US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

The perpetrators seem to have given no thought to the idea any attack against any high-profile politico is going to get an extreme amount of scrutiny and vetting.

Unless it's CNN.

[vienna]

There's really a big difference between an error in news reportage (its not yet proven the CNN story was deliberate, in spite of how much the Trump camp may bellow about it) and an actual act of intentional fraud that may even be of a level of criminality...

...unless, of course, criminality is not a problem for the Trump defenders; after all they must still be smarting after they failed to deliberately get a pedophile elected to the Senate...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

There's really a big difference between an error in news reportage (its not yet proven the CNN story was deliberate, in spite of how much the Trump camp may bellow about it) and an actual act of intentional fraud that may even be of a level of criminality...

That is true. But CNN has lost just about all it's hard earned credibility. If you are a fair minded person you cannot look at them in any other way than as a news network with a political agenda. News people are suppose to gather facts, confirm those facts and create a narrative for us to see and read. It is very obvious to me that CNN has already written the narrative and are gathering facts to support that narrative. This is exactly what happened this week with the WikiLeaks/Donald Trump Jr. story. The facts fit their preconceived story perfectly and they ran with it. You can call it an error if you want but I see it as something else. It's an ongoing, purposeful attempt to shape the narrative that they have already decided is true. It's bad journalism. In fact it's not even journalism.

[August]

If this were a single instance Vienna might have a point but CNN has a long and extensive history of biased reporting. They even have their own Wiki page for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

[Rockstar]

Geezuz U-Crank its unfortunate that in this day and age you still have to explain that to people. Personally if and when I watch TV I can see a particular bent to most news stories regardless if its CNN, Fox, CBS who ever. I tend to think in order to gain and keep an audience you must above all tell them what they want to hear, otherwise they'll go elsewhere.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

That is true. But CNN has lost just about all it's hard earned credibility. If you are a fair minded person you cannot look at them in any other way than as a news network with a political agenda. News people are suppose to gather facts, confirm those facts and create a narrative for us to see and read. It is very obvious to me that CNN has already written the narrative and are gathering facts to support that narrative. This is exactly what happened this week with the WikiLeaks/Donald Trump Jr. story. The facts fit their preconceived story perfectly and they ran with it. You can call it an error if you want but I see it as something else. It's an ongoing, purposeful attempt to shape the narrative that they have already decided is true. It's bad journalism. In fact it's not even journalism.

Hmm... interesting...

...and just which news outlet or organization do you see as meeting your requirements of not having a slant or bent, of not having a bias, and of being entirely accurate all the time and in every case, because I would like to find what you have found to be a wholly reliable source, although I feel it would be easier to find, say, a unicorn or Bigfoot...

An intelligent, discerning person would approach any new reportage with a grain of salt; it is never a good practice to accept any reportage of subjective material as hard, solid fact; there will always be a 'taint' and it is up to any reasonably intelligent person to seek out as many different reports and/or sources as needed to either confirm or refute any reportage; to quote a prominent GOP leader: "Trust, but verify". The persons at both ends of the political spectrum seem bent on persuading us only their particular brand of reportage is the gospel truth. Any time someone tries to desperately and loudly sell you their 'snake oil' as being the best and only, its usually because it isn't. The much maligned 'mainstream media' is very much more often right than wrong, and far more right than the Alt-Right media that carps about fake news. The current Schumer events are a prime example: the mainstream sought to verify while the Atl-Right media just ran with the raw story, gloating over how the had a 'Gotcha!' on Schumer and the DEMs, with blaring headlines, only to find the case was far, far different than what the Alt-R was reporting; note also how the Alt-R media, in the wake of the revelation the Schumer report was fraud, has yet to really make retractions, amendations, clarifications, or apologies, things mainstream media do as a matter of course and policy...

Then there is "fake news". The Trump camp and the Alt-R media are always going on about the subject, yet, if you really look at it, the mainstream has been far more accurate than the detractors would have you believe. Let's just loom at the Flynn case as an example;

Report: Flynn had contact with foreign entities
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had meetings with Russians
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had multiple meetings with Russians
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn had meetings with Russians prior to Trump taking office and discussed lifting sanctions
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Report: Flynn asked Russia's ambassador to the US "to refrain from escalating the situation in response to sanctions that the United States had imposed against Russia that same day."
Alt-R/Trump: "Fake News! Fake News!"
...until it was proved true...

