U.S. Politics

[blandy]

29 minutes ago, villakram said:

More Anonymous sources from the NYT. This publication has zero credibility. 

The pro trump Fox news guy in the twitter video above also says "OK...we have sources confirming". Sure they have no credibility (either?), but it seems like it's true, and not just from the recent revelations".

Trump has no credibility, that's for sure.

[villakram]

None of the above 3 posts are necessarily wrong; however, the continued use of anonymous sources in such a politically loaded climate is unhealthy, e.g., see the WaPo reporter who has been outed as using the DoJ/FBI lovers as his sources via their text messages, and who then wrote a report defending them when the first text message stories originally broke (quid pro quo?). These two have been revealed by these messages to be as biased as possible. Too many agendas being set by so called reporting these days.

 

[TheAuthority]

24 minutes ago, villakram said:

None of the above 3 posts are necessarily wrong; however, the continued use of anonymous sources in such a politically loaded climate is unhealthy

Too many agendas being set by so called reporting these days.

 

I don't agree. There is currently an intensity of scrutiny upon journalists like never before thanks to Trump and his cronies relentless attacks. I see journalist's getting caught out if they haven't crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i' (which is a good thing,) but I also see journalists paying more attention than ever to having the details exactly right before they publish a story.

Wolff's book for example is ridiculed for it's poor journalism from most mainstream news outlets even those on the so-called 'left' such as CNN & NYTimes. Even though Fire and Fury confirms everyones suspicions about the current administration, real journalists won't use Wolff's work as fact because it isn't good journalism.

[peterms]

 

[villakram]

2 hours ago, TheAuthority said:

I don't agree. There is currently an intensity of scrutiny upon journalists like never before thanks to Trump and his cronies relentless attacks. I see journalist's getting caught out if they haven't crossed every 't' and dotted every 'i' (which is a good thing,) but I also see journalists paying more attention than ever to having the details exactly right before they publish a story.

Wolff's book for example is ridiculed for it's poor journalism from most mainstream news outlets even those on the so-called 'left' such as CNN & NYTimes. Even though Fire and Fury confirms everyones suspicions about the current administration, real journalists won't use Wolff's work as fact because it isn't good journalism.

Yes, CNN spent no time reporting on the book but all of their time ridiculing it, though of course it is CNN, so that's only to be expected from that "News" network.

More generally, do you not feel uncomfortable reading this incessant stream of unattributed stories? It's not an entirely new development, as during the Bush years, this was the way the media worked (and with the WH in the case of the NYT!). It decreased a little during the Obama years, but the media need to do more reporting on news rather than constant editorializing imho. 

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, villakram said:

More generally, do you not feel uncomfortable reading this incessant stream of unattributed stories? It's not an entirely new development...

It's the way I've seen politics reported for the last thirty years plus (i.e. as long as I've been interested in politics).

When did you see it otherwise?

Edited January 26, 2018 by snowychap

[TheAuthority]

34 minutes ago, villakram said:

Yes, CNN spent no time reporting on the book but all of their time ridiculing it, though of course it is CNN, so that's only to be expected from that "News" network.

More generally, do you not feel uncomfortable reading this incessant stream of unattributed stories? It's not an entirely new development, as during the Bush years, this was the way the media worked (and with the WH in the case of the NYT!). It decreased a little during the Obama years, but the media need to do more reporting on news rather than constant editorializing imho. 

What I'm uncomfortable with is the constant undermining of journalists. It's the only profession enshrined in the constitution because a free press is necessary for this experiment of democracy that is the United States. Which parts of the constitution will Trump and his team begin chipping away at next once they've silenced the journalists?

I'm also uncomfortable with this 'hipster left wing' attitude that all of the established journalist newspaper sources are corrupt and somehow manipulating every narrative. For example I like Glenn Greenwald, I believe he is a good journalist but I don't think he's always correct - as no-one is. 

