All of the fake news, conservative, pro Trump websites (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the Democrats have to select from a whole slew of far left candidates, including (but not limited to) Bernie, Warren, Booker and so on.  Your claims of "no merit" is simply not true.  The evidence is right there in front of your eyes, but you want to label Trump "extreme".  Politically, he's not anywhere near "extreme" as the candidates on the left.

If the left nominates someone that hasn't lost their mind and/or caved to the AOC/far-left crowd then I MIGHT consider them.  Until then, "extreme" is the the new "normal" for the Democrats.  It has been for at least 3 years now.

I think if you asked a fan of Bernie or AOC, they would laugh at the idea of Booker as far left. 

Trump has ideas on immigration, trade, and American commitment overseas that are far outside the traditions of the Republican Party and would make Ronald Reagan embarrassed and ashamed, and his bigotry should repel any true conservative. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

If you are concerned about public perception, your number one enemy should be political correctness.  The idea that you have to believe the black man, or the woman, or the fill in the minority is a dangerous perception that has lead to hundreds of false narratives which have plagued the news over the years and has strongly contributed to the racial tensions we have today.  And these include major stories, like Michael Bennett, Jussie Smollett, Travon Martin, Michael Brown.  All these stories started off with ridiculously one-side presentation of facts which turned out to be extraordinarily misleading or completely false.  And these stories have lead to riots or major movements and indirectly to police being gunned down.  But hey, let's ignore all that and put out some obscenely insulting 'three stooges syndrome" theory, because we know it can't be our side with any fault.  

Have you been following this brutal Tessa Majors murder story? How have you felt the media has done so far?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If anyone still doesn't understand my point here or doubts its veracity, consider how the media would react if Barack Obama had written John Boehner a rambling, lie and mistake-filled six page screed like the one Trump just sent to Pelosi. Consider the legs the story would have. Consider how many questions every single Democrat and left-leaning pundit would have to face from the media, and for how long they'd have to face those questions. Years later they would still be asked to explain how and why they could support a president who does something like that, to the extent any of them continued to support him after sending a letter like that. There would be calls for him to get a mental health examination and share the results publicly, and loud calls for his resignation from conservative media and maybe others too. Just based on the letter.

Now watch how quickly Trump's letter fades from media and public consciousness. It'll be gone by Thursday, maybe sooner. Yes, part of the reason for that is because of the impeachment proceedings. But that's also kind of my point. Whatever the reason, there's zero question that Trump and his administration's misdeeds get only a tiny fraction of the media coverage they'd get if they'd happened in another administration. And if that's not pro-Trump bias in the news media product, I don't know what is.

I think that letter is going to stick in time one way or the other. If Trump continues to progress it will be marked as a nationalist, maybe authoritarian manifesto. If he's stopped it will be pointed to as the Screed of Mad King Donald. I agree it's not getting enough attention right now, but IMO historically it is going to have a corona around it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

This is a much better point then the one I made yesterday about how media bias will favor Trump re: the letter:
 

Quinta "Pro Quo" Jurecic @qjurecic

Reading the full letter vs reading the news alerts and headlines ("Trump slams impeachment inquiry") is as good a demonstration as any of the distance between what Trump actually sounds like vs the massively more coherent person media coverage makes him out to be

And sure enough, check out this nonsense from the Washington Post.  "Resilient" is not among the first 500 adjectives a reasonable person would choose to describe that letter. And here's the lead from that article:

Poised to become on Wednesday only the third president in U.S. history to be impeached, President Trump remains remarkably resilient, wounded but not fatally so as he turns toward his 2020 reelection campaign.

