Total posts: 1,971
-->
@Greyparrot
The big problem with combatting climate change and poverty is that they too often have conflicting solutions. As Thomas Sowell said, “There are no solutions, just trade offs.”
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People leaving California will definitely lessen the state’s carbon footprint.
Created:
-->
@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.”
Created:
-->
@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…
Created:
-->
@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though: televised news went from being subsidized by networks to being self sustaining, and the Fairness Doctrine was repealed.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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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…
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.
Created:
-->
@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.”
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Even after I say this:
“…yet another in a long list of reasons for this growing mistrust.”
… meaning that this thread topic is just one of “a long list of reasons.” You respond as though I didn’t just say this. You pretend as if this is the one and only example in existence. Whereas you see Trump as the source of this mistrust, I see him as more of a symptom or even a result of this mistrust. The former is mistrust on command (I guess?), while the latter constitutes a mutual agreement that mistrust exists and is warranted.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You neglected to use Critical Trump Theory in your assessment of Biden.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'd guess it was a PR move to avoid people like yourself using it to claim this memo proves the MSM and the democrats are working together.
Oh, Zing!! I just now looked up the Fox article on this. It gives pushback to the memo. Neither of us should be surprised.
Because the White House shouldn't be dictating to media outlets what they cover,
Ok, this shows you get half of what I’m saying.
If I tell you to tie your shoes before you leave the house tomorrow and you do, is that compliance?
And this shows that you’re completely missing the other half. Yes, that is compliance! The proper response would be one of pushback, such as “I don’t need you to tell me when to tie my shoes, thank you.” This is NOT about whether the instruction is congruent with reality.
The media response could and should have been something along these lines: “While this news organization has no issue with the actual contents of the Whitehouse memo from a factual standpoint, we do consider the issuance of such a memo to be a breach of decorum. A free and independent press is pivotal to sustaining our democracy and cannot afford even the appearance of having a cooperative and compliant relationship with the very governmental power we are charged with keeping accountable. The unintended irony of the Whitehouse instructing media to keep the GOP controlled House accountable cannot be overstated.”
In itself, this is not a HUGE deal. What IS a big deal is the growing mistrust much of the citizenry has for many of our institutions. This particular misstep (as I see it) between the Whitehouse and a major media outlet is yet another in a long list of reasons for this growing mistrust.
But that mistrust is not based on facts, that's the point.
This is just as I predicted. I’m fully aware this is what you believe, therefor you will have set a very high bar for that belief to be challenged. I have offered a factual Whitehouse overreach (which you agree as constituting overreach), and I have offered an example of compliance with that overreach, which you do not agree to. I fully understand that this is insufficient to pass over the high bar you have set. I expect this to be the case, as it is human nature.
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.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
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.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Does it actually portray a cozy relationship, or just an alignment between them regarding the facts at hand? I would argue the only thing your example demonstrates is the latter which I personally don't find worthy of attention or concern.The facts aren't really debatable either, republicans have said themselves the whole point of the impeachment inquiry is to give them the power to find the evidence (which itself is not even true). So what are news networks supposed to do with that? There is a difference between objective journalism and neutral journalism. Their job is to be the former, not the latter.The rest of your post on this part is an extension of this same issue. You are portraying MSM through CNN of not being what it's supposed to be with regards to its role in our political eco system, but the only reason you believe this clip supports that notion is because you already accept that conclusion. So essentially its begging the question. You can easily say the same is true of me, that I reject your notion because of my preconceptions, which I don't disagree with, but that's why we need to begin with the facts at hand. Do the republicans have any evidence to warrant their actions? The answer to that question leads to the rest.
(This is a retype from an accidental deletion, so it might be rushed)
Your false presumptions aside, I’m afraid that all this misses my point: the Whitehouse went out of its lane in the memo, and CNN reporter Oliver Darcy not only failed to point this out, he basically spent his entire article validating the memo. Whether media is “in alignment” or not with the Whitehouse should be purely incidental to its central job of reporting “without passion or prejudice.” If the Whitehouse doesn’t stay within its role, the media response should be pushback, not compliance! As I already said, look at Darcy’s coverage of the Trump rally— nothing but pushback in that coverage.
I’m finding myself just repeating or rewording what I have already said at length. If you truly don’t get… or align with what I’m saying, then we will have to agree to disagree.
And yet Fox news is by far the largest out of all of them, so painting it as merely 1 out of 10 Isa fallacious attempt to minimize its impact.
“Painting” it as 1 out of 10? It actually is!
