-checking, calling out lies, asking back during interviews, confronting him with his own statements, calling BS what it is... all these things only gradually happened as his campaign gained more and more steam, and it's being taken seriously only now (sometimes). But that would be the actual job of the media.

It's not that the media paints Trump in a bad light. He is.

I think the "media" wanted Trump to be the candidate because who in their right mind expected Trump to actually defeat Clinton? If one of the other GOP candidates (aside from Cruz probably) had won the nomination then Clinton's flaws may have been her undoing even against a vanilla candidate like Kasich. With Trump it was flaws vs flaws and one might have figured actual experience would have won out. Of course that experience turned out to be a detriment. Who knew?

Edited February 13, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

am gonna observe that not all media went easy on obama, and even then the clear relaxed standard lasted a bit more than the first half o' his first term.  by 2011-2012, obama were complaining 'bout the media often and loud, and many media sources were talking 'bout how the President were going to extreme lengths to thwart them.  nevertheless, the early and justified impression o' media favoritism lasted a long time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

 

How is the media being irresponsible with their free speech?

Theoretically they do have an obligation to be- non ironic usage- fair and balanced plus factual in how they handle the news. If instead they are being hysterical, exaggerating and pandering explicitly to an anti Trump base then they aren't fulfilling that theoretical obligation. Some have already headed towards direct incitement as well.

 

I should probably mention again how much I utterly loathe the use of anonymous sources as the sole basis of news articles, which seems to be the popular methodology for stoking outrage at the moment.

Yeah. But nothing so far as being irresponsible with a right. Well as long as they're using accurate darts. I have not noticed incitement but is believable.

 

Anonymous sources are kind of funny after a while. I suppose the US civil service is in revolt, heh.

[Guard Dog]

am gonna observe that not all media went easy on obama, and even then the clear relaxed standard lasted a bit more than the first half o' his first term.  by 2011-2012, obama were complaining 'bout the media often and loud, and many media sources were talking 'bout how the President were going to extreme lengths to thwart them.  nevertheless, the early and justified impression o' media favoritism lasted a long time.

 

HA! Good Fun!

It hardly started with Obama. Bill Clinton for a good part of his first term enjoyed a media love affair that overlooked things they should not have. Until they just not longer could. The "media" treatment of Bush could often be called unfair also. Dan Rather and his AWOL story come to mind. It's impossible to dismiss the notion that "they" are not observant bystanders but instead are active participants in the political arena, advancing their favored ideology. Once again they are not a single entity and even for the ones this is true it isn't true all the time.