The Trump Presidency

[Schmelzer]

That's how you argued earlier, for example, when evaluating the case for AGW and finding it wanting. You evaluated that case on ideological grounds - you rated the reliability of the science on its media presentations, which you discounted based on your assumptions of the relevant political connections and pressures.

How often I have to correct this misrepresentation of my position?
I have a general hypothesis, namely that a strong distortion of the truth in the media will also lead to some distortion, smaller but in the same direction, of scientific research. But, given the typical nature of the scientific distortions, this observation cannot be used to rate the reliability of particular scientific claims. Because the typical distortion is that some research, which is expected to give politically incorrect results, simply will not be done, and not that the research which is done is faked and wrong.

1) AGW is specifically the human-generated "component". That's what "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is. You are denying AGW.
2) The question is how likely we are to avoid catastrophic consequences, if we continue on our current path. The answer is not likely enough for sane people to risk.
3) There is no solution that involves denying this situation.

1.) As usually, a lie. Some human-generated component is quite plausible, I have no problem with this. Even if I'm not sure about the size of the effect, this does not mean that I deny it. Except for your Orwellian newspeak, where not supporting the Party line is named "denial".
2.) That's your answer, I have not seen good evidence for such a claim.
3.) There is no need to deny anything.

You are not capable of making such "findings", because you don't know the realities involved. (You have, for starters, overlooked some of the Trump-favorable reporting, much of the anti-Clinton material, and all of the framing issues in what you did consider).

Feel free to present, for starters, the details of what I have overlooked. Up to now, this is only your usual "you are stupid" without evidence. BTW, the test I have made was explicitly about Trump, because the claim I tried to test was about Trump, so how NYT presented Clinton was not considered. Note also that, as explained, I have only looked at what the NYT search machine considered to be the 10 most relevant out of 47 articles. You may disagree about the relevance, but argue about this with NYT, not with me.

So your "deep state" conglomeration has to include Breitbart, Twitter, all major TV executive offices and most of their hired punditry etc, and the whole of Fox News.

Sounds like you are completely confused, with no idea about the huge differences between Big Media (a few highly concentrated media concerns) which control press and TV, popular web sites like Breitbart, and private persons using twitter.

 

[iceaura]

1.) As usually, a lie. Some human-generated component is quite plausible, I have no problem with this. Even if I'm not sure about the size of the effect, this does not mean that I deny it.

Yes, it does. It means you deny AGW. That is what you are doing, and have been doing here.

2.) That's your answer, I have not seen good evidence for such a claim.

You have. You dismissed it as biased by "globalist" ideology. You evaluated it on features of its media presentation you found biased, a finding you made in nearly complete ignorance of the physical realities involved. Example: you rejected the projections of likely net harm, even disaster, from the spread of bad organism carried diseases, because you hadn't seen the media carrying news of the spread of good organisms you assumed must be happening.

3.) There is no need to deny anything

But you do; centrally, as the basis of your arguments.

BTW, the test I have made was explicitly about Trump, because the claim I tried to test was about Trump, so how NYT presented Clinton was not considered

Yeah, I noticed. Comedy. You really don't know what you're doing. **

Sounds like you are completely confused, with no idea about the huge differences between Big Media (a few highly concentrated media concerns) which control press and TV, popular web sites like Breitbart, and private persons using twitter.

The following is information for you, about the reality of media and politics here in the US:

Trump and allies used Twitter to influence the major media presentation of his campaign. Trump's Twitter feed was a continual and centrally presented part of the media coverage of the campaign, and other Republican backing Twitter feeds were also featured. What Trump said on Twitter was Big Media content - entire news cycles were dominated by Trump's Twitter feed.

Breitbart et al, along with the Twitter feed instigations, manipulated the framing of the issues on CNN. ABC, MSNBC, and the rest. Breitbart and the rest acted as a conduit between the output of the media operations of the corporate rightwing authoritarian and Big Media - the vocabulary, issue framing, issue focus, and so forth. (They were backed with big money, and close connections at the corporate executive level.) They also provided personnel and talking points for the Good Trump, Bothsides, and Bad Clinton narratives they pushed on the major media pundit shows. They came very close to controlling the entire media presentation of the campaigns - certainly as allied with Fox they were the dominant influence on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and the rest.

To repeat: you are ignorant of American politics and media. And in your ignorance you are gullible, and getting played by American rightwing authoritarian corporate marketing professionals.

