What foresight to demonize any news source that might eventually portray your dear leader in a bad light.
The Trump Presidency
- Thread starter joepistole
- Start date
- Status
Thank you!
Very little to prove re: CNN . . . . . such a conclusion it is self-evident from their publications!
" . . . main stream media is a reliable source of news . . . " Thanks for that tidbit, Joe. LMAO!
Last edited:
Sure</sarc>
Actually 6 bankruptcies...
Just because the truth isn't consistent with your beliefs, it doesn't make reputable sources not truthful. You'd be better served by doing research and spending less time laughing your ass off.
CNN's near-takeover by the Fox faction is recent this past decade, and the old guard hasn't caught up. Even their 24/7 advertising binge for Trump during the campaign didn't clue in the old guard - any more than MSNBC firing a few more centrists, expanding Morning Joe, and hiring replacement "talent" from Fox, did.
For quite a while now an American has had to look elsewhere for reasonable proportions of straight news and analysis more or less centered in ideology - which we can as a rule of thumb define as occasionally delivering reports of Republican evildoing labeled "Republican", and not inventing sides for stories in order to abet an apriori "both sides" narrative - Al Jazeera, BBC, RT on occasion. Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes will sometimes come through.
You haven't checked it.
In a discussion of Trump's media support, the NYT is a very minor issue. None of my posting about Trump's massive media support during the campaign even mentions it, afaik - certainly not as a central factor. It's lean toward Trump support is interesting as a symptom or sign of the situation - "even the New York Times - - - - " - but not in the same league of influence as, say, CNN carrying all those Trump rallies live.
But even limited to the NYT: You haven't done the work, you lack familiarity with the field, and you are claiming to have refuted the results of the people who have done the work and are familiar with the field. What would the odds be, in your field, of someone who adopted that approach getting anything right?
The TV support Trump received is the entire matter under discussion. It's what you are denying. There's nothing else to check.
You did no checking.
I didn't get my "beliefs" from that study. I got them from observing the media during the Trump campaign - watching them arrange things in Trump's favor, and support his candidacy as he wished them to. I just found the study to put numbers on what was plainly the case, so you could see them, since going in here you clearly knew absolutely nothing about the media handling of Trump's campaign. You didn't even know about the massive support he got, with all the major media presenting his rallies and speeches and interviews all over the TV, even his Twitter feed making the prime time news daily.
"Random"? Who cares? That makes no difference at all.
Look, help me out here - I'm trying to deal with as if you were an honest poster making mistakes. You are supposed to be some kind of physical scientist, familiar with statistics. You are supposed to mentally competent enough to remember terms like "TV", and if you don't know what somebody is talking about when they say "CNN" or "ABC" you have netsearch ability. You gotta make "errors" less transparently stupid, or you become a troll.
Last edited:
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
It was the most interesting issue for me with your sources. Which is what matters for me. That you have quite extravagant interpretations of your own sources is your problem, not my.
What I claim is that I have checked what can be easily checked. And in this particular situation this was quite easy. The difference between the 87% anti-Trump and the claimed 63% pro-Trump is too obvious that it does not really matter that I have checked only one day and the 10 most relevant (according to NYT's own search engine). Just for clarification: You trust this study which has made the 63% NYT claim or not?
In part, I don't even doubt (namely that there was a lot of TV time about Trump). Of course, you count TV time "about" Trump even if it is Stürmer-type about Jews as support for Trump. With this counting, I do not deny at all that there is large "Trump support" in the TV. I have also conceded that Trump is clever enough to use even such Stürmer-type media reports in his own interest.
What I deny, after my test, are claims that all this TV time was pro-Trump in the usual meaning. Some of it may have been neutral. But claims like this 63% NYT claim I do not believe, after my check.
You obviously don't care. Why should I care about your opinion?
Fine. Feel free to look TV. I don't. You have had a fair chance, I have looked at your sources, you have referred to a clearly biased study, with a bias which was simple enough to detect given the 63% pro Trump in NYT nonsense. You seem to continue to support the study, despite this obvious failure. So, in my eyes your have discredited yourself too.
but you do... that is obvious... (how many posts is it now?)