I don't think the Trump campaign itself could have spun it that well.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just want to say the Maurile-Tobias discussion further up is really subtle. And I'm not sure how often we have great discussions here in this thing but that is one. I don't think I have the words to describe this, and I think I'll fail, but I think Trump sort of has an understanding of media that overlaps and exceeds the media's and even political and media consultants. It's more or less like using the play clock in football. You've got 24 hours in a day. If you keep possession, even if it's plunges up the middle and occasion losses on sweeps or whatever, you're winning. CNN has loads of Trump talking heads. CNN does this out of some respect for equal time or bofe-sides think, I suspect. Even Msnbc and CNN both use Trump's own media agenda every day, just as a counter weight for what they want to say but they are still talking on his agenda points. I have to say maybe the only person who seems conscious of this is Rachel Maddow. And I think you can see it in Trump's own commentary too, because he does oft say that the media needs him and they would not know what to do without him. The man is a living breathing exposition machine so I think he does consciously believe that. 

Just different things that go on: the people on CNN and the networks and elsewhere who appear with NDA's or preexisting consulting or lawyer relationships... and it's never stated out loud. The fact that Trump picked an actual CNN talking head as his AG pick to oust Sessions and (maybe) to impede Mueller. Trump himself worked for CNN, etc. 

And I read it in Wapo and NYT too. You have to write an article or appear on tv daily to realize the value of waking up in the morning and not having something to write about and then someone puts a slab of meat on your platter and says: here, write or speak about this. So here is an unnamed senior official with quotes and a story and boom another day another paycheck. And oh btw you don't want to be partisan, so while you have this researched work from experts here is the counterbalancing opinion from operating authoritarians. I realize journalistically you have to do this - ie come up with a story line for a living and also provide balance and actually contact the person the story is about - but that can also be used against you, manipulated. - I'll also add that when you do this for a living you have to maintain your contacts. Do you unshovel the truth like a dump truck arriving at the landfill? No, not if you want to come back for more garbage the next day.

I realize this is a bit of a scramble, but I'm saying there is a lot of under the surface, subliminal or subsonic stuff going on. It's not all about 'journalists are liberal and they just write that way'. It's much more about power and the day to day business of getting information out, which is neither liberal or conservative. 

 

[John Blutarsky]

This is a much better point then the one I made yesterday about how media bias will favor Trump re: the letter:
 

And sure enough, check out this nonsense from the Washington Post.  "Resilient" is not among the first 500 adjectives a reasonable person would choose to describe that letter. And here's the lead from that article:

I don't think the Trump campaign itself could have spun it that well.

What about the media bias from other sources? NY Times, MSNBC, New York Magazine, etc. When I did a Google search I didn’t see many sites favoring Trump regarding the letter.

The 30 most blistering lines from Donald Trump's unhinged letter to Nancy Pelosi

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/trump-letter-nancy-pelosi-impeachment/index.html

 

[Joe Mammy]

Fact checkers are having a field day with the letter. NY Times finds 17 falsehoods, exaggerations etc. CNN finds 21. 

Fact checking the letter.

 

[Jayrod]

In what areas do you see it as a pendulum swing?  Although there will always be some movement back and forth, in several ways we seem to have gradually shifted left over the decades. Examples are rights for gays and minorities. Worker rights.  Environmental protections.  I can’t think of many examples we’ve moved right on.

The 80's and 90's saw a swing back right after some fairly liberal moves left during the 60's and 70's.  Now we are following up on the Obama years where we saw gay marriage and marijuana legalization, the prominence of PC culture and transgender issues coming into mainstream.  Sure a lot of this was happening at a grassroots level for decades, but it all "suddenly" went national and public within a matter of a few years.

I'm just letting you know that people in conservative areas are simply trying to hold onto the past and are not really "extreme" in the usual sense of the word.

 

[The Commish]

The 80's and 90's saw a swing back right after some fairly liberal moves left during the 60's and 70's.  Now we are following up on the Obama years where we saw gay marriage and marijuana legalization, the prominence of PC culture and transgender issues coming into mainstream.  Sure a lot of this was happening at a grassroots level for decades, but it all "suddenly" went national and public within a matter of a few years.

I'm just letting you know that people in conservative areas are simply trying to hold onto the past and are not really "extreme" in the usual sense of the word.

This is a fine line to walk.  I understand your point, but I think you're also underestimating how the label "conservative" has been hijacked as extremists attempt to normalize their behavior.

