Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree22Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 19th, 2017, 04:03 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Singapore
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
None of this is new. Labels? Because I opposed the Iraq War I and others like me were labeled traitors by angry and sometimes threatening Republicans. The press of 2002-2003 was a cheerleader for the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the US. A responsible, incisive press was absent in the run-up to the invasion. The huge demonstrations all over the world were barely covered if at all by the US press.

I don't defend a lying press or a lying president, so please rein in your assumptions.

Yes, I wail and lament Trump and his presidency. The fascist label is unneeded and not a part of my intense dislike for him. His environmental policies and attitude, his position on coal use, his idiotic failure to appreciate our national parks and monuments, his failure to recognize Putin as an enemy.... frankly, I don't agree with him on anything of consequence.

It's my right and duty to oppose his policies, and the man himself. He's a pitiful role model for our children.

So, the angst you feel for leftists and Trump opponents I've been feeling since the Vietnam War. All these undeclared wars share one common denominator, which you've already mentioned: making money.
Disagreeing with policy has been around forever. That is not new. What is new is supporting a press and hoping that the press can nullify an election by reporting unsubstantiated stories as fact. To cheer on this act by the press is unconscionable. Trump might take care of Trump,but watching the press whip it up without any proof is scary. You are it appears saying whatever the ends justifies the means. So much for the Democratic process.
Thanks from Caliburnus
username is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 06:16 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
Disagreeing with policy has been around forever. That is not new. What is new is supporting a press and hoping that the press can nullify an election by reporting unsubstantiated stories as fact. To cheer on this act by the press is unconscionable. Trump might take care of Trump,but watching the press whip it up without any proof is scary. You are it appears saying whatever the ends justifies the means. So much for the Democratic process.
You completely ignored my references to the Iraq War nor do you seem to understand why I bought it up. The press cheered it on, and truly worse, the press did not report the unprecedented worldwide opposition to it. From 2007:
Iraq: Why the media failed


It’s no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio. I’m not going to go into chapter and verse about the media’s specific failures, its credulousness about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds and failure to make clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 — they’re too well known to repeat.

In any case, the real failing was not in any one area; it was across the board. Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about terrorism and the “war on terror” were rarely debated or even discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it wasn’t just a failure of analysis. With some honorable exceptions, good old-fashioned reporting was also absent.

But perhaps the press’s most notable failure was its inability to determine just why this disastrous war was ever launched. Kristina Borjesson, author of “Feet to the Fire,” a collection of interviews with 21 journalists about why the press collapsed, summed this up succinctly. “The thing that I found really profound was that there really was no consensus among this nation’s top messengers about why we went to war,” Borjesson told AlterNet. “[War is the] most extreme activity a nation can engage in, and if they weren’t clear about it, that means the public wasn’t necessarily clear about the real reasons. And I still don’t think the American people are clear about it.”

Of course, the media was not alone in its collapse. Congress rolled over and gave Bush authorization to go to war. And the majority of the American people, traumatized by 9/11, followed their delusional president down the primrose path. Had the media done its job, Bush’s war of choice might still have taken place. But we’ll never know.

Why did the media fail so disastrously in its response to the biggest issue of a generation? To answer this, we need to look at three broad, interrelated areas, which I have called psychological, institutional and ideological. The media had serious preexisting weaknesses on all three fronts, and when a devastating terrorist attack and a radical, reckless and duplicitous administration came together, the result was a perfect storm.
More: Iraq: Why the media failed - Salon.com

The media is imperfect and has always been so. You noted, "Trump might take care of Trump,but watching the press whip it up without any proof is scary."

Yep, I remember 2002 like it was yesterday. We survived Bush. We'll survive Trump, hopefully.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 06:52 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 15,607
Well now, the Lefties are now Putin lovers....LOL...hypocrisy can be a funny thing.
caconservative is offline  
Old May 20th, 2017, 07:23 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Singapore
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
You completely ignored my references to the Iraq War nor do you seem to understand why I bought it up. The press cheered it on, and truly worse, the press did not report the unprecedented worldwide opposition to it. From 2007:
Iraq: Why the media failed


It’s no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio. I’m not going to go into chapter and verse about the media’s specific failures, its credulousness about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds and failure to make clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 — they’re too well known to repeat.

In any case, the real failing was not in any one area; it was across the board. Bush administration lies and distortions went unchallenged, or were actively promoted. Fundamental and problematic assumptions about terrorism and the “war on terror” were rarely debated or even discussed. Vital historical context was almost never provided. And it wasn’t just a failure of analysis. With some honorable exceptions, good old-fashioned reporting was also absent.

But perhaps the press’s most notable failure was its inability to determine just why this disastrous war was ever launched. Kristina Borjesson, author of “Feet to the Fire,” a collection of interviews with 21 journalists about why the press collapsed, summed this up succinctly. “The thing that I found really profound was that there really was no consensus among this nation’s top messengers about why we went to war,” Borjesson told AlterNet. “[War is the] most extreme activity a nation can engage in, and if they weren’t clear about it, that means the public wasn’t necessarily clear about the real reasons. And I still don’t think the American people are clear about it.”

Of course, the media was not alone in its collapse. Congress rolled over and gave Bush authorization to go to war. And the majority of the American people, traumatized by 9/11, followed their delusional president down the primrose path. Had the media done its job, Bush’s war of choice might still have taken place. But we’ll never know.

Why did the media fail so disastrously in its response to the biggest issue of a generation? To answer this, we need to look at three broad, interrelated areas, which I have called psychological, institutional and ideological. The media had serious preexisting weaknesses on all three fronts, and when a devastating terrorist attack and a radical, reckless and duplicitous administration came together, the result was a perfect storm.
More: Iraq: Why the media failed - Salon.com

The media is imperfect and has always been so. You noted, "Trump might take care of Trump,but watching the press whip it up without any proof is scary."

Yep, I remember 2002 like it was yesterday. We survived Bush. We'll survive Trump, hopefully.
The power of the press has been to decided on what stories to print and what not to print. They have the power of deciding on what weight to put behind a story. That has been the role of the press. That is how the press would influence. That is what you are describing. What we have now is the press printing unsubstantiated claims as fact. Almost every Washington Post article that has came out has included no verifiable source. That is tabloid news. That is the stuff you buy at the check out counter. Those papers that headline stories such as Elvis is a alien and still alive as example. That is the type of journalism we are now embracing as factual in order to attempt a political gain.

Last edited by username; May 20th, 2017 at 08:08 AM.
username is offline  
Old May 20th, 2017, 09:44 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
The power of the press has been to decided on what stories to print and what not to print. They have the power of deciding on what weight to put behind a story. That has been the role of the press. That is how the press would influence. That is what you are describing. What we have now is the press printing unsubstantiated claims as fact. Almost every Washington Post article that has came out has included no verifiable source. That is tabloid news. That is the stuff you buy at the check out counter. Those papers that headline stories such as Elvis is a alien and still alive as example. That is the type of journalism we are now embracing as factual in order to attempt a political gain.
Having anonymous sources is regrettable, yet it's nothing new. Yes, the press wields a lot of power and yes this power can be used for political gain, or financial gain. However, Trump has made many, verifiable remarks that cast doubt upon his judgement and fitness for the office of president, like:
You understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.
We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.

We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
Speaking of anonymous sources....
“An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.”
Or unsubstantiated comments:
“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”
Or, flat out departures from reality:
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
Trump's loose connection with reality is much more of an issue than a press doing what it's done for centuries: present biased news stories based on innuendo and shaky information. I don't excuse it, but it's playing second fiddle to the disaster (sometimes) occupying the Whitehouse.
imaginethat is offline  
Old May 20th, 2017, 11:53 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Singapore
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
Having anonymous sources is regrettable, yet it's nothing new. Yes, the press wields a lot of power and yes this power can be used for political gain, or financial gain. However, Trump has made many, verifiable remarks that cast doubt upon his judgement and fitness for the office of president, like:
You understand the expression “prime the pump”?

Yes.
We have to prime the pump.

It’s very Keynesian.

We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?

Priming the pump?

Yeah, have you heard it?

Yes.

Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
Speaking of anonymous sources....
“An ‘extremely credible source’ has called my office and told me that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fraud.”
Or unsubstantiated comments:
“My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well documented, are various other parts of my body.”
Or, flat out departures from reality:
“Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”
Trump's loose connection with reality is much more of an issue than a press doing what it's done for centuries: present biased news stories based on innuendo and shaky information. I don't excuse it, but it's playing second fiddle to the disaster (sometimes) occupying the Whitehouse.
That good sir I am not arguing with! Trump has made plenty of untrue statements. He has called into question his character many times. None of this is in question and the press does and should report about it. My point is that what is happening now is not just a threat to Trump. It is a threat to this entire nation. We can not allow ourselves to give into this idea that if a journalist prints what we want to believe then it is true. We the people have to hold them to standards they use to profess. There was a clip about some interview or panel on CNN. One of the people mentioned something about using the anonymous sources and the host went crazy! She was literally screaming and hollering dont you dare attack the source. What I do not understand is why the poor fellow ask how could he. He does not know who the source is and neither does she. So how can you attack it. It does not even exist.
username is offline  
Old May 20th, 2017, 11:59 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,528
A RW friend (yes I HAVE them--lots of them) and I were talking about the media. She said "I'm so disgusted with the media because I can't believe anything they say." I asked "Don't they display text and video?" She said "Well, sure, but you know THAT can be doctored." I said "Have you checked different media sites or Googled the situation?" She said "Yes, but they could ALL be doctored."
Hmmmmm.....I realize that COULD be true, but it's highly unlikely that every single broadcaster and every tweet and every story in print would intentionally report doctored information. There comes a time when we have to use logic.
My guess is that my friend didn't like what she saw. When we WANT the answer to be different it's easy to deny what "everyone" else is saying/reporting, but sometimes, unfortunately for the denier......it is all true.
Clara007 is online now  
Old May 20th, 2017, 12:07 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Singapore
Posts: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
A RW friend (yes I HAVE them--lots of them) and I were talking about the media. She said "I'm so disgusted with the media because I can't believe anything they say." I asked "Don't they display text and video?" She said "Well, sure, but you know THAT can be doctored." I said "Have you checked different media sites or Googled the situation?" She said "Yes, but they could ALL be doctored."
Hmmmmm.....I realize that COULD be true, but it's highly unlikely that every single broadcaster and every tweet and every story in print would intentionally report doctored information. There comes a time when we have to use logic.
My guess is that my friend didn't like what she saw. When we WANT the answer to be different it's easy to deny what "everyone" else is saying/reporting, but sometimes, unfortunately for the denier......it is all true.
Clara, most of this news we are seeing now is originating from the Washington Post and being carried in different medial outlets. So, yes your friend is right to a great degree. The bulk of the media is reporting unsubstantiated news as facts. Maybe it is true and maybe its not true. One thing that is true that its mostly being supported with anonymous sources. Just stop reporting it as fact is all I ask.
Thanks from Clara007
username is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 04:48 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: earth
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
That good sir I am not arguing with! Trump has made plenty of untrue statements. He has called into question his character many times. None of this is in question and the press does and should report about it. My point is that what is happening now is not just a threat to Trump. It is a threat to this entire nation. We can not allow ourselves to give into this idea that if a journalist prints what we want to believe then it is true. We the people have to hold them to standards they use to profess. There was a clip about some interview or panel on CNN. One of the people mentioned something about using the anonymous sources and the host went crazy! She was literally screaming and hollering dont you dare attack the source. What I do not understand is why the poor fellow ask how could he. He does not know who the source is and neither does she. So how can you attack it. It does not even exist.
Dont worry. Soon we will control the press through the state. Then you and your right wing filth can have something to cry about
Endtherepublic is offline  
Old May 21st, 2017, 05:21 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 53,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by username View Post
That good sir I am not arguing with! Trump has made plenty of untrue statements. He has called into question his character many times. None of this is in question and the press does and should report about it. My point is that what is happening now is not just a threat to Trump. It is a threat to this entire nation. We can not allow ourselves to give into this idea that if a journalist prints what we want to believe then it is true. We the people have to hold them to standards they use to profess. There was a clip about some interview or panel on CNN. One of the people mentioned something about using the anonymous sources and the host went crazy! She was literally screaming and hollering dont you dare attack the source. What I do not understand is why the poor fellow ask how could he. He does not know who the source is and neither does she. So how can you attack it. It does not even exist.
Basically I do agree. In my journalistic career only once did I use an unnamed source ... small town ... no way the person who gave accurate information could go "on the record."

However, the MSM isn't the only media using unnamed sources. Sooooooo many other sources have lower standards than the MSM, the news outlets that will tell anyone anything they want to hear.
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
err, meeting, offers, office, oval, putin, tapes, transcripts



Search tags for this page
Click on a term to search for related topics.
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Trump, Henry Kissinger Meet In Oval Office Amid Watergate Comparisons Santa Current Events 4 May 11th, 2017 04:02 AM
The Oval Office Sabcat Political Humor 0 January 23rd, 2017 06:52 PM
Trump getting ready for his meeting with his buddy Putin. GhostRider Americas 54 January 1st, 2017 10:15 AM
The audacity of the Goofball in the Oval Office! Patriot66 Current Events 61 February 18th, 2016 08:42 AM
President Obama's Oval Office address imaginethat Current Events 24 December 9th, 2015 01:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.