LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 231
1 members and 230 guests
sebastian_dangerfield
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Today, 09:05 PM   #4096
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 23,040
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; Today at 09:30 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 09:13 PM   #4097
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 23,040
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; Today at 09:19 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:40 PM.