I think you're better off making the point by saying "traditionally conservative areas" because "usual sense of the word" has shifted greatly in the last 6-8 years.

 

[Jayrod]

This is a fine line to walk.  I understand your point, but I think you're also underestimating how the label "conservative" has been hijacked as extremists attempt to normalize their behavior.

I think you're better off making the point by saying "traditionally conservative areas" because "usual sense of the word" has shifted greatly in the last 6-8 years.

Exactly, due to a pendulum swing to the left now what was normal conservative thoughts and behavior is being labeled as extreme, which is my original point.

Can you call someone "extreme" who's belief system was considered the norm just 10 years ago?  It feels like that is what we are trying to do here, which seems to be more akin to a propaganda technique than a truthful analysis of the situation.

 

[roadkill1292]

The 80's and 90's saw a swing back right after some fairly liberal moves left during the 60's and 70's.  Now we are following up on the Obama years where we saw gay marriage and marijuana legalization, the prominence of PC culture and transgender issues coming into mainstream.  Sure a lot of this was happening at a grassroots level for decades, but it all "suddenly" went national and public within a matter of a few years.

I'm just letting you know that people in conservative areas are simply trying to hold onto the past and are not really "extreme" in the usual sense of the word.

The country has largely decided that our archaic views on social justice were in fact extreme. Just as it decided 50 years ago that preventing black people in the south (and everywhere else) from exercising their full political rights was extreme.

 

[roadkill1292]

Exactly, due to a pendulum swing to the left now what was normal conservative thoughts and behavior is being labeled as extreme, which is my original point.

Can you call someone "extreme" who's belief system was considered the norm just 10 years ago?  It feels like that is what we are trying to do here, which seems to be more akin to a propaganda technique than a truthful analysis of the situation.

It's not a "pendulum swing." It's progress.

 

[The Commish]

Exactly, due to a pendulum swing to the left now what was normal conservative thoughts and behavior is being labeled as extreme, which is my original point.

Can you call someone "extreme" who's belief system was considered the norm just 10 years ago?  It feels like that is what we are trying to do here, which seems to be more akin to a propaganda technique than a truthful analysis of the situation.

Question to you.  What would you label a person who thinks it's ok for a private citizen to do the work of government elected officials in lieu of the elected officials doing the work?  And this isn't some sort of gotcha question.  I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Jayrod]

Question to you.  What would you label a person who thinks it's ok for a private citizen to do the work of government elected officials in lieu of the elected officials doing the work?  And this isn't some sort of gotcha question.  I'm genuinely curious.

That entirely depends on the nature of the work, its necessity to a properly functioning society, and the dangers of overreach by the private citizens.

 

[Jayrod]

Ten years ago being for the full legalization of same-sex marriage was an extreme view in the United States.  Now being opposed to it is extreme.

The only thing truly extreme about all of this is the labeling of gray area political positions as extreme.  We are overusing the word, which is my entire point.

Extreme is neo-Nazis, anarchists and Marxists.  Not people who think gay marriage and marijuana should still be illegal (or people who thought it should be legal a decade ago).

 

[The Commish]

That entirely depends on the nature of the work, its necessity to a properly functioning society, and the dangers of overreach by the private citizens.

Not sure I understand.  Are you saying there are instances where you'd see it appropriate for an official governmental position to be filled by a private citizen be it one of appointment or elected?  Can you give me an example?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I just want to say the Maurile-Tobias discussion further up is really subtle. And I'm not sure how often we have great discussions here in this thing but that is one. I don't think I have the words to describe this, and I think I'll fail, but I think Trump sort of has an understanding of media that overlaps and exceeds the media's and even political and media consultants. It's more or less like using the play clock in football. You've got 24 hours in a day. If you keep possession, even if it's plunges up the middle and occasion losses on sweeps or whatever, you're winning. CNN has loads of Trump talking heads. CNN does this out of some respect for equal time or bofe-sides think, I suspect. Even Msnbc and CNN both use Trump's own media agenda every day, just as a counter weight for what they want to say but they are still talking on his agenda points. I have to say maybe the only person who seems conscious of this is Rachel Maddow. And I think you can see it in Trump's own commentary too, because he does oft say that the media needs him and they would not know what to do without him. The man is a living breathing exposition machine so I think he does consciously believe that. 

