The media and it's discrepancies

Fox

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 2:34 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

While Slate can hardly be described as a neutral source, they did an interesting article on this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/......html

I think this piece is 100 percent accurate. Of course the Trump administration is trolling the media! Conservatives and libertarians haven't had this much fun . . . ever.

But Oremus drops the ball way too soon. The unasked follow-up question is why Trump trolls the media and why that has resonated with so many people. While a small handful of journalists have figured it out, the vast majority are doubling down, refusing to ask either question or consider the answer.

It's not simply that people don't "trust" the media. It's not that people think the media make up things out of whole cloth. It's the constant, just-below-the-surface drumbeat of disrespect and disdain for others.

Oremus walks right into the trap, as if to offer himself up as a prime example:

* "Crying" and "desperate ploy" -- these words in the headline suggest a weakened, demoralized government. Puh-lease! Whether you love or hate Trump, the Republican Party has a stronger base of power than it's had since the Reagan years -- possibly stronger.

* "It should go without saying" -- and then Oremus goes on to, essentially, define what "fake news" means to him. My first thought is, "Why should it go without saying and who died and left Mr. Oremus in charge?" Note that he may have good points; he may even be 100 percent correct. But when people state as fact what needs to be proven, a lot of us roll our eyes and give a discount -- we discount most of what they say.

* "A former Breitbart editor, Gorka is no doubt familiar with the murky territory between fact, fiction, and propaganda on the internet." This is less facile, but it's still obvious and cheap. It implies what Breitbart does is not true journalism, but conflates "fact, fiction, and propaganda." Whatever you think of Breitbart, the fact that Oremus neglects to mention Dr. Gorka's considerable non-journalistic qualifications is, well, pretty shoddy journalism.

* "At a time when CNN and the New York Times are struggling to distinguish themselves from a flood of online competitors on the strength of their reporting and editorial standards, Trump is denying that they differ in any meaningful way from the lowest of tabloids" Because, what? CNN and the NYT shouldn't be required to rub shoulders with their inferiors? They shouldn't be asked to "struggle" against competitors? They're special?

In How Trump Won, Joel Pollak described traveling with the press corps as it covered Trump's campaign. He described how much time reporters spent on their smartphones compared to interviewing actual Trump supporters. He described how outraged and shocked some members of the press were that so many Trump supporters weren't impressed with their dangling credentials and accoutrements of the fourth estate. He described how many reporters talked down to Trump supporters whom they presumed to be less educated and less sophisticated than themselves.

There was a joke passed around in conservative circles after the election: "The Democrats haven't been this mad since the Republicans freed their slaves." The point, of course, was to poke fun at hubris and take a jab at people who had set themselves up as moral aristocrats.

Sadly, I haven't seen any equally acerbic one-liners about the press, because they are far more guilty than the most craven Democrat. Yes, Mr. Oremus, when you truly believe that some animals are more equal than others, you shouldn't be surprised if a bunch of hooves are pointed in your direction when the farmer enters the barn carrying a shotgun.

Last edited by Fox on Thu, Feb 09 2017, 2:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 2:49 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

Voter ID requirements are established by the state. If you don't like them call your electeds. For first time voters in my state acceptable ID includes the following:

Valid photo identification, including driver's license.
or Paycheck stub with name and address.
or Utility bill with name and address.
or Bank statement with name and address.
or government document with name and address.

Um, okay. But every job I've worked required me to show some kind of ID. Every apartment I've ever rented required me to produce a government ID of some sort. Every bank account I've ever opened required some sort of DL, ID, or Passport. If your local library doesn't require an ID, yasher koach. I can assure you there are plenty that do.

Frankly, I'm not terribly worried about voter fraud. Perhaps my sang-froid is a result of living in Chicago, where we solve the problem by simply not having any Repoublicans for whom we can vote. But I do worry about people who don't have ID for whatever reason and find themselves in a cycle of bureaucracy and vulnerability because of it. Worrying about the problem only in terms of voting seems shamelessly exploitative.

dancingqueen

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 3:04 pm

amother wrote:

I disagree. The media did the same to GW Bush too, and all Republicans and conservatives. They demonized him and the party. I'm not sure Obama could have won otherwise.

