White House issues marching orders to media outlets

Author: cristo71
Politics
President
Media

Posts

Total: 451
Topic's author
#331
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
this is an example you clearly felt was representative of that list.
Representative? No, its most relevant quality is recency. It occurred very recently.

Anyone can be villainized. When you have that level of resources devoted towards finding anything about you or your organization to highlight as an example of your untrustworthyness or worse, coupled with an audience looking to validate the preconceived notions you helped create there's only one way this goes.
Sure, but you state this as if it only cuts one way, which is precisely why I facetiously stated this earlier:

“Clearly, the agenda is to paint any right wing mistrust in institutions as ill-founded. Everyone knows that the only rational mistrust comes from the left.”
#332
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
a point where there exists an entire media ecosystem built on telling people no one or there can be trusted and that the cause of their problems is [insert villain here]
Should the media ever start with a presumption that the government is trustworthy? What is the benefit to society when speech does not primarily focus on truth in opposition to power? What is the benefit to society when speech primarily omits the transgressions of power?
Topic's author
#333
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The left seems to know academically that the right is reactive, but the left seems to forget this in practice. Fox News did not originate out of a vacuum. It was basically a reaction to a preponderance of left leaning media. (MSNBC was then a reaction to Fox) It appears to me that Fox’s existence has driven other media a bit further left as a counterbalance of sorts.

Trump’s prominence is also a reaction— to the rise of political correctness, etc. When “the pendulum” will moderate is anyone’s guess.
#334
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
Trump’s prominence is also a reaction— to the rise of political correctness,
Ya, conservatives are pissed they can’t use the N word anymore.

#335
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
And if you vote for conservatives, then you aint black.

-Joe Biden, expert on racial jungles.
#336
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Sure, but you state this as if it only cuts one way, which is precisely why I facetiously stated this earlier:

“Clearly, the agenda is to paint any right wing mistrust in institutions as ill-founded. Everyone knows that the only rational mistrust comes from the left.”
It's not an agenda, it's an assessment based on examples like the one we're talking about and following the trends between things like what Trump says and the shifting of public opinion that immediately follows.

That is of course setting aside the absolutest language you use to describe it. Everything is case by case, my critiques of the political right on this have mostly been generalizations, not to paint "any" mistrust as being irrational.
Topic's author
#337
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Your post 326:

But that mistrust is not based on facts, that's the point.
Your post 330 (consistent with the above):

if there were better examples someone would have provided them by now.
Then your latest, which is inconsistent with the above:

not to paint "any" mistrust as being irrational.
This is what I mean when I say that you employ gaslighting. You say one thing in one post only to walk it back or contradict yourself somehow in a later post. It makes for a poor basis for meaningful discussion.
#338
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Should the media ever start with a presumption that the government is trustworthy?
There is no such thing as "the government". It's not a thing that exists, it's an entity that we invented in paper which is represented in real life by actual people.

When it comes to evaluating the trustworthyness of any government official or group of people working in a government agency we have to look at their individual circumstances to determine what level of trust is appropriate. Does this individual have any reason to lie? Would doing so likely harm or help their personal well being? Does this individual have a history of lying? Etc.

People (as a generalization) will always act within their own personal best interests, we need to understand what those interests are before we can make a proper assessment, but within all of this the default position is to tentatively trust what an individual says until we have justification not to. 

What is the benefit to society when speech does not primarily focus on truth in opposition to power? What is the benefit to society when speech primarily omits the transgressions of power?
I have no idea where these questions are coming from, these are not my presumptions.
#339
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I wasn't accusing you. I was just saying, philosophically, what's the ideal framework the media should operate in?

