The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[DrW]

 

From CNN to NYT

 

 

MORE FAKE NEWS FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

 

This lengthy New York Times story is unintentionally hilarious. Here is the headline: “Amid ‘Trump Effect’ Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants.” Just for fun, a screen shot:

 

 

Note that the headline doesn’t say there has been a 40% drop in foreign applications, but rather that 40% of institutions have seen a drop. Meaning that 60% haven’t.

 

But the article is all about how Donald Trump is devastating higher education. E.g.:

And so on, endlessly. But here’s the point: if you look at the survey the Times article is based on, this is what you find:

“I’d say the rhetoric and actual executive orders are definitely having a chilling effect,” Mr. Wiewel wrote, referring to the Trump administration’s travel ban.

 

Like many universities across the country, the Oregon university is getting fewer international applications.

 

Graduate schools appear to be feeling the worst pinch, with nearly half reporting drops. “Our deans describe it as a chilling effect,” said Suzanne Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools.

 

For several graduate schools, the Trump administration’s travel ban, which initially affected seven predominantly Muslim countries, could not have been more poorly timed.

 

 

 

That’s right: the Times headline equally well could have read, “Thanks to President Trump, 35% of Colleges See Increase in Foreign Applicants.”

39% of responding institutions reported a decline in international applications, 35% reported an increase, and 26% reported no change in applicant numbers.

 

 

 

The Times long ago gave up on being a respectable newspaper. It is now, purely and simply, an organ of the Democratic Party.

 

While so far I have only been lurking on this site, this post drove me over the edge. B-Man, did you read the original source or did you just cut and paste some right-wing blog? If you would have consulted the sources, they would have told you that in recent years applications to US colleges by foreign students have been steadily increasing (with, for the first time, more than a million foreign students admitted in 2016). Thus, the fact that for most colleges this year's numbers are level or are going down is indeed worth reporting and a matter of concern for our universities.

[B-Man]

While so far I have only been lurking on this site, this post drove me over the edge. B-Man

 

 

Congratulations on reaching your 4th post.

 

Instead of spouting the usual "cut & paste" and right-wing site" cliches, perhaps your time would be better spent reading some authors (like John Hindraker) that you appear to be sadly unaware of.

 

Also............... comprehension.

 

The debate is not that "this year's College numbers are level or are going down is indeed worth reporting" as you misinterpret.

 

It's not that it is being reported , but HOW the Times was reporting it.

 

 

Here's another that you can misread.............

 

 

 

Government shutdowns: a tale of two media narratives

by Jazz Shaw

 

The next chapter of the Resist! movement is beginning to build up a head of steam and it centers around the possibility that an impasse on spending authorization could lead to a government shutdown. This is something which nobody wants to see… unless they are politicians who might get some mileage out of it or media mavens looking to tell a story. As for the rank and file taxpayers around the country, how will this debacle be portrayed if it happens? We get a peek at things to come from the Washington Post this weekend. Check out this piece from Kelsey Snell and see if you can detect a bit of a… “tone” here.'

 

Democrats in Congress have a new and somewhat surprising tool at their disposal in the era of one-party Republican rule in President Trump’s Washington: power.

It turns out that Republicans need the minority party to help them avoid a

government shutdown

at the end of April, when the current spending deal to fund the government expires. And Democrats have decided, for now at least, that they will use their leverage to reassert themselves and ensure the continued funding of their top priorities — by negotiating with Republicans.

“I think we have a lot of leverage here,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

 

 

Did you catch that? “Power”

“Leverage”

“Reassert themselves”

“Negotiating”

Sounds absolutely heroic, doesn’t it? The party in power can be brought to heel if the Democrats can cleverly exercise their power.

Compare that to a different story. This one was unfolding in October of 2013. You will recall that during that period the Democrats held the White House and the majority in the Senate, with enough House seats to cause headaches for John Boehner any time they felt like it. And there was a government shutdown starting. How did the Washington Post describe it then?

Washington began bracing for a prolonged

government shutdown

on Tuesday, with House Republicans continuing to demand that the nation’s new health-care law be delayed or repealed and President Obama and the Democrats refusing to give in.

There were signs on Capitol Hill that Republicans — knowing that blame almost certainly will fall most heavily on them — are beginning to look for ways to lift some of the pressure…

Republican leaders prefer keep­ing the government closed to compromising on health care. And, with polls showing that voters overwhelmingly blame Republicans for the stalemate, Democrats, too, are willing to let it drag on.

 

That seems… different somehow, doesn’t it? “Bracing” for a shutdown. Republicans are “demanding” while President Obama and Senate Democrats were heroically “refusing to give in.” The nasty old GOP “prefers keeping the government closed.”

And who gets the blame for this? In 2013, when Republicans were in the minority and out of power in the executive branch, they were the obstructionists.

“Republicans — knowing that blame almost certainly will fall most heavily on them…”

But how does the Washington Post see the potential blame game playing out in 2017 when the GOP controls all three of the major moving pieces and the Democrats are in the role of obstructing progress?