By saying 'unattributed stories' I imagine you are talking about the stories surrounding the Trump transition team and subsequent administration. Well, honestly I believe these are scary times. He is/was somewhat of an unknown in the political world. He's unknown to the security agencies of the US. When he starting winning primaries and his campaign moved from the realms of an entertaining distraction to 'oh shit, this dingbat has a shot' people starting really taking at look at this guy. Journalists, US law enforcement & security agencies from around the world started looking into this him, his family and his associates - and what did they find?

Here are the people named in stories (so far) originally from un-named sources:

Michael Flynn - Trumps Senior NS advisor - Guilty of lying to the FBI about his connections to Russia. 
Paul Manafort - Trump Campaign Chair and his closest aide Rick Gates - conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, being an unregistered agent of a foreign principal, false and misleading FARA statements, false statements, and seven counts of failure to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts.
George Papadopoulos – Involved in senior Trump team meetings about foreign policy –Guilty of lying to the FBI about his ties to Russia.
Trump Jr – Jeff Sessions – Jared Kushner 
I can’t be bothered to write about them all or even start with the idiot Carter Page, but do you see why some people might, just might be interested in getting to the bottom of this?

All of these wonderful Trump associates were named in the press after tip offs from unnamed sources. I’m glad they were and I’m glad we have a free press that allows, us, the public, to have access to the truth. Because he’s now the most powerful man on the planet he needs to be looked into and with whom he surrounds himself need to be examined.
The press is far from perfect, but it is far more preferable to the alternative path that Trump wants us go down.

On a personal note I have good friends who are journalists. They are people of the upmost integrity as are 99% of their colleagues. (There are of course always some bad eggs.) I’m going to share Marcia’s reel with you here because she wouldn’t mind. She’s such a bad ass. She goes to some of the most dangerous places in the world to get the truth out about the people she meets. Watch this and tell me if you would have the audacity to shout 'Fake News' at her?

http://marciafbiggs.com/reel/

It really p***ses me off when someone like Trump, a selfish, narcissist moron, attacks the integrity of others when he so clearly has none.

[VILLAMARV]

Far be it from me, an occasional visitor to your country to chime in with much authority on the subject of US Media but I find the differences in the media one of the most visceral differences when I am there. I remember being asked what I was sniggering about in a cafe (sorry diner!) once when I had just heard some news anchor start a segway with the phrase "And, In Venezuela today, Crackpot leader Hugo Chavez......." It upset my indoctrinated British views - You just cant say that on the news! - But "That's freedom of speech buddy!". It highlighted to me though how - even subtly - the power of propaganda and indoctrination is at play. I have friends over here that grew up in the states - we often discuss things like me having to say the lords prayer every morning in assembly while they were out saluting the flag and pledging allegiance. These things have an effect on your thinking. It is insidious and it shapes us all - whether we rebel against it or not. As in reality it will shape your compliance or rebellion.

The attack on journalism from the POTUS is unprecedented in our lifetimes. But I would suggest with Trump at the helm the motivation would be profit. He got elected operating outside of and despite the media bubble. In the UK The Sun no longer swings elections (YAY!). It's a global trend and like it or not he's ahead of the game. But he profited from it and every other outlet he can discredit or muddy the waters with drives more people to the 'credited sources'. Hardly a new tactic and we know where it leads in the 'old media' model. What changes the dynamic is the way we're communicating now and the advances in communication the internet age has bought to the table. Trumps 'Whataboutism' is working a treat from his perspective. Watching the British response is hilarious really, but we'll have to overhear the phrase 'fake news' and have it attributed to harmful foreign propaganda and get all the people nodding in unison "cos its fake right and news shouldn't be fake it should be real and truthful everyone with a brain can understand that mate", when what we really know at the heart of all this is Mrs May et al don't like all these memes undermining their authority, holding them accountable for the drivel they spout. Much better when we controlled the flow of information somewhat - cant we go back to that somehow? They know there's a generational divide in the way people consume the media and in a few short decades the playing field is going to look a lot more fragmented. Maybe this is why Russian media heads have stated that they need more propaganda. And what is marketing exactly if not propaganda by another name. And Trump knows how to sell.

