The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[Deranged Rhino]

Because they're liars. And they know it's all about to be exposed. 

 

Funny how you hear the same stuff down here from the normal group of chuckleheads. 

 

People who have no principles should rightfully be ignored on matters such as this.

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1197936441109692416

 

[row_33]

On 3/11/2017 at 8:44 PM, Logic said:

Is that really what you took from that?

 

70% vs 26%. My point in posting it was to suggest that yes, Tapper has a point. You have to fact check Trump more because he (demonstrably, statistically) lies more often. Simple as that.

 

lies more often than whom exactly?

 

Bill Clinton?? Adam Schiff?? FDR??

 

Your assertion BEGS further questions, that ANYONE who is getting paid to be a "journalist" should be asking in a microsecond....

 

fiddle-dee-deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

A case study in media bias.  This is today's NYT story, "Trump Attacks Impeachment Inquiry and Accuses a Witness of Lying."  Here's the text of the story:

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump unleashed a series of falsehoods on Friday in an effort to invalidate the impeachment inquiry and counter sworn testimony from officials in his own administration, after a week of damaging public hearings.

In a 53-minute phone interview with “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump accused David Holmes, a political counselor to the American ambassador in Ukraine, of fabricating a phone call between Mr. Trump and the American ambassador to the European Union. Mr. Holmes told impeachment investigators that he had overheard the president ask the ambassador, Gordon D. Sondland, about Ukrainian investigations into his political rivals, a consequential detail in the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

“I guarantee you that never took place,” Mr. Trump said. He added that he barely knew Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier from Oregon who contributed $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee. In his own testimony, Mr. Sondland corroborated Mr. Holmes’s account.

The interview on Friday, broadcast live and commercial-free with a view of the “Fox & Friends” hosts speaking by phone to Mr. Trump, gave the president a chance to respond to the damaging revelations of the past week and reprise widely debunked theories and some of his favorite lines of attack.

To start, Mr. Trump called Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, a “sick puppy,” a “corrupt politician” and the first witness he would want to call in a Senate impeachment trial.

Will he be impeached? “I don’t expect it,” the president said. “I think it’s very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing.” Some of Mr. Trump’s top aides and legal advisers, anticipating that the Democratic-led House would impeach Mr. Trump, met with Republican senators on Thursday to strategize over what they would do.

Mr. Trump also said he knows the identity of the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint prompted the impeachment inquiry — and asserted that the details in the complaint were “fake.”

The July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was “perfect.” He said, “Why should we give money to a country that’s known corrupt?”

Mr. Trump also said the Obama administration spied on his campaign, an accusation leveled without evidence on Twitter in the early days of his administration. “They tried to overthrow the presidency. This is a disgrace.”

He also said Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Hillary Clinton, an unsubstantiated theory. “Don’t forget. Ukraine hated me. They were after me in the election.”

“This guy, Sondland: hardly know him,” Mr. Trump said.

“I’ve had a couple of conversations with him,” Mr. Trump said. “I see him hanging around when I go to Europe.”

Mr. Sondland is posted in Brussels and testified that he had spoken to the president on the phone some 20 times.

Mr. Holmes in public testimony on Thursday described in detail the phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland during a lunch with two other officials from the State Department, as they dined outdoors at a Kyiv restaurant and shared a bottle of wine.

Mr. Holmes said Mr. Sondland and Mr. Trump were discussing a recent meeting with Mr. Zelensky, just one day after the phone call between the leaders, which is at the heart of the impeachment investigation.

According to Mr. Holmes, the president asked Mr. Sondland if Mr. Zelensky would pursue the investigations he sought into Democrats. Mr. Sondland assured Mr. Trump that “he’s going to do it,” and that the Ukrainian leader would do “anything you ask him to.” When the call ended, Mr. Holmes said the ambassador told him Mr. Trump did not care about Ukraine, only about “big things” like the investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.

A day before Mr. Holmes’s testimony, Mr. Sondland publicly implicated the president and other senior administration officials in the pressure campaign against Ukraine.

In the Fox interview, Mr. Trump hit on a theme that Democrats and witnesses have raised during the impeachment hearings — how was it that Mr. Sondland, with no foreign policy experience and who was not the ambassador to Ukraine, found himself leading the United States policy with Ukraine?

“But he was really the European Union ambassador, and all of a sudden he’s working on this,” Mr. Trump said on Friday. “Ask about that.”

Mr. Sondland told lawmakers that Mr. Trump directed him to do so.

 

 

Bolded are what I've managed to identify as editorial: inflammatory, analytical, non-factual, or simply irrelevant and unnecessary fluff.  Here's how it reads with those either removed, or restated in neutral terms for the reader to draw their own conclusions.  Edits in bold, one addition (which I simply consider sloppy writing in the original) in bold italics.  Deletions unmarked for clarity.

 

Quote

 

WASHINGTON — President Trump made a series of statements on Friday in response to the impeachment inquiry and counter sworn testimony from officials in his own administration, after a week of public hearings.

