Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 8:31 am

What we are witnessing in the American press is truly enjoyable.

The liberal media is only this week waking up to the fact that they no longer have any control over the nation's narrative.

In their unceasing hubris, they have yet to shine a light on themselves to investigate how and why they were so far off on this election. That would require journalistic integrity of which they have none.

We now have a President who simply doesn't need them and who could care less about cooperating with them. And who has called them out as the frauds they are.

They have yet to grasp that a large portion of the American public no longer have faith in their reporting. And as a result, they are about to experience what it is like to be sidelined like never before.

What's worse for them is that the Chump knows that their very ratings, their very livelihoods, now depend on him. He also knows that a large portion of the population is questioning their credibility like never before, and not just the right wing nut jobs.

What a position to be in if you are the liberal media. The very person you hate so much is now the hand that is feeding you and there is nothing you can do about it.

Solution?

Paradigm shift. But I'm not sure what that is at the moment. I do know that there needs to be a more balanced approached to news reporting. A greater effort to appear fair. Less personalities who lash out and come across as sore losers. A greater effort to mask otherwise blatant agendas.

Will this happen? Of course not. The arrogance of the press is far too great. They will never be honest with themselves. There's too much at stake of them. There will always be ratings to chase.

The fact is that the Chump played the liberal media like a fiddle. The ironies are so rich I can't even track them all. But how about this one? The Chump saw to it that the American media paid for the bulk of his Presidential campaign. And this while all the other Republican candidates threw millions down the tubes. God only knows what the criminal spent by comparison.

Always the businessman, The Chump kept his expenses to a minimum while maximizing this very tool to get himself elected. How? By knowing his competitors inside and out and understanding that they, like so many others, are driven by their greed, long before their ideology.

Like him or not, the country may end up owing him for reinventing the American media.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 10:14 am

dag
We now have a President who simply doesn't need them and who could care less about cooperating with them. And who has called them out as the frauds they are.


If he doesn't need them, why does he react so dramatically to their reports?
Almost his first acts were to lie about the attendance at his inauguration and lie about his relationship with the intelligence community.

"I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth... They sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community. And I just want to let you know the reason you’re number one... [that] is exactly the opposite and they understand that too.
"

dag
They have yet to grasp that a large portion of the American public no longer have faith in their reporting. And as a result, they are about to experience what it is like to be sidelined like never before.

But a larger portion will believe the media over Trumps provable lies and distortions.
Even Fox is now calling he and his surrogates on his BS.
"You talk about honesty, and say that this was about honesty," Wallace said. "Well, there's another issue, though, Reince, and that's the President's honesty, because two things that he said yesterday were just flat wrong.
"
Chris Wallace

When he's lost much of Fox, his base is going to constantly hear his honesty being challenged.

The problem everyone has with a President who prevaricates regularly, and straight out BS's, is that no one knows what to trust. Long time allies don't know whether to trust the US. Businesses can't plan long term.
Since the end of WWII, the US has largely benefited from the multi lateral institutions that it largely created. Trump looks to be abandoning many of them.
His abandonment of the TPP is going to create enormous problems for the Us economy. At the moment the TPP excluded China. Already China has offered a replacement to the TPP that includes China, but not the US. The TPP offered a lever to force better trade relationship with China. (Which has been unfair in some ways, usually with the cooperation of large multinationals.)
Essentially Trump has ceded trade leadership to China in the region.
Isolationism will not go well. The US represents only 10% of the world market . 18% if you go by purchasing power. Trumps policies would eventually shut out American exports to as much as 82% of their markets.
Trade wars would increase the price of many goods for working class and middle class. Everything you buy at Walmart goes up in price. And this will happen long before any jobs manufacturing these same products came back to the US. And even if the jobs did come back, they would be very low paying...

Whatever failures the media had in the past years, and there are many, Trumps presidency will more likely reinvigorate the media. If it becomes a battle between the credibility of the media and Trump, as you seem to think it will, Trump is already starting in a huge hole.
And, one thing you don't seem to account for Dag.... Trump and his minions care enormously about what the media says.....He even bragged (lied) about his television ratings on Friday.
You're right that he co-opted the media for his campaign. And used them . But now, as President, the whole relationship changes. The media seem to have decided they will be more responsible and take up the mantle of objective reporting and fact checking. If he wants to be constantly in conflict with them ...he'll lose.
There's more of them.
They usually have actual facts as opposed to "alternative facts".
And the effect of most of his most immediate moves are going to hurt specific groups. And those people will be telling their stories to the media. For instance the increased cost in housing due the signed executive order on mortgage insurance.

Whatever else, for the next while, the apparent disarray that Trumps administration represents will be the story. That won't help his credibility either.
He's already being sued over ethics failings.... Its only a matter of time till that house of cards falls over. Wikileaks is seeking his tax returns, which he won't release. Ever.
But if they leak? Will the damaging revelations be the medias fault?
Last edited by rickyp on 23 Jan 2017, 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 10:24 am

rickyp wrote:dag
We now have a President who simply doesn't need them and who could care less about cooperating with them. And who has called them out as the frauds they are.


If he doesn't need them, why does he react so dramatically to their reports?


:eek:

Duh.

Because if he doesn't, the media dictates the narrative.

Almost his first acts were to lie about the attendance at his inauguration and lie about his relationship with the intelligence community.


Nonsense and double nonsense.

Re the CIA, his problem was with a true hack, Brennan. Brennan, as I posted a few years back, was incompetent. The CIA should be run by a pro, not a pol.

But a larger portion will believe the media over Trumps provable lies and distortions.


Sure. That's why Trump won.

Even Fox is now calling he and his surrogates on his BS.


You are referring to Wallace? I think he got it wrong--and ultimately, who cares?

If Obama drew a bigger crowd, so what? There are many potential reasons for that.

Here's the bigger stat: Trump's inauguration drew an infinitely larger crowd than Hillary's inauguration did.

Smoke that.


They usually have actual facts as opposed to "alternative facts".


You're a hyper-partisan. From a friend on the Facebooks:

Dear Internet,
I love a good poking-fun meme as much as the next guy...
But cut it out with the "alternative facts" crap. If you watch what she said, it's pretty clear she was saying "I/We disagree with what is being presented as facts, and have presented our own evidence to back this alternative" (note: I'm not saying that her evidence was *right*! It clearly wasn't)
By saying "alternative facts", she was avoiding saying, "You are *wrong* in saying <what you call a fact>, the fact is actually <this other thing>". Sometimes when you completely disagree with someone, you have to contort your words to avoid bluntly saying "You're wrong, I'm right" (note again how much of a visceral reaction many people get from the way Trump talks: he *always* says stuff like "I'm right, you're wrong". And it comes off like he's an ass!). This is also (one of the reasons) why the media talks about "falsehoods" instead of "lies". It's called "civil discourse". This was not "newspeak".
Now, there may be times when forgoing civil discourse are the right thing to do, actually. I agree with that notion. But wording people use when trying to remain civil sometimes looks weird, and it's not always a "give equal weight to both sides". Perhaps far too often it is a misguided attempt at that. But that's rant for another time.
But really - there's enough disinformation, propaganda, and misdirection floating around about things that *matter*, and getting caught up in weird use of phrasing over something as dumb as the size of a crowd is such a total waste of time.


Whatever else, for the next while, the apparent disarray that Trumps administration represents will be the story.


We shall see.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 10:38 am

fate
Here's the bigger stat: Trump's inauguration drew an infinitely larger crowd than Hillary's inauguration did.

That is entirely true.
Its also true that she got millions more votes from the voting public.
And that the anti-Trump demonstrations the day after inauguration were much larger than the inauguration crowd. Much.

Neither of these things matter in the long run. However Dag is postulating that Trump has more credibility with the voting public than the media.
Neither the actual vote count of the election, or enthusiasm levels demonstrated by the lack lustre inauguration crowd and the demonstrations .... support the notion that Trump has a credibility edge.
In a conflict with the media, he'll lose. Maybe sooner than later.

Ricky
But a larger portion will believe the media over Trumps provable lies and distortions.


Fate
Sure. That's why Trump won.

No. He won, in part, because, as Dag argues, the media were supine and didn't really do their jobs. Which was to confront his lies and distortions consistently.
That's what an objective press would do, rather than one that had been co-opted.
(By the way, I think he also won because he understood the number of people who had been left behind economically (as Bernie did) ... And their rage. Its just that none of Trumps proffered solutions will actually do anything for them.)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 11:20 am

rickyp wrote:fate
Here's the bigger stat: Trump's inauguration drew an infinitely larger crowd than Hillary's inauguration did.

That is entirely true.
Its also true that she got millions more votes from the voting public.


Immaterial. If it mattered, she'd be President. She's not.

And that the anti-Trump demonstrations the day after inauguration were much larger than the inauguration crowd. Much.


So what? The area is inherently liberal and liberals had all kinds of money to spend since they're no longer investing in the Clinton Global Initiative.

In a conflict with the media, he'll lose. Maybe sooner than later.


Doubtful. To regain the credibility they lost crying over Hillary losing on the night of the election, they'd have to display objectivity. They have (so far) declined to do so.

Ricky
But a larger portion will believe the media over Trumps provable lies and distortions.


Fate
Sure. That's why Trump won.

No. He won, in part, because, as Dag argues, the media were supine and didn't really do their jobs. Which was to confront his lies and distortions consistently.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You must not read the NYT, WaPo, Globe or anything else. You must not watch any MSM.

I get the NYT and Globe emails every morning. Every morning, there were several anti-Trump stories and usually several pro-Clinton ones.

That's what an objective press would do, rather than one that had been co-opted.
(By the way, I think he also won because he understood the number of people who had been left behind economically (as Bernie did) ... And their rage. Its just that none of Trumps proffered solutions will actually do anything for them.)


You're funny. The media was co-opted by Trump?

