[rooster]

I don't really understand how they will use it as ammunition in the next election seasons. Maybe I'm just being naive. Are they going to point to it and say "look at how stupid they made Trump look?"
I get everyone hates media and bias and all that, but there is plenty of it on both sides so I tend to think it levels out the playing field.

But I do agree with you Roundy, I do think they shouldn't focus on this and just talk about valid and important issues. But I don't expect any less from them. It's just what they do because it gets a reaction from people.

[trekky0623]

So given that the new AHCA is not going to pass the Senate as is, the House is basically betting on one of two options:

• The bill gets killed in the Senate, in which case GOP members in the House get to go home, say to their constituents that they tried to repeal Obamacare and failed because of those damn Democrats in the Senate, please vote for me next time.
• The bill gets rewritten enormously in the Senate to draw over some Democrats. The Senate essentially bails them out, if they can get moderates and the Freedom Caucus in the House to vote for the revised bill, and there's no guarantee that happens.

That or the administration continues to let Obamacare fail by not enforcing the individual mandate and people lose health insurance while the GOP tries to use that as ammunition to get Democrats to vote for something like the AHCA.

[Pete Svarrior]

It's just what they do because it gets a reaction from people.

But the reaction is negative. Look, even Trekky decided to shut up about it and change the subject (his new subject being "Everything SexWarrior said about AHCA was correct even though I thought it wasn't but now I'm going to propose it as my own thoughts and hope nobody notices"). Even the blindest D-sycophants are running away from just how incredibly unproductive this attack on Trump was. The left would be at an enormous advantage if they stopped doing shit like that - Trump is excellent at making a dummy out of himself, but for some reason Democrats are hell-bent on proving that they can 1-up him on this front.

[Roundy]

I don't really understand how they will use it as ammunition in the next election seasons. Maybe I'm just being naive. Are they going to point to it and say "look at how stupid they made Trump look?"

I explained this. Trump started a narrative during his campaign that the Media is distorting facts to prevent Trump from winning. Now jump forward a few months and the Media is demonstrably distorting the facts to prevent Trump from succeeding. You don't think there are people out there gathering stuff like this (and this is far from the only example they have, and we are barely 100 days into his presidency!) so they can point out that Trump was right? (You bet your ass there are!) And they don't even have to lie to do it! You really don't see how the GOP can exploit this to their advantage?

I get everyone hates media and bias and all that, but there is plenty of it on both sides so I tend to think it levels out the playing field.

Does nobody care that the mainstream Media is joyfully sinking to the level we've lambasted Fox for being at since their inception? It's so sad the way things are changing.

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

[honk]

The media is not an arm of the Democratic Party. I don't want to see them let up on justified criticisms of Trump in the interest of winning over some of his base for the next election. Speaking of justified criticisms, I'm still not seeing what was actually so dishonest or disingenuous about the response to what Trump said. All anyone here has argued is "it's not a big deal," and "well I'm sure that what he meant to say was very intelligent and sophisticated."

[Roundy]

The media is not an arm of the Democratic Party.

Well, technically, the same way Fox News isn't an arm of the Republican Party... but ultimately I don't think that's relevant.  The important thing is that their interests line up with those of the Democratic Party and they are strongly in favor of the Democratic Party being in power.  Therefore shouldn't they avoid doing stupid shit that is going to end up biting them in the ass two, four, maybe more years down the road?

I don't want to see them let up on justified criticisms of Trump in the interest of winning over some of his base for the next election.

Yes, this is a sentiment I've expressed multiple times.  My whole point is that Trump is so good at making himself look bad all the Media really needs to do is report the truth.  These distortions and occasionally outright lies that they are running with do not qualify.

Speaking of justified criticisms, I'm still not seeing what was actually so dishonest or disingenuous about the response to what Trump said. All anyone here has argued is "it's not a big deal," and "well I'm sure that what he meant to say was very intelligent and sophisticated."

Hey, I was responding to Ghost Spaghetti (who I was mostly agreeing with) with my original comment on this issue, and everything since then has just been defending my opinion in the face of people who think I'm wrong!  If Dave and Trekky didn't disagree with me they really wasted their time with their responses to me attempting to defend themselves/the Media.

My complaint is with the response from the Media, who absolutely were disingenuous about it, if not outright dishonest, and I'm not sure the latter isn't the case either.  Among other things they derided his comment about Andrew Jackson as senseless, treating it like the ravings of a lunatic.  But it wasn't senseless. If you understand the context, his comment makes sense.

I think we all agree that Trump is ineloquent in his speech.  Certainly he was ineloquent here.  God was he ever.  But the message itself?  It was fucking on point.  But the Media chose to ignore the message in service of the larger goal of making Trump look like a fucking fool.  Let's look at the facts.  Trump was strong enough in the electoral college that he won the election, even decisively by that measurement.  After 100 days, 96 fucking percent of people who voted for Trump say they would do it again.  The all-negative campaign didn't dissuade people from voting for him, and the all-negative coverage (well 99% anyway, I've seen a few nice things about him squeak by every now and then) isn't dissuading people from liking him.  Trump in 2016: "The Media's out to get me!"  Trump in 2020: "See?  They really were out to get me!"  And he will be able to demonstrate it with facts, thanks to the retarded way the Media is handling his presidency.