In a 53-minute phone interview with “Fox & Friends,” Mr. Trump accused David Holmes, a political counselor to the American ambassador in Ukraine, of describing a phone call that the President claims never took place between Mr. Trump and the American ambassador to the European Union. Mr. Holmes told impeachment investigators that he had overheard the president ask the ambassador, Gordon D. Sondland, about Ukrainian investigations into his political rivals.

“I guarantee you that never took place,” Mr. Trump said. He added that he barely knew Mr. Sondland, a wealthy hotelier from Oregon who contributed $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee. In his own testimony, Mr. Sondland corroborated Mr. Holmes’s account.

The interview on Friday gave the president a chance to respond to the testimony of the past week and reprise some of his favorite responses to the impeachment hearings.

To start, Mr. Trump called Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence committee, a “sick puppy,” a “corrupt politician” and the first witness he would want to call in a Senate impeachment trial.

Will he be impeached? “I don’t expect it,” the president said. “I think it’s very hard for them to impeach you when they have absolutely nothing.” Some of Mr. Trump’s top aides and legal advisers, anticipating that the Democratic-led House would impeach Mr. Trump, met with Republican senators on Thursday to strategize over what they would do.

Mr. Trump also said he knows the identity of the anonymous whistle-blower whose complaint prompted the impeachment inquiry — and asserted that the details in the complaint were “fake.”

President Trump claimed the July 25 phone call between Mr. Trump and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was “perfect.” He said, “Why should we give money to a country that’s known corrupt?”

Mr. Trump also said the Obama administration spied on his campaign, an accusation leveled on Twitter in the early days of his administration. “They tried to overthrow the presidency. This is a disgrace.”

He also said Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election with the goal of helping Hillary Clinton. “Don’t forget. Ukraine hated me. They were after me in the election.”

“This guy, Sondland: hardly know him,” Mr. Trump said.

“I’ve had a couple of conversations with him,” Mr. Trump said. “I see him hanging around when I go to Europe.”

Mr. Sondland is posted in Brussels and testified that he had spoken to the president on the phone some 20 times.

Mr. Holmes in public testimony on Thursday described in detail the phone call between Mr. Trump and Mr. Sondland during a lunch with two other officials from the State Department.

Mr. Holmes said Mr. Sondland and Mr. Trump were discussing a recent meeting with Mr. Zelensky, just one day after the phone call between the leaders.

According to Mr. Holmes, the president asked Mr. Sondland if Mr. Zelensky would pursue the investigations he sought into Democrats. Mr. Sondland assured Mr. Trump that “he’s going to do it,” and that the Ukrainian leader would do “anything you ask him to.” When the call ended, Mr. Holmes said the ambassador told him Mr. Trump did not care about Ukraine, only about “big things” like the investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son, Hunter Biden.

A day before Mr. Holmes’s testimony, Mr. Sondland publicly implicated the president and other senior administration officials in the pressure campaign against Ukraine.

In the Fox interview, Mr. Trump hit on a theme that Democrats and witnesses have raised during the impeachment hearings — how was it that Mr. Sondland, with no foreign policy experience and who was not the ambassador to Ukraine, found himself leading the United States policy with Ukraine?

“But he was really the European Union ambassador, and all of a sudden he’s working on this,” Mr. Trump said on Friday. “Ask about that.”

Mr. Sondland told lawmakers that Mr. Trump directed him to do so.

 

Which sounds more like honest reporting than editorializing?  For that matter, look up stories in the NYT from the '80s...which of the above sounds more like that style of reporting?

 

How far the Gray Lady has fallen...

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

A case study in media bias.  This is today's NYT story, "Trump Attacks Impeachment Inquiry and Accuses a Witness of Lying."  Here's the text of the story:

 

Bolded are what I've managed to identify as editorial: inflammatory, analytical, non-factual, or simply irrelevant and unnecessary fluff.  Here's how it reads with those either removed, or restated in neutral terms for the reader to draw their own conclusions.  Edits in bold, one addition (which I simply consider sloppy writing in the original) in bold italics.  Deletions unmarked for clarity.

 

 

Which sounds more like honest reporting than editorializing?  For that matter, look up stories in the NYT from the '80s...which of the above sounds more like that style of reporting?

 

How far the Gray Lady has fallen...

 

reporting has gone to a dumbed-down science recitation of facts, no figures of speech, no poetry... nothing added from this recitation of facts

 

and they can't even get the facts right.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

On 11/21/2019 at 11:13 AM, row_33 said:

 

GFY

Go fish yourself? 

Go fishing yo! 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

reporting has gone to a dumbed-down science recitation of facts, no figures of speech, no poetry... nothing added from this recitation of facts

 

and they can't even get the facts right.

 

 

 

Not even.  It's a dumbed-down recitation of narrative, not facts.  

 

The changes I made divorce it from any specific narrative, and reduce it to a dumbed-down recitation of facts (I removed the attempt at "poetry" - the stupid reference to having a meal with wine in Kiev, which added nothing to the story.)  And look how much different it is?

[row_33]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not even.  It's a dumbed-down recitation of narrative, not facts.  

