211–220 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes but all Presidents do this, including Obama
Please name a news organization that was allowed to attend press conferences by Obama, then later banned because he didn't like what they had to say. edit: Since you won't be able to find one by Obama, how about any president in the last 50 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just irrational nastiness Can you point out any significant press coverage of Trump's nastiness that qualifies as "irrational"? If the press reports on Trump's nastiness, does that make the press nasty?
"Can you point out any significant press coverage of Trump's nastiness that qualifies as "irrational"?" Sure but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
"As appealing as it might be for some people to believe your comment it doesn't pass the basic sniff test."
- mythrwy, 13 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13620408
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. I heard it well put the other day: "Trump didn't cause the current political divisiveness. The current political devisions caused Trump."
I have a feeling this is How Things Work in societies. Similar theories exist about time traveling to the past to kill Hitler: the nationalist population of Germany will then elect the same personality in a different person and we'll still get the same atrocious WWII. You have to make changes in The Little Guys, The Average People to actually effect change. This is where community comes in: get to know people, hang o…
This story is being actively buried, fyi. [edit: confirmed that it's being flagged. Guess all is normal.]
For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work: * The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement * He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question * Journalist asks question * Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wa…
"Asked about X, press secretary didn't provide more details." is still interesting information. Well... during more normal times anyways. I do agree it could be more transparent and useful than a reality show however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes but all Presidents do this, including Obama
Please name a news organization that was allowed to attend press conferences by Obama, then later banned because he didn't like what they had to say. edit: Since you won't be able to find one by Obama, how about any president in the last 50 years?
>“The point is this, and it really needs to be made: Fox is not just another television network,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a close Obama ally. “Fox has become the official/semi-official voice for the Republican Party, in opposition to the president. And I think calling them out is the only way to delegitimize them as political propaganda.”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63167-congression...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The banned parties should make an alternative venue that asks questions of shadow governments. It will be more interesting and erode the Presidents power to choose how to address the people by overshadowing his useless PR and making the other governments easier to imagine.
Shadow? Like this? http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Tampa-town-hall-meeti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they never presented it as factual. What was "true" was that they reported on a 35 page dossier created by a former British intelligence official. In fact, they never even released the dossier -- they only reported that the classified documents were presented to Obama and Trump. Your post is some serious disinformation.
Ok, so that's the template that make fake news legitimate. 1) Get a dossier from an anonymous source claiming X did Y. According to you, it doesn't even have to exist. 2) Report on the existence of the dossier, making sure to click-bait the hell out the Y. 3) When criticized, respond that you are are "just reporting." How well would it go over with you if Fox had started reporting on the existence of an a dossier fro…
The source (unless you are referring to some intermediary source that delivered the dossier to the media rather than the original source) is not anonymous; media covered his background more than his identity because "former British intelligence officer" conveys more meaningful information than "Christopher Steele".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Asked about X, press secretary didn't provide more details." is still interesting information. Well... during more normal times anyways. I do agree it could be more transparent and useful than a reality show however.
Indeed. Refusals to answer, evasions, and lies are also valuable information.
This country appears to be on a very dangerous path. I don't remotely deny Trump and his administration's responsibility and complicity for taking us down this path, but given how widely understood his issues are within mainstream discourse, I wanted to take a step back and critically look at the not-Trump aspects. Firstly, Trump needs to be understood in context as the outsider who none of the establishment took ser…
Trump really did say he wanted to murder the children of terrorists. He really did say the press is the enemy of the American people. He really did trash American war heroes who were captured in combat. Et cetera, ad nauseum.
How do you write a story about that without making it seem biased? Nobody would believe he said those things. It must be an exaggeration. It must be unfair reporting. And look, that's what he's claiming. That must be it.
But you can actually watch him speak and it's horrifying. What will it take for people to accept he's an actual threat to the country? Will he have to grow a tiny mustache before you believe he's Hitler-in-wait? He'll just muddy the waters by explicitly lying and blame media bias no matter how bad the things really are.
Maybe in 4 years when we have an election and he refuses to step down because the election was illegitimate -- he actually won, the media lied about the vote totals, millions of illegal voters tipped the scales -- after having replaced the entire national security/military apparatus with rabid loyalists.
Perhaps a terrorist attack will happen and he'll execute a power grab, declare the courts irrelevant or martial law during these trying times where national security is the utmost concern.
Maybe then people will accept it. Or maybe they'll say "how do we know? There must be something to what he's saying, I'm sure he's not really that sinister. The media is biased too, we had better listen to both sides I'm sure the truth is somewhere in the middle. "