** A story - for your education:

A long time ago, but within the immediate origins of the current political climate of the US, there was a young Texas politician named Lyndon Baines Johnson, running for State office in Texas. He was very good at politics, it turned out, and here is an example from his early days:
His opponent was a pig farmer, and a joke got started that this man had sex with his pigs.
Johnson arranged for that to be spread as a rumor, a claim rather than just a joke.
Johnson's staff objected - they pointed out that it was false, that everybody knew it was false, that people would know where it came from, and that Johnson would get bad publicity for spreading falsehoods.
Johnson said he didn't care - he just wanted to see his opponent denying the rumor, in public.
And they were right: Johnson got bad publicity for spreading lies about his opponent. The papers were important then, and they said many bad things about Johnson spreading that rumor.
And Johnson was right - his opponent had to deny the rumor, in public, several times, because it was a major story about how Johnson was spreading lies, see?
Every bad story about Johnson lying and spreading false claims contained the false claim, and the denial.
And Johnson won the election. All that "negative" publicity got him lots of votes.

 

[iceaura]

How often I have to correct this misrepresentation of my position?
I have a general hypothesis, namely that a strong distortion of the truth in the media will also lead to some distortion, smaller but in the same direction, of scientific research. But, given the typical nature of the scientific distortions, this observation cannot be used to rate the reliability of particular scientific claims. Because the typical distortion is that some research, which is expected to give politically incorrect results, simply will not be done, and not that the research which is done is faked and wrong.

And that is how you came to take the position you have taken on AGW - exactly as I posted, not a misrepresentation at all.
Here it is again:

That's how you argued earlier, for example, when evaluating the case for AGW and finding it wanting. You evaluated that case on ideological grounds - you rated the reliability of the science on its media presentations, which you discounted based on your assumptions of the relevant political connections and pressures.

You and I are in perfect agreement about your methods. You have been led, by those methods, to deny AGW. Reductio ad absurdum, would be the standard conclusion - modify that approach, or discard it.

I would modify it, in the following way: I would include within it a reality check on the assessment of "distortion" - an assessment of distortion based on physical fact and historical event, completely independent of media bias presumptions not only in degree but in direction.

 

[Quantum Quack]

What order? I mean, it's one thing to acknowledge Iceaura's titanic efforts to address Schmelzer's pretenses, but I thought we all recognized at this point that the content-free Puti-poodle word salads only existed for the sake of tossing Puti-Toots' salad.

There isn't really any communicating with our neighbor Schmelzer; he's made that much clear. Iceaura's admirable performances are pretty much for the sake of the record.

He doesn't realize that the world is already multi-polar. That the intuitive outcome of a multi-polar world is what we have today with one nation dominating to such an extreme ( so much so that it's currency and language is dominant world wide)

Yep what we have today is exactly what happens in a multi-polar world when one nation gains the supreme position by many orders.

A multi polar world leads to conflict and resource competition. A democratic uni-polar world ( central world governing body) leads to less conflict and resource sharing.

So I have no idea what he is on about....

 

[Tiassa]

So I have no idea what he is on about....

Oh, well, the whole point is to disrupt any given discussion.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Oh, well, the whole point is to disrupt any given discussion.

Just thoughts...
I tend to think that it is more about the need to express his resentment towards the "pressure" the USA naturally exerts on less fortunate nations and himself simply because of the extreme dominance the USA has gained since the end of WW2 in a multi-polar system. ("Too powerful for the planet" comes to mind)

He can't seem to understand that the UN was formed to avoid global conflict (especially WW3) and apply power sharing techniques by way of an evolving democratic centralized global governance (unipolar) that managed to garner resentment because the principle outcome, Universal declaration of Human Rights (later highlighting the rights of the child) and International laws forthcoming were essentially an extrapolation of the USA constitution. (which in turn is evolved and extrapolated from various European charters.) which further establishes the USA as dominant force in global affairs. (unwanted by those who seek anarchistic liberty)
Many nations express similar concerns as the unconscionably of the USA due to it's huge global influence comes into question. Yet mostly it is simply a reaction to inconvenient laws and regulation.

Many sensitive persons have huge problems with the sort of influence that the USA has in their lives.
The eternal fight for individual freedom goes on and is sometimes counter productive to collective needs.

The main reason for resentment from the Middle East ( Islam) could fundamentally be found in the threat USA (Western) liberal culture has on naturally changing traditional man/woman relationships in the Middle East. The notion that Islamic women are attracted to the liberty, freedom, offered by the West leads immediately to resentment from those men who struggle to achieve their masculine pride with out the use of extreme regulation and force, due to the pressure they experience in the bedroom, home and at work from those women that are suffering the oppression and aspire, often silently, to a more liberal state.

"You hold out a candle called liberty, freedom and inspire to such an extent that getting killed by an assassins bullet is likely ( re: assassination of JFK)"

Islamic Jihadist in Mosul : "Cover her feet and preserve your woman", "losing our women to the West" all Muslim male fears and insecurities that reinforce the need for draconian regulation under the banner of radical Islam.

Highlighting the religiously dogmatic enslavement of women under Conservative Islam, similar to what the Conservative Catholic Church is still espousing even after centuries of reform.

Back on topic:
He doesn't understand that we already have a dysfunctional multi polar world. The UN was an attempt to rectify this and so far it has failed due to the excessive and in most cases necessary influence that the USA has/had on it's function and agenda.

 

[joepistole]

Oh, well, the whole point is to disrupt any given discussion.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[Schmelzer]

Yes, it does. It means you deny AGW. That is what you are doing, and have been doing here.

So we have clarified here again that "denial" is used in the Orwellian meaning, you are a "denier" if you refuse to support the AGW Party line without checking yourself the scientific facts, but simply remain silent. The sheeple have to support the Party line, without any checks.

Example: you rejected the projections of likely net harm, even disaster, from the spread of bad organism carried diseases, because you hadn't seen the media carrying news of the spread of good organisms you assumed must be happening.

Another lie. I have not made any predictions about the likely net result. I criticized the media, for carrying news only about the spread of bad organisms, and remaining silent about the spread of the good organisms (which will also happen, and has, btw, no problems with geographical barriers on the way, because humans can help there). But these obvious omissions in the media do not prove that scientists are doing anything wrong - which one would have to check independently. I have not made such a check, so I remain silent about the net result.

Trump and allies used Twitter to influence the major media presentation of his campaign. Trump's Twitter feed was a continual and centrally presented part of the media coverage of the campaign, and other Republican backing Twitter feeds were also featured. What Trump said on Twitter was Big Media content - entire news cycles were dominated by Trump's Twitter feed.

I know. And this was a good idea. If you talk to journalists at press conferences and so on, they will lie about this, with all means. If you use Twitter, so that they have nothing but Twitter to use, no interviews to distort, they can distort this much less, simply because everybody can see it. I have no doubt at all that Trump is a media profi, and knows what to do with mainstream media who want to fight him and lie about him

And that is how you came to take the position you have taken on AGW - exactly as I posted, not a misrepresentation at all.
Here it is again:

And what follows is not a quote from me, but a quote of iceaura, so it is simply the same lie again. LOL.

Quantum Quack shares the group of those too afraid to attack me directly, and prefers to talk about me:

He doesn't realize that the world is already multi-polar. That the intuitive outcome of a multi-polar world is what we have today with one nation dominating to such an extreme ( so much so that it's currency and language is dominant world wide)

The unipolar world is, of course, a quite weak form of world rule, essentially the weakest one. A multipolar world is no longer a form of world rulership. And there is no reason at all to expect one nation dominating to such an extreme as the US 20 years ago. This is something accidental, caused by an extremely libertarian (in comparison with all the competitors) start, which gave the US a huge economic advantage. This combined with a good geopolitical position: Essentially they had control over a whole continent, so that there was no danger of attacks by the European competitors. Twenty years with the main competitors using the same economic system have been enough to finish that extreme domination.
The language is, of course, a natural monopoly - if a large majority speaks one language, it has good chances to become the language of the world. Currency is also a candidate for this, but not a paper currency printed by one state, where this gives this state an extreme financial advantage. With a gold-backed currency, this advantage is much less serious. And, in fact, if there is gold standard worldwide, other states can have their own gold-backed currencies.

With gold standard in combination with modern electronic exchange possibilities there is anyway no longer any reason for a single currency. Reserves states would hold in gold, not in foreign currencies.

 

[Schmelzer]

double posting deleted

 

[Tiassa]

The unipolar world is, of course, a quite weak form of world rule, essentially the weakest one. A multipolar world is no longer a form of world rulership. And there is no reason at all to expect one nation dominating to such an extreme as the US 20 years ago. This is something accidental, caused by an extremely libertarian (in comparison with all the competitors) start, which gave the US a huge economic advantage. This combined with a good geopolitical position: Essentially they had control over a whole continent, so that there was no danger of attacks by the European competitors. Twenty years with the main competitors using the same economic system have been enough to finish that extreme domination.