The difference is that Bush did not fight back, from a PR standpoint.

I'm not talking about the media and politicians. I'm talking about regular US citizens like you and me. And I'm seeing emotions and acrimony at a fever pitch right now. I don't remember it being that way with GWB though admittedly I was younger then. And I think Trump is a big part of that.

Re: Linda sarsour. Fox, I read and/or watch several of the sources that you mentioned feature her but yet I have not heard of her until many republicans have been harping about her in social media after the Womens march. I'm certainly not a fan of hers.

Trump and the republicans also have some unsavory people attached to them, among them IMO is Steve bannon.

Fox

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 5:01 pm

dancingqueen wrote:

Re: Linda sarsour. Fox, I read and/or watch several of the sources that you mentioned feature her but yet I have not heard of her until many republicans have been harping about her in social media after the Womens march. I'm certainly not a fan of hers.

This says everything that needs to be said about media bias and distortion.

Eighteen months ago, Linda Sarsour was hailed by the NYT as the "Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab," in a gushing profile. Just a regular Jenny from the Block. And so cute how she talks just like any girl from Brooklyn!

All of her less-savory opinions were easily accessible when the NYT published that profile. She had already tweeted about about Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She had already lamented to Rachel Maddow that rejecting Sharia constitutes Islamophobia. She had already spoken out in defense of acknowledged terrorists. And that's without bringing up her public positions on BDS, BLM, etc.

Alan Feuer, his editor, and the NYT had to have known these things. There are only two explanations: aside from a quote from Pamela Geller, they deliberately excluded hard facts that made Sarsour look bad, or they are incompentent to an almost-criminal degree. Take your pick.

If you now have enough information to declare yourself "not a fan," you can thank right-wing media outlets. Because had they not continued to harp on the matter, you wouldn't have any way of knowing that the "Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab" is anything other than a nice lady trying to help her community.

And unless you believe, in fact, that the NYT writers and editors are truly too incompetent to use Google, ask yourself why they want to feed you such obviously distorted information . . . and how many times they've done it without getting caught.

Jeanette

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 10:29 pm

Fox wrote:

I'll leave it to you to fret over Linda Sarsour and the impending imposition of Sharia law on this country.

Serious Americans have enough to do keeping a close eye on the president.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 10:56 pm

Fox wrote:

This is just silly. Are you seriously making the argument that someone without any government-issued ID is not impaired in any way?

Focusing the ID issue exclusively in terms of voter registration is exploitative and cynical. It's a way that political operatives use vulnerable people for their own purposes. Require ID to vote; don't require ID to vote -- it doesn't matter to me. But if you care about disenfranchised, vulnerable members of society, help them get identification, whatever they use it for.

It's neither exploitive nor cynical. Its addressing the issue at hand. What's cynical and exploitive is moving the target, changing the conversation, and thereby avoiding the issue.

Which is exactly what referring to mainstream media such as CNN or the NY Times as "fake news" is intended to do.

The issue at hand is that states are trying to require people to present certain forms of identification that are disporporatinatley not held by poor people and minorities, such as driver’s licenses, U.S. passports, and veteran and military IDs. They did not allow IDs often held by poor minority voters, such as student IDs, government employee IDs and public assistance IDs. The Texas voter ID law accepted concealed-weapon licenses but not student or state employee IDs.

Its not that people didn't have the type of identification that allowed them to get a library card, or cash a check; its that those forms of ID were not accetable.

And by shifting the argument to "gee, everyone should really have those forms of identification," you shift the argument, hide the ball, and allow these discriminatory laws to continue.

A voter ID law that accepted reasonable forms of identification would not, IMNSHO, be problematic.

SixOfWands

Thu, Feb 09 2017, 11:11 pm

Jeanette wrote:

I'll leave it to you to fret over Linda Sarsour and the impending imposition of Sharia law on this country.

Serious Americans have enough to do keeping a close eye on the president.

Fox is the only person in America who seems to conflate Linda Sarsour with the Democratic party. She's not an elected official. She's not a party representative. She's not ... anything. She organized a march. With a lot of other people. She's an activist. Nothing more. Nothing official.