Just different things that go on: the people on CNN and the networks and elsewhere who appear with NDA's or preexisting consulting or lawyer relationships... and it's never stated out loud. The fact that Trump picked an actual CNN talking head as his AG pick to oust Sessions and (maybe) to impede Mueller. Trump himself worked for CNN, etc. 

And I read it in Wapo and NYT too. You have to write an article or appear on tv daily to realize the value of waking up in the morning and not having something to write about and then someone puts a slab of meat on your platter and says: here, write or speak about this. So here is an unnamed senior official with quotes and a story and boom another day another paycheck. And oh btw you don't want to be partisan, so while you have this researched work from experts here is the counterbalancing opinion from operating authoritarians. I realize journalistically you have to do this - ie come up with a story line for a living and also provide balance and actually contact the person the story is about - but that can also be used against you, manipulated. - I'll also add that when you do this for a living you have to maintain your contacts. Do you unshovel the truth like a dump truck arriving at the landfill? No, not if you want to come back for more garbage the next day.

I realize this is a bit of a scramble, but I'm saying there is a lot of under the surface, subliminal or subsonic stuff going on. It's not all about 'journalists are liberal and they just write that way'. It's much more about power and the day to day business of getting information out, which is neither liberal or conservative. 

Thanks, GB. I think it's a fascinating topic and was a little bummed that I couldn't get anyone to really engage on it beyond a comment or two from Maurile. Maybe I should have started my own thread instead of glomming on to this one, which I think was originally about Gateway Pundit-style journalism.  Oh well.

 

[Jayrod]

Not sure I understand.  Are you saying there are instances where you'd see it appropriate for an official governmental position to be filled by a private citizen be it one of appointment or elected?  Can you give me an example?

I suppose so, there are lot of governmental positions that have been filled by private citizens or are currently.  You have privatized hospitals, privatized prisons, privatized security forces, privatized logistics functions, toll roads and bridges, etc.

I don't think we need private citizens deputizing themselves and performing law enforcement functions or performing health inspections.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What about the media bias from other sources? NY Times, MSNBC, New York Magazine, etc. When I did a Google search I didn’t see many sites favoring Trump regarding the letter.

The 30 most blistering lines from Donald Trump's unhinged letter to Nancy Pelosi

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/17/politics/trump-letter-nancy-pelosi-impeachment/index.html

Thanks for engaging. I appreciate it.

Here's the article on the letter in the Times. I think the tone, at least in the headline and the first few paragraphs (which is all most people read) is massively pro-Trump.  The headline, sub-headline and first four paragraphs basically repeat Trump's arguments uncritically  and use neutral or even positive adjectives like "irate" and "scathing" that fail to capture the bizarre tone and the fraudulent arguments made in the letter. Other than characterizing it as "rambling" in the third paragraph it doesn't even acknowledge the hysterical tone, lies, hyperbole, grammatical errors and general insanity until five paragraphs in. By then they've already done exactly what Trump wants- uncritically amplified Trump's gripes.

They've missed what I think is the big story, which is a President writing an angry missive to the Speaker of the House that is so wildly out of bounds that it would have been the biggest story of the Obama, Clinton or Bush I presidencies, and the second-biggest story of the Bush II presidency, if it had happened at any time in the previous quarter-century. The story here isn't really what he said, but what sending a letter like that says about his temperament and mental faculties and his ability to do a very difficult job. If another president had done something like this we'd be spending the next week or more discussing whether and how to take away his power to launch nuclear weapons.

As for the CNN article- I am not a fan of Cillizza, to put it mildly. That silly list, like most of his work, doesn't really favor one side or the other. It's just dumb. He reduces vitally important issues and developments to listicles and sports analogies.  We all deserve better than that clown.