Do you think you could actually have some point? I mean, you know, for once in your Sciforums life? Or do you intend to simply go around mucking up discussions while saying nothing?

 

[Schmelzer]

Do you think you could actually have some point? I mean, you know, for once in your Sciforums life? Or do you intend to simply go around mucking up discussions while saying nothing?

If you, as a staff member, simply want to start a flamewar, sorry, no interest. If you have some arguments to contribute, feel free to do it.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat — Response

If you, as a staff member, simply want to start a flamewar, sorry, no interest. If you have some arguments to contribute, feel free to do it.

If you, as a member of this community, have some good faith to contribute, feel free to do it. If, as a useless troll, you simply want to wreck discussions with your delusional, egocentric, pointless rambling, no, there is no interest, and no, there is no "sorry' about it.

Get your shit together or get out.

 

[iceaura]

So we have clarified here again that "denial" is used in the Orwellian meaning, you are a "denier" if you refuse to support the AGW Party line without checking yourself the scientific facts, but simply remain silent.

No.
Why do you have so much difficulty with this simple concept?
If you remain silent you are not a denier. You do not remain silent, but instead post denial of AGW. That gets you the label.

And what follows is not a quote from me, but a quote of iceaura, so it is simply the same lie again. LOL.

I first quoted you, and then quoted my earlier post, so you could compare.
My description is the same as your posted description, phrased for my emphasis. You don't recognize it? Odd. Why not, one wonders. There they are in post 1363, side by side so to speak.

Another lie. I have not made any predictions about the likely net result.{1} I criticized the media, for carrying news only about the spread of bad organisms, and remaining silent about the spread of the good organisms (which will also happen, and has, btw, no problems with geographical barriers on the way, because humans can help there). {2} But these obvious omissions in the media do not prove that scientists are doing anything wrong - which one would have to check independently.{3} I have not made such a check, so I remain silent about the net result.{4}

1) You have claimed that the science is subjected to, and altered in various ways by, the bias and pressure you think you observe in the media.
2) Your assumptions about the spread of good organisms contradict the scientific findings of the likely spread of organisms under AGW. You claim to be observing bias in the media - you aren't. You are evaluating honest research as if it were biased media reporting.
3) No such omissions exist, at least not of any significance. Meanwhile, you have been explicitly claiming the existence of bias and pressure and distortion of research efforts according to your evaluation of the bias in the media. (You also repeatedly attempt to obscure the matter by talking about scientists doing something "wrong", which was never the main concern).
4) And all of that adds up not to silence but to claims about the existence, primary causes and mechanisms, and likely consequences, of AGW. You are claiming legitimacy for an absurd doubt justified in bad reasoning from visible ignorance; reasoning which you refuse to correct, ignorance which you actively maintain by rejecting information.

That is denial of AGW.
- - -

I know. And this was a good idea. If you talk to journalists at press conferences and so on, they will lie about this, with all means. If you use Twitter, so that they have nothing but Twitter to use, no interviews to distort, they can distort this much less, simply because everybody can see it.

That is the opposite of what happened. Trump used Twitter to lie and distort, not to bypass lies and distortions. He got his lies and distortions past the journalists and editors, and directly into the major media news presentations, that way (in addition to having his speeches and rallies and interviews given all that time on the air). He hijacked the US media, and basically used them all as part of his campaign.

And you obviously didn't know, because you said I was confused - so I then explained to you something you did not understand at all, when you called me confused, and now we see you are still muddled about it. Do you at least recognize why and how you go wrong when you try to claim that Trump was opposed rather than enabled by the US media? When you try to decide whether this or that item of coverage is "negative", without knowing what is going on?

Trump ran on lies and bullshit given massive and manipulated TV exposure. That, name recognition, and personality (likewise a function of TV exposure), was all he had. That's all he has now, or ever will have as far as the actual job of governing is concerned.

He has no interest in governance. So what is he going to do - and why does he need a much bigger military, with modern nukes and the like, to do it?

 

[joepistole]

So we have clarified here again that "denial" is used in the Orwellian meaning, you are a "denier" if you refuse to support the AGW Party line without checking yourself the scientific facts, but simply remain silent. The sheeple have to support the Party line, without any checks.

You comrade are a serial denier of fact and reason, and you are calling others "sheeple"? Seriously comrade?