Yet somehow, her tweeets can be equated to those of the President. Democrats no longer have the right to complain about Trump bragging about molesting women because a private citizen -- ok, an activist -- made a rude and offensive comment about a woman who had suffered from FGM.

But, of course, we can't attribute anything that Trump supporters say to him. The racists and Nazis celebrating Trump's election? No. They're not Republicans. Nothing to do with Trump. Ignore them. And ignore what Trump says. The only thing that counts is an unelected private person. She represents every Democrat. Every marcher agrees with her every word.

Like you, I'll start worrying about Linda Sarsour if she's ever elected, or has an important position in the Democratic Party.. In the meantime, I have enough to worry about with the President and his appointees using their positions to tell us to buy Ivanka Trump made in China and Indonesia merchandise, and chiding us for not paying sufficient intention to the Bowling Green Massacre and Atlanta Muslim terror attacks that never happened. But not saying so much as a word about the tens of bomb threats against Jewish Community Centers.

Fox

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 10:45 am

SixOfWands wrote:

I went back and re-read each of my posts, and this is simply inaccurate. I never associated Linda Sarsour with the Democratic Party. I used the term, "the left," but I don't necessarily believe that leftists are necessarily affiliated with the Democratic Party or vice versa.

The Democratic Party can mean very different things in different parts of the country, and in many places, being a Democrat is definitely not a sign of being part of "the left."

This thread was originally about media bias. Linda Sarsour is an example, not the topic herself.

Sarsour has been praised by various media outlets and presented as a community leader. Yet she has some very unsavory views that a series of reporters have neglected to include in their profiles or interviews. Now she's become more prominent and media outlets -- with the exception of conservative outlets -- are still glossing over details that might portray her negatively.

Had the NYT included even a single paragraph in "Brooklyn Homegirl in a Hijab" that portrayed some of Sarsour's more controversial stands, there would be no story for conservative outlets to tell. If TV interviewers pushed hard for her to defend or clarify what sounds like a desire to offer Sharia as an alternative in America, she would either make some good points or look like an idiot, and there would be no story for conservative outlets to tell.

We can take Trump, his tweets, and his vulgarity out of this story -- it doesn't matter. Had Clinton or Sanders been elected instead of Trump, it would not change the fact that the NYT published a seriously whitewashed profile back in 2015, either without doing so much as a Google search or deliberately choosing to omit negative information they discovered.

I can't imagine what motivation the NYT had in publishing such an obviously distorted profile of Sarsour, but there's a perfectly easy way for journalists to increase their credibility and maybe even reduce conservative outlets to a handful of blogs: look like they're telling the truth. Notice that I'm not even asking journalists to "tell the truth," which can be a subjective thing. Just look like they're trying to tell the truth. You wouldn't think this would be such a stretch for them, but apparently it is.

sushilover

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 11:52 am

Jeanette wrote:

For the record I never heard of her except on this site and pay no attention to her.

This, I think is the crux of the issue. Anyone following the msm will have never heard of the terrible things spouted by democrats.
I can list pages of news that anyone who only follows msm would have never even heard of.

Jeanette wrote:

She's not the president and has no power or control over my life.

How about we agree that the president should not have too much control over your life in general? If the president tweets something stupid about the media you should be able to laugh it off, knowing that the president is only there make sure your rights aren't being violated. His or her opinion on the press or religion shouldn't actually be able to affect you at all.

SixOfWands

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 12:27 pm

Fox wrote:

You are correct. You said that no one on the "left" -- Democrats and others -- had any right to complain about the elected President of our country bragging about molesting women, because an unelected activist wrote an offensive tweet. I apologize for using the less inclusive term, when you used the more inclusive one.

But again, its like dealing with a shape-shifter. "We can take Trump, his tweets and his vulgarity out of this story ...." We can't. YOU raised them. You excused them because of this unelected activist.

Suddenly, its all about a 2015 NYT story on Sarsour. That's why its OK for Trump to brat about molesting people. That's why the President of the United States and his chosen representatives are allowed to lie about the "Bowling Green Massacre." Any why the majority of people who voted for Trump believe that massacre justifies the travel ban. http://theweek.com/speedreads/.....ssary

Again, Sarsour is a sideline. She represents no one. Trump is the president. But he allows his representatives to give "a free commercial" in support of a clothing line licensed under his daughter's name (and in which he may well have a financial interest). To invoke fear by citing fake terror attacks. To spout false and misleading statistics.

