LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 140
4 members and 136 guests
Adder, Greedy,Greedy,Greedy, Hank Chinaski, Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-20-2018, 09:05 PM   #4096
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,507
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
I don't usually watch TV news, so I don't know.
Nor do I. But it's damn near impossible to miss Lemon and Tapper in re: Trump.

Quote:
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.
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."
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-20-2018 at 09:30 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:13 PM   #4097
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,507
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
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.
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.)
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-20-2018 at 09:19 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 11-20-2018, 10:44 PM   #4098
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,553
Re: We are all Slave now.

Be honest. You were drooling when you posted this, yes?
Adder is online now  
Old 11-20-2018, 10:46 PM   #4099
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,553
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
The overwhelming majority of media absolutely works against Trump. They just do it ineffectively, or in a manner that actually works against their intent.
Thanks for finally admitting you voted for the guy.
Adder is online now  
Old 11-20-2018, 10:53 PM   #4100
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 16,553
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
If one had an abstract interest in the truth, this person would avoid assuming intent where the facts are inadequate to reach that conclusion.
So itís bias not to believe the liar in chief unless and until you can prove heís intentionally lying, even though he obviously lied? What was that about bias?

Quote:
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.
You arenít capable of judgments (see your presidential vote). You should outsource this function.

Quote:
You might consider, how bright is the average journalist? The press is not exactly the genius brigade.
If they have the biases you alleged a fuck ton brighter than you.
Adder is online now  
Old 11-20-2018, 11:39 PM   #4101
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,507
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Thanks for finally admitting you voted for the guy.
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.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-20-2018 at 11:52 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 11-20-2018, 11:45 PM   #4102
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,507
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
So itís bias not to believe the liar in chief unless and until you can prove heís intentionally lying, even though he obviously lied? What was that about bias?



You arenít 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.
1. Toss that again. Iíll have the blue cheese crumbles on the side.

2. Iím not a journalist. Iíd call Trump a liar and make all sorts of assumptions. Thatís 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.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 11-20-2018, 11:50 PM   #4103
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 24,507
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Be honest. You were drooling when you posted this, yes?
Your wit is truly technically existent.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:05 AM   #4104
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,499
Re: Fucking Ridiculous

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
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
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?
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is online now  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:08 AM   #4105
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,499
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
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is online now  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:29 AM   #4106
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,499
Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
If they have the biases you alleged a fuck ton brighter than you.
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.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is online now  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:40 AM   #4107
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 84,796
Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
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.
Well for women Fox's criteria is "nice legs." But I don't think most talking heads have much more going for them-
__________________
The conscience of Lawtalkers!
Hank Chinaski is online now  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:56 AM   #4108
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 28,165
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
...you are just accustomed to the notion that if they say something factual that reflects poorly on the White House, they must be biased.
Yep. And the Right has achieved Keyzer Soze-levels of success with this bullshit.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline  
Old 11-21-2018, 12:11 PM   #4109
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 19,499
Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Well for women Fox's criteria is "nice legs." But I don't think most talking heads have much more going for them-
A few examples of fancy degrees:

Joy Reid - Harvard
Chris Hayes - Brown
Anderson Cooper - Yale
Rachel Maddow - Stanford, Oxford
Erin Burnett - Williams College
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is online now  
Old 11-21-2018, 12:32 PM   #4110
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 31,414
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Nor do I. But it's damn near impossible to miss Lemon and Tapper in re: Trump.
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.

Quote:
Strawman.

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

Quote:
One could write a whole other story on Trump's statement regarding the value of those contracts. But it doesn't.
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.

Quote:
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 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.

Quote:
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."
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."
__________________
ďIt was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 11-21-2018 at 12:49 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:33 PM.