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks, GB. I think it's a fascinating topic and was a little bummed that I couldn't get anyone to really engage on it beyond a comment or two from Maurile. Maybe I should have started my own thread instead of glomming on to this one, which I think was originally about Gateway Pundit-style journalism.  Oh well.

I was interested and fully on board. You just made the case so well that there wasn't much need to debate it.

The mainstream media is still trying to do its task of presenting both sides of politics when the reality is that there is no equivalent between the two. The attempt at fairness just helps the side that doesn't have the most facts on its side.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just another thought about how it depends how you look at things:

- Right now a very common theme or storyline for reporting in MSM (read liberal media) is Dems in purple/reddish districts who are going to vote for impeachment (or who may not) and gosh isn't that a threat to their seats and the Dem majority.

Why is that the storyline? There are at least 20 Gopers in purple/bluish districts who are facing the same choice. But we see almost no stories on that. Why?

 

[The Commish]

I suppose so, there are lot of governmental positions that have been filled by private citizens or are currently.  You have privatized hospitals, privatized prisons, privatized security forces, privatized logistics functions, toll roads and bridges, etc.

I don't think we need private citizens deputizing themselves and performing law enforcement functions or performing health inspections.

Can you give me some examples of the bold?  What you list in the following sentence isn't an example of a publicly appointed (or elected) individual has being placed in those positions initially.  Maybe I am not being clear so let's use an actual example that's happening right before our eyes.  Rudy Guiliani is a personal attorney who does not hold a public office and is a "go to" source for the President regarding matters in Ukraine in lieu of the "go to" being the ambassador and/or any other appointed/elected official within Trump's administration.  

There are some people in this country that think that's perfectly fine.  Where would you place them on the scale between "fringe/extreme left" and "fringe/extreme right"?

 

[[scooter]]

Just another thought about how it depends how you look at things:

- Right now a very common theme or storyline for reporting in MSM (read liberal media) is Dems in purple/reddish districts who are going to vote for impeachment (or who may not) and gosh isn't that a threat to their seats and the Dem majority.

Why is that the storyline? There are at least 20 Gopers in purple/bluish districts who are facing the same choice. But we see almost no stories on that. Why?

One possible theory is that these types of articles help Democratic congresspeople get out in front of the story. The MSM is colluding with Democrats to create a narrative that helps to soothe the anger of their conservative constituents. Meanwhile, the MSM does nothing to soothe the anger of liberal constituents of Republican congresspeople, secretly hoping to allow the backlash to explode into anti-Trump rage on election day 2020.

That's the theory, anyway.

 

[The Commish]

I suppose so, there are lot of governmental positions that have been filled by private citizens or are currently.  You have privatized hospitals, privatized prisons, privatized security forces, privatized logistics functions, toll roads and bridges, etc.

I don't think we need private citizens deputizing themselves and performing law enforcement functions or performing health inspections.

Can you give me some examples of the bold?  What you list in the following sentence isn't an example of a publicly appointed (or elected) individual has being placed in those positions initially.  Maybe I am not being clear so let's use an actual example that's happening right before our eyes.  Rudy Guiliani is a personal attorney who does not hold a public office and is a "go to" source for the President regarding matters in Ukraine in lieu of the "go to" being the ambassador and/or any other appointed/elected official within Trump's administration.  

There are some people in this country that think that's perfectly fine.  Where would you place them on the scale between "fringe/extreme left" and "fringe/extreme right"?

As a follow up to this overall suggestion that what we're seeing is just "pendulum" swinging and not a real move by the Republican party I have a couple other questions if you don't want to continue down this path @Jayrod :

1.  What is the significance to you of CT posting the opposition to Trump that they have?  Is that a part of the pendulum swing in your mind?  If so, can you show me in their document history where they are swinging back from?  It's pretty clear that this organization has seen a portion of the political culture move away from what was once considered "conservative".

2.  What about those who are following Trump's lead and attacking the organization they saw as a beacon of truth for generations in their families?  Is that just a pendulum swing?  What's it going to take for that group to become more "liberal" (and thus come back to the middle) in your view?