Over and over again, the many "fake news" reports regarding the Trump administration have been proven substantially true and the subjects of those reports are now facing criminal charges (a couple have already plead guilty) with more charges to come. In Flynn's case the only real "fake news" was the assertions of the Trump camp that Flynn did not "willfully and knowingly make materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statements” to the FBI (a direct quote form the charges against Flynn to which, he has, in fact, plead guilty). There is far more fakery coming from the Alt-R and the Trump camp than has been coming from the mainstream, with the Trump camp "fake news" being expected, coming as it does from sources supporting a person who, himself, has ax extremely distant relationship with truth and honesty than one would expect to find in even the most crass politician. Basically, when Trump says, "Believe me!", you very much shouldn't...

For now, I will continue to seek facts from all sources of all bents and not be enslaved to the extreme bent of either side of any issue...

You know; "Trust, but verify."...







<O>

[vienna]

Originally Posted by August

If this were a single instance Vienna might have a point but CNN has a long and extensive history of biased reporting. They even have their own Wiki page for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

You apparently didn't read the article you cite in your post, since at the very top of the article is this acknowledgement of deficiencies:

This article has multiple issues.

Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)

This article focuses too much on specific examples without explaining their importance to its main subject. (June 2016)

This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. (June 2016)

This article's lead section does not adequately summarize key points of its contents. (September 2016)

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the artticle's content, kind of like, oh I don't know, maybe, shoddy, biased reportage?... It might not be a bad idea to do some actual research to verify the "facts"...

It is possible to go back and look at any news media's history and find missteps; the true test is if the number of missteps versus accurate reportage rise to the level of truly bad reportage. Reputable media goes the whole length to acknowledge and report their own errors, which CNN has done in the past and continues to do, as do all the other reputable news media, a degree of integrity and custom notably lacking in the Alt-R media or, even outlets like Fox News; in fact, the last time Fox issued a public retraction was under the duress of legal liability stemming from one of the "Fair and Balanced" reports. Odd, isn't it, that Fox News no longer use that slogan? Odd and appropriate...







<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Hmm... interesting...

...and just which news outlet or organization do you see as meeting your requirements of not having a slant or bent, of not having a bias, and of being entirely accurate all the time and in every case, because I would like to find what you have found to be a wholly reliable source, although I feel it would be easier to find, say, a unicorn or Bigfoot...

Hmm... I don't know a perfect non bias news outlet or organization nor was I talking about them if they do exist. I was talking about CNN. You know the one that says an apple isn't a banana. The one with the slogan 'The Most Trusted Name in News'. That one. This was a major screw up for which they have made some pretty lame excuses.

.... there will always be a 'taint' and it is up to any reasonably intelligent person to seek out as many different reports and/or sources as needed to either confirm or refute any reportage;

Sorry but no. It's not up to me to make sure a story, especially a story like this one is true and has been properly vetted before it goes to air. That's their job. You know professional journalists. I'll take the responsibility after it goes on the air to check it out.

And who specifically are these Alt-R media sources you keep mentioning.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Hmm... I don't know a perfect non bias news outlet or organization nor was I talking about them if they do exist. I was talking about Fox News. You know the one that says an apple isn't a banana. The one with the slogan 'Fair and Balanced'. That one. This was a major screw up for which they have made some pretty lame excuses.

...

Odd, isn't it, how neatly my amendations fit into the above; just an illustration of how similar either end of a spectrum can be...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Sorry but no. It's not up to me to make sure a story, especially a story like this one is true and has been properly vetted before it goes to air. That's their job. You know professional journalists. I'll take the responsibility after it goes on the air to check it out.

...

So, you're saying they have to be absolutely, totally perfect before they air or print anything? That they have to have every single fact, possibility, nuance, variable completely in line before they publish? You do realize the news media is the product of human beings, people, with the normal fallibility and being prone to error as all us other regular human beings? Perhaps we should only allow the infallible to produce and report news, you know, maybe the Pope...no, wait,.. there was that whole Galileo, solar system thing...

Additionally, I didn't say you are responsible for something before it airs; that is ludicrous on its face and a fallacious argument, quite possibly an act of avoidance. It is a responsibility for any person who values truth and fact to be prepared, if they really place such a high value, to seek out not just what is presented to them at face value, but, also to go beyond to establish the truth and verify the facts from all sources. This may be a foreign concept to those who follow a person who bases his judgements of the veracity of his 'friends' on the basis of "I believe him; he told me it wasn't true" with no facts to support it and even if it flies in the face of known facts. If you truly take things at face value, I've got this bridge in NY you might be interested in or, perhaps, you'd like to meet a very generous Nigerian prince...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

And who specifically are these Alt-R media sources you keep mentioning.