No, I don't. I described exactly what it was - live and and unedited broadcasts of Trump rallies, Trump interviews, Trump tweets. Continual presentation of Trump himself, in his own words, directly to the mass market audience. Trump's campaign was the most televised, thoroughly covered and broadcast, political campaign in history.
Because you have to know that your argument is garbage, if you know anything about statistics at all.
And you do that in complete ignorance, with complete confidence, after rejecting all the information provided you.
It was pro-Trump in the sense that it dramatically benefitted his campaign and worked to his advantage for a solid year, was expected to do that by his campaign team, was seen to be doing that by every pundit and analyst who correctly anticipated the results, and was seen to have done that by all the major participants after the results came in.
The discussion among the punditry on the left, shut out of the major media as they were, was not whether the media was supporting and abetting and promoting Trump; that was obvious. The discussion topic was why. Why were they framing all the issues in Trump-friendly terms? Why were they giving him, for free, so much more air time than any other candidate? Why was their punditry so loaded with Trump advocates? And so forth.
Your "usual meaning" should be radically amended, if it doesn't include such pro-Trump effects and influences and consequences from such obviously Trump-promoting behaviors as broadcasting his rallies and speeches and interviews live and unedited.
You have not looked at my "sources", you have detected nothing with your comically worthless "test" of an irrelevant item, and you have rejected on this silly justification the plain reality of Trump's campaign - that it was entirely a media campaign, almost wholly on TV, largely not paid for or otherwise enforced by him, volunteered by the media and dominating the media for a year, that won him 63 million votes and the Presidency.
Meanwhile, our President is still wandering around overseas without apparent adult supervision.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/donald-trump-germany-evil
The Germans are reading things like this in their newspapers: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...eutschen-sind-boese-sehr-boese-a-1149282.html
A selection run through Google translate:
Apparently, our Donald threatened to stop the importation of German cars to the US, because of the trade deficit with Germany.
I don't think he's checked with his fellow rich guys on that one. Or his new besties the Saudis - the Princes of that Realm do not live on weapons alone. But possibly the Great Negotiator was just coming in high and hard. Or maybe he has come to embrace chaos itself as his best cover.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/donald-trump-germany-evil
The Germans are reading things like this in their newspapers: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausla...eutschen-sind-boese-sehr-boese-a-1149282.html
A selection run through Google translate:
Apparently, our Donald threatened to stop the importation of German cars to the US, because of the trade deficit with Germany.
I don't think he's checked with his fellow rich guys on that one. Or his new besties the Saudis - the Princes of that Realm do not live on weapons alone. But possibly the Great Negotiator was just coming in high and hard. Or maybe he has come to embrace chaos itself as his best cover.
Last edited:
Yes, he has no idea of what a competitive free market means. He fails to understand that until the USA regains a competitive position the trade deficit will always be a problem.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
I do not claim that my fast and cheap check has, somehow, high statistical quality. All that I claim is that it is good enough to make it clear enough for me that your 63% pro-Trump study is nonsense.
So what? The point being? I have made similar points. Your Johnson swinef..... story has not at all surprised me. It was my point all the time that his politically incorrect claims, which all the time have been "used" by the media to attack him as a bad, politically incorrect guy, was what he wanted.
You don't even now understand that the sort of politically correct "editing" and commenting would have made the things even worse. Behind this is the main problem of politically correct media. They cannot make politically incorrect comments. So, their comments are useless against those who hate political correctness.
Thanks. This really explains something to me which I was unable to understand up to now. The question was why this lying press - seeing the results, the lost of trust and reputation created by these lies - do not change their behavior, but not only continue to lie, but even lie in more obvious and more intense ways. The simple answer is - they simply are stupid, they don't see the connection between their own politically correct lies and the increasing distrust.