Hill Democrats are betting voters will view any attempt to compromise on spending as further evidence that the fractured GOP is unable to govern.

If the talks fail and a shutdown approaches, voters might then blame Republicans for failing to keep the government open

despite their control of the House, Senate and White House, several Democratic aides reasoned.

 

So if the GOP is in the minority and they obstruct the passage of a spending bill, they get the blame. But if they are in control and the Democrats are in the minority and out of the White House… the GOP gets the blame.

See how that works? Get ready for more of the same as the end of April gets closer if we don’t have some sort of viable budget deal on the horizon. I just wanted to put this out there as an early stake in the ground because you can smell the narrative coming like a cow patty on a griddle.

Edited April 4, 2017 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

This article is making the rounds on the usual sites:

 

'1984' to be screened by cinemas worldwide in anti-Donald Trump protest

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cinemas-1984-worldwide-screening-anti-donald-trump-protest-george-orwell-nineteen-eighty-four-a7665471.html

 

 

Which, of course, is hilarious for obvious reasons to the folks who have read the book -- and the fact that 5 movie theaters showing the film counts as a "world wide protest".

[richstadiumowner]

ABC News (smirk) (Susan Rice's husband's employer) isn't going to cover Susan Rice's illegal wiretapping of the President of The United States of America.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-susan-rices-husbands-employer-abc-news-doesnt-cover-biggest-news-story-of-the-year-about-rice-spying-on-trump-team/

[Deranged Rhino]

ABC News (smirk) (Susan Rice's husband's employer) isn't going to cover Susan Rice's illegal wiretapping of the President of The United States of America.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-susan-rices-husbands-employer-abc-news-doesnt-cover-biggest-news-story-of-the-year-about-rice-spying-on-trump-team/

[meazza]

So CNN is mad at Trump because he blamed the issues in Syria on the previous administration :lol:

[B-Man]

How the media frames things to push a preferred narrative, part #3,628,274:

 

Dems "curb" filibuster but GOP "tears up rules"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What media bias?

[Deranged Rhino]

The Spoils of War: Trump Lavished With Media and Bipartisan Praise For Bombing Syria

But U.S. war fever waits for nothing. Once the tidal wave of American war frenzy is unleashed, questioning the casus belli is impermissible. Wanting conclusive evidence before bombing commences is vilified as sympathy with and support for the foreign villain (the same way that asking for evidence of claims against Russia instantly converts one into a “Kremlin agent” or “stooge”).

That the Syrian government deliberately used chemical weapons to bomb civilians became absolute truth in U.S. discourse within less than 24 hours – even though Trudeau urged an investigation, even though it was denied in multiple capitals around the world, and even though Susan Rice just two months ago boasted to NPR: “We were able to get the Syrian government to voluntarily and verifiably give up its chemical weapons stockpile.”

Whatever happened with this event, the Syrian government has killed hundreds of thousands of people over the past five years in what began as a citizen uprising in the spirit of the Arab Spring, and then morphed into a complex proxy war involving foreign fighters, multiple regional powers, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Russia.

The CIA has spent more than a billion dollars a year to arm anti-Assad rebels for years, and the U.S. began bombing Syria in 2014 – the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by Obama – and never stopped. Trump had already escalated that bombing campaign, culminating in a strike last month that Syrians say destroyed a mosque and killed dozens. What makes this latest attack new is that rather than allegedly targeting terrorist sites of ISIS and Al Qaeda, it targets the Syrian government – something Obama threatened to do in 2013 but never did.

(snip)

Democrats have spent months wrapping themselves in extremely nationalistic and militaristic rhetoric. They have constantly accused Trump of being a traitor to the U.S., a puppet of Putin, and unwilling to defend U.S. interests. They have specifically tried to exploit Assad’s crimes by tying the Syrian leader to Trump, insisting that Trump would never confront Assad because doing so would anger his Kremlin masters. They have embraced a framework whereby anyone who refuses to confront Putin or Assad is deemed a sympathizer of, or a servant to, foreign enemies.

Having pushed those tactics and themes, Democrats have painted themselves into a corner. How could they possibly do anything but cheer as Trump bombs Syria? They can’t. And cheering is thus exactly what they’re doing.

For months, those of us who have urged skepticism and restraint on the Russia rhetoric have highlighted the risk that this fixation on depicting him as a tool of the Kremlin could goad Trump – dare him or even force him – to seek confrontation with Moscow. Some Democrats reacted with rage yesterday at the suggestion that their political tactics were now bearing this fruit, but that’s how politics works.