To quote John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious." If you insist I state the obvious, oh, how about Fox News, Brietbart, Infowars, Charles Johnson, Mike Cernovich, etc., all of whom, BTW, have made some whoppers of errors in their time; in fact, a sample of the nature of what appears to be proper Alt-R due dilligence can be found in the Schumer piece to which I posted a link in my post about eight or so posts back:

“This is the journalist process CNN doesn’t go through,” Cernovich said on Periscope on Tuesday. “CNN, they go ‘oh ****, Don Jr. got an email about Wikileaks before anybody else? Boom boom boom front page news.’ But me, I go oh, wait, hold on a minute, let’s chill.”


In fact, Schumer’s office said, CNN and other outlets including the Washington Post, BuzzFeed, The New Yorker, and ABC News all received the document on Tuesday, around the same time as Cernovich and Johnson. None of those outlets posted in advance about being in possession of documents that would “end the career of a U.S. Senator” though.


...


Cernovich and Johnson both have dubious records as journalists. Johnson infamously misidentified a college student as a woman who falsely accused University of Virginia students of rape. He also falsely accused then-congressional candidate Cory Booker of lying about his address, and falsely accused a New York Times reporter of posing for Playgirl. Cernovich fanned the flames of the Pizzagate hoax, a conspiracy theory that accused high-level Democrats of running a child sex-trafficking ring through a pizzeria.

From the same article:

When a journalist criticized Cernovich’s sourcing on Twitter, Cernovich replied that the media was “already doing damage control! It doesn’t matter. I already have legal documents, exact dates, same as with Conyers.”


Cernovich quickly backtracked once it was reported Schumer’s office had gone to police on Tuesday. (Under D.C. law, forging a document filed in a public office is punishable by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine.)


“There’s language that looks like it came from some of the Conyers stuff, like it might have been copied from there,” Cernovich said during a Tuesday evening broadcast on Periscope. Cernovich now said he thought the document was a hoax, but it “still could be confirmed.”


Reached by The Daily Beast on Wednesday, Cernovich said he was the victim of a “sophisticated forgery” and provided the supposed “number of the hoaxer,” which was disconnected.

Apparently, the prospect of being involved in something punishable by up to 10 years in jail or a $25,000 fine inspired some fancy tap dancing...


I came across this Doonesbury toon and, who knows, it may explain away the whole Russia scandal:






I not sure: I can't remember if you're Canadian...








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Odd, isn't it, how neatly my amendations fit into the above; just an illustration of how similar either end of a spectrum can be...

That's cute.

So, you're saying they have to be absolutely, totally perfect before they air or print anything? That they have to have every single fact, possibility, nuance, variable completely in line before they publish?

I didn't say that. Have you read anything about this story? They only had to confirm one thing for the story to be the bombshell they thought it was or to be false. The date. Were they even the slightest bit interested in whether it was right? The Washington Post was and corrected them. It took CNN from 8:05 a.m. till 3:45 p.m. to correct a story that could have been significant. Was this intentional? Let's say no. Just very bad journalism and a bias that they don't try to hide. Then there's their sources that gave them this info. They either knew the date was wrong and didn't tell them ( they had eight hours) or intentionally made the date wrong in their leak. Some sources.

And this is their hilarious correction.

The new information, CNN noted, “indicates that the communication is less significant than CNN initially reported.”

Ya don't say?

Brietbart, Infowars, Charles Johnson, Mike Cernovich, etc.,

I don't read or watch any of those.....do you?

If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

I don't read or watch any of those.....do you?

...

Actually, I do; not on a daily basis, but I do like to keep up on all sides of an issue; I'll particularly go to them if I find them referred to as a source or as a relevant part of another outlet's story; the more intel one has, the better they can process fact from fiction...

It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

I only use the descriptors of particular outlets used by other peer media. Fox News has long ago shed any pretense of being mainstream and, in fact, makes a point of not wanting to be considered mainstream. Their advocacy of Trump and the Trump regime places them pretty much in the Alt-R camp, although I, personally, don't see them as being as rabid in their approach as most of the other Alt-R outlets...

I did notice some time ago some of the Alt-R media began to use the term 'Alt-Left' towards other media outlets, but it doesn't seem to have gained much or any traction as a matter of general use. Perhaps it has something to do with a lot of the Alt-R actively embracing the moniker, "Alt-Right" and a general indifference by the other media to consider describing themselves as 'Alt'-anything. Feel free to use Alt-L, if you wish...