The point is that you attack the media for what has been the best thing they can do - namely to present the news in a neutral way. That they were far away from this is what we have a disagreement about. But so what - it is clear that you want even less neutral reporting. And as long as there are people like you, who want even more lies, the lying press will remain a lying press. And all the enemies of the lying press have to do is to wait. To provide accurate, neutral information in their own media.
That's only on the surface.
Sure it is....
As an aside;
Strong rumor has it Putin is seriously thinking about leaving the leadership....and soon.
Well, you don't know what's going on.
It's far stupider than mere statistical blunder (one day's paper? joke?). It's even sillier than the assumption the NYT was important in Trump's media support. The ultimate clown event was you claiming you can rate NYT articles as positive or negative for Trump - when that incapability was a central issue in the discussion, the source of the whole mess.
And the broadcasting of his rallies, speeches, interviews, and tweets, live and prime time and extensively, was what he wanted. And the framing of issues in ways that hurt his opponent and helped him was what he wanted. And the domination of all the news cycles by Trump news or Clinton attacks, with of course "both sides" presented even in matters of fact, was what he wanted. And so forth.
You have missed the point. The point was not merely that they treated Trump far too well - although they did, not even correcting his direct lies as any news organization should, accepting his viewpoints as starting points of discussion on all issues including Clinton, etc. The point was that they treated him much better than they treated anyone else - they gave him more of that unedited and uncommented air time and connection time than all the other candidates combined. Massive media support.
And he needed it - he had no political constituency except what he could drum up on TV. His neighbors, his home town, his workplace crowd, his native State and adopted States, everyone who knew him outside of the TV screen and the stage podium, voted against him.
What you just posted there is an example of your gullibility in the face of the memes and tropes of the American corporate authoritarian marketing pros. That's bs from the same people who feed Fox News and Breitbart and the rest of the lying scum. You don't want to be a sucker for those guys. They aren't good people, they have an evil agenda, and nothing they feed you is true, or useful.
Political correctness had nothing to do with the media's overwhelming support of Trump.
No.
You simply have no clue. The massive, overwhelming favoritism the US media displayed toward Trump is simply a fact, OK? Framing all the issues in Trump favorable terms, hiring Trump campaign workers as pundits and giving them air time as pundits, broadcasting Trump's speeches and rallies and interviews and Twitter feeds wholesale, granting the most ridiculous Trump lies equal news status with ordinary facts, running off to attack his opponents whenever Trump needed that and however he wanted it to happen, and generally behaving as a wing of Trump's campaign instead of news organizations with some allegiance to honest reality, is not "neutral". It's not even close to neutral.
T Is For ....
To the one, Steve Benen↱ has a point.
To the other, the value of that point is entirely left to the beholder. That is to say, we have no reason to expect conservatives to care.
I'm hemming and hawing about the T-word; I've used it a couple times and ... it doesn't quite feel right, yet; I expect the word, which is already in play, will likely bring to bear at some point, but I'm also somewhere between "slippery slope" and "novel application" on a proper construal of adversarial—enemy—Russia. Neighborhood assholes or whatever we want to call the family on the block we don't like, sure. Still, though, the Distinguished Gentleman from Texas Ten might well regret his electoral hysterics, and as much as we might disdain a certain amount of ass-covering tacitry historically demonstrable in our governing institutions it still seems fair to wonder whether Republicans ever paused to consider how low a bar they hoped to set, or if they really were cynically gambling on the idea that their voters appreciate the dishonesty and everyone else is too busy trying to keep up with the informational flood to notice and hold it against them. We probably ought to tend toward the former, as the latter suggests unnatural discipline and teamwork, and let's face it, an effective conspiracy of hundreds involving the cooperative participation of thousands ... I mean, the only argument in favor of conspiracism is that these are conservatives, after all, and while it's easy enough to come up with reasons why some people simply wouldn't bother with so obvious an endeavor, those reasons rarely seem to apply to conservative outlooks, and history favors throwing Republican dice when the counterpoint depends on contiguous and coherent narrative.