Another lie. I have not made any predictions about the likely net result. I criticized the media, for carrying news only about the spread of bad organisms, and remaining silent about the spread of the good organisms (which will also happen, and has, btw, no problems with geographical barriers on the way, because humans can help there). But these obvious omissions in the media do not prove that scientists are doing anything wrong - which one would have to check independently. I have not made such a check, so I remain silent about the net result.

You criticize the media for not mimicking Russian state owned and controlled propaganda.

I know. And this was a good idea. If you talk to journalists at press conferences and so on, they will lie about this, with all means. If you use Twitter, so that they have nothing but Twitter to use, no interviews to distort, they can distort this much less, simply because everybody can see it. I have no doubt at all that Trump is a media profi, and knows what to do with mainstream media who want to fight him and lie about him

Twitter is one of Trump’s biggest liabilities. It’s how he frequently gets himself in trouble.

And what follows is not a quote from me, but a quote of iceaura, so it is simply the same lie again. LOL.

Quantum Quack shares the group of those too afraid to attack me directly, and prefers to talk about me:

The unipolar world is, of course, a quite weak form of world rule, essentially the weakest one. A multipolar world is no longer a form of world rulership. And there is no reason at all to expect one nation dominating to such an extreme as the US 20 years ago. This is something accidental, caused by an extremely libertarian (in comparison with all the competitors) start, which gave the US a huge economic advantage. This combined with a good geopolitical position: Essentially they had control over a whole continent, so that there was no danger of attacks by the European competitors. Twenty years with the main competitors using the same economic system have been enough to finish that extreme domination.

Who is afraid of you comrade? No one is afraid of you comrade, repulsed yes, fear no. You are a waste of time. There is no reasoning with you. You could easily be confused with a Russian propaganda bot. Chatting with you is like chatting with a psycho (i.e. someone divorced from reality).

The language is, of course, a natural monopoly - if a large majority speaks one language, it has good chances to become the language of the world. Currency is also a candidate for this, but not a paper currency printed by one state, where this gives this state an extreme financial advantage. With a gold-backed currency, this advantage is much less serious. And, in fact, if there is gold standard worldwide, other states can have their own gold-backed currencies.

With gold standard in combination with modern electronic exchange possibilities there is anyway no longer any reason for a single currency. Reserves states would hold in gold, not in foreign currencies.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times your economic believes make as much sense as your political beliefs. There are many good reasons why the world left the gold standard and not one of them had anything to do with conspiracies and hegemony. It makes no sense to continually ship gold across the world just for the sake of maintaining a gold standard which never really worked well. But then you were never one to worry about little things like fact and reason.

There are good reasons for a single currency. There is good reason for a world government. As our world becomes smaller owning to our growing technologies, the need for global human collaboration and cooperation has grown exponentially, and it will continue to do so. Now that’s a problem for corrupt rogue states like Russia who want to take the world back to the Middle Ages, but that’s not our problem. Unfortunately for you comrade, the world is not as stupid as you and those like you need it to be.

 

[Tiassa]

#suppression | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

Republican voters got a little more of what they asked for this week when further evidence emerged that the Trump administration is deliberately interfering with scientists and tailoring press releases to downplay science in favor of politics:

The public statement originally said, “Global climate change drives sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding.” The U.S. Geological Survey changed the text so that it now says, “The frequency and severity of coastal flooding throughout the world will increase rapidly and eventually double in frequency over the coming decades even with only moderate amounts of sea level rise.”

In other words, officials were comfortable describing the problem, but not identifying the cause of the problem. The news release isn’t wrong, exactly, so much as it was made deliberately incomplete.

The Post’s report added that the decision to change the news release “came from officials at the Interior Department itself,” adding, “During the first days of the Trump administration, federal agencies halted scientists from publishing news releases and doing other communication with the public. Later, the Environmental Protection Agency and Departments of Interior and Energy scrubbed portions of their websites that discussed the science and risks of climate change.”

(Benen↱)​

The thing is that this isn't really a matter of basic ignorance. This is, rather, one of the obvious manifestations of the raw hatred and antisocial disorder that is the American conservative-political ethic. The deliberate conservative intention to increase human suffering in pursuit of their own insatiable satisfaction might well be a disability, but we cannot afford to accommodate it any more than we do other serial harm.

And remember, while jokes are as jokes will, such manners of ignorance and harm really are #WhatTheyVotedFor.

