Re: We are all Slave now.
 

The press does not do that at all. It attacks him. For good reason. I follow the news sparingly, but even in that limited exposure, almost every story you see about Trump is negative.

Again, there's intent and there's effect. Two different things.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

It had zero impact on the elections. The blue wave has come in almost exactly as forecast.

The Ds were never going to win the Senate. That was silly dreaming.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Again, you're out of your depth. They trend left and it is reflected in much of their work.

It's not even debated among journalists themselves.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Breitbart and Infowars are reactions to the hatred of Bush from 2000-2008.

Where isn't the Left batshit? Read MSNBC for a few minutes at any hour of the day. Read CNN's coverage of Trump. Read WaPo's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event.

The list of cuckoo pants left wing media outlets is huge. Are they as nakedly full of shit as Breitbart and Infowars? Hell no. (Actually, I don't think Breitbart can even be lumped in with Infowars as it's opinion slanted as news, while Infowars is simply unhinged insanity.) But are they frothing "the sky is falling" Trump paranoia vehicles? Absolutely. Batshit fucking crazy. Everything's a Russian conspiracy, everywhere there's corruption... It's the boy who cried wolf on a trainload of steroids... and meth.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Stop frothing.

CNN operates on an athletic approach to politics. They have lots of batshit Trumpers on to argue with folks from the left side, but they are definitely a "both sides" reporting vehicle. CNN is responsible for people like Kayleigh McEnany and Jeffrey Lord. The Trumpers on CNN just get beaten down pretty regularly because... well, they're Trumpers. They're trying to argue batshit crazy positions.

MSNBC is definitely for liberals looking for confirmation bias, and it's a loop that covers about two stories a day. But MSNBC, unlike all the conservative places you've identified, is fact based - they do things like correct errors when they happen. And they try to bring over people like Megyn Kelly from Fox, those people just never seem to be able to function in a fact-based world very well.

None of this is batshit. As to Russian conspiracy theories -- well, I would say there clearly was Russian interference of some sort and we have a president working hard to avoid dealing with the issue. That's not frothing, though if I repeat it constantly it does get a bit tedious.

You, on the other hand, are a frother. You get very excited about this stuff.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's total bullshit. To begin with, Breitbart did not exist until 2007 and Infowars pre-dates the 2000 election. Both had followings but did not drive mainstream news cycles until candidate Trump started to amplify them. If anything, their rise was driven by racist backlash to Obama's presidency.

You've read these batshit things already, so please share some.

I mean, there's intelligence services, experienced prosecutors and a grand jury alleging a Russian conspiracy, so doesn't sounds so batshit to me.

I'm starting to think it's reality you think is batshit.

Fucking Ridiculous
 

Why you people are arguing about the media's treatment of Trump is beyond me. Objectively speaking, he is a fucking know-nothing, racist moron who isn't interested in learning anything, makes every single decision based on whether someone likes him or the result will somehow line his pocket, and is generally completely corrupt and unfit for office. Of course the coverage is negative. Everything he does is negative. You cannot report on him objectively and not have 100% of your coverage be completely negative. Jesus Christ.

TM

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

That's nonsense. Op-ed and analysis aside, because those are not news, coverage tends to focus on what the President and Administration has said, and reaction to it. For example, here is the top story right now on CNN. It's not a negative story. It presents what has happened fairly objectively, treating what the President says as the news, and questioning him only obliquely. Consider the last paragraph:

Citing promised Saudi investment in the US that could generate jobs and military contracts worth billions, even as he inflated their worth, Trump said that "if we foolishly cancel these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries and very happy to acquire all of this newfound business."

So this repeats Trump's fatuous claims about the benefits of Saudi investment, and the qualifier "even as he inflated their worth" does little to undercut it. Anyone with a brain knows that Trump is just bullshitting here, and anyone who has paid attention to him suspects that he is carrying water for the Saudis for other reasons, but CNN only alludes to all that and then devotes most of the paragraph to just repeating what Trump says.

If you think that's a negative story, you have a radically different understanding of what that means than the rest of the world does. The whole story is essentially about what the White House says.