Please.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 12:12 pm

I doubt the main stream media will be "reborn" and suddenly become middle of the road (as they should be) but maybe they will take some notes and at least TRY to stay neutral in the future?

The MSM did not help Trump as some want us to believe. Not unless you subscribe to the "any news is good news" theory, then they helped Trump an awful lot! Most of the reporting was so anti-Trump and so pro-Clinton it was hard to listen to. Even in todays reporting, the same MSM are portraying these liberal morons protesting "not my president" as being somehow normal reasonable people. These are the liberal nut-jobs plain and simple (yes, both sides have their morons). All reporting is done as if these people have legitimate concerns and are reasonable. The media has not moved very far from their lefty position and I doubt they will move much further to the middle over time, heck, I can see them moving even further left in their attempts to paint Trump as an idiot (and honestly, I doubt that will be hard to do).
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 2:25 pm

fate
You're funny. The media was co-opted by Trump
?

You tell Dag he's wrong.

Dag
The fact is that the Chump played the liberal media like a fiddle. The ironies are so rich I can't even track them all. But how about this one? The Chump saw to it that the American media paid for the bulk of his Presidential campaign
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 2:39 pm

In so much as Trump knew his candidacy was driving election ratings, absolutely. He had constant coverage and didn't pay a dime for it.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 2:49 pm

fate
Re the CIA, his problem was with a true hack, Brennan. Brennan, as I posted a few years back, was incompetent. The CIA should be run by a pro, not a pol
.

His problem with the CIA is just the leadership?

U.S. government sources tell CBS News that there is a sense of unease in the intelligence community after President Trump’s visit to CIA headquarters on Saturday.
An official said the visit “made relations with the intelligence community worse” and described the visit as “uncomfortable.”
Authorities are also pushing back against the perception that the CIA workforce was cheering for the president. They say the first three rows in front of the president were largely made up of supporters of Mr. Trump’s campaign.
An official with knowledge of the make-up of the crowd says that there were about 40 people who’d been invited by the Trump, Mike Pence and Rep. Mike Pompeo teams. The Trump team expected Rep. Pompeo, R-Kansas, to be sworn in during the event as the next CIA director, but the vote to confirm him was delayed on Friday by Senate Democrats. Also sitting in the first several rows in front of the president was the CIA’s senior leadership, which was not cheering the remarks
.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-say ... cia-visit/

But, you'' say, this is just a story in the MSM and therefore, according to Dag, won't play with the general populace.
I think this story, and the constant beat of thousands more one should expect over the next months, will shape the opinion of those who are exposed to them...(Because Trump will be Trump and create these situations. And some of his cabinet too...)
And that's still a large majority of the population that is exposed to what you call MSM.

Now, the video feed of the event, that might play differently initially. All that cheering from the first three rows... If no one but CBS writes about the shilling.... maybe Dag is right.
But, I think he's pissed off enough journalists that they won't play the old games and let tactics like shilling slide... They'll try and set the record straight.
(Question: Do you think its appropriate that CBS report on Trump packing the CIA meeting Tom?)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 3:58 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:In so much as Trump knew his candidacy was driving election ratings, absolutely. He had constant coverage and didn't pay a dime for it.


That's true.

rickyp's implication that the media somehow liked Trump certainly was not evident from the time he won the nomination forward. In fact, they went after him with everything they had.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20735
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 4:00 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Re the CIA, his problem was with a true hack, Brennan. Brennan, as I posted a few years back, was incompetent. The CIA should be run by a pro, not a pol
.

His problem with the CIA is just the leadership?



I don't give a fig what the media says right now.

As an example, please let me know when CNN, MSNBC, or any mainstream media outlet reports something positive about him. They are in full assault mode--just like the Democrats.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3401
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 4:04 pm

The traditional media has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy for a long time now because of the internet and the way a whole generation now expects to get everything for free. The approach that they've adopted to try and stay afloat is to be as shrill and controversial as possible so as to catch more fleeting attention in the hope of getting advertising revenue. I wouldn't expect this to change anytime soon because if there was a big enough market for moderate and unbiased reporting they'd still be doing it.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 24 Jan 2017, 12:15 pm

Amen sass, spot-on
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10796
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jan 2017, 12:52 pm

fate
I don't give a fig what the media says right now.

But you believe Trumps "alternate facts"?

In a highly unusual fact-check headline at the top of its Sunday front page, the New York Times wrote: “Slamming media, Trump advances two falsehoods.”

Now, this would be what you would call anti-Trump right Fate?
But, is the headline untrue in any way?
Is this article below untrue in any way?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/p ... .html?_r=0

Is it anti-Trump to challenge provably false claims? To call them what they are?
Why wouldn't you care if the media if the media went after the truth or not>?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6645
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 24 Jan 2017, 3:49 pm

It is quite amusing to me that RickyP brings up the falsehoods of President Trump, but quickly dismissed the falsehoods of President Obama.

Why is that?

You can keep your insurance.
You can keep your doctor
Your costs will go down

There are many more; that is just from the Obamacare start up!

My question is why do you defend the Democrat, but chide the Republican? Bias, perhaps?