It isn't working.  The Media needs to realize that and change its course or we're in for a long, rough ride.

I mean, unless Trump really does fuck up in some way that breaks his base.  Or he's impeached.  Or he's assassinated.  All of those things are possible too, of course, although the first is looking less and less likely as time goes by.

[Roundy]

Hey, in other Trump news, he praises universal healthcare, calling it better than what we have!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/04/politics/trump-us-australia-health-care/index.html?sr=twCNN050517trump-us-australia-health-care0307AMVODtopLink&linkId=37222204

Great, we have another socialist in the White House.

[rooster]

But the reaction is negative.

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Does nobody care that the mainstream Media is joyfully sinking to the level we've lambasted Fox for being at since their inception? It's so sad the way things are changing.

I honestly had no idea about this story because I don't follow or listen to sites that talked about this, so maybe we should focus specifically on what we're talking about instead of painting a broad brush of "mainstream media".

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

Really? I thought complete trust in the media was authoritarianism. You should never trust it 100% and when you do they can tell you exactly what to think - which is very authoritarian.

[Pete Svarrior]

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Then we're pretty much in agreement. The reason this state of affairs pisses me off is that it'll be harmful to democracy in the long run.

[rooster]

Exactly my point, they don't care. The more sensationalist or divisive the better. They just want clicks and views.

Then we're pretty much in agreement. The reason this state of affairs pisses me off is that it'll be harmful to democracy in the long run.

Again, call me naive but I think this is so stupid. Our politics relying on sensationalist media is fucking retarded. Might as well point to any random person's blog and say "see! Look at how they lie about me." Why are people even falling for the rhetoric? Who gives a fuck what the Charlottesville newspaper or Fox News says?

None of this would matter if people voted using their brains and not their feelings. But politicians know pandering to feelings is more important than using facts. That's what pisses me off. Politicians (and mainstream news media) are doing exactly the same thing and people are falling for it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Again, I agree completely. But, unfortunately, so far it seems to be working. Again, just look at how some people are gobbling up ridiculous media spins here, and how they're fighting tooth-and-nail to defend it. It's great that these numbers are dropping in favour of those who are simply upset with the media, and hopefully it will result in some change in voter awareness in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical about that actually happening.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Again, I agree completely. But, unfortunately, so far it seems to be working. Again, just look at how some people are gobbling up ridiculous media spins here, and how they're fighting tooth-and-nail to defend it. It's great that these numbers are dropping in favour of those who are simply upset with the media, and hopefully it will result in some change in voter awareness in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical about that actually happening.

Hopefully people stop watching or reading the garbage and they go out of business. Really at a loss at how you coerce a nation to start valuing the truth again though.

[Lord Dave]

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

And I agree with Rooster and SW, but that's what works now.  It's simple marketing and until we get profit out of news, well... what would you expect?  You give people what they want, and what they want is affirmation that they're right.  And as long as you keep doing that, you get money.  It's win-win.

[Roundy]

And another thing, if you don't mind I put it out there. Public distrust of the Media is a pathway to authoritarianism. The Left wants to convince us that democracy itself is in danger under this president. Why are they so set at helping the process along by actively making themselves untrustworthy? If they don't change their attitude it might be more than a couple forthcoming elections we have to worry about.

Really? I thought complete trust in the media was authoritarianism. You should never trust it 100% and when you do they can tell you exactly what to think - which is very authoritarian.

You might have a point.  I might simply have been swayed by a biased media that wants me to think that distrust in the media is a stepping stone to authoritarianism; after all that's where I got the notion from in the first place.  Like in the Los Angeles Times and their 6-part series on how dangerous a president Trump is; Part 3 was devoted to "Trump's Authoritarian Vision", and talks about how Trump's attempts to undermine our faith in our democratic institutions (including the news media) is leading us on the path to a possible authoritarian government.  Or like in CNN''s report "Welcome to the era of Western authoritarianism", where the reporter makes this observation:

This would suit authoritarian administrations very well indeed: it is in their interests to have a weak press. When Steve Bannon last month described the media as the "opposition party," he confirmed the troubling thinking in Trump's inner circle. Attacks on freedoms of the press are sadly an everyday reality in countries like Turkey. It is alarming that, in Britain and the US, journalism is now being painted as the enemy of democracy.

But I'm sure you're right and it's nothing to worry about.

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

To me, the easy and obvious answer is that we should trust the mainstream media.  If only they would stop giving us concrete reasons not to trust them!

[rooster]

I think the alarming thing about them telling people to stop trusting the media is because they want people to trust in their version of events. Their tweets, not someone else's.

It's dangerous because they want to completely shut down other voices. Not because we should be trusting the media 100%.

The question is, how do you find the truth?
It's easy to say "Don't Trust Mainstream Media" but then who DO you trust?

That's why the broad "mainstream media" is stupid. You trust more non-biased sources, you read a lot, and from both sides. You maintain that truth is probably somewhere in the middle and you refrain from letting their voice guide the way you think. You read the GOP healthcare bill for yourself. You watch Trump interviews and speeches yourself. It's not that difficult.