Only if you assume pervasive, epic, enduring incompetence. A sports fan can simultaneously be convinced that the refs are biased against his team even though it keeps wining. That's what you sound like.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You're being an idiot. I have talked on this board for *years* about the systemic biases in the media business, one of which is that individual reporters tend to center-left and to live in large media markets on the coast. That's only one of the many biases, and far from the most important -- that's what I keep saying, and you keep missing it because you apparently can't even imagine that there might be anything else that systematically affects the way the media covers politics.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Find me a CNN news story from the last day for which this is true.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Where the line between Don Lemon's and Jake Tapper's news reporting and opinion? They've become quite "Foxy," I'd say.

Trump lied there, of course. But was his inflation an aim of the story? No. It's another story. The insertion of that little dig exposes the bias of the author. It's subtle, but again, this is how Fox did it (back when they gave a shit about appearing unbiased).

The allusion is the most effective way of sending the message. If you want a judge to pay unique attention to a salacious point, footnote it. See also: David Foster Wallace.

It's no one story. Watch Outfoxed sometime. The cheerleading for (or bias and contempt for) an administration is conveyed best through little quips and allusions here and there. It's a consistent drip, drip, drip process. Fox did it with Obama's Administration relentlessly. CNN isn't acting in nearly as much bad faith, and Trump provides enough bad copy that his words alone are often enough to create negative bias, but it's there. It's so obvious I can watch ten minutes of it in the lobby at a doctor's office and see the obvious bias displayed.

I'd say CNN is more effective in creating bias than MSNBC. MSNBC is obvious and hamfisted. Maddow and O'Donnell, much like Olbermann, are alienating because they think the audience misses their very obvious points. Hence, they over-explain and over-emphasize every negative point, as if they see something every else doesn't. I think that grates on people.

Intent vs effect once more. My only dog in this hunt is to advise you that if you think the media does not have a general left bias, you need meds. The effect of that bias, and how it manifests itself in their reporting, is a different issue.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...sts-ncna895471

https://www.allsides.com/blog/yes-cn...s-shifted-left

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You said something half-moronic: That the media is not generally working against Trump, and that it is actually unwittingly helping him.

The latter is true. I agree with you. The former is dead wrong. The overwhelming majority of media absolutely works against Trump. They just do it ineffectively, or in a manner that actually works against their intent.

We half agree. Where you're being moronic, I deviate. On the other half, 2.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I don't usually watch TV news, so I don't know.

What you say here is totally fucked up, and completely consistent with the way you miss the big issue in front of your nose. The lead story is about what the White House said about Saudi Arabia. In your view, whether or not what the White House said is true -- that's "another story." That's a choice, and it shows a "bias" (not overtly political, but with political consequences) on the part of the media that is much more important than the bias you ascribe to the authors. Indeed, I suspect you don't know who Nicole Gaouette and Kaitlan Collins are or anything about them -- you are just accustomed to the notion that if they say something factual that reflects poorly on the White House, they must be biased. This is a conservative talking point that you have heard many times through the mainstream media, which dutifully shares it with you. It's not a "dig." Whether or not the President is saying something that is actually true would seem to be objectively important question that people should want to know the answer to, but you essentially are saying that the press serves as a stenographer if it shares that information. No wonder you think the press is biased. You have completely internalized Republican talking points.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If by "working against him" you mean that they have some abstract interest in the truth instead of just reporting what would please him, they are obviously working against him.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Nor do I. But it's damn near impossible to miss Lemon and Tapper in re: Trump.

Strawman.

I said the issue of whether Trump inflated the value of contracts was outside the aim of the story. And it is.

One could write a whole other story on Trump's statement regarding the value of those contracts. But it doesn't. It slides the "drip" into each story. It's like a little footnote: "Never forget Trump is a liar." It's the little repeated drips built into a factual story that are most resonant. Fox did the same thing with Obama. You'd read something like, "Obama appears to have the votes for the ACA, despite GOP questions on whether death panels are still in the bill, and a vote will take place next week." You always bury the dig between facts.

It's true, by the way. The Saudi contracts aren't worth what Trump said they were. But if one is to be accurate in reporting on what he said, the way to write it would be:

"Citing promised Saudi investment in the US that could generate jobs and military contracts worth [insert actual value], which Trump said are worth [insert his number], Trump said..."

This reporter did not know that Trump "inflated" those numbers. All she knew was that he gave an inaccurate representation of those numbers. He's so dumb it could have actually been in error. But no -- she said he "inflated" them, which reads as a sin of intent.