As for breadth of impact, if you can, cite the stats that show Fox has greater influence than CNN, MSNBC, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, and AP combined. If you cannot, well… I think you know what that means…
If you believe our country is fairly evenly split between right wing consumers vs left wing consumers, and you believe the vast majority of right wing viewers are not getting their information from CNN or MSNBC, then you cannot argue the other "10 major outlets" comprise of the majority of news consummation.
And if I do not believe those things, then your conclusion does not apply to me.
I don't take issue with blasting CNN for being "unjournalistic" provided we all accept that Fox and nearly all of its right wing co-networks are not up to that standard.
I already conceded this about Fox in my post. You often respond as though I have not said what I have said.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Here’s an honest question for you: why do you think the Whitehouse included Fox News, the pro GOP outlier, in the memo? I don’t actually have a good working theory on that decision…
Also, why wouldn’t you issue such a memo?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
And it still stands.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If the press is doing their job of reporting the facts, then there is no need to send them a letter asking them to do their job.
You don’t think the press has been doing its job properly?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So, by your reasoning, every administration which does NOT issue an exhortation to the press DOES have a compliant media?
Created:
-->
@FLRW
That’s better!
Created:
-->
@FLRW
What happened to Jack Ryan?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Welcome back! Hope all is well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I’m surprised Kim Jong Un hasn’t had his barber executed by now.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Shhh… I’m sleeping.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
How could I forget?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Given the nature of the relationship the prior administration had with the largest cable news network on television, what about this example do you find worthy of our attention?
The Whitehouse memo and CNN article betray a rather “cozy” relationship between government power and the “free and independent”institution charged with keeping that power in check, which undermines the public trust in its institutions.
When I learned of the memo, I wondered how Ian Sams, the Whitehouse spokesman, would have the chutzpah to advise the press, namely “CNN, The New York Times, Fox News, the Associated Press, CBS News, and others” on how to cover more properly government proceedings regarding… the Whitehouse itself! That just reeks of a conflict of interests. I mean, the press has already been casting doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings! Is it because Ian Sams is so arrogant as to believe, on some level, that the press corps constitutes a de facto public relations firm for the Biden Whitehouse? Actually, I can see how he might have developed that very notion.
Flipping over to Oliver Darcy’s, CNN reporter (not a columnist), article, one can see how he reports on the memo. Does he:
- mention that the press is a check on government power, AND that the Whitehouse is a large aspect of that power?
- mention how highly unusual such a memo is?
- mention that the Whitehouse is overstepping its jurisdiction with the memo?
- reproduce the memo in its entirety?
- conduct interviews with relevant authorities on the appropriateness of such a memo?
No. Instead, he writes:
“The White House sent a letter to top US news executives on Wednesday, urging them to intensify their scrutiny of House Republicans after Speaker Kevin McCarthy launched an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, despite having found no evidence of a crime.”
He opens with the common press refrain “no evidence of a crime.” Straight out of the chute, he shows how amenable he is to this exhortation from the very power he is supposed to be keeping in check.
“The correspondence comes one day after McCarthy announced that he had directed three House committees to begin an impeachment inquiry into Biden. House Republicans, most of whom have denied that disgraced former President Donald Trump committed any wrongdoing, have long sought to baselessly portray Biden as a corrupt, crime-ridden politician engaged in sinister activities.”
One day after? The Whitehouse is wasting no time here. Darcy, again— a reporter, not a columnist, frames the whole thing as “Trump: disgraced; GOP: hypocritical; Biden: innocent.” It’s all “just the facts!”
“While news organizations have published innumerable fact checks on the matter, they have also often failed to robustly call out the mis- and disinformation peddled by Republicans in their coverage, frustrating officials in the Biden White House who believe that the news media should be doing more to dispel lies that saturate the public discourse.”
Here, Darcy basically states his complete agreement and grants total validation for the existence of such an exhortation from the Whitehouse to the press. Stay independent there, reporter Darcy!
He goes on to quote some, but not all, of its contents:
“”Covering impeachment as a process story – Republicans say X, but the White House says Y – is a disservice to the American public who relies on the independent press to hold those in power accountable,” Sams wrote.”
How interesting— Sams is exhorting the press to maintain its independent check on those in power… hmmm… I can cut the irony with a knife! Maybe Sams believes subconsciously that the press is only a check on GOP power? Does Darcy note this irony? Nope. He’s too busy being in agreement with the memo, you know, as a responsible, independent news reporter.
Finally, he concludes his “objective and dispassionate” article, presumably written from the inside of President Biden’s colon, with this very subtle change to the claim with which he opened:
“The Republican House-led investigations into Biden have yet to provide any direct evidence that the president financially benefited from Hunter Biden’s career overseas.”