But, yeah, 2 years ago, the NYT did a puff peace on an unelected activist. So its all fine.

BTW, nice to see Assad picking up on this rhetoric. Torture is all fake news too. Next you know, ISIS will be a bunch of bunny rabbits; darned fake news about terror and torture and destruction.

SixOfWands

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 12:29 pm

sushilover wrote:

HE IS THE PRESIDENT. What he says about the press and religion matters.

Why do you think that we should "laugh off" the attempts of the leader of this country to de-legitimize the press, and to convince the electorate that he is the only source of accurate information, while reacting in horror at things that unelected activists supporting a specific cause say in favor of that cause.

sushilover

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 1:13 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Note I said should. He should not have too much control.
I believe that the executive branch has far too much power today. And any liberal who is uneasy about Betsy DeVos or Rick Perry becoming part of the executive branch, then why don't you agree to get rid of their positions altogether? Give power back to the states and to the legislative branch.

SixOfWands

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 1:27 pm

sushilover wrote:

You think that the states should be responsible for ensuring the integrity and safety of the nation’s nuclear weapons, advancing nuclear nonproliferation and promoting international nuclear safety?

I mean, like, Nevada should be entering into treaties with Russia, but that wouldn't apply to Wyoming? Texas could build its own nuclear arsenal, out of the control of the federal government?

Rick Perry is qualified to be a lot of things, but Energy Secretary isn't one of them.

Fox

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 1:39 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

But, yeah, 2 years ago, the NYT did a puff peace on an unelected activist.

That's what this particular thread is about: the integrity of the press.

I think we all get that you really, really dislike Trump. In fact, you dislike him more than anyone likes him (with the possible exception of Diamond and Silk). But that's not really relevant to this thread.

Part of the confusion is my fault; another poster brought Trump up in connection with his famous remarks. I should have ignored the similarities between the Trump's and Sarsour's words and focused exclusively on specific examples of journalistic malfeasance.

Actually, this reminds me a little of the thread currently going on about firing a cleaning lady who steals. Is it better to delve into why she might pocket a pack of crackers or assume that successfully pilfering a pack of crackers will lead inexorably to grand larceny? Do we search her purse or just fire her?

The NYT wrote a dishonest little puff piece 18 months ago. Did they leave out important information deliberately? If so, why? Was the writer's search engine blocked or was he unaware that checking the social media of the subject might be a responsible thing to do? If the NYT was willing to distort the truth in this particular fawning little puff piece, what other distortions have they committed?

As the article you linked posited, Trump is most definitely trolling the press. For better or worse, many people believe it couldn't be done to a more deserving group. That is naive, shortsighted, and possibly dangerous, as we would both probably agree. But the NYT article on Sarsour is just a small microcosm of how the press has been delegitimizing itself for years.

Just as many people don't want to bother with a cleaning lady who pilfers small items, many people don't want to constantly wonder what information the NYT, et. al., has conveniently stashed away in their handbags, never to see the light of day. They'd just rather fire the cleaning lady . . . and the NYT.

---------------------------

But I do have a pressing question as we enter Shabbos: do I get to choose the kind of shapeshifter I get to be. I kinda feel like wolves are a cliche, and I'm reluctant to stick with the fox thing since foxes have a certain reputation among the furry set (has Tauber's sold out of those $600 sweaters that had us all so riled up?). Cats are cool, but I'd probably shift into one of those enormous cats that sways when it walks. Those megabats that live in Australia are appealing, too, but they're constantly smacking into things and concussing themselves. How about a dragon? Aside from the whole fire-breathing thing . . .

I know. I know. You're probably muttering, "Fox, sweetheart, I'll tell you what you can turn into . . . !"

SixOfWands

Fri, Feb 10 2017, 1:55 pm

Fox wrote:

From the article:

Quote:

Ms. Sarsour’s critics include the anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, who has called her an “anti-Semitic Islamic supremacist who wields her religion like a club.”