The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency

[Deranged Rhino]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

So CNN misreported the date of the Wikileaks email that @DonaldJTrumpJr received, meaning that the entire point of the story -- that the campaign might have gotten advance warning of the leaks -- is wrong.

 

Wow.

 

 

Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents that were already public

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/email-offering-trump-campaign-wikileaks-documents-referred-to-information-already-public/2017/12/08/61dc2356-dc37-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?utm_term=.23e448f9a1a8

 

 

.

 

Love or hate him, this tweet cracked me up: 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Here's the full CNN segment... about an OBVIOUSLY false story that would take any "reporter" about five minutes to fact check. Still, they devoted 12 minutes to it, getting every fact wrong in the process. 

 

Then it's tweeted out to tens of thousands through left leaning journos (who don't bother to retweet the retraction)... which is how "fake news" becomes "fact" in the minds of people living in an echo chamber. (For clarity, echo chambers exist on both sides of the aisle). 

 

 

It was the 14th, not the 4th. Not WikiLeaks, and was about already published information. But other than that, bang up job CNN. 

[row_33]

who bothers to sit there watching 3 bozos pontificate for 12 minute segments from any political ideology?

 

oh yes, CNN and ABC are free of any bias....

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Say it with me again: this has always been a coup.

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Say it with me again: this has always been a coup.

 

They have no chance:

 

 

[B-Man]

A CNN spokeswoman says there will not be disciplinary action in this case because, unlike with Brian Ross/ABC, @MKRaju followed the editorial standards process. Multiple sources provided him with incorrect info

 

 

.How did multiple sources all mis-read the date and radically misinterpret the document in the same way?

What's the rationale for continuing to conceal the identity of these sources who caused so much damage and deceit on the public with their false claims?

 

 

So source of the email is probably the same source who told CNN about Jr.’s answers regarding it to the House committee. Or is that reaching

 

Sorry but if this is regarding house intel. Testimony, “oops we got it wrong” doesn’t really cut it here.

 

.

[row_33]

Best screwup since Bababooey thought Madonna’s sister was calling Howard Stern

 

 

[B-Man]

WITH JOURNALISM TODAY, THE MOCKERY COMES EASY:

 

 

 

 

 

And:

 

 

..

[row_33]

At least Michael Rapaport boasts that he does no fact-checking for his podcast.

 

This is CNN... no fact-checking whatsoever...

 

[Deranged Rhino]

The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

[Azalin]

53 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The U.S. Media Yesterday Suffered its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages: Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

 

So they've given up all pretense of objectivity - how liberating for them.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

So they've given up all pretense of objectivity - how liberating for them.

 

It's amazing. These paragraphs struck me and I think are worth re-sharing: (emphasis added)

 

"If this were, in fact, a deliberate attempt to cause a false and highly inflammatory story to be reported, then these media outlets have an obligation to expose who the culprits are – just as the Washington Post did last week to the woman making false claims about Roy Moore (it was much easier in that case because the source they exposed was a nobody-in-DC, rather than someone on whom they rely for a steady stream of stories, the way CNN and MSNBC rely on Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee). By contrast, if this were just an innocent mistake, then these media outlets should explain how such an implausible sequence of events could possibly have happened.

 

Thus far, these media corporations are doing the opposite of what journalists ought to do: rather than informing the public about what happened and providing minimal transparency and accountability for themselves and the high-level officials who caused this to happen, they are hiding behind meaningless, obfuscating statements crafted by PR executives and lawyers.

 

How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?

 

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this – and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate – that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them."

 

 

The media likes to say Trump attacks them as fake news - a term the Washington Post created and then IMMEDIATELY realized their mistake and tried to back away from it - but he doesn't. He TROLLS them, using their own terminology. And it's VERY effective. 

 

It'd be less effective if the media, you know, did their job. And some are. They're just not found on CNN. 

 

[Azalin]

14 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's amazing. These paragraphs struck me and I think are worth re-sharing: (emphasis added)

 

"If this were, in fact, a deliberate attempt to cause a false and highly inflammatory story to be reported, then these media outlets have an obligation to expose who the culprits are – just as the Washington Post did last week to the woman making false claims about Roy Moore (it was much easier in that case because the source they exposed was a nobody-in-DC, rather than someone on whom they rely for a steady stream of stories, the way CNN and MSNBC rely on Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee). By contrast, if this were just an innocent mistake, then these media outlets should explain how such an implausible sequence of events could possibly have happened.

 

Thus far, these media corporations are doing the opposite of what journalists ought to do: rather than informing the public about what happened and providing minimal transparency and accountability for themselves and the high-level officials who caused this to happen, they are hiding behind meaningless, obfuscating statements crafted by PR executives and lawyers.

 

How can journalists and news outlets so flamboyantly act offended when they’re attacked as being “Fake News” when this is the conduct behind which they hide when they get caught disseminating incredibly consequential false stories?

 

The more serious you think the Trump/Russia story is, the more dangerous you think it is when Trump attacks the U.S. media as “Fake News,” the more you should be disturbed by what happened here, the more transparency and accountability you should be demanding. If you’re someone who thinks Trump’s attacks on the media are dangerous, then you should be first in line objecting when they act recklessly and demand transparency and accountability from them. It is debacles like this – and the subsequent corporate efforts to obfuscate – that have made the U.S. media so disliked and that fuel and empower Trump’s attacks on them."

 

 

The media likes to say Trump attacks them as fake news - a term the Washington Post created and then IMMEDIATELY realized their mistake and tried to back away from it - but he doesn't. He TROLLS them, using their own terminology. And it's VERY effective. 

 

It'd be less effective if the media, you know, did their job. And some are. They're just not found on CNN. 

 

 

I think most people who still regularly watch CNN aren't truly looking to hear actual news as much as they are tuning in for a good dose of confirmation bias. It's easier to believe political dogma if there are steady sources of support.

 

And by no means to I mean to imply that CNN is the only such "news" outlet. I trust very few of them, and only then after I can find some kind of independent corroboration.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Azalin

[Nanker]

!@#$ ‘em all shiv the mo fos. 

[B-Man]

[row_33]

Watergate started with men in custody for burglary.

 

 

[B-Man]

13 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Watergate started with men in custody for burglary.

 

 

 

Hardly.

 

Anyway the reference to responsible journalism and Watergate investigation is clear.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

I blame Fox News.

 

No, really.  They introduced this tabloid-style "Report first, verify later" nonsense into televised news, and were ultimately so successful at it that the other media outlets were forced to follow suit to compete.

[row_33]

11 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Hardly.

 

Anyway the reference to responsible journalism and Watergate investigation is clear.

 

Watergate didn’t begin with the foiled burglary????

 

okay, please let me know what started it....

 

or were you tying to make a different point there?

 

 

[/dev/null]

41 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Watergate didn’t begin with the foiled burglary????

 

okay, please let me know what started it....

 

or were you tying to make a different point there?

 

 

 

I thought it had something to do with all that Speed Date stuff Rhino talks about