Did anyone notice? In the beginning, he said “no evidence!” Here, at the conclusion, he subtly adds a pivotal descriptor: no “direct evidence.” How very interesting…
Now, to compare with Trump’s actions…
It is no secret that Trump views Fox News as his personal PR firm. But he clearly sees the rest of major media as enemies. You know this. Yes, all the pundits at Fox play right into Trump’s lap. If one hates Trump, one will not enjoy Fox’s very protracted and prominently scheduled opinion segments. Although Fox does still offer pushback to Trump’s demands at times, I don’t wish to open up that can of worms tit for tat and am willing to “hand Fox media over to Trump and his followers.” Fox comprises one out of 3 cable networks and one out of… I don’t know… 10 major news outlets?
As I said, you don’t see Fox News as comparable to CNN at all. Doesn’t CNN et al hold themselves to a higher standard? Yet you wish to directly compare them when it suits you.
So, when Hannity, a pundit, not a reporter, stumped for Trump, how did CNN cover that blatant breach of decorum? As I pointed out earlier in this thread, it was none other than objective CNN reporter Oliver Darcy presenting us with this article:
You might notice a little difference in both tone and messaging.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Too bad Colbert is a Catholic. Technically, that makes him deluded in the eyes of the progressive movement.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Setting that aside, I get what you're saying regarding my tone and for whatever it's worth it's not the kind of member I try to be so I don't just brush that off.
I appreciate that.
Again, I have ample response to everything else you have said, but I’m not in the mood to keep this “endless loop” going… endlessly. I will retract the “must be read to be believed” if that is the sticking point. With that, would you like to rewrite your initial response?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Pakman is in the nonsense business.
You think so?
“McCarthy’s impeachment stunt lacks any evidence”
“Are Trump’s lawyers really going to make these legal arguments?”
“Be mindful of Ramaswamy’s lying techniques”
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
It’s funny that you truly believe that reality itself exhibits a bias on the political spectrum. Again, free to make a thread about it; I’ll be there, Captain!
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The MAGA MORON had the opinion that reality was biased to liberals. It was an ironic statement because MAGA MORON didn’t realize how foolish it is to complain about the media reporting reality. Get it?
Yes, I get it fine.
You thought the joke was about liberals when in reality it was a joke about conservatives. Now that you showed that you didn’t understand the joke, the joke is on you. Perfect!
Incorrect. You are making assumptions. Emphasis on the ass. As a reminder, you are the one who didn’t “get” my post 15, Captain Reality.
In any case, feel free to start a thread about reality having a liberal bias. I will contribute, and that is a promise (or is it a threat?)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Me, too. You believe that he, as a comedian and satirist, was stating a fact?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
If I were to say, “Left leaning media tends to be unbiased and objective because reality itself is left leaning,” someone like yourself might think I was stating a fact. Oh, wait… I did say that, and you did think that.
Do you know the origin of “reality has a liberal bias”?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You say reality is left leaning
Sarcasm seems to be lost on you.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
David Pakman tells MAGA morons what they want to hear? That’s a new one. You know what happens when you assume!
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
They don’t pick favorable stories for Democrats and unfavorable stories for Republicans.
This is just precious…
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
As my post 15 attests
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Sadly, your sarcasm is correct; I shouldn’t be shocked by this partisan favoritism in news reporting…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem is that of the two types of thinking, this site exhibits the first type. It is well on its way to becoming solely the echo chamber and troll playground it always wanted to be, if not DOA altogether…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
What I do is get sleepy when I’m bored. Nighty night…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I’ve seen you debate. Suffice it to say, I’m not missing much…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I prefer dialectic. A man can dream…
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Missed this earlier:
However, when it comes to what we should be focused on and how much attention should be paid to it... That's a different thing.
The problem here is one of your presentation it seems. Instead of disagreeing more agreeably and honestly, such as:
“I don’t agree with the memo being sent, but I think we as a nation have bigger fish to fry with the prospect of another Biden/Trump matchup in 2024.” Etc…
You felt the need to begin aggressively and dismissively with “Your view on the matter is biased because [assumption] and can be disregarded because [fallacy].” (Paraphrased, not actual quote)
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Frankly, it seems to be THE thread of choice currently. A low bar in this wasteland of a site, I know…
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Does this mean we can’t play anymore? Oh, fiddlesticks!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Ooh! I bet you wash your whites with bleeatch.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Here are examples to show why X is actually unremarkable..."
In your own view, Biden is not comparable to Trump; Fox is not comparable to CNN. And I will add, because you didn’t seem to hear me the first time, Hannity is not a news anchor. And Fox staffers were livid about it, fyi. Yet you compare them when it is convenient for you.
We can add “false equivalencies” to the list.
Edit:
“Here are examples to show why X is actually unremarkable..."
All of which involve “Trump did it, too!”
Created: