It's sad and unfortunate that considering the progress we've made as humans, that those in power are utterly afraid of the truth. It makes me ashamed to be a human being sometimes for this reason. We won't progress or 'evolve' unless this fact changes.
Reuters' position on covering Trump
131–140 of 263 posts
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.
There's been studies showing people who watch Fox are more uninformed
What you're saying is anedoctal. Ultimately, Fox News were the few news organizations that knew that Trump was going to win by a landslide. Every other news organization were all singing that Hillary had a 99% chance of a victory (I'm not being hyperbolic with the 99%).
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would not underestimate Bannon. He is a very smart guy.
It's not the smart that people should be concerned about. It's if he's going to go as far as some governments do in suppressing journalists: Harassment, imprisonment, or execution. Covering the current administration is so far not a life-threatening exercise. That's what people mean by "amateur". There are other countries where reporting carries real, immediate risks to one's safety. Consider the luxury of being a US…
Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again.
Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should note that if you lean to the Right and/or don't worship the Clintons and the Democratic party, then most of the US media has seemed like a third-world Party Line news for a long time.
If you view people who don't agree with you politically as strawmen who "worship" your least favorite politicians, then you've already failed at understanding the world. Everyone disagrees on stuff, but if you want to understand people and the world, the only way to do that is to see things from other peoples' perspective. They have plenty of reasons for voting the way they do that have nothing to do with being brain…
I don't object to people disagreeing with me politically. Yes, the "worship the Clintons and Democratic party" part is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Are you sure your own political position isn't blinding you?
I do object when those who disagree with me politically smear my side, or even anyone on their side who doesn't agree with them enthusiastically enough, as racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, redneck, while they claim to be the most intelligent people in the world and the sole source of compassion and tolerance.
I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who has at least put some thought into their position and doesn't devolve to slinging insults around when they see facts they don't like.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bernie supporter here, so obvious bias, but the way they (CNN, Fox, etc.) talked down to Sanders in the primaries was disgusting, so I have to agree there. However, the trump administration wasn't attacking Fox news which I think we can all agree from an objective standpoint is several times worse than CNN in their distortion of the truth.
Can you give examples of Fox distorting things? I gave many examples of issues that the MSMs didn't seriously cover. I don't believe that there isn't "true" objective coverage but Fox News with Hannity and Carlson are really providing coverage that is sharp, and enlightening. They're actually informing the public instead of participating in the media churn.
I would argue that presenting one (obviously biased) view as the ground truth would qualify as distortion. For example, consider how Fox reports news regarding separating religion from public, tax-funded institutions, such as removing the 10 commandments from schools, as infringements on religious freedom.
Of course, liberal news organizations distort the truth as well.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions. Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entr…
There's always going to be some unwanted effects of any kind of legislation. I agree that those are bad side effects... but you have to look at the general thrust of the legislation: curbing unwanted immigrants to America. There's no deterministic way to discover whether someone has terrorist sentiments... so a blanket statement is used. It's sloppy but accomplishes the goal, no? Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's mo…
Obama's inability to get much done can be, objectively, attributed largely to an obstructionist Congress. While not wholly to blame, it certainly both slowed his agenda, and often caused him to gut key provisions from legislation in order to get it ultimately passed. Looking at initial drafts of the Affordable Care Act early in its history versus what ultimately passed Congress is a depressing reminder of how willing Democratic partisans are willing to compromise their values in terms of playing ball with an enemy team whose explicit, stated, and recorded goal was paraphrased to "Take the other side's ball and go home."
While many bills have unintended consequences and side effects, these are often not recognized at the time. Pointing out the negative consequences for people who have already passed American vetting procedures, preventing access to persons already in flight when it passed, detaining persons in airports immediately, and the failure of the bill to provide any tangible benefits as far as anti-terrorism measures are concerned were hardly unforeseen. These were immediately pointed out by security professionals.
I am still of the hopeful and optimistic opinion that Trump does not use his "very lean and agile approach" to unilaterally void NAFTA and impose a 20% fee on Mexican imports, as just the foreseeable consequences of that action are far reaching, negative, and highly deleterious to the United States' reputation internationally. The unforeseen consequences? The economic fallout that we cannot immediately predict? If they are mere extensions of what we already can see, I am afraid.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#137I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…
> I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is. > When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dij…
First, tell me the numbers for electoral votes. I would consider that a landslide.
Second, Obama's birth certificate was forged[1]. I'm not saying he wasn't born in America, but anyone with Photoshop and how layers work knows that the document was doctored.
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/she...
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#138I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Anyone who follows Trump know these are the folks he's referring to. If he didn't like ALL of the media, he wouldn't even have a press corps. Reuters isn't really engaging with what Trump's saying. Are Trump's claims substantiated? I would say, Yes…
> I'm a Trump supporter so take this with a grain of salt. Immediately predict lame rhetoric about how bad the media is. > When he said the media was dishonest, he was referring to CNN, WaPo and the mainstream media (excluding Fox News). Oh right, the bastion of correct reporting, fucking Fox News. Questioning Obama's birth certificate. Warning about his terrorist fist jabs. Rightly admonishing him for asking for Dij…
You're busy in this thread, but you only seem to bring anger and ridicule. Maybe calm down a bit and foster useful discussions?
But looking through your history it seems like that may not be what you want.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the smart that people should be concerned about. It's if he's going to go as far as some governments do in suppressing journalists: Harassment, imprisonment, or execution. Covering the current administration is so far not a life-threatening exercise. That's what people mean by "amateur". There are other countries where reporting carries real, immediate risks to one's safety. Consider the luxury of being a US…
Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again. Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.
As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out?
I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military event and he'll make some incoherent speech about something or other and, at a quick glance, you might not be able to tell him from Muammar Gaddafi.
Once he crosses that line there's no telling what will happen. There are too many utterly terrifying historical examples to draw on.
Re: Reuters' position on covering Trump
#140I'd like to see reuters/AP etc. not only take the same approach, but even use the same language to US reporting as they do in other "regimes". Here's a slate.com series that I thought was doing a great job but for some reason hasn't continued into the Trump regime.
e.g. When Justice Scalia died:
WASHINGTON, United States—The unexpected death of a hard-line conservative jurist on America’s constitutional court has exposed deep fissures within the ruling regime and threatens to throw the country’s fragile political system into months of chaos.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/17/how_the_u_...