Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Nor do I. But it's damn near impossible to miss Lemon and Tapper in re: Trump.

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."

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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.)

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Be honest. You were drooling when you posted this, yes?

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Thanks for finally admitting you voted for the guy.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

So it’s bias not to believe the liar in chief unless and until you can prove he’s intentionally lying, even though he obviously lied? What was that about bias?

You aren’t 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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

1. Toss that again. I’ll have the blue cheese crumbles on the side.

2. I’m not a journalist. I’d call Trump a liar and make all sorts of assumptions. That’s 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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Your wit is truly technically existent.

Re: Fucking Ridiculous
 

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?

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

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

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.

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

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

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

Yep. And the Right has achieved Keyzer Soze-levels of success with this bullshit.

TM

Re: Creepers Prefer Blondes
 

A few examples of fancy degrees:

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

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."