It's the subtle stuff. Very "Foxy."

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

If one had an abstract interest in the truth, this person would avoid assuming intent where the facts are inadequate to reach that conclusion.

I googled this story and believe Trump said this Saudi contract was worth half a trillion dollars. This is so clearly absurd a statement the assumption it derived from stupidity is as credible, if not far more so, than the assumption it was intentional.

Trump deserves to be treated poorly by the media. Shit, he deserves to be treated poorly by almost everyone. But is the media biased? Fuck yes. Does it think it's working against him? Absolutely. Is it fucking up in this effort most of the time? Well... You might consider, how bright is the average journalist? The press is not exactly the genius brigade. It's not writing down stories involves some ultra high IQ or insight. Particularly today. That it would shoot itself in the foot is... predictable? Expected?

(This is where you say, "So the media's smart enough to slant articles subtly, but too stupid to see it's helping Trump?" Yes. Those are very different skills.)

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Be honest. You were drooling when you posted this, yes?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Thanks for finally admitting you voted for the guy.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

So it’s bias not to believe the liar in chief unless and until you can prove he’s intentionally lying, even though he obviously lied? What was that about bias?

You aren’t capable of judgments (see your presidential vote). You should outsource this function.

If they have the biases you alleged a fuck ton brighter than you.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

You wish. This past mid-term election? Didn’t vote. Had a meeting out of town. That took priority. I’d hardly balk at a similar conflict in 2020.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

1. Toss that again. I’ll have the blue cheese crumbles on the side.

2. I’m not a journalist. I’d call Trump a liar and make all sorts of assumptions. That’s why I am not a journalist. A journalist is supposed to write facts. What we have today is editorialists masquerading as journalists.

3. This is a silly comment. You sound like a child.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Your wit is truly technically existent.

Re: Fucking Ridiculous
 

Come on, TM. Both sides now. Nazis are just like that crazy Hispanic woman from Brooklyn who, like, worries about her rent. Can you imagine?

Re: Fucking Ridiculous
 

I think this is the most important article on Saudi Arabia since the Saudi's murder of the Washington Post journalist:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...-idUSKCN1NO2KP

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

The "how bright is the average journalist" thing is just bizarre. The answer is, very bright. I have my complaint about journalists, but it is a hard field to get into and the average journalist reporting at the national level is both wicked smart and has a fancy education.

Fox is often an exception, they have a different set of values that don't put much stock in the high IQ and fancy education in hiring.

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

Well for women Fox's criteria is "nice legs." But I don't think most talking heads have much more going for them-

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Yep. And the Right has achieved Keyzer Soze-levels of success with this bullshit.

TM

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

A few examples of fancy degrees:

Joy Reid - Harvard
Chris Hayes - Brown
Anderson Cooper - Yale
Rachel Maddow - Stanford, Oxford
Erin Burnett - Williams College

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I do it by not turning my TV to CNN. It's not hard. I don't know what channel CNN is on our cable (or FOX, or MSNBC), which makes it easy to avoid them. When Jake Tapper shows up on the Fox Soccer Channel, then maybe I will see him more.

It's not a strawman. It goes to a big problem with the press, one to which you are apparently blind. The decision to make the lead story what the White House says is a subjective one. There is a real bias in deciding to mostly regurgitate whatever the White House says and only to suggest that it might not be true in a passing aside. (And it's not a pro-Trump bias, as such -- the press did the same thing with Obama and with Bush.) That bias has far more to do with framing the news we get than the sort of bias you see everywhere.

No kidding -- that's my point. The media could write different stories than they do. Then those would be the news. Instead, they tend to unquestioningly repeat what official sources say, and are loathe (in news stories) to question them. The That bias, among others, gives us the news we have.

It's still just weird that you see a completely accurate and understated mention of the fact that the President is lying in a story that otherwise unquestioning repeats what he says as a "drip" of bias.

Of course, what the reporters said was accurate. Trump did inflate the numbers. The action doesn't require intent. But it is telling that you are so quick to see bias in the whiff of the suggestion that he might be lying. The man lies constantly. He has been overstating the benefits to the US of the Saudi relationship in public statements for weeks or months, and it's been noted many times. If he cared at all about the truth, he would have had many chances to get it right, but his claims have gotten wilder. As you surely understand by now, he is completely uninterested in whether claims like this one are true. They serve a need for him, so he makes them.

