We are all Slave now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You are still insisting on framing the evidentiary standard. How many times must I say it’s subtle digs and slants buried in multiple stories? Do you expect me to take a day’s worth of articles and pull out all the instances of this?

For context, what you said was,

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.

I made the mistake of taking you literally ("where isn't"? "a few minutes at any hour of the day") and just asked you to back it up. Of course you didn't really mean it, but you won't concede that now and just shift ground. Asked wtf you are talking about, you've moved from "when aren't they batshit" to "subtle digs and slants buried in stories," a claim that is almost tautologically impossible to refute. You can't see them because they're buried! Yahtzee!

But let's go back to the "subtle dig" we actually looked at, which shows how screwed up your views are. In a story about Trump's statements about Saudi Arabia, in nearly the last paragraph, in repeating (and quoting) Trump's totally spurious claim about Saudi defense spending, the reporters parenthetically noted that his claims were "inflated." They could have, but did not, point out that Trump has been telling increasingly larger lies about the benefits of Saudi spending for months now, and that this has been widely reported but that he just keeps telling mistruths about it.

You see this brief glimpse of actual reporting on the state of the world outside the President's statements as biased, not because CNN gave so much more space to the President's lies than to reality, because that part of the story is not favorable to Trump. That's, isn't it? In your view, reporting on facts that don't help Trump shows a bias in favor of Trump. You don't need to know a single thing about the reporters involved. You can get confused and repeatedly refer to them as a single person, because their actual identity (just like that actual benefits to the US economy from Saudi arms sales) is irrelevant. Once CNN breaks from stenographer to tell the reader the facts, that's bias to you.

That's fucked up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Amorality vs. immorality. Immorality is considered the much greater failing.

From what I see, his lying is so bizarre and so obviously proven false, he clearly doesn’t understand the importance of saying what is rather than what he’d like things to be.

If you wish to make him a Machiavellian villain, which I see CNN doing, you assume intent. Makes a half fool half villain a full villain.

He is smarter and more dangerous than you give him credit for, but you keep ducking the question. I'm not asking about Trump. I'm asking about you. You think it's really important that CNN reporters said Trump was "inflating" those numbers because it implied that he was lying. There's no question that the President of the United States shared "inflated" numbers. Why does it matter so much to you that a President who tells mistruths should be presumed to have done so unintentionally?

And Lemon and Tapper have it out for him. That is unquestionable. They’ve seen the advantage of taking him on in terms of status elevation. Cuomo also, but to a lesser extent.

I really don't give a shit about Lemon, Tapper or Cuomo. If you don't think well of them, turn the TV off and do something else.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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?

Maybe the Nazis don't want him to be seen with wet hair either?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He is smarter and more dangerous than you give him credit for, but you keep ducking the question. I'm not asking about Trump. I'm asking about you. You think it's really important that CNN reporters said Trump was "inflating" those numbers because it implied that he was lying. There's no question that the President of the United States shared "inflated" numbers. Why does it matter so much to you that a President who tells mistruths should be presumed to have done so unintentionally?

I really don't give a shit about Lemon, Tapper or Cuomo. If you don't think well of them, turn the TV off and do something else.

It matters for the same reason intentional vs. non-intentional mattered in the fallout from the Iraq war. Bush lying about WMD was unforgivable (and illegal, perhaps). But just fucking up unintentionally? Well, he got a second term.

And I can’t escape Lemon, Tapper, or Cuomo. I like CNN and have it in my news feed. Not only does this compel me to see endless stories about their tweet wars with Trump (and Lemon’s sermons on Trump), but other outlets also pick up these stories. I don’t wish to wipe CNN from my feed.

You can’t even escape it at the gym. At least one monitor will be running CNN at the gym. And if you look? It’s some battle with Trump.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

From what I see, his lying is so bizarre and so obviously proven false, he clearly doesn’t understand the importance of saying what is rather than what he’d like things to be.

The thing is, though, that his falsehoods are not random. If they were, you'd expect him to correct himself eventually or to err in a direction that doesn't reinforce his argument. He does not do that. Which makes it pretty easily to believe that rather than just being the idiot you think he is, he actually understand that propaganda he is practicing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For context, what you said was,



I made the mistake of taking you literally ("where isn't"? "a few minutes at any hour of the day") and just asked you to back it up. Of course you didn't really mean it, but you won't concede that now and just shift ground. Asked wtf you are talking about, you've moved from "when aren't they batshit" to "subtle digs and slants buried in stories," a claim that is almost tautologically impossible to refute. You can't see them because they're buried! Yahtzee!

But let's go back to the "subtle dig" we actually looked at, which shows how screwed up your views are. In a story about Trump's statements about Saudi Arabia, in nearly the last paragraph, in repeating (and quoting) Trump's totally spurious claim about Saudi defense spending, the reporters parenthetically noted that his claims were "inflated." They could have, but did not, point out that Trump has been telling increasingly larger lies about the benefits of Saudi spending for months now, and that this has been widely reported but that he just keeps telling mistruths about it.

You see this brief glimpse of actual reporting on the state of the world outside the President's statements as biased, not because CNN gave so much more space to the President's lies than to reality, because that part of the story is not favorable to Trump. That's, isn't it? In your view, reporting on facts that don't help Trump shows a bias in favor of Trump. You don't need to know a single thing about the reporters involved. You can get confused and repeatedly refer to them as a single person, because their actual identity (just like that actual benefits to the US economy from Saudi arms sales) is irrelevant. Once CNN breaks from stenographer to tell the reader the facts, that's bias to you.

That's fucked up.

I stand by it. In any small space of time it takes for CNN to report on Trump, you’ll find a dig, a shading. Fox did this with Obama and it was batshit. It showed a pathology. Unlike Obama, Trump deserves the treatment and asks for it. But in both taking the bait and devoting so much energy to amplifying the blatherings of this fool, CNN’s reporters and pundits are batshit.

It’s management and ad sales people, otoh, are cynically brilliant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

The thing is, though, that his falsehoods are not random. If they were, you'd expect him to correct himself eventually or to err in a direction that doesn't reinforce his argument. He does not do that. Which makes it pretty easily to believe that rather than just being the idiot you think he is, he actually understand that propaganda he is practicing.

He understands the effect of what he says, and he doesn't care about the truth. Given that he so manifestly does not care about the truth of what he says, the media needs to find new ways to report on him that do not presume that he says things in good faith. That's not about fairness to him -- that's about fairness to their readers, and not being fooled. And given that he bullshits all the time, it is nonsensical to say that a reporter is biased for using the word "inflated" when Trump uses inflated numbers, and to see no bias when the same reporter describes the White House's state of mind in a light favorable to the White House. Sebby's Heads-You're-Biased-Tails-I-Win attitude is part of the problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I stand by it. In any small space of time it takes for CNN to report on Trump, you’ll find a dig, a shading. Fox did this with Obama and it was batshit. It showed a pathology. Unlike Obama, Trump deserves the treatment and asks for it. But in both taking the bait and devoting so much energy to amplifying the blatherings of this fool, CNN’s reporters and pundits are batshit.

It’s management and ad sales people, otoh, are cynically brilliant.

You should skip CNN and stay with Breitbart, because the idea that noting that Trump's figures are wrong is a brief contact with reality, not a sign of bias. By your way of thinking, the only way not to be biased is to say what Trump wants you to say. Other reporting is biased. What would Christopher Hitchens say? Jesus wept.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

The thing is, though, that his falsehoods are not random. If they were, you'd expect him to correct himself eventually or to err in a direction that doesn't reinforce his argument. He does not do that. Which makes it pretty easily to believe that rather than just being the idiot you think he is, he actually understand that propaganda he is practicing.

Drunken walk down Pennsylvania Avenue? Does that analogy apply?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Maybe the Nazis don't want him to be seen with wet hair either?

Nazis LOVE hats.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You should skip CNN and stay with Breitbart, because the idea that noting that Trump's figures are wrong is a brief contact with reality, not a sign of bias. By your way of thinking, the only way not to be biased is to say what Trump wants you to say. Other reporting is biased. What would Christopher Hitchens say? Jesus wept.

Hitchens wouldn’t have offered opinion as news. That’s the cardinal sin here that you’ll ignore.

Hitchens would’ve gone straight for the jugular. He’d have come right out on the top of the page, as has his friend Andrew Sullivan, and said, “Here is my opinion... Trump is a lying idiot who should be removed from office.”

When you slide the opinion copy into the factual stories, you’re in Foxland. Again, watch Outfoxed to see how it’s bluntly done.

I assume you’re totally cool with the Times, Journal, and WaPo stuffing Opeds into the news pages? I mean, it’s all just reporting, right? Perception is reality, no?

ETA: Everyone sees what you did there, btw, shifting from acknowledging that CNN claimed Trump “inflated” figures to stating CNN was just commenting on their accuracy. It’s all in the drip, drip, drip... the little digs build a bias among the audience so much more effectively than a blunt Hitchens-like OpEd attack.

“Inflated” is also a great word choice. You picture a fat windbag (reminding you he is one), and recall he inflated his fortune. It’s well chosen. The specific words used are also hugely important, as Trump himself has proven with “low energy Jeb.”

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

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.

It’s too pithy and clickbaity.

Vice has a more adult version of this problem. I’m probably going to punt it from the IG feed soon. The story on Charlottesville was amazing (she deserves her own show). But since then, it’s been a whole lotta clickbait stories — all promise of unique insight, minimal delivery.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hitchens wouldn’t have offered opinion as news. That’s the cardinal sin here that you’ll ignore.

Hitchens would’ve gone straight for the jugular. He’d have come right out on the top of the page, as has his friend Andrew Sullivan, and said, “Here is my opinion... Trump is a lying idiot who should be removed from office.”

When you slide the opinion copy into the factual stories, you’re in Foxland. Again, watch Outfoxed to see how it’s bluntly done.

I assume you’re totally cool with the Times, Journal, and WaPo stuffing Opeds into the news pages? I mean, it’s all just reporting, right? Perception is reality, no?

ETA: Everyone sees what you did there, btw, shifting from acknowledging that CNN claimed Trump “inflated” figures to stating CNN was just commenting on their accuracy. It’s all in the drip, drip, drip... the little digs build a bias among the audience so much more effectively than a blunt Hitchens-like OpEd attack.

“Inflated” is also a great word choice. You picture a fat windbag (reminding you he is one), and recall he inflated his fortune. It’s well chosen. The specific words used are also hugely important, as Trump himself has proven with “low energy Jeb.”

thank you for continuing to try to engage Ty but his Anti-government rhetoric is reaching a tipping point, I fear. His writings are pretty closely following Timothy McVeigh’s later work; perhaps intentionally but in my heart I know it’s organically. You keep doing what you do, but I’m going to tip the FBI to check to see if he has been buying fertilizer.

[Hank Chinaski]

Random Facebook observation: we need to get Spanky back here- he remains a wide eyed optimist.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hitchens wouldn’t have offered opinion as news. That’s the cardinal sin here that you’ll ignore.

ETA: Everyone sees what you did there, btw, shifting from acknowledging that CNN claimed Trump “inflated” figures to stating CNN was just commenting on their accuracy. It’s all in the drip, drip, drip... the little digs build a bias among the audience so much more effectively than a blunt Hitchens-like OpEd attack.

“Inflated” is also a great word choice. You picture a fat windbag (reminding you he is one), and recall he inflated his fortune. It’s well chosen. The specific words used are also hugely important, as Trump himself has proven with “low energy Jeb.”

Trump has lied repeatedly and flagrantly about those numbers, for months now. (CNN doesn't tell you that.) Pointing that out is called reporting, not bias, and it's only a sin if you're in the bag for Trump. You certainly are showing your bias.