To the other, it was former CIA Director John Brennan who put the word in play for serious consideration; it's almost like he was messaging the Trump administration, offering the president and others a pathway out of the mess they've made.
And he's right insofar as they can resign, confess, explain how it all happened, and generally make themselves useful, and we probably won't charge them with treason.
Nonetheless, President Trump himself remains one of the most mysterious mysteries about the #PutiPoodle mysterium: How does he keep managing to depict himself as if he is a Russian asset?
And I'm banging my head against the furniture on this count, because, come on: Just how potsherd does this sound?
That's my great conspiracy theory in a nutshell.
We should not pretend Donald Trump is constrained by fidelity to country. Two points keep me from putting this potsherd worry to rest. First, Donald Trump and his family and their business empire are the contemporary epitome of what Emma Goldman described over a century ago. And then there is the fact that Donald Trump won't stop acting the part: Crippling the State Department, agitating and even betraying security partners and allies, undermining American intelligence institutions and operations, and actually handing out extraordinarily secret information to people who really shouldn't have it, including one who rubs our noses in it by turning around and giving it to the world.
To the other, if this is the misdirection, what is the actual grift?
Of all the stupid and dangerous shit going on, this bit with acting like Puti-Toots' poodle is breathtakingly, farcically blatant. This is the part where sinister and stupid become difficult to discern for clownish nescience requisite of such villainy.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Trump blurts out classified info again, worrying Pentagon officials". msnbc. 25 May 2017. msnbc.com. 27 May 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2rWoLAd
Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". Anarchism and Other Essays. Second Revised Edition. New York & London: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. 25 May 2017. http://bit.ly/2lxfQV5
To the one, Steve Benen↱ has a point.
It's also worth pausing to appreciate what Republicans used to say about this subject. Last year, for example, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for intelligence agencies to deny Clinton intelligence briefings for the rest of the campaign season. The message was straightforward: "It's simple: Individuals who are 'extremely careless' [with] classified info should be denied further access to it."
The day before Ryan's declaration, 14 Republican senators introduced legislation to revoke Clinton's security clearance and demand that anyone in the executive branch who shows "extreme carelessness" in their handling of classified information be denied access to that information. (They no longer want to talk about the issue.)
The same day, then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said those who've mishandled classified information "have had their security clearances revoked, lost their jobs, faced fines, and even been sent to prison." Soon after, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked, "What do I say to the marines in my district when Hillary Clinton handles classified information in a careless way yet has no ramifications?"
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) argued in the fall that even the possibility of exposing sensitive intelligence to foreign adversaries is "treason."
And then, of course, there's Donald J. Trump, who had all kinds of things to say about this subject during his campaign, when he insisted that anyone who's mishandled classified information should obviously be disqualified from positions of authority.
The day before Ryan's declaration, 14 Republican senators introduced legislation to revoke Clinton's security clearance and demand that anyone in the executive branch who shows "extreme carelessness" in their handling of classified information be denied access to that information. (They no longer want to talk about the issue.)
The same day, then-RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said those who've mishandled classified information "have had their security clearances revoked, lost their jobs, faced fines, and even been sent to prison." Soon after, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) asked, "What do I say to the marines in my district when Hillary Clinton handles classified information in a careless way yet has no ramifications?"
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) argued in the fall that even the possibility of exposing sensitive intelligence to foreign adversaries is "treason."
And then, of course, there's Donald J. Trump, who had all kinds of things to say about this subject during his campaign, when he insisted that anyone who's mishandled classified information should obviously be disqualified from positions of authority.
To the other, the value of that point is entirely left to the beholder. That is to say, we have no reason to expect conservatives to care.
