The Trump Presidency

Metaphysicist said:
Sure, they are great examples of spin. I'm on board with that. But that's pretty different that what I quoted.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

I noted that both RT and BBC are subject to oversight bias and that Breitbart now has a higher degree of utility because it's essentially a direct conduit to the White House.

Believe it or not, it is possible to consume media without divorcing from ideology.

If you dismiss the NYTimes, you have bought into propaganda. End of story.
Click to expand...

I would argue that exact opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...imes-editor-we-failed-to-do-our-job-after-911
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/208468-after-snowden-nyt-less-trustful-of-government-warnings

No news organization is perfect, but the first step in an objective criticism of one is an acknowledgment of its shortcomings, influences, financiers, and history.
 
Metaphysicist said:
... those are wire services.
Click to expand...

In a traditional sense, yeah, but they publish online now (as well as actively engage on social media) so their reach is arguably greater than any print publication (or singular print publication with a digital component).

There is more to a news outlet than that.
Click to expand...

Like what?

I stand by my statement that no American media outlet has the depth, breath, and quality of reporting that the Times does.
Click to expand...

Your original comment was "no extant media outlet" and now it's "no American media outlet" ... which is it?

Are we talking about print or beyond?

Even if you are referring strictly to print that argument is a poor one to try and make. What about McClatchy? Gannett?
 
Hawk said:
No, it's not.

I noted that both RT and BBC are subject to oversight bias and that Breitbart now has a higher degree of utility because it's essentially a direct conduit to the White House.

Believe it or not, it is possible to consume media without divorcing from ideology.

I would argue that exact opposite.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/g...imes-editor-we-failed-to-do-our-job-after-911
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/208468-after-snowden-nyt-less-trustful-of-government-warnings

No news organization is perfect, but the first step in an objective criticism is an admittance of its shortcomings, influences, financiers, and history.
Click to expand...

I think that criticism of the NYT is fair, and I'd add that the Judith Miller/Iraq intel reporting was particularly egregious. It's worth noting, though, that the Times did some serious bloodletting and public self-flagellation in the wake of that. Also, in the article linked above, he is specifically responding to concerns aired by his own reporter.
 
Julio3000 said:
I think that criticism of the NYT is fair, and I'd add that the Judith Miller/Iraq intel reporting was particularly egregious. It's worth noting, though, that the Times did some serious bloodletting and public self-flagellation in the wake of that. Also, in the article linked above, he is specifically responding to concerns aired by his own reporter.
Click to expand...

He also engages in a little doublespeak about to The Guardian 'beating' the Times to the Snowden story. They weren't beat. Snowden specifically chose The Guardian because he didn't trust the 'quality reporting' of the paper of record.

Doesn't that have to be considered enormously telling?
 
Hawk said:
Let's not forget that Spicer is Reince's guy from the RNC, so it seems likely that he came 'recommended' in the Priebus package.
Click to expand...

I gather that Spicer wasn't Trump's first choice but was something of a sop to Priebus. I also think that he's going to end up being a sacrificial lamb.

JMO, but I think that given the messy transition and a suspicion that the beginning of the administration was going to be rocky, he's been set up to be the first one to fall on his sword, after which the favored candidate of another faction will get the spot.

I think he's been pretty ill-served by his boss, e.g. his castigation of the press corps for using the word "ban," followed by his boss's consistent use of the term.
 
Hawk said:
He also engages in a little doublespeak about to The Guardian 'beating' the Times to the Snowden story. They weren't beat. Snowden specifically chose The Guardian because he didn't trust the 'quality reporting' of the paper of record.

Doesn't that have to be considered enormously telling?
Click to expand...

I think it's relevant, but "enormously telling" is pretty subjective and subject to context that is probably beyond my--or your--ken.
 
Ian Millhiser ‏@imillhiser 18m18 minutes ago

The senators who opposed DeVos represent 36 million more people than her supporters do
 
Taking for granted most saw the Presidents list of terrorist attaks .
In that light this tweet today

John Weaver ‏@JWGOP 1h1 hour ago

Any "terror list" excluding Sandy Hook, Emanuel AME, Aurora, Roseburg, Santa Barbara, Oak Creek, etc. not accurate picture of terror in USA.

Question to my enabling Trump friends -- why would they leave those off ?
 
Julio3000 said:
Okay. And, at the risk of repeating myself, I've got to ask if you consider the relevant oversight, and thus bias, to be equivalent.
Click to expand...

Insofar as it pertains to promulgating stories which guard sociopolitical/geopolitical interests, yes.
 
57Brave said:
why would they leave those off ?
Click to expand...

They said the list was comprised of examples of terrorist attacks which 'did not receive enough' media attention.

So that would be one obvious answer as to why the domestic terror attacks you listed were not on said list.
 
Or how about the distinction between a global ideology that dangers the livelihood of the free world and all others that are not connected in the slightest.
 
Hawk said:
They said the list was comprised of examples of terrorist attacks which 'did not receive enough' media attention.

So that would be one obvious answer as to why the domestic terror attacks you listed were not on said list.
Click to expand...

Are we all just going to pretend that's a fact and those things weren't covered?

Cause they were
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top