Within all of this the default position is to tentatively trust what an individual says until we have justification not to. 
Why is this more philosophically important than a neutral attitude? Why should the media presume innocence before guilt?
#340
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
This is what I mean when I say that you employ gaslighting. You say one thing in one post only to walk it back or contradict yourself somehow in a later post.
It's not gaslighting, you're misrepresenting my argument. Here's is the full exchange on that first part:

Point out one of many reasons for the public’s growing mistrust in our institutions, and you get “But Trump tho!” It never seems to occur to them that part (or much) of Trump’s popularity is precisely because of that mistrust.
But that mistrust is not based on facts, that's the point.
And here is the full quote to the second part showing what you left off:

Everything is case by case, my critiques of the political right on this have mostly been generalizations, not to paint "any" mistrust as being irrational.
The message here has been entirely consistent. When I talk about mistrust as a product of propaganda, I'm speaking generally about the political right. What your post implied was that leftists like myself dismiss any mistrust, as if to say no individual case could be rational. Those are two different things and the latter is a strawman. Any one individual might have a reasonable case to make based on their knowledge and/or experiences. But when I step back and look at this from 30k feet, that's not what I see overall.
Topic's author
#341
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
My, but you tread a very thin line rhetorically! As we share virtually no frames of reference (which I have said before), striving for clarity is paramount.

As another example:

Everything is case by case, my critiques of the political right on this have mostly been generalizations
Here, you mention “case by case,” implying specificity, and in the same sentence you say “generalizations.” Do you mean to say, “Whereas you mention a specific case here, my critiques have mostly been generalizations”? I just cannot tell…

#342
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
with the role of the media, if I were to use a courtroom analogy, the media should be the prosecutor, the political powerful should be the defense attorneys, and the judge should be the public. When the Defense attorneys are found habitually colluding with the prosecutors, you know that the judge is going to eventually get pissed.
#343
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is this more philosophically important than a neutral attitude? Why should the media presume innocence before guilt?
Actions and attitude are two different things. You can be neutral in terms of your attitude but when it comes to how you proceed in terms of your actions there is no third option, you either align your actions with trust or you align your actions with distrust.

In our criminal justice system, a hung jury (symbolic of neutrality) would result in an acuital, which means treating the defendant as if he were innocent and letting him go (aligning with trust). The only other alternative is to keep him incarcerated (aligning with distrust).

Because neutrality does not translate in terms of how we act, a default position is logically necessary. In the criminal justice system you can either be innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. Your default mirrors your values. As a society we value protection of the innocence over punishment of the guilty, so we choose innocent until proven guilty.

So what should or default position be with regards to our institutions? Should we trust them until given a valid reason not to, or should we distrust them until given a valid reason to trust them?

I don't think this is a difficult choice because the latter is untenable. The US has become the most accomplished and most powerful nation on earth as well as the envy of the world (although that's questionable over the past decade). We accomplished this because of the strength of our institutions, and that strength is a direct result of the trust we as nation have had in them. Institutions that are not trusted are useless.

Also because it is nearly impossible to prove trustworthiness, that's almost like proving a negative. I could do the right thing 100 times, doesn't prove that I'm not waiting for the right opportunity to abuse my position. Meanwhile if I do the wrong thing once it proves I'm not trustworthy. There's an unavoidable imbalance there weighing against trust, the only way to balance out is through trust as our default.
#344
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Here, you mention “case by case,” implying specificity, and in the same sentence you say “generalizations.” Do you mean to say, “Whereas you mention a specific case here, my critiques have mostly been generalizations”? I just cannot tell…
I was contrasting two different things, that's why they were in the same sentence.
#345
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The US has become the most accomplished and most powerful nation on earth as well as the envy of the world (although that's questionable over the past decade). We accomplished this because of the strength of our institutions, 

I disagree, America achieved unique prosperity through the trust of the people to manage most of their own affairs without institutions. The Bill Of Rights is one unique American thing that keeps institutions out of the way of the people. The Bill of Rights entrusts the people with liberty and freedom.
Topic's author
#346
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
I was contrasting two different things, that's why they were in the same sentence.
That was very unclear because you referred to one of those things as “everything.” I don’t think clarity is too much to ask if meaningful discussion is truly what you want.
#347
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
I disagree, America achieved unique prosperity through the trust of the people to manage most of their own affairs without institutions. The Bill Of Rights is one unique American thing that keeps institutions out of the way of the people.
Institutions are the very thing that protect the people and create the environment that allows them to thrive in the first place. 

A strong functioning government ensures that the money our economy was built off retains it's value.

A fair and aggressive department of justice ensures those who break the rules will be equally held accountable.

Strong regulatory agencies ensure consumers are protected from predatory business practices, which in  turn boosts consumer confidence thereby increasing economic activity.

A free independent press ensures people can trust that they know what is happening in our society. 

Etc etc etc.

These are things that non-prosperous countries lack. I don't know why you seem to think institutions are the enemy of a thriving society, it's the exact opposite. And it all requires trust in order to work.
#348
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The Bill of Rights, (the first ten amendments), is designed to protect the rights and freedoms of American citizens from potential abuses by the government and its institutions. These amendments include vital protections such as freedom of speech, religion, the press, the right to bear arms, safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to remain silent during an interrogation, among numerous others.

The Bill of Rights sets limits on the government's power and authority, which ensures that Americans have certain fundamental (inalienable) rights ensuring individual liberty that the government cannot infringe upon without due process and a compelling reason. The purpose is to protect citizens from potential abuse of government authority and government institutions and to uphold principles of individual liberty and justice.

The Bill of Rights protects the people from institutional abuse by the government.

Do you agree?
#349
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
There used to be a time when the motto of a free press was to report "without fear or favor"


Topic's author
#350
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Now, it could be “we give our readers/viewers what they want and expect.” A case has been made that journalism has always had its pet biases, interestingly. I think a few big shifts have occurred in or near my lifetime though:  televised news went from being subsidized by networks to being self sustaining, and the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. Today, it is more or less a collection of echo chambers, with each complaining about its ideological counterpart.
Topic's author
#351
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
to protect the rights and freedoms of American citizens from potential abuses by the government and its institutions.
Remember that not all institutions are entirely governmental:  there is also science, medicine and healthcare, corporations, and, of course, the press…


#352
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Today, it is more or less a collection of echo chambers, with each complaining about its ideological counterpart.
I think it's evolved to a worse standard, in that billionaires now own the most watched venues, and news is simply an extension of the oligarchy fighting among other oligarchs behind the scenes. It's an evolution of vested interest biases. The same people pulling the strings on the WH administration also pull the media strings.
#353
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
there is also science, medicine and healthcare, corporations, and, of course, the press…
All fields that are today heavily dominated, regulated, and controlled by the government.
#354
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,854
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
The Bill of Rights protects the people from institutional abuse by the government.

Do you agree?
Uh, yeah. That's a big reason why our institutions have remained strong, thereby gaining the trust of the citizenry.
#355
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I disagree, America achieved unique prosperity through the trust of the people to manage most of their own affairs without institutions. The Bill Of Rights is one unique American thing that keeps institutions out of the way of the people. The Bill of Rights entrusts the people with liberty and freedom.
The preamble to the Constitution says its purpose is to “promote the general welfare”. 

The Federal Government is supposed to promote the general welfare of every American.

I mean look at yourself, if you hadn’t inherited your mother’s house and had an adult life with a wife and kids, you would likely be struggling to make ends meet.
If all Americans lived their lives like yours, our economy would collapse and our population would be shrinking.

#356
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
 our economy would collapse and our population would be shrinking.
Both of these are happening. The child rate is at 1.94 right now. Anything below 2 is below replacement level.
#357
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,017
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Greyparrot


Both of these are happening. The child rate is at 1.94 right now. Anything below 2 is below replacement level.
Yes, this is why we need open borders. I don't want to wait in a line at McDonalds.

#358
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
The Federal Government is supposed to promote the general welfare of every American.
good word: supposed

And yet we get crap like the Iraq debacle, Ukraine corruption, Patriot act tyranny, brutal, unfair, and arbitrary Covid lockdowns, unchecked unsustainable debt, planned inflation, race baiting policies based on skin color, destruction of private health insurance plans, unsustainable government regulated housing, unsustainable green energy mandates, mandatory sexualization and sterilization of children against a parent's wishes, mandatory taxes to support illegal invaders, massive crony bank and corporate bailouts, and a mandatory sketchy vax subsidizing crony corporate big Pharma.

All under the "supposed" illusion of "the general welfare"

With welfare like this, who needs destitution?
#359
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27,936
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
I suppose today's fatcat politician lounging in his mansion reads the Constitution as: "promote the general's welfare"
Topic's author
#360
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,949
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
The military is another institution worthy of doubt with the Afghanistan debacle, Austin and Milley not resigning over it, and Milley’s infamous desire to “understand white rage.”