I'm hemming and hawing about the T-word; I've used it a couple times and ... it doesn't quite feel right, yet; I expect the word, which is already in play, will likely bring to bear at some point, but I'm also somewhere between "slippery slope" and "novel application" on a proper construal of adversarial—enemy—Russia. Neighborhood assholes or whatever we want to call the family on the block we don't like, sure. Still, though, the Distinguished Gentleman from Texas Ten might well regret his electoral hysterics, and as much as we might disdain a certain amount of ass-covering tacitry historically demonstrable in our governing institutions it still seems fair to wonder whether Republicans ever paused to consider how low a bar they hoped to set, or if they really were cynically gambling on the idea that their voters appreciate the dishonesty and everyone else is too busy trying to keep up with the informational flood to notice and hold it against them. We probably ought to tend toward the former, as the latter suggests unnatural discipline and teamwork, and let's face it, an effective conspiracy of hundreds involving the cooperative participation of thousands ... I mean, the only argument in favor of conspiracism is that these are conservatives, after all, and while it's easy enough to come up with reasons why some people simply wouldn't bother with so obvious an endeavor, those reasons rarely seem to apply to conservative outlooks, and history favors throwing Republican dice when the counterpoint depends on contiguous and coherent narrative.
To the other, it was former CIA Director John Brennan who put the word in play for serious consideration; it's almost like he was messaging the Trump administration, offering the president and others a pathway out of the mess they've made.
And he's right insofar as they can resign, confess, explain how it all happened, and generally make themselves useful, and we probably won't charge them with treason.
Nonetheless, President Trump himself remains one of the most mysterious mysteries about the #PutiPoodle mysterium: How does he keep managing to depict himself as if he is a Russian asset?
And I'm banging my head against the furniture on this count, because, come on: Just how potsherd does this sound?
• The point seems to be to undermine American geopolitical leverage and prestige in order to favor Vladimir Putin and the Russian influence and prestige which will fill the vacuum left by absent American leadership.
That's my great conspiracy theory in a nutshell.
For surely it is not the rich who contribute to patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And do they not squandor with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him ....
(Goldman↱)
(Goldman↱)
We should not pretend Donald Trump is constrained by fidelity to country. Two points keep me from putting this potsherd worry to rest. First, Donald Trump and his family and their business empire are the contemporary epitome of what Emma Goldman described over a century ago. And then there is the fact that Donald Trump won't stop acting the part: Crippling the State Department, agitating and even betraying security partners and allies, undermining American intelligence institutions and operations, and actually handing out extraordinarily secret information to people who really shouldn't have it, including one who rubs our noses in it by turning around and giving it to the world.
To the other, if this is the misdirection, what is the actual grift?
Of all the stupid and dangerous shit going on, this bit with acting like Puti-Toots' poodle is breathtakingly, farcically blatant. This is the part where sinister and stupid become difficult to discern for clownish nescience requisite of such villainy.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "Trump blurts out classified info again, worrying Pentagon officials". msnbc. 25 May 2017. msnbc.com. 27 May 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2rWoLAd
Goldman, Emma. "Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty". Anarchism and Other Essays. Second Revised Edition. New York & London: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. DWardMac.Pitzer.edu. 25 May 2017. http://bit.ly/2lxfQV5
That has a feel of plausibility about it. See how he pushed the Montenegrin PM out of his way. That will have pleased his base.
Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
1.) My previous NYT readings had a clear bias - links from sources I consider worth reading - a bias which can clearly distort the content. The aim was to get rid of this type of bias, for this purpose a single random day using NYT's own relevance order was a quite good idea. 2.) I have never claimed that NYT was important in Trump's media support. 3.) I simply rate at face value. This is quite clear and unproblematic. That this is not about the resulting effects, and was at least in part exactly what he wanted, is also clear and unproblematic.
As if this would be a point. I have conceded long ago that there may have been even an intentional Trump support by the Clintonoids thinking that would be the weakest enemy for Clinton.
Political correctness of the media is an international problem of all the Western media. And it has the fatal (for the globalists) consequences I have described. If you think it does not matter, feel free to ignore it.
Ok, after joepistole facts we have now also iceaura facts.
DrKrettin
Registered Senior Member
In that incident his body language is remarkably like that of Mussolini, another narcissistic idiot.
(
- Status