(No wonder the Puti-troll divas are screeching about global warming, this week.)
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Trump administration gives sea-level study a little touch-up". msnbc. 23 May 2017. msnbc.com. 23 May 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2rPDX1q

 

[Schmelzer]

The AGW denier part I have answered in a place where it is on-topic.

That is the opposite of what happened. Trump used Twitter to lie and distort, not to bypass lies and distortions.

Ok, let's formulate this in a neutral way. Trump wants to avoid that the media can pick quotes out of context out of long press conferences, and uses, instead, short twits, which everybody can read. This is a known and useful technique if one has to handle hostile media. I couldn't care less who lies more - Trump or the media. My point is purely technical - if you don't trust the media, and think they are hostile to you and prejudiced against you, don't give them interviews, but use twitter instead.

By the way, I can imagine that the pro-Clinton media have thought that Trump would be the optimal opponent for Clinton - and therefore indeed supported him with presenting him all the time and so on.

 

[Tiassa]

Ok, let's formulate this in a neutral way. Trump wants to avoid that the media can pick quotes out of context out of long press conferences, and uses, instead, short twits, which everybody can read. This is a known and useful technique if one has to handle hostile media.

I thought you said something about "neutral".

Does basic honesty simply exceed your faculties?

 

[joepistole]

Trump has asked his intelligence chiefs to deny evidence of Trump-Russian collusion. And the facts keep coming. Why does Trump so fear the truth? Trump has made several attempts to squelch this investigation. Why? http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-community/index.html

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum Quack shares the group of those too afraid to attack me directly, and prefers to talk about me:

well given that you then go on to write this nonsense:

The unipolar world is, of course, a quite weak form of world rule, essentially the weakest one. A multipolar world is no longer a form of world rulership. And there is no reason at all to expect one nation dominating to such an extreme as the US 20 years ago. This is something accidental, caused by an extremely libertarian (in comparison with all the competitors) start, which gave the US a huge economic advantage. This combined with a good geopolitical position: Essentially they had control over a whole continent, so that there was no danger of attacks by the European competitors. Twenty years with the main competitors using the same economic system have been enough to finish that extreme domination.
The language is, of course, a natural monopoly - if a large majority speaks one language, it has good chances to become the language of the world. Currency is also a candidate for this, but not a paper currency printed by one state, where this gives this state an extreme financial advantage. With a gold-backed currency, this advantage is much less serious. And, in fact, if there is gold standard worldwide, other states can have their own gold-backed currencies.

With gold standard in combination with modern electronic exchange possibilities there is anyway no longer any reason for a single currency. Reserves states would hold in gold, not in foreign currencies.

there is absolutely no point discussing anything with you directly....

Multipolar means no global regulation of nations competing over resources. Inevitably one nation will become superior. World history of war and empire building 101.
Unipolar means that all nations abide by a central set of regulations minimizing competition for resources and encouraging greater and more equitable sharing of resources.

but such notions are beyond you...

 

[iceaura]

Ok, let's formulate this in a neutral way.

I did.

Trump wants to avoid that the media can pick quotes out of context out of long press conferences, and uses, instead, short twits, which everybody can read.

My formulation avoided mindreading and ascription of motive, and simply described what happened. That's more neutral, right?

My point is purely technical - if you don't trust the media, and think they are hostile to you and prejudiced against you, don't give them interviews, but use twitter instead.

You were completely wrong, about me and about Trump and about the Big Media and about Twitter. Now you are wrong about Trump and interviews with "the media".

Trump did not avoid interviews. He relished them, pushed for them, did lots of them. If you read any of my links above, you read about the CEO of CNN using Trump's eager willingness to be interviewed as an excuse for CNN giving him so much more air time than they gave anybody else - he said they asked all the candidates for interviews, but only Trump was always willing.

By the way, I can imagine that the pro-Clinton media have thought that Trump would be the optimal opponent for Clinton - and therefore indeed supported him with presenting him all the time and so on

That at least does not conflict with the fact of their overwhelming support for Trump.

But it doesn't explain the continuation of that support after Trump won the Republican nomination, and it doesn't explain the poor treatment and repeated damage they inflicted on Clinton in comparison.

What does explain such things is the obvious: they were hijacked by Trump. He knew they could not turn down ratings and ad revenue and big gullible audiences, and so he offered them a deal they couldn't refuse and couldn't escape. And having been pre-corrupted by the rightwing corporate authoritarian media operations, they were unable even to insist on basic terms of integrity or honest journalism.