Moreover, when the CNN reporters presume good intentions on the White House's part, you surely don't remark on any bias. The second paragraph refers to

the administration's desire for Saudi support for its foreign policy priorities and a need to manage close relationships between bin Salman, the Trump administration and members of Trump's family.

Is that their desire? How could the reporters know? Of course they can't. By your logic, this shows that the CNN reporters are biased in favor of the White House.

Reporters usually can accept that their sources are telling the truth for a number of reasons. This White House, and Trump in particular, lies all the time. Pointing it out is not "bias."

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

https://538refugees.wordpress.com/20...-whos-smarter/ puhleeze- you don't got google?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Trump has been repeating this lie for months, and it has been widely reported to be untrue. That link is from Vox, because I know you love Vox.

Why do you care so much about his intent here? The man obviously does not care what the truth is, because he has been going out in public and saying ridiculous things for a long time. He has a huge staff that would get him the correct number if he wanted it, or would tell him that he had erred if he wanted to here that. He doesn't. He is a walking, orange, bullshit factory. We all know this. Why is it important to you that reporters assume that he is not lying when he lies every day?

No, we deserve better media. This is ultimately about us, not him.

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

Fox hires by skirt, period. Megyn Kelly was the rare smart and hot exception. That's why she left for NBC and just got paid $69mil in severance. The post-Fox careers of most female Fox talking heads are not good. Except for Gretchen Carlson, who whacked the network for a $20mil sex harassment settlement.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

In other words, you made a fatuous claim that you don't want to admit was wrong.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I really like some Buzzfeed reporters and stories. It's sort of a shame that they share the same banner as the "what type of cat are you?" content.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

No. As I told you, it’s little digs, little phrasing’s and shadings, in numerous stories that betray the bias.

You have to understand, when you attempt to box someone in, their refusal, for good reason, to be so boxed does not allow you to declare victory. It’s quite obvious you craft very difficult and arbitrary demands for evidence you know no one will take the effort to provide solely so you may later declare, “Cazart! You could not provide me with what I demanded and are therefore wrong!” It’s your signature move, actually.

Anyone can engage in this sort of thing. Well, almost anyone. I think middle school graduation or higher would qualify.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

1. Because I think he actually does a lot of what appears to be lying out of sheer laziness and ignorance.

2. We do not deserve better media. We’re getting exactly what we want and deserve.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Please try to keep up with which silly thing you previously said that you are backtracking from. This was a response to where you said, and I quote, "Read CNN's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event." I asked you to show me a single story from the prior day. You didn't. You posted unresponsive links.

You seem to think I am arguing that CNN isn't biased. I repeatedly have said the opposite.

(Also, saying that CNN is elevating a buffoon is less about bias and more about whether Trump is just a buffoon. I would have thought that by now we could all see the mistake in failing to take him seriously, but I guess not.)

Yes, it was exceedingly arbitrary and unfair for me to ask you for a single example of something that you say happens all the time. Maybe it would have been less of a chore for you if I had given you the url for CNN, so you didn't have to go and Google it or ask Siri how it's spelled.

I went and found an article the hard way -- I typed cnn.com into my browser's addressed bar and then picked the first story about Trump. Arbitrary! If the sweeping statements you are making about the media require too much work to prove, it's because they are fatuous. Complaining that I make you do too much work to back up silly things you have said is like the begging sympathy as an orphan because you have shot your parents.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I will repeat my question, then. If he so often says things that are untrue out of sheer laziness and ignorance, why do you care so much about his state of mind? Why does the fine line between stupid, reckless disregard for the truth and mendacious intent to deceive matter to you in this case?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

I was thinking about "not going to the memorial in the rain." I know the guy came in uncontrolled and people supposedly attempted to rein in the texts a bit- but how can he be so far in and no one tells him "you gotta go-you'll get wet- but no choice." Word is the only person who has been able to get him in line is Sarah H- she got the flag returned to half mast when McCain died. In some ways, of all the shit that is scary about him, this continued lack of accepting feedback is the scariest. I mean to the extent there is anyone that can give advice it had to be "go to the memorial," even the Nazis had to have been bothered by that?