Much as George H.W. Bush was motivated to shed his “wimp” image by invading Panama, of course Trump will be motivated to prove he’s not controlled by Putin via blackmail by seeking confrontation with the Russian leader. And that’s exactly what he just did. War is the classic weapon U.S. Presidents use to show they are strong, patriotic and deserving of respect; the more those attributes are called in question, the greater that compulsion becomes:

(snip)

As it always does, the U.S. media last night was an almost equal mix of excitement and reverence as the bombs fell. People who dissent from this bombing campaign – who opposed it on the merits – were almost entirely disappeared, as they always are in such moments of high patriotism (MSNBC’s Chris Hayes had two guests on after midnight who opposed it, but they were rare). Claims from the U.S. government and military are immediately vested with unquestioned truth and accuracy, while claims from foreign adversaries such as Russia and Syria are reflexively scorned as lies and propaganda.

For all the recent hysteria over RT being a propaganda outlet for the state, U.S. media coverage is barely distinguishable in times of war (which is, for the U.S., the permanent state of affairs). More systematic analysis will surely be forthcoming of last night’s coverage, but for now, here is Brian Williams – in all of his military-revering majesty – showing how state TV functions in the United States:

(snip)

Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the last 24 hours has been watching those who have vilified Trump as an Evil Fascist and Bumbling Clown and Unstable Sociopath suddenly decide that they want him to bomb Syria. Even if you’re someone who in the abstract wanted the U.S. to attack Assad, shouldn’t your view that Trump is a completely unstable and incompetent monster prevent you from endorsing this war, with Trump as the Commander-in-Chief?

What happened to all the warnings about Trump’s towering incompetence and core evil? Where are all the grave predictions that he’s leading the world on a path of authoritarianism, fascism and blood and soil nationalism? They all gave way to War Fever:

Edited April 7, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[meazza]

Trudeau wants an investigation? Good for him. When he decides to invest in a military he'll have a seat at the table.

 

What bothers me is why are chemical weapons the red line? When someone is dead, they're dead whether it be through chemical weapons, AK47's or boredom from reading OC's posts.

[B-Man]

Trudeau wants an investigation? Good for him. When he decides to invest in a military he'll have a seat at the table.

 

What bothers me is why are chemical weapons the red line? When someone is dead, they're dead whether it be through chemical weapons, AK47's or boredom from reading OC's posts.

 

 

All of which are prohibited by International treaty..............

[B-Large]

Trudeau wants an investigation? Good for him. When he decides to invest in a military he'll have a seat at the table.

 

What bothers me is why are chemical weapons the red line? When someone is dead, they're dead whether it be through chemical weapons, AK47's or boredom from reading OC's posts.

 

Nooo, OCs posts are dope....

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Doc Brown]

How the media frames things to push a preferred narrative, part #3,628,274:

 

Dems "curb" filibuster but GOP "tears up rules"?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What media bias?

 

Hannity in a nearly identical situation after Trump bombs Syria and then goes golfing,

 

""Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the entire world saw a very different United States of America last night," Hannity said. "Instead of weakness, we now have strength. Instead of appeasement [and] capitulation, we now have decisiveness and leadership. Timidity has been replaced by bold action."

 

The media bias cuts both ways.

[DC Tom]

 

Hannity in a nearly identical situation after Trump bombs Syria and then goes golfing,

 

""Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the entire world saw a very different United States of America last night," Hannity said. "Instead of weakness, we now have strength. Instead of appeasement [and] capitulation, we now have decisiveness and leadership. Timidity has been replaced by bold action."

 

The media bias cuts both ways.

 

The difference is that no one pretends Hannity isn't biased, least of all Hannity.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Sean Hannity is a pundit.

 

CNN is a news organization.

[Taro T]

 

Hannity in a nearly identical situation after Trump bombs Syria and then goes golfing,

 

""Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the entire world saw a very different United States of America last night," Hannity said. "Instead of weakness, we now have strength. Instead of appeasement [and] capitulation, we now have decisiveness and leadership. Timidity has been replaced by bold action."

 

The media bias cuts both ways.

You are comparing quotes from a theoretically unbiased Time magazine w/ a self-professed right wing shill to show media bias works both ways?!?!

 

The use of Hannity as an example works if the initial citation was from Maddow. Otherwise, you are reinforcing the OP's point.

[B-Man]

Sean Hannity is a pundit.

 

CNN is was a news organization.

 

 

I don't usually do the "fixed" post, but I could not let that stand..................

[Rob's House]

 

Hannity in a nearly identical situation after Trump bombs Syria and then goes golfing,

 

""Syria, North Korea, Iran, Russia, China and the rest of the entire world saw a very different United States of America last night," Hannity said. "Instead of weakness, we now have strength. Instead of appeasement [and] capitulation, we now have decisiveness and leadership. Timidity has been replaced by bold action."

 

The media bias cuts both ways.

"Both sides" guy strikes again.

[Doc Brown]

You are comparing quotes from a theoretically unbiased Time magazine w/ a self-professed right wing shill to show media bias works both ways?!?!

 

The use of Hannity as an example works if the initial citation was from Maddow. Otherwise, you are reinforcing the OP's point.

Isn't Fox's logo "Fair and Balanced"?

[DC Tom]

Isn't Fox's logo "Fair and Balanced"?

 

And does anyone believe that?