We can all see the problems in the big news corporations and the way they are beholden to advertising. That is not healthy for the First Amendment, but then the right to peacefully assemble seems to have gone out of the window years ago, Trump has constantly attacked religion in the form of Islam, so in that context why should attacking the press come as a shock to anyone? That may get twisted by being attributed to the 'Hipster Left Wingers' who everyone can then rally against but the notions of embedded corporatism (Murdoch titles beholden to SKY/Advertising revenues driving editorials etc), embedding journalists in times of war (rageh omar gave a surprisingly open interview once about this - obviously also films like Salvador and Full Metal Jacket kinda highlight the point) and instances of utter lies presented as facts for political purposes (Hillsborough anyone?) are just a reality. Having a stupid beard doesn't mean they are wrong on any given issue any more than a man holding a burning cross is.

If he muddies the waters with enough people he can act as the sole arbiter of truth for them. Much like Chuck Norris - Thumbs up or thumbs down. That's kinda where Russia is at. Everyone expects ALL news to be propaganda. Putin gets to work with what the official line is and they go from there. I'm not sure anyone has come up with another model for the new age outside of closed models like China and Korea. Although obviously the 'right to be forgotten' and Net Neutrality laws are obviously attempts at chipping away at any sort of state of full disclosure.

There's an okish if not great documentary doing the rounds called 'The brainwashing of my dad' Which explores the control over an individuals thinking that channels like FOX actually have. The narrowing of the debate inherent within the established media with the rise of Sanders and Corbyn has come under recent closer scrutiny. Things like that chip away at the integrity of those organisations IF and only if there is truth to it. That, in the UK, the flagship programme for political 'debate' is Question Time the BBC doesn't really have much of a leg to stand on. That's not so say it doesn't have ANY integrity or journalists with integrity but there's a great interview between a young Andrew Marr and Noam Chomsky (from back in the 90's I think) where Marr gets upset by Chomsky pointing out he is biased. "I work for the BBC!, I am a respected journalist! I am fair and balanced sir! etc etc and Chomsky goes on to explain to him that he is where he is because of who he is and because he thinks like he does about a myriad of issues. When we can see the obvious flaws ourselves the spark is already lit, just takes someone like Trump to come along and fan the flames. In many ways they are the architects of their own demise. The media. Murdoch's recent sell offs should act as proof there's no real profitability in it all anymore. And while organisations are beholden to money over substance their demise is already written. Newspapers with massive budgets and circulations aren't coming back.

Individualism is the way out of it for me. In that people and their integrity will become the brand. Much like info wars (but in their case without the integrity it should go without saying!). There are individual journalists that carry respect due to their body of work. John Pilger being a great example from the past imo. In the past he would have to compete for air time, for column inches and their work, while documented, would remain largely unseen. These days, Journalists are able via youtube/Vimeo and the like, to promote themselves and their work could be there for ever. Periscope became a huge source of information in the Paris shootings for example. So while the old institutions crumble it could be argued that it's enabling the individual journalists in the same way as it has for musicians and visual artists for example - the real question for the new age being - how are we going to fund it exactly? But the new age of truth seekers from all sides of the political spectrum are going to operate within a much different system. @TheAuthority's friend there being seemingly a good example of what I'm saying. I notice she works for PBS. Am I right in thinking that's a non commercial channel? I (and the rest of the world) know they brought us sesame street and that's about it. I'd say Abby Martin is another name to keep an eye on in that regard. After ruffling feathers at RT has ended up reporting for Tele-Sur. It may be easy to see their bias, same as Pilger, in the stories they cover. But whether we agree with their politics or not we're not left doubting their good intentions. Much like Louis Theroux in his documentaries we accept they are 'playing the role' of being impartial. Hopefully what gives their work credence is their individual integrity. As Samuel L Jackson once said - "Personality goes a long way....."

