The 45th POTUS - Donald J. Trump

[tragabigzanda]

The rise of the 24 hour news channels has created a hyper partisan landscape the past two decades plus. I don't see that going away anytime soon, if any thing the reds will get redder and blues will get bluer.

Whatever you think of CNN, MSNBC, and key print media players, they don’t intentionally engage in misinformation campaigns. Their reporting is exactly that...reporting.

Ehh...I agree that CNN and MSNBC specifically are doing a good enough job of "reporting." But the NYT has made basically no attempt to hide their liberal bias, nor their preference for HRC in the 2016 election. FoxNews is certainly much more obvious in their bias (and in my personal view vis-a-vis their agenda, downright evil), but the NYT is the definition of a liberal-elite rag:

"REAL ESTATE: Here's what you can buy in Brooklyn for $1.5M!"

"ARTS: ‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism About Apu With a Dismissal
On Sunday night’s “Simpsons,” the writers finally responded to criticism that its character of Apu is an offensive stereotype. It was unsatisfying to many."

And then their reporting on Dem candidates during the 2016 primaries was fifty shades of "Hillary rules the roost while Bernie struggles to keep up."

Nobody reads papers anymore anyway

This was an interesting, if fairly obvious, read:

Politico: How Trump Thrives In News Deserts
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/ ... ers-505605

[4/5]

The rise of the 24 hour news channels has created a hyper partisan landscape the past two decades plus. I don't see that going away anytime soon, if any thing the reds will get redder and blues will get bluer.

Whatever you think of CNN, MSNBC, and key print media players, they don’t intentionally engage in misinformation campaigns. Their reporting is exactly that...reporting.

Ehh...I agree that CNN and MSNBC specifically are doing a good enough job of "reporting." But the NYT has made basically no attempt to hide their liberal bias, nor their preference for HRC in the 2016 election. FoxNews is certainly much more obvious in their bias (and in my personal view vis-a-vis their agenda, downright evil), but the NYT is the definition of a liberal-elite rag:

"REAL ESTATE: Here's what you can buy in Brooklyn for $1.5M!"

"ARTS: ‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism About Apu With a Dismissal
On Sunday night’s “Simpsons,” the writers finally responded to criticism that its character of Apu is an offensive stereotype. It was unsatisfying to many."

And then their reporting on Dem candidates during the 2016 primaries was fifty shades of "Hillary rules the roost while Bernie struggles to keep up."

I still think the Hillary-Bernie stuff was more lazy journalism-by-the-numbers fitting stuff into the preexisting narrative than it was an active attempt to promote Hillary or harm Bernie.

[Norah]

The rise of the 24 hour news channels has created a hyper partisan landscape the past two decades plus. I don't see that going away anytime soon, if any thing the reds will get redder and blues will get bluer.

Whatever you think of CNN, MSNBC, and key print media players, they don’t intentionally engage in misinformation campaigns. Their reporting is exactly that...reporting.

Ehh...I agree that CNN and MSNBC specifically are doing a good enough job of "reporting." But the NYT has made basically no attempt to hide their liberal bias, nor their preference for HRC in the 2016 election. FoxNews is certainly much more obvious in their bias (and in my personal view vis-a-vis their agenda, downright evil), but the NYT is the definition of a liberal-elite rag:

"REAL ESTATE: Here's what you can buy in Brooklyn for $1.5M!"

"ARTS: ‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism About Apu With a Dismissal
On Sunday night’s “Simpsons,” the writers finally responded to criticism that its character of Apu is an offensive stereotype. It was unsatisfying to many."

And then their reporting on Dem candidates during the 2016 primaries was fifty shades of "Hillary rules the roost while Bernie struggles to keep up."

I still think the Hillary-Bernie stuff was more lazy journalism-by-the-numbers fitting stuff into the preexisting narrative than it was an active attempt to promote Hillary or harm Bernie.

agreed

[tragabigzanda]

The rise of the 24 hour news channels has created a hyper partisan landscape the past two decades plus. I don't see that going away anytime soon, if any thing the reds will get redder and blues will get bluer.

