The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

No one should get their news solely from those stations. I use CNN purely as an exposure outlet and do my own news-gathering from there (it doesn't help that everything on CNN is breaking news--it's like the constant "state of emergency" we find ourselves in). The Guardian is good, as is the NYT, the Atlantic, etc. I also like some online sources like Slate (usually) and The Intercept. These are places that admittedly lean left, but I don't think it's to the detriment of the information they report on. The only pieces when this really matters, as it concerns content, is in op-ed pieces, which are becoming more and more frequent on online platforms; but if you (not you specifically) don't like the op-ed pieces, then don't read them.

With the proliferation of online journalism and media sites, there has been an emergence of a new kind of writing--something like the "soft cultural theory" piece. Sometimes these can be well-done, but they can also be shameless groupthink pieces.

 

[Dak]

That is an entirely arbitrary comment, and relies on assumptions in order to masquerade as truthful. Rhetorically elegant, but logically imprecise. It could just as easily (and just as speculatively) be said that the media has the responsibility to fact-check the president because the president has a higher duty than the media.

The notion of checks and balances imbues all parties with equal levels of duty. Where you might protest is that "media" is too broad and heterogeneous while the Executive Branch of the US government has more clearly defined structure and responsibilities. In return, I would submit that the oath does not include "will Tweet 100% accurate statements", and that insofar as the President wishes to convey a message to the public two things: 1. The media is incensed regarding the loss of gatekeeper and 2. Trump in his public messages is acting very much like everyone else in his medium (media). How one tweets does not in any have a direct connection to the discharging of actual presidential duties (unless one tweets something classified, etc).

You protest too much, and you flatten everything. This is a poorly construed equivalence.

Again, I appeal to the liberal democratic notion of checks and balances. There has been so much handwringing and waxing long about how vital a "free press" is to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Well, a free press isn't necessarily a good press, and the press isn't - broadly - good.

Edit: Remember that spike of "hate crimes" and "anti-Semitism" supposedly due to Trump? They have sporadically plastered all over the news. The truth? Not so much:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ish-community-center-threats-arrest/99528560/

And this is just the most egregious example that I know of to date of a common theme of "false flag" "hate crimes".

I find links like these thanks to blogs and alt-media, as if they are reported at all, it's buried within the site to provide plausible deniability all while not actually correcting the original message.

Edit2: Props to WaPo, it made the main page for a bit, although somewhat down page:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.ab71dd8a703d

 

[CiG]

 

[tagradh]

Pretty sure that people like him were kids that got beaten up at school. And the people they tend to get into fights with were the ones that did the bullying.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The general word on /pol/ is that the Boston Antifa guy is actually one of theirs and just trolling. If you look at his Facebook page, no one gives a shit and the comments on it are retarded even by ANTIFA standards. Not to mention most of what he does is repost stories of Muslim attacks and Stefan Molyneux videos.

 

[CiG]

That would actually explain a lot.

 

[Dak]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbak...ual-harassment?utm_term=.gw83BoL1y#.maVJrLn35

Bombsearle lawsuit.

 

[no country for old wainds]

Police in Poland have detained at least 11 people after a naked demonstration at the Auschwitz museum, on the site of the former Nazi death camp.

The museum said "a group of people killed a sheep, undressed and chained themselves together".

The incident took place beneath the main gate, which bears the infamous slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei" ("Work sets you free").

The motive behind the demonstration was unclear, officials said.

 

[Einherjar86]

The notion of checks and balances imbues all parties with equal levels of duty.

"Equal levels of duty" is the phrase I have a problem with. Do you mean that all parties have equally important responsibilities? That may be true. But the president is a figure on whom a considerable portion of the electorate have placed their trust, and in this respect he commands a greater degree of power than the media does; and the way he conducts himself has consequences for the even the possibility of the media to perform its job regarding any kind of check. The level of his authority exceeds the press/media, and he's using it intentionally to impede the press/media.

Where you might protest is that "media" is too broad and heterogeneous while the Executive Branch of the US government has more clearly defined structure and responsibilities. In return, I would submit that the oath does not include "will Tweet 100% accurate statements", and that insofar as the President wishes to convey a message to the public two things: 1. The media is incensed regarding the loss of gatekeeper and 2. Trump in his public messages is acting very much like everyone else in his medium (media). How one tweets does not in any have a direct connection to the discharging of actual presidential duties (unless one tweets something classified, etc).

I don't have any problem with the term "media" per se; but the president's oath doesn't include "will Tweet 100% accurate statements" because social media didn't exist when the oath of office was written. It is the president's responsibility to avoid intentionally spreading misinformation or inflammatory remarks because he doesn't like certain information. When he does, the repercussions are more dynamic than an already disparate and divided media system that offers a plethora of biased pieces and misinformation. When the president participates in that, he abuses a level of authority that exceeds the media.

1. The media should be incensed.

2. Not like everyone else, but like some people--and he shouldn't.

Again, I appeal to the liberal democratic notion of checks and balances. There has been so much handwringing and waxing long about how vital a "free press" is to the healthy functioning of a democracy. Well, a free press isn't necessarily a good press, and the press isn't - broadly - good.

It doesn't matter if it isn't always "good"--it shouldn't be strategically inhibited by a figure who has the authority to diminish it because it publishes things he doesn't like.

A democratic press/media is infinitely perfectible and infinitely corruptible. It can always get better and it can always get worse.

 

[Dak]

How is Trump "strategically inhibiting" the media?

Ideally, public figures would perform all duties at a higher level than their constituents. But that's an ideal that seems to be rarely fulfilled, and skilled oratory or circumspect speech are only single and often overrated indicators.