<O>

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by u crank

[...] If you are going to call Fox News Alt Right then do you call CNN and MSNBC Alt left?

I have to admit i do not quite understand what is meant with "alt-right". Nazis? Does this extend to the Klu-Klux-clan; or is it only a bit racist and xenophobic and misogynic (read: accepted, in secret).

No, i would say CNN and MSNBC are neutral to left-leaning while Fox Breitbart and Bannon are barking dogs of right-wing populism.
CNN may have lost a bit of credibility, where the latter never had any.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Fox News has long ago shed any pretense of being mainstream and, in fact, makes a point of not wanting to be considered mainstream.

I see absolutely no difference between Fox and MSNBC and CNN other than their political affiliation. There is a slight difference in style because they have target audiences that their programing is aimed at. They all preach to the choir because that is where the money is at. CNN and MSNBC go out of their way to claim that they are non-biased, truthful and accurate but its a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" . I just don't believe it.

Their advocacy of Trump and the Trump regime places them pretty much in the Alt-R camp,

And of course their very obvious opposition to Trump and his administration puts CNN and MSNBC in the opposite camp, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't call it the alt left because the word has little meaning. The progressive left is a much more all encompassing term as it throws everybody in the same pile much the same way as the term alt-right does. Both terms are not very accurate and as such are often used in a derogatory way. Both terms put people in groups in which those people would not put themselves in. Hardly fair.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Catfish

No, i would say CNN and MSNBC are neutral to left-leaning while Fox Breitbart and Bannon are barking dogs of right-wing populism.
CNN may have lost a bit of credibility, where the latter never had any.

I would have to respectfully disagree with that. All of it.

Here's an article that may shed some light on the disagreement.

The conservative skepticism of the media runs deep.

Believe me, President Donald Trump didn't invent it. Ever since the advent of "the media" as an industrial complex -- large corporate conglomerates based in coastal cities where many of the ad agencies are -- it's been a left-leaning, urban-minded, somewhat elitist outfit with a blind spot for conservative America.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/opinio...upp/index.html

Instead of willing the news to go in a certain direction, we should wait and see if it actually does. Whataboutism isn't journalism. Neither is "look over here!

CNN didn't lose its credibility with its target audience. It's stronger than ever. What they have lost is their political objectivity, if they ever had any.

[Catfish]

"Conservatives lost faith in mainstream media" ?
My heart bleeds.


From the article: "Ever since the advent of "the media" as an industrial complex -- large corporate conglomerates based in coastal cities where many of the ad agencies are -- it's been a left-leaning, urban-minded, somewhat elitist outfit with a blind spot for conservative America."

So the coastal cities are the bad leftist boys. And all of California, of course. And now even Alabama decided to leave the republican path. So the "conservative America" is.. exactly where? In the mid west? Or in Canada, lately?


You quote just of all CNN, which you say is leftist and biased, to support your arguments? This is somehow like with the Trump evangelists, they hate and despise science, but (ab)use scientific titles and universities to support their arguments, when they think they fit their agenda. They openly support Trump and what he does e.g. with the EPA. Closing natural parks and reservates, open them for drilling and exploiting resources.

But at least CNN writes about it. In the very article you mention. It is aware it does not do the best, and admits failure in not recognizing conservative points of view. Show me this with Breitbart!

Fox and Breitbart are owned privately by singulary bosses with rightist mindsets. Those guys have an agenda and built their company around it, picking those news and employees they see fit. I have never seen Fox or Breitbart be the tiniest bit critical of themselves, or being funny without beating around against the "left" wildly. They have bought the truth, and you read this in every self-righteous and hate-dripping article. For them all is political, from dying polar bears, to weapons, to soft ice. It all serves them, and if not it's just warped and twisted until they produced a "fact" against "leftists" out of it.
They have an agenda, and they use assorted and selected facts, myths, gut feeling and whatever primitive sentiment to drive their point home. They try to control, relentlessly and aggressively – the latter is the reason why lots of unbiased normal people with usually common sense are now standing up against them.

CNN or even the Washington Post are a lot different, though i can understand that they are a bit concerned about Trump and what he does. You would have to be deaf dumb and blind not to be concerned of this ..., and his entourage.
What CNN does is ridicule politics and criticizing it, what Bannon does is demonizing and hating half of America's population that does not fit in his world view.

Free journalism has mostly tried to limit power, criticize it, regardless which political colour. Free journalism is mostly not "rightist", nor "leftist".
It is only "left" in the viewpoint of Bannon and the alt-right (whatever the latter really is).