Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm going to pull the William A. Henry card here (certain views, even though evidence can be adduced to support them, are simply not allowed to compete with others... See: Climate Change debate). We cannot debate whether the media was significantly anti-Trump. There must be a laddering of conclusions on this subject in which the argument that the media is not largely biased against Trump is thrown into or near the sphere of deviancy, many rungs below the obvious reality that, yes, the media is biased against Trump, and most other Republicans, and the only valid issue to debate is to what degree.

And no, that the media helped Trump by giving him free press is not a rebuttal to that issue. The media did assist him, while also detesting him. He was and remains their greatest pinata. Hoist him up, whip him, all roll in the ratings!



Ah, but I didn't say that. Thus your argument that follows is in your head. Decide on that as you like. I'm not pro hac'd in the jurisdiction



Vox is very much major media. It's widely read and widely cited in all sorts of media, both major and small.



Agreed. That's not major media. But like Vox, to a lesser extent, however, it is widely cited.



I'll refer you back to my opening statement here. If you argue that WaPo and NYTimes are not biased against Trump (and NYTimes biased against Republicans generally) you're in the sphere of deviancy. Taibbi is not making this argument up out of whole cloth. It's admitted even among the media itself that WaPo is in a cold war with Trump. And the NYTimes punishes Trump in both its OpEd pages and the slant of its news stories almost daily. As it punished Bush II almost daily. (Krugman is a celebrity because he decided to leave economics and bash Bush for eight straight years.) Taibbi does not have the burden of proof. His argument, obvious as it is, holds a position five or six rungs above yours. Using Henry's measurement - that ideas must be scored from elite to lunatic - Taibbi's is within the lower end of the elite category. Yours is in the "we could do just as well to ignore this as humor it" zone.

Taibbi is blunt because he can afford to be, because anyone reading his assessment is aware of the obvious volumes of evidence supporting it. He needn't repeat the obvious. You've had to parse considerably to find a way to attack it.

But I will credit you this criticism of Taibbi. He steps too far when he asserts that Russiagate was a hoax from the start. That's not true. I disagree with him there. The evidence shows Museller's investigation was initiated based on valid concerns. Where Taibbi is unassailable is in stating that the press took this investigation and hyperbolized it more than any other story in recent memory. Which is the same point I've made elsewhere, several times.

Trump will be found in all things he does to be a bungling villain of sorts. He cannot help but be so. It's his essential character. And he is so here. But if we let the press off the hook for pumping this into something it never was, for cynically whipping the easily persuaded into thinking this was Worse than Watergate, we're letting a far more diabolical villain off the hook.

My post explained why Taibbi's article, which you posted twice, is lousy. I expected the stuff he links to actually say something kinda like what he says it says, but instead it contradicts him. If he persuaded you of something you didn't previously believe, I'm not sure why. If he confirmed what you already believed about the media, well then the irony of your complaint about the media is worth dwelling on.