Whatever you think of CNN, MSNBC, and key print media players, they don’t intentionally engage in misinformation campaigns. Their reporting is exactly that...reporting.

Ehh...I agree that CNN and MSNBC specifically are doing a good enough job of "reporting." But the NYT has made basically no attempt to hide their liberal bias, nor their preference for HRC in the 2016 election. FoxNews is certainly much more obvious in their bias (and in my personal view vis-a-vis their agenda, downright evil), but the NYT is the definition of a liberal-elite rag:

"REAL ESTATE: Here's what you can buy in Brooklyn for $1.5M!"

"ARTS: ‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism About Apu With a Dismissal
On Sunday night’s “Simpsons,” the writers finally responded to criticism that its character of Apu is an offensive stereotype. It was unsatisfying to many."

And then their reporting on Dem candidates during the 2016 primaries was fifty shades of "Hillary rules the roost while Bernie struggles to keep up."

I still think the Hillary-Bernie stuff was more lazy journalism-by-the-numbers fitting stuff into the preexisting narrative than it was an active attempt to promote Hillary or harm Bernie.

agreed

Uh, you guys are aware of the editorial process at a publication like the NYT, yeah?

[4/5]

One other thing about the NYT -- they were pretty guilty promoting Bush administration stories about WMD and a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Idk if that's too long ago to enter into today's discussion, but there it is.

The NYT also was obsessed with Hillary's email server and gave that equitable attention with Trump's many actual scandals and conflicts of interest.

I don't think "the media" (whatever that's supposed to mean) does a very good and there are clear examples of agendas and biases, but I think that the line between journalism/reporting and commentary/editorializing has become somewhat blurred and that many people don't know the difference. The NYT opinion stuff is very liberal, but I think they probably do a decent job reporting the news of the day. *Shrug*

[tragabigzanda]

One other thing about the NYT -- they were pretty guilty promoting Bush administration stories about WMD and a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Idk if that's too long ago to enter into today's discussion, but there it is.

The NYT also was obsessed with Hillary's email server and gave that equitable attention with Trump's many actual scandals and conflicts of interest.

I don't think "the media" (whatever that's supposed to mean) does a very good and there are clear examples of agendas and biases, but I think that the line between journalism/reporting and commentary/editorializing has become somewhat blurred and that many people don't know the difference. The NYT opinion stuff is very liberal, but I think they probably do a decent job reporting the news of the day. *Shrug*

This is the exact point I just came back here to make. There's been a slow and slippery erosion of the line between reporting and editorializing, and the NYT has made it regular practice to slip a subtle opinion into the headline of what should be a non-biased story.

Your points about the Bush/WMD coverage and Hillary's emails are well taken. As to the former, I do tend to give many publications a pass on their coverage then, because not only had 9/11 completely upended what most US citizens thought of their place in the world, but also because there was no popular outlet for the Seth Abramsons of the world to fact-check their reporting; AP pool sourcing was still a perfectly acceptable source of journalistic integrity.

As for the coverage of Hillary's emails vs. Trump's various scandals, I wouldn't expect them to be equal, because we're talking about one story against a multitude.

But going back to Burt's criticism from yesterday about the good intentions of liberal saviors running afoul of greater public interest (I'm paraphrasing), the NYT are no doubt guilty of this. The WMD coverage is a great example; and more recently, their editorial decision to railroad a liberal populist candidate in favor of the establishment candidate played a huge part in putting Trump in the White House. I'm sure their editors saw Bernie as a dead candidate, and so felt comfort in their playing to Hillary's candidacy over his. I wonder how those water cooler discussions went in the NYT offices on November 9th.

[4/5]

As for the coverage of Hillary's emails vs. Trump's various scandals, I wouldn't expect them to be equal, because we're talking about one story against a multitude.

But going back to Burt's criticism from yesterday about the good intentions of liberal saviors running afoul of greater public interest (I'm paraphrasing), the NYT are no doubt guilty of this. The WMD coverage is a great example; and more recently, their editorial decision to railroad a liberal populist candidate in favor of the establishment candidate played a huge part in putting Trump in the White House. I'm sure their editors saw Bernie as a dead candidate, and so felt comfort in their playing to Hillary's candidacy over his. I wonder how those water cooler discussions went in the NYT offices on November 9th.

I disagree with both of these points. I think that there was a relative balance of Hillary emails vs. the Trump scandal of the day/hour/minute. It's not that they talked about Trump scandals more, they talked about more Trump scandals but devoted relatively equal space on his myriad of scandals versus hers.

"Railroading" Bernie seems like a dramatic charge. Maybe they should have paid more attention to him. 2016 election coverage was pretty horrendous, but I think it has much more to do with fitting stories into lazy, easy to understand storylines than a conspiracy to tank Bernie Sanders' campaign.

[McParadigm]

LOL

F.B.I. Raids Office of Trump’s Longtime Lawyer Michael Cohen
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/u ... cohen.html

The F.B.I. on Monday raided the office of President Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, seizing records related to several topics including payments to a pornographic-film actress.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan obtained the search warrant after receiving a referral from the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, according to Mr. Cohen’s lawyer, who called the search “completely inappropriate and unnecessary.” The search does not appear to be directly related to Mr. Mueller’s investigation, but likely resulted from information he had uncovered and gave to prosecutors in New York.

[doug rr]

[McParadigm]

[tragabigzanda]

Smart move on Mueller's part. Even if he gets canned, there's now a stronger state case running parallel to his fed investigation. While firing Mueller would still be a huge shitstorm for the entire country, at this point I'm feeling fairly confident that his findings will ultimately lead to regime change through one way or another.

[tragabigzanda]

As for the coverage of Hillary's emails vs. Trump's various scandals, I wouldn't expect them to be equal, because we're talking about one story against a multitude.

But going back to Burt's criticism from yesterday about the good intentions of liberal saviors running afoul of greater public interest (I'm paraphrasing), the NYT are no doubt guilty of this. The WMD coverage is a great example; and more recently, their editorial decision to railroad a liberal populist candidate in favor of the establishment candidate played a huge part in putting Trump in the White House. I'm sure their editors saw Bernie as a dead candidate, and so felt comfort in their playing to Hillary's candidacy over his. I wonder how those water cooler discussions went in the NYT offices on November 9th.

I disagree with both of these points. I think that there was a relative balance of Hillary emails vs. the Trump scandal of the day/hour/minute. It's not that they talked about Trump scandals more, they talked about more Trump scandals but devoted relatively equal space on his myriad of scandals versus hers.

"Railroading" Bernie seems like a dramatic charge. Maybe they should have paid more attention to him. 2016 election coverage was pretty horrendous, but I think it has much more to do with fitting stories into lazy, easy to understand storylines than a conspiracy to tank Bernie Sanders' campaign.

Interesting story that just hit the front page of WaPo:


Dennis Kucinich was mocked in his presidential bids. Turns out he was the future of politics.
It’s been six years since Kucinich lost his congressional seat, but the tectonic shifts since then have been his invitation to come in from the fringe. Now, as a candidate running for governor of Ohio, he personifies the current populist moment in American politics — where traditional left-right divisions are becoming obsolete.

That's how you write a compelling lead that drives clicks, elevates the dialogue, and doesn't tip its hat to one particular candidate, ideology, etc. NYT basically does the opposite of this all the time.

[tragabigzanda]

That's the only difference? WTF? What myopic fantasy land do you live in and how does one visit?

It's a function of privilege. My area is mostly upper-middle class white (~50%) and Asian (~35%) and has an average household income close to $200k, so even though I'm not rich like them, the halo effect insulates my family since those aren't the groups being negatively effected by Trump's behavior. There is obviously frustration over his not-so-hidden bigotry and expressions of embarrassment that he is our representative on the world stage, but the day to day is no different than it was under Obama or W.

What, specifically, has he done that has negatively effected you?

Come on, it's plain to see that a lot of his actions -- regulatory rollbacks, deportations, attacking the press, his trade war, his embrace of racists and jingoists -- are immediately anger-inducing and depressing because we know suspect that the eventual outcomes of these actions are going to be very shitty if nothing is done to reverse it.

FTFY.

Eventually is the key word. And I think it depends on what you worry about. I am far more concerned about the unchecked rise of AI in the labor market and my kids competing against the genetically engineered offspring of the ultra-rich than I am about DAPL or the enforcement of immigration laws. That's clearly privilege, but it's also reality.

Agreed, this is the reality of your privilege and understandably effects your outlook on POTUS. But it's also a toxic sort of willful ignorance to say "These things that negatively impact billions of people won't impact me too directly, so I'm not too worried about it." That's the philosophy that saw one of my family members vote for Trump ("my personal tax rate > all other issues").

It's a powerful example of empathy to be able to spend time any significant amount of time caring about things that don't effect you.

FTFY

Privilege is when you don't have to face the consequences of your do-gooder bullshit

And are you implying there are inherently negative consequences to doing good?

No. I wouldn't say inherently. But more often then not there are negative consequences to any policy, and the negative consequences can be catastrophic. Well meaning but ignorant buffoons trying to the right thing (usually in the form of radical, poorly thought out and coercive change) are responsible for a good chunk of the world's misery. It's made worse when privileged do-gooders are sheltered from the mess they create.

"First do no harm" is probably a good thing to remember before storming the Bastille.

Tangentially:

The Hill: Losing humanities in education is propelling a deficit of empathy
http://thehill.com/opinion/education/38 ... of-empathy

[McParadigm]

I’m fully prepared to accept that the White House is made up of a combination of people who do not understand that this was not a Mueller raid, and people who do understand but are scared to bring that up.

[McParadigm]

[96583UP]

will be intesting when Cohen flips

attorney client privelege is not sacred in all circumstances apparently

[doug rr]

he's babbling..love when he talks off the cuff

[4/5]

Dennis Kucinich was mocked in his presidential bids. Turns out he was the future of politics.
It’s been six years since Kucinich lost his congressional seat, but the tectonic shifts since then have been his invitation to come in from the fringe. Now, as a candidate running for governor of Ohio, he personifies the current populist moment in American politics — where traditional left-right divisions are becoming obsolete.

That's how you write a compelling lead that drives clicks, elevates the dialogue, and doesn't tip its hat to one particular candidate, ideology, etc. NYT basically does the opposite of this all the time.

But it's declaring him the "future of politics" and the personification of the current populist movement. (I realize it may not be calling him personally the future of politics, it probably means that he was Sanders and Trump before they were.) It still sounds pretty rosy to me.

I know you're not doing this so I don't want this to sound accusatory, but it's hard for me to not interpret what you're saying as simply wanting favorable media coverage for (presumably) your preferred populist candidates and resenting for the NYT for not being sufficiently populist in its leanings. I don't want to interpret what you're saying that way, so by all means help me out, but that's definitely how I'm reading it right now.

[tragabigzanda]

Dennis Kucinich was mocked in his presidential bids. Turns out he was the future of politics.
It’s been six years since Kucinich lost his congressional seat, but the tectonic shifts since then have been his invitation to come in from the fringe. Now, as a candidate running for governor of Ohio, he personifies the current populist moment in American politics — where traditional left-right divisions are becoming obsolete.

That's how you write a compelling lead that drives clicks, elevates the dialogue, and doesn't tip its hat to one particular candidate, ideology, etc. NYT basically does the opposite of this all the time.

But it's declaring him the "future of politics" and the personification of the current populist movement. (I realize it may not be calling him personally the future of politics, it probably means that he was Sanders and Trump before they were.) It still sounds pretty rosy to me.

I know you're not doing this so I don't want this to sound accusatory, but it's hard for me to not interpret what you're saying as simply wanting favorable media coverage for (presumably) your preferred populist candidates and resenting for the NYT for not being sufficiently populist in its leanings. I don't want to interpret what you're saying that way, so by all means help me out, but that's definitely how I'm reading it right now.

Totally get why you'd think that, but no, I did not vote for Bernie in the election (though I did "strategically vote" for him in the dem primary).

What works about the Kucinich headline is that it would read the same no matter whose name and picture they put at the top, because the read I get is in an evolving landscape, fringe politicians are gaining traction.

[tragabigzanda]

anyway, how long until he's bombing syria?