 

[Einherjar86]

How is Trump "strategically inhibiting" the media?

I'm finding it difficult to take this question seriously...

 

[Dak]

I'm finding it difficult to take this question seriously...

I've heard absolutely zero about the freedom of the press being actually restricted. Much warning about how it's possible and bad, but zero on actual restrictions (unless you wind up on a "fake news" list anyway). No one is smashing the door in at WaPo, the editors of the NYT aren't being jailed, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not saying anything about the freedom of the press, although he does privilege certain outlets over others. I'm talking about rejecting the legitimacy of an institution's processes, even if those processes are sometimes corrupted.

To take an example, Trump says that the Obama administration had Trump Tower wiretapped. The press is totally free to investigate and report on this idea, but any story that does anything but purport to verify Trump's claims appears illegitimate in Trump's eyes and those of his supporters. To the best of our knowledge, accurate analysis reveals that "incidental surveillance" occurred; but we're all being incidentally surveiled, so this means next to nothing.

It was accurate and effective reporting, but Trump's rhetoric and position are strategic in that they paint the entire situation as a bombshell that the "fake news" didn't want to report on, further delegitimizing their authority and proclaiming himself the champion of truth. None of his supporters care about stories that dig deeper or provide more context for the surveillance, since this is obviously attempts by the liberal media to whitewash Obama's actions (although Obama almost certainly had minimal, if any, interest in Donald Trump).

None of this has to do with freedom of the press, and everything to do with how a president's behavior has a serious impact on the perceived legitimacy of a necessary, if often biased, institution.

 

[CiG]

If the wiretapped Trump Tower thing does any good, it will be in reminding American citizens and many abroad that the NSA are violating the entire country's privacy, as many people seem to have forgotten that.

 

[Baroque]

If the wiretapped Trump Tower thing does any good, it will be in reminding American citizens and many abroad that the NSA are violating the entire country's privacy, as many people seem to have forgotten that.

Thanks Dubya!

 

[CiG]

Thanks Dubya!

Precisely. The NSA have run amok ever since, people often accuse Obama of being behind the NSA's actions during the last 8 years, but I don't believe he even knew about majority of what was going on. They are entirely now an entity operating outside of any authoritative supervision.

Bush Jr is the embodiment of the Benjamin Franklin quote:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

 

[Dak]

I'm not saying anything about the freedom of the press, although he does privilege certain outlets over others. I'm talking about rejecting the legitimacy of an institution's processes, even if those processes are sometimes corrupted.

To take an example, Trump says that the Obama administration had Trump Tower wiretapped. The press is totally free to investigate and report on this idea, but any story that does anything but purport to verify Trump's claims appears illegitimate in Trump's eyes and those of his supporters. To the best of our knowledge, accurate analysis reveals that "incidental surveillance" occurred; but we're all being incidentally surveiled, so this means next to nothing.

It was accurate and effective reporting, but Trump's rhetoric and position are strategic in that they paint the entire situation as a bombshell that the "fake news" didn't want to report on, further delegitimizing their authority and proclaiming himself the champion of truth. None of his supporters care about stories that dig deeper or provide more context for the surveillance, since this is obviously attempts by the liberal media to whitewash Obama's actions (although Obama almost certainly had minimal, if any, interest in Donald Trump).

None of this has to do with freedom of the press, and everything to do with how a president's behavior has a serious impact on the perceived legitimacy of a necessary, if often biased, institution.

I think you have the situation backwards in this case. Trump's attacks on the media are pandering to a base that has already more-or-less written off those outlets as heavily left-wing biased already (he hasn't changed his tone on this since practically the beginning of his candidacy). Conversely, the anti-Trumpers (at least as large a portion of the electorate) are probably even more attuned to these "delegitimized" outlets than ever before. In short, I don't think his tweets hurt the media except in the fact in showing they aren't a gatekeeper - which is actually much more serious than however he oriented towards them.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think you have the situation backwards in this case. Trump's attacks on the media are pandering to a base that has already more-or-less written off those outlets as heavily left-wing biased already (he hasn't changed his tone on this since practically the beginning of his candidacy). Conversely, the anti-Trumpers (at least as large a portion of the electorate) are probably even more attuned to these "delegitimized" outlets than ever before. In short, I don't think his tweets hurt the media except in the fact in showing they aren't a gatekeeper - which is actually much more serious than however he oriented towards them.

They hadn't written them off. They may have viewed them skeptically, or with suspicion; but they didn't dismiss them outright. Trump's statements give them the confidence to ignore certain media altogether. Whereas before they simply may not have read certain media because they don't agree with what's being said, now they feel they don't have to read certain media--indeed, that they shouldn't read certain media.


In other news, it's more than a financial decision when they're not just defunding programs--they're deleting data.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations

 

[Dak]

They hadn't written them off. They may have viewed them skeptically, or with suspicion; but they didn't dismiss them outright. Trump's statements give them the confidence to ignore certain media altogether. Whereas before they simply may not have read certain media because they don't agree with what's being said, now they feel they don't have to read certain media--indeed, that they shouldn't read certain media.

I guess time will tell. Trump does need some wins at some point or the swing portion that got him in will probably flip on him. I really dislike legacy media or "MSM", but some sites are worse than others in intertwining opinion with fact reporting. CNN and NYT are pretty bad about it at this point. Reuters does a much better job. I feel like WaPo is improving a bit.

In other news, it's more than a financial decision when they're not just defunding programs--they're deleting data.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations

Well deleting data of any sort pains me to some degree, but the tone in the article is a bit much.

 

[arg]

this is gold