 

The changes I made divorce it from any specific narrative, and reduce it to a dumbed-down recitation of facts (I removed the attempt at "poetry" - the stupid reference to having a meal with wine in Kiev, which added nothing to the story.)  And look how much different it is?

 

something is missing, it has no wordage or flow like it used to, no more thinking beyond Level One of analogy any more 

 

 

 

good work!  (as always!)

 

 

[Tiberius]

Shouldn't the media treat Trump like the king he is?

 

He is above the law now, so they should acknowledge his mandate from the mob 

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Go fish yourself? 

Go fishing yo! 

 

 

good for you....

 

 

[Tiberius]

Our king: 

 

 

During a freewheeling, hour-long phone interview with Fox & Friends, President Donald Trump promoted the long-debunked conspiracy that cyber company CrowdStrike helped the DNC fabricate Rusian hacking during the 2016 election, prompting host Steve Doocy to attempt to scramble to get the president to walk it back.

“They have the server from the DNC, Democratic National Committee,” an unhinged Trump yelled. “The FBI went in and they told them, ‘Get out of here! We’re not giving it to you.’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it is called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?” (CrowdStrike is not owned by a Ukrainian.)

“Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?” Doocy asked, causing Trump to reply: “That is what the word is.”

Read it at The Daily Beast

 

 

 

 

 

 

[row_33]

one crazed colleague used to go with SMLN

 

hints given are:  My and Left

 

[DC Tom]

12 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

something is missing, it has no wordage or flow like it used to, no more thinking beyond Level One of analogy any more 

 

 

Because it's not supporting a narrative.

 

Literally, that's your complaint of my changes: it's not telling a story.  Which is my point: it's not telling a story.  It's reporting.

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Because it's not supporting a narrative.

 

Literally, that's your complaint of my changes: it's not telling a story.  Which is my point: it's not telling a story.  It's reporting.

 

 

bingo

 

(no complaint from I )

 

[B-Man]

BOTTOM STORY OF THE DAY: 

 

Jennifer Rubin threatens to never vote for any R who does not impeach and remove Trump.

 

 

.

[Foxx]

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

tibs, are you okay? seems the last two days your posts have a bit of resignation associated with them. 

 

trust me, it's all going to be okay. it's Friday, the weekend is here and the Bills are playing this weekend. 

 

life is good.

[RochesterRob]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Our king: 

 

 

During a freewheeling, hour-long phone interview with Fox & Friends, President Donald Trump promoted the long-debunked conspiracy that cyber company CrowdStrike helped the DNC fabricate Rusian hacking during the 2016 election, prompting host Steve Doocy to attempt to scramble to get the president to walk it back.

“They have the server from the DNC, Democratic National Committee,” an unhinged Trump yelled. “The FBI went in and they told them, ‘Get out of here! We’re not giving it to you.’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike or whatever it is called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. And I still want to see that server. You know, the FBI has never gotten that server. That’s a big part of this whole thing. Why did they give it to a Ukrainian company?” (CrowdStrike is not owned by a Ukrainian.)

“Are you sure they did that? Are you sure they gave it to Ukraine?” Doocy asked, causing Trump to reply: “That is what the word is.”

Read it at The Daily Beast

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Your proclaiming of a king a long seated desire that you had for a Democrat?  Figures that you desire a non-elected ruler for life.  Probably helps with the groveling fantasy you have.  

[Foxx]

44 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

A case study in media bias.  This is today's NYT story, "Trump Attacks Impeachment Inquiry and Accuses a Witness of Lying."  Here's the text of the story:

 

Bolded are what I've managed to identify as editorial: inflammatory, analytical, non-factual, or simply irrelevant and unnecessary fluff.  Here's how it reads with those either removed, or restated in neutral terms for the reader to draw their own conclusions.  Edits in bold, one addition (which I simply consider sloppy writing in the original) in bold italics.  Deletions unmarked for clarity.

 

 

Which sounds more like honest reporting than editorializing?  For that matter, look up stories in the NYT from the '80s...which of the above sounds more like that style of reporting?

 

How far the Gray Lady has fallen...

would you say that the invention of the digital age has had any bearing upon the editorial narrative that now permeates the news?

 

as an aside... i just looked up the Time Union, the last bastion of conservative reporting from the early 20's here in Rochester (i used to deliver that paper back in the day) and could not believe that it was still printed up until '97. i could have sworn it went out of circulation back in the 80's

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

CHRISTIAN TOTO:  ‘Richard Jewell’ Paints Press as ‘Reckless, Corrupt, Immoral.’

 

“Yes, the events in the film took place more than 20 years ago, but once again Eastwood gets the zeitgeist better than his peers.

 

While they stumble over repeated Fox News films and fawning media portraits, he’s showcasing what’s happening in the media today. Right now.

 

Just this week we saw both AFP and Reuters ‘disappear’ a news story because if made President Barack Obama, not President Donald Trump, look bad.”

...uh oh...Don "Squeeze 'Em" Lemon does not approve of this message.....

[Deranged Rhino]