Discussion
Goaty Bill 2 said:
In fairness, 'behave or don't expect to be invited' has been a threat used by White House press management under most/all presidents.
I haven't really looked into this in Trump's case, but the only unusual thing I can see is the list of the 'uninvited' includes names that have rarely failed to behave themselves in the past.
Trump's team don't seem to be managing the questions and avoiding surprises, and preparing the president in the way previous teams have done.
This is not a case of the mmdia misbehaving. It's a case of Trump and his team telling blatant lies, the media pointing this out, and Trump getting upset. If he stopped telling lies it wouldn't be an issue. But telling lies got him elected so he's hardly likely to want to change a winning formula.I haven't really looked into this in Trump's case, but the only unusual thing I can see is the list of the 'uninvited' includes names that have rarely failed to behave themselves in the past.
Trump's team don't seem to be managing the questions and avoiding surprises, and preparing the president in the way previous teams have done.
Countdown said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
In fairness, 'behave or don't expect to be invited' has been a threat used by White House press management under most/all presidents.
I haven't really looked into this in Trump's case, but the only unusual thing I can see is the list of the 'uninvited' includes names that have rarely failed to behave themselves in the past.
Trump's team don't seem to be managing the questions and avoiding surprises, and preparing the president in the way previous teams have done.
This is not a case of the mmdia misbehaving. It's a case of Trump and his team telling blatant lies, the media pointing this out, and Trump getting upset. If he stopped telling lies it wouldn't be an issue. But telling lies got him elected so he's hardly likely to want to change a winning formula.I haven't really looked into this in Trump's case, but the only unusual thing I can see is the list of the 'uninvited' includes names that have rarely failed to behave themselves in the past.
Trump's team don't seem to be managing the questions and avoiding surprises, and preparing the president in the way previous teams have done.
I will be the last person (or close to the last), that would ever defend a politician on the basis that 'all politicians lie'. That won't wash with me and never has.
There is however quite a difference between a 'ban' and not being on the 'invited list'.
They may still print what they like, within the law of course, they are not 'banned'.
They simply join the already very large group of media outlets that aren't on the 'invited list'.
Again, to me it seems that to some degree the use of the word 'ban' is being used to explicitly alter the meaning of what is actually happening; a few (very few) highly privileged media outlets have had their privilege removed.
I find it virtually impossible to find anyone stating any honest facts when it comes to Trump these days. It seems it is all 'for or against' without anyone adopting a middle ground.
The political bias and agenda pushing by virtually every news source is beyond comparison in my memory.
I am amused that CNN is the "fake news" target when the appalling Breitbart propaganda organization can exist and be believed by anyone.
Could you imagine (say) the London Times with a T shirt store that shows such ghastly chest beating nonsense as the one below for example..from a news" organization?? There are of course people who actually wear this stuff. CNN is biased, but does not stray into fantasy.
Could you imagine (say) the London Times with a T shirt store that shows such ghastly chest beating nonsense as the one below for example..from a news" organization?? There are of course people who actually wear this stuff. CNN is biased, but does not stray into fantasy.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
As I am not following every move of the Donald, I am not aware of specific proven lies, and that is not the same as denying they exist, they may well do.
Let me help;http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-tru...
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
As I am not following every move of the Donald, I am not aware of specific proven lies, and that is not the same as denying they exist, they may well do.
Let me help;http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-tru...
).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).
Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
I don't understand your logic. There is nothing to trust. They are just providing the list. Take each line and check for yourself, if you are actually interested. ).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
As I am not following every move of the Donald, I am not aware of specific proven lies, and that is not the same as denying they exist, they may well do.
Let me help;http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-tru...
).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Or http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/o... and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/t... ?
That site has been around for quite some time (the about page is dated November 2013) .
rscott said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
As I am not following every move of the Donald, I am not aware of specific proven lies, and that is not the same as denying they exist, they may well do.
Let me help;http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-tru...
).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Or http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/o... and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/t... ?
That site has been around for quite some time (the about page is dated November 2013) .
Seeing 57 pages, and having to navigate through each one, then scroll to the bottom again to navigate to the next.
It's an agony to use.
Worse than that, it has issues.
I had clicked on the Hillary link, it showed a few results (Recent only, so about 8 maybe?).
I clicked on 'See Them All', it showed only a few more and no additional pages.
I have done it again from the beginning to find there are 23 pages of Hillary.
I am not comfortable with the logic they use when creating some of the ratings, but at least they included the logic.
As many people would be inclined to accept the rating rather than look into the detail, false impressions are pretty easy to create, intentionally or otherwise.
I will keep them in mind as one reasonable source of confirmation/denial.
Separate point;
Trump (much like Lilly Allen) really should stay away from twitter.
Neither does themselves any favours on that thing.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).
Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/
hairykrishna said:
Goaty Bill 2 said:
Conceptually interesting site. Snopes for politics (and a few other tossers ).
Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
Not sure what you mean - they launched 10 years ago. They have analysis of Obamas and Hillarys comments along with a lot of other people.).Not meant as harsh criticism, but I would be more inclined towards trusting them if they had started up a few years back, or perhaps did some retrospective work on Mr. Obama and 'that woman'.
That said, it's quite clear that for now they intend to focus on Trump, his failings and those of his team.
I still can't quite (yet) see them as an unbiased source.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/
Dipoles
Left and right wing news on cable now getting more left and right wing. Fox and CNN are a lot less extreme than other sources, however they are now going on a path that makes them further apart. That is not good.
I'd like both Foxnews and CNN to gravitate towards the centre. However seeing the US populous is going the other way currently who can blame their reflection of this?
Left and right wing news on cable now getting more left and right wing. Fox and CNN are a lot less extreme than other sources, however they are now going on a path that makes them further apart. That is not good.
I'd like both Foxnews and CNN to gravitate towards the centre. However seeing the US populous is going the other way currently who can blame their reflection of this?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff