Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Two things, each worthy of its own thread:
1) What you describe is exactly the Chinese robber fallacy. The media ran sensational stories designed to excite people rather than to inform. Um, duh. Consider two possible explanations for this. One is that "the media" (excluding Fox) had "one aim" because of a huge conspiracy to get Trump. The other is that the media ran stories that they thought people wanted to see, because by and large they operate on business models that require advertisers and eyeballs. You go with your tinfoil-hat-everyone-is-out-to-get-Trump explanation, and I will go with the the-free-market-isn't-ideal-but-we-haven't-figured-out-a-better-way-to-do-it explanation. My explanation doesn't run into trouble with the fact that the same people who you think conspired to get Trump were fresh of wrecking Hillary's campaign with the email nonsense.
2) There absolutely was collusion between the Trump campaign and key Russians. No question. Your beef with the media here is like apologizing for the Titanic's captain by complaining that no one talks about all the icebergs in the North Atlantic that he successfully avoided.
|
1. Sensationalism is one thing. Convicting Trump in advance is another. The former is very common and accrues from the market forces you describe. The latter is rare, and something unique. Like the WMD mess, there the media is pushing a specific narrative. The Chinese Robbers fallacy applies to the sensationalism. It does not apply to the narrative-crafting.
And it's not tinfoil hat stuff at all. You know me so you know when I'm talking about media bias, I am not talking out my ass. I've been in numerous studios and hung out with a lot of fucking media people. They'll even admit there's media bias. (And you were never going to get away with burying the lede like that. You have to try a bit harder.)
2. Take that up with Robert Mueller. You two apparently do not agree.
Unless you're suggesting that there was collusion, just not enough proof of it to charge. In which case, I'd say, the media promised a finding of collusion in Mueller's report, not in Ty's opinion. It did not deliver the former, and the latter is irrelevant.