And then look at what Wikileaks has done. And look at the response to that from all governments but particularly the US. Whether you believe there to be crimes committed the release of proof of the US forces killing civilians in Iraq was and is brilliant journalism. Hands down. And that is a story that changed the world slightly and if only for a moment. The fallout from which is publicly still playing out and aspects of it are nothing short of disgraceful. Putin is often held up to us in the west as a man who kills his detractors off in a quasi-dictatorial state. Whereas in the west we have a great record in dealing with people who we don't like what they have to say - Aaron Swartz an interesting example. Breitbart's weirdly timed death another. Asange holed up in the Equadrian Embassy. Greg Palast, Michael Ruppert, and swathes of journalists before them having offices ransacked and being hounded by the governments and systems they questioned. And aren't we led to believe the mysteries surrounding the Clinton's and their nefarious rise to power and links to the power elite's like Epstein? Trump's a bit like Putin then, a bit more direct and to the point! (And obviously dangerous as **** to any civil society!) But then was it/is it any different? really? under Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama how was dissent handled exactly? Dr David Kelly anyone? It's all the same game. Being the lesser of two evils is still an evil right? Maybe you should consider some of this @villakram before attacking the notion of 'unnamed sources'. There's a whole load of reasons why that term exists. Some of them pretty obvious. Especially I'd have thought to someone with your obvious intelligence fwiw.

Anyway rant nearly over, this is what happens when we don't have a game all weekend!! I know my utopia of open government is little more than a pipe dream and far be it from me to hold up or laud George Galloway in any way - but there was a truly wonderful moment when he insisted on appearing to defend himself before the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee back in the day where he asks Senator Carl Levin "You want to talk about illegality?" and the Senators reply "No." Talk about unveiling a truth.

The media is in a huge period of change. Most of the people who have a problem with that seem to have their livelihoods connected to it in some way. Everyone else just wants to turn the news on and hear the ****ing news.

[villakram]

21 hours ago, snowychap said:

It's the way I've seen politics reported for the last thirty years plus (i.e. as long as I've been interested in politics).

When did you see it otherwise?

Ditto. I see it as pretty much always this way as a mid 30 something too, and I've never liked it as it's far too open to propagandistic uses.

[sne]

Piers Morgan trying to make Trump an Arsenal supporter...

[peterms]

1 hour ago, sne said:

Piers Morgan trying to make Trump an Arsenal supporter...

Nonsense.  He's unveiling the results of the IQ test.

[sne]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

Nonsense.  He's unveiling the results of the IQ test.

Shouldn't there bee a decimal comma if that was the case?

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, sne said:

Shouldn't there bee a decimal comma if that was the case?

NB we say decimal point, but yes...

[blandy]

7 hours ago, sne said:

Shouldn't there bee a decimal comma if that was the case?

Very Waspish

[Keyblade]

Quote

Insurance is, you're 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you're 70, and you really need it, you're still paying the same amount and that's really insurance.

Trump Thinks Healthcare Costs $12

Presumably from some insurance commercial he saw while watching Fox News.

[TheAuthority]

8 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Trump Thinks Healthcare Costs $12

Presumably from some insurance commercial he saw while watching Fox News.

He's not just a simpleton he's willfully ignorant

[maqroll]

"Dirty Money" on Netflix has an episode on Trump and it's worth a watch. The whole thing is literally a con job, which isn't a surprise in and of itself given what we already know and are presently learning, but the way the episode methodically presents the evidence makes it all the more alarming.

[maqroll]

On 1/27/2018 at 11:26, VILLAMARV said:

It upset my indoctrinated British views - You just cant say that on the news!

But you can read that sort of headline in the Daily Mirror, etc. Your printed tabloid press is pretty foul. But it sounds like you were watching Fox News or an affiliate. The other networks wouldn't have said something like that.

[mjmooney]

44 minutes ago, maqroll said:

But you can read that sort of headline in the Daily Mirror, etc. Your printed tabloid press is pretty foul. But it sounds like you were watching Fox News or an affiliate. The other networks wouldn't have said something like that.

That's very true. We do have blatantly biased print media, but as yet, no outright TV equivalent. 

[VILLAMARV]

4 hours ago, maqroll said:

But you can read that sort of headline in the Daily Mirror, etc. Your printed tabloid press is pretty foul. But it sounds like you were watching Fox News or an affiliate. The other networks wouldn't have said something like that.

Yeah, the gutter press earns it's nickname alright.