[Roundy]

I think the alarming thing about them telling people to stop trusting the media is because they want people to trust in their version of events. Their tweets, not someone else's.

It's dangerous because they want to completely shut down other voices. Not because we should be trusting the media 100%.

I don't necessarily disagree. The troubling thing is that these people already have a great deal of trust from the American people (however much our liberal hearts might want to fight that reality), and that the media is confirming their claims that the media is not trustworthy is not helping.  Obviously we shouldn't trust the media 100%.  We should always do our best to examine what's reported with a critical eye.  That's very much to the point of my recent remarks. 

The problem is how easy the media is making it for Trump's people to undermine its validity; enough people are trusting in their version of events that we have a real problem.  100% trust in media is bad, but so is rampant distrust in the media, and when there's a fear that the current administration is actively trying to murder democracy, the media should be doing what it can to minimize the damage, assuming that's what it's trying to avoid.  I believe the media thinks it's in the process of doing just that by trying to undermine the president at every turn.  And again, when the president truly fucks up the media really should make a big deal out of it.  But the pointing and sniggering and "Look how dumb our president is!" every day has to stop.  It's only adding fuel to the fire.

[rooster]

Well with the GOP healthcare bill a lot of people are really taking notice. People are reacting very negatively even on my local news site that gets mostly Trump supporter comments.

I'm sure people will think the evil liberal media is trying to spread lies everywhere, but there's also plenty to really look at and think about.

[garygreen]

i completely agree with rooster.  the notion that organizations like wapo and nyt are inherently untrustworthy is ludicrous.*

to use the article that started this discussion as an example, can someone point me to whatever you think is the most egregious example of dishonesty in it?  which part specifically is unfair/biased/dishonest/misleading/whatever else?

*this is not the same as saying that literally everything that they publish is 100% defensible and trustworthy and never in error at all ever because they are perfect angels of rationality and objectivity.

[Pete Svarrior]

i completely agree with rooster.  the notion that organizations like wapo and nyt are inherently untrustworthy is ludicrous.

It's not inherent at all. They keep doing it to themselves, actively and consciously. Once they've stopped, they can start to try and rebuild their trust. Sure, it'll take time, but that's just how trust works.

to use the article that started this discussion as an example, can someone point me to whatever you think is the most egregious example of dishonesty in it?  which part specifically is unfair/biased/dishonest/misleading/whatever else?

I'm going to pick "whatever else". The part that most successfully created a false narrative (successfully enough to get Trekky and Saddam supporting it - make of that what you will) is of course the implication that Trump somehow showed a lack of understanding of American history. He simply did not - a new meaning was forced onto his words, and so far it backfired on the media that tried it.

The article is off to a fantastic start with 'Remarks by Donald Trump, aired Monday, showed presidential uncertainty about the origin and necessity of the Civil War, a defining event in U.S. history with slavery at its core.' The Daily Progress (lol, that name) attempts to conflate the idea that the Civil War may have been preventable with uncertainty about why it happened in the first place. It's a cheap attempt at manipulating Trump's actual message.

Another fantastic example of this:

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

Finally, the article ends exactly how it started - by recalling a number of other failed attempts at spinning a narrative. Honestly, given that the most dishonest part of the article is its very core message, a better question here would be: "which parts of the article aren't inherently dishonest?". Well, there are a few points in which they are both factually correct and do not rely on misrepresenting Trump's words. A couple of good examples of that is "Andrew Jackson died" and "Frederick Douglass is also dead"

[honk]

'"People don't ask that question, but why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?"

In fact, the causes of the Civil War are frequently discussed, from middle school classrooms to university lecture halls and in countless books. Immigrants seeking to become naturalized are sometimes asked to name a cause of the war in their citizenship tests .'

Again, we go from "People don't really talk about why this couldn't have been worked out" (regardless of whether this statement is true or not) to "lol he thinks history isn't taught in schools and also IMMIGRANTS KNOW THIS DU-UH".

It's a simple rebuttal. Trump claimed that the start of the Civil War was an undiscussed or unquestioned subject, when it is in fact frequently discussed and questioned at the most basic educational level. That's why it mentioned schools and immigrants - not to mock Trump with comparisons, but to establish just how broadly the subject is discussed and questioned. The fact that you can rephrase what the article said with far more vindictive and unprofessional-sounding wording proves nothing.

Finally, the article ends exactly how it started - by recalling a number of other failed attempts at spinning a narrative. Honestly, given that the most dishonest part of the article is its very core message, a better question here would be: "which parts of the article aren't inherently dishonest?". Well, there are a few points in which they are both factually correct and do not rely on misrepresenting Trump's words. A couple of good examples of that is "Andrew Jackson died" and "Frederick Douglass is also dead"

I'll grant that the part about the slave trade was a nitpick, but come on, do you really think that the Frederick Douglass incident was just media spin? I mean, I can at least see where this argument about Jackson and the Civil War is coming from, even if I disagree, but there's no question that somebody who says, "Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who's done an amazing job and is being recognized more and more, I notice," clearly has no idea who Douglass was and when he lived.