We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

A few examples of fancy degrees:

Joy Reid - Harvard
Chris Hayes - Brown
Anderson Cooper - Yale
Rachel Maddow - Stanford, Oxford
Erin Burnett - Williams College

https://538refugees.wordpress.com/20...-whos-smarter/ puhleeze- you don't got google?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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 has been repeating this lie for months, and it has been widely reported to be untrue. That link is from Vox, because I know you love Vox.

Why do you care so much about his intent here? The man obviously does not care what the truth is, because he has been going out in public and saying ridiculous things for a long time. He has a huge staff that would get him the correct number if he wanted it, or would tell him that he had erred if he wanted to here that. He doesn't. He is a walking, orange, bullshit factory. We all know this. Why is it important to you that reporters assume that he is not lying when he lies every day?

Trump deserves to be treated poorly by the media.

No, we deserve better media. This is ultimately about us, not him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well for women Fox's criteria is "nice legs." But I don't think most talking heads have much more going for them-

Fox hires by skirt, period. Megyn Kelly was the rare smart and hot exception. That's why she left for NBC and just got paid $69mil in severance. The post-Fox careers of most female Fox talking heads are not good. Except for Gretchen Carlson, who whacked the network for a $20mil sex harassment settlement.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

[non-responsive links]

In other words, you made a fatuous claim that you don't want to admit was wrong.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yup. A more insidious analogue is online clickbait news. If I see “Here’s what you need to know” in a headline, I refuse to read further.

Buzzfeed is a uniquely atrocious sinner in that circle of miscreants. That that site is considered news proves our decline is moving at a pace multiples of what we assume. (Breitbart’s ascension to “sorta news” closes that argument, for different reasons, with a mic drop.)

I’d address Upworthy, but it trips me from rational to enraged. Everyone involved in it, everyone who likes it, is guilty of crimes against evolution and humanity in general.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

In other words, you made a fatuous claim that you don't want to admit was wrong.

No. As I told you, it’s little digs, little phrasing’s and shadings, in numerous stories that betray the bias.

You have to understand, when you attempt to box someone in, their refusal, for good reason, to be so boxed does not allow you to declare victory. It’s quite obvious you craft very difficult and arbitrary demands for evidence you know no one will take the effort to provide solely so you may later declare, “Cazart! You could not provide me with what I demanded and are therefore wrong!” It’s your signature move, actually.

Anyone can engage in this sort of thing. Well, almost anyone. I think middle school graduation or higher would qualify.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump has been repeating this lie for months, and it has been widely reported to be untrue. That link is from Vox, because I know you love Vox.

Why do you care so much about his intent here? The man obviously does not care what the truth is, because he has been going out in public and saying ridiculous things for a long time. He has a huge staff that would get him the correct number if he wanted it, or would tell him that he had erred if he wanted to here that. He doesn't. He is a walking, orange, bullshit factory. We all know this. Why is it important to you that reporters assume that he is not lying when he lies every day?

No, we deserve better media. This is ultimately about us, not him.

1. Because I think he actually does a lot of what appears to be lying out of sheer laziness and ignorance.

2. We do not deserve better media. We’re getting exactly what we want and deserve.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. As I told you, it’s little digs, little phrasing’s and shadings, in numerous stories that betray the bias.

Please try to keep up with which silly thing you previously said that you are backtracking from. This was a response to where you said, and I quote, "Read CNN's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event." I asked you to show me a single story from the prior day. You didn't. You posted unresponsive links.

You seem to think I am arguing that CNN isn't biased. I repeatedly have said the opposite.

(Also, saying that CNN is elevating a buffoon is less about bias and more about whether Trump is just a buffoon. I would have thought that by now we could all see the mistake in failing to take him seriously, but I guess not.)

You have to understand, when you attempt to box someone in, their refusal, for good reason, to be so boxed does not allow you to declare victory. It’s quite obvious you craft very difficult and arbitrary demands for evidence you know no one will take the effort to provide solely so you may later declare, “Cazart! You could not provide me with what I demanded and are therefore wrong!” It’s your signature move, actually.

Yes, it was exceedingly arbitrary and unfair for me to ask you for a single example of something that you say happens all the time. Maybe it would have been less of a chore for you if I had given you the url for CNN, so you didn't have to go and Google it or ask Siri how it's spelled.

I went and found an article the hard way -- I typed cnn.com into my browser's addressed bar and then picked the first story about Trump. Arbitrary! If the sweeping statements you are making about the media require too much work to prove, it's because they are fatuous. Complaining that I make you do too much work to back up silly things you have said is like the begging sympathy as an orphan because you have shot your parents.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Because I think he actually does a lot of what appears to be lying out of sheer laziness and ignorance.

I will repeat my question, then. If he so often says things that are untrue out of sheer laziness and ignorance, why do you care so much about his state of mind? Why does the fine line between stupid, reckless disregard for the truth and mendacious intent to deceive matter to you in this case?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump has been repeating this lie for months, and it has been widely reported to be untrue. That link is from Vox, because I know you love Vox.

Why do you care so much about his intent here? The man obviously does not care what the truth is, because he has been going out in public and saying ridiculous things for a long time. He has a huge staff that would get him the correct number if he wanted it, or would tell him that he had erred if he wanted to here that. He doesn't. He is a walking, orange, bullshit factory. We all know this. Why is it important to you that reporters assume that he is not lying when he lies every day?

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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Please try to keep up with which silly thing you previously said that you are backtracking from. This was a response to where you said, and I quote, "Read CNN's coverage of Trump. They've elevated this buffoon to an extinction level event." I asked you to show me a single story from the prior day. You didn't. You posted unresponsive links.

You seem to think I am arguing that CNN isn't biased. I repeatedly have said the opposite.

(Also, saying that CNN is elevating a buffoon is less about bias and more about whether Trump is just a buffoon. I would have thought that by now we could all see the mistake in failing to take him seriously, but I guess not.)



Yes, it was exceedingly arbitrary and unfair for me to ask you for a single example of something that you say happens all the time. Maybe it would have been less of a chore for you if I had given you the url for CNN, so you didn't have to go and Google it or ask Siri how it's spelled.

I went and found an article the hard way -- I typed cnn.com into my browser's addressed bar and then picked the first story about Trump. Arbitrary! If the sweeping statements you are making about the media require too much work to prove, it's because they are fatuous. Complaining that I make you do too much work to back up silly things you have said is like the begging sympathy as an orphan because you have shot your parents.

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?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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?

We have been lucky. He has not stood a major test. Can you imagine him in the Cuba missile crisis?

The most important thing for the House now that it is in Democratic hands is to serve as an ongoing check on him. Hopefully, we can get through two more years without the train going off the rails.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I will repeat my question, then. If he so often says things that are untrue out of sheer laziness and ignorance, why do you care so much about his state of mind? Why does the fine line between stupid, reckless disregard for the truth and mendacious intent to deceive matter to you in this case?

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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?

Hope Hicks and Ivanka were supposed to be Trump whisperers too, no?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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.

They’re bright in a limited regard. If all you’re doing is writing about others doing things, do you really have a complete appreciation of what it’s like to be actually doing the thing you comment about? I don’t think so. Financial journalism exposes the limitations of journalistic “intellect” anew every day.

Pure journalists are indeed very bright and talented, in the skill set of being a journalist. But you wouldn’t invest based on a journalist’s, or pundit’s, assessments. They’ve a somewhat myopic, hammer-on-nails approach to life. Find facts, find insight, cross examine and scrutinize target to get soundbite lengthadmission, ideally salacious.

Cross examining without having to follow the rules of evidence isn’t brain surgery. It might not even be podiatry.