Octopus Overlords

Smutly wrote:Yeah, probably doesn't matter, Comrade.

Donald Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway laced into David Plouffe on Tuesday, days after the former campaign adviser to Barack Obama called the GOP nominee a "psychopath."
Responding to that comment and Hillary Clinton's speech tying Trump to white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan last week, Conway had three words on Fox News Radio's "Kilmeade & Friends": "Shame on them."

"I mean, the name-calling has reached a fever pitch and it just tells ya, they got nothin’. They got no game," Conway told host Brian Kilmeade, suggesting that if Clinton "were really strong on the issues" and if Plouffe "was that proud of his boss Barack Obama’s Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, then he would go out there and he’d talk about that."

Rather than calling Trump a "psychopath," a notion against which "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd pushed back Sunday, Conway remarked that Plouffe would have said that Clinton's opponent "shouldn’t win, because Obamacare’s going so well, everybody’s so happy, United HealthCare and Aetna didn’t just realize billions of dollars in losses and pull out of 40-some exchanges."

"They can’t. They don’t have the issue set that favors them" and thus they resort to name-calling, Conway said. "And I have to say, look, politics is not a tea party. It’s rough and tumble. We all get that, Brian. But to go out there and do guilt by association and to accuse people of having malice in their heart towards other people with no evidence, and then to do exactly what the American Psychological Association has asked people not to do, which is to, which is to certify somebody as mentally unfit or a psychopath. It’s just beyond the pale, and nobody calls them on it."
...
"All week long, it’s that Donald Trump referred to Hillary Clinton with one word and everybody, you know, their hair is on fire. Donald Trump is called every name in the book plus, before he gets out of bed in the morning. And yet that’s justifiable, that’s acceptable," Conway remarked sarcastically. "Brian, look at these articles that are everywhere in the last week or two where mainstream media, so-called reporters, quote unquote, are outwardly saying that Donald Trump pushes their limits of objectivity, that they are challenging each other to cover him more aggressively because they believe he should not be president and commander in chief. Guess what, folks? That’s not their job. Their job is to report the news to you and not decide who should and who should not be president and then try to make that conclusion a reality.”

Smutly wrote:It is disturbing that so many people do not care that the media manipulates instead of reporting the news.

Isgrimnur wrote:Seeing as we have a long history of news outlets endorsing political candidates, she doesn't have a good understanding of media history. Or perhaps, *gasp* she's being disingenuous.

Grifman wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote:Seeing as we have a long history of news outlets endorsing political candidates, she doesn't have a good understanding of media history. Or perhaps, *gasp* she's being disingenuous.

The editorial side of the media, which endorses candidates, is separate, or should be, from the news section of the media. At least that's how it works for newspapers. So you're not really being fair in your comment.

Smutly wrote:It is disturbing that so many people do not care that the media manipulates instead of reporting the news. We used to separate opinion from fact, but now there is just opinion. In times past, you would expect entertainment from the National Inquirer. Now it's all about entertainment and there is no one you can trust.

Omission of words is censuring of ideas. If I say Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are huge dicks then report it that way. The fact that people are supportive or gleeful when this happens by the very institution which is supposed to unbiasedly inform the public tells me that Civics is no longer taught, not taught well, or not understood. Words matter. Report the facts or state your opinion in an opinion piece.

Holman wrote:

Smutly wrote:It is disturbing that so many people do not care that the media manipulates instead of reporting the news. We used to separate opinion from fact, but now there is just opinion. In times past, you would expect entertainment from the National Inquirer. Now it's all about entertainment and there is no one you can trust.

Omission of words is censuring of ideas. If I say Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are huge dicks then report it that way. The fact that people are supportive or gleeful when this happens by the very institution which is supposed to unbiasedly inform the public tells me that Civics is no longer taught, not taught well, or not understood. Words matter. Report the facts or state your opinion in an opinion piece.

Someone screwed up the graphic. (We've all seen Fox News mislabel Iraq as "Egypt.") The actual tweet, with the words you claim are "censured," is displayed prominently at the start of the story.

Whom was this supposed to fool, and how?

Isgrimnur wrote:I choose to live with the reality with which I am presented. My worldview is as evidence-based as I can make it. While I might prefer clear separations of news and editorials, I realize that it is not now, nor has it ever been the case. As with so many things, the good old days were not as good as people choose to remember them as. Evidence supports that they are now old, and recorded history supports the assertion that they were, indeed, days.

Smutly wrote: There is a journalist "code of ethics" which represents what I am describing. The difference is that NOW people don't even pretend to try to be unbiased. Yes, there was a time when they at least tried to appear as if they were unbiased. NOW, they don't give a fuck. THIS FUCKING PISSES ME OFF because the "Free Press" was a cornerstone for keeping the government honest and for providing the public with information to make informed decisions. When the "Free Press" favors the government agenda, how are they different than a corporate lobbyist influencing without letting the people review the facts and make their own informed decision? Either way, Democracy is harmed. Of course, you should know this but if you're just being obtuse or aren't a serious human being then WTFOMGBBQ.

raydude wrote:

Smutly wrote: There is a journalist "code of ethics" which represents what I am describing. The difference is that NOW people don't even pretend to try to be unbiased. Yes, there was a time when they at least tried to appear as if they were unbiased. NOW, they don't give a fuck. THIS FUCKING PISSES ME OFF because the "Free Press" was a cornerstone for keeping the government honest and for providing the public with information to make informed decisions. When the "Free Press" favors the government agenda, how are they different than a corporate lobbyist influencing without letting the people review the facts and make their own informed decision? Either way, Democracy is harmed. Of course, you should know this but if you're just being obtuse or aren't a serious human being then WTFOMGBBQ.

Of all the possible examples of biased media reporting to pick on, you chose the one where CNN presented Trump as LESS of a name calling turd?

Smutly wrote:There is a journalist "code of ethics" which represents what I am describing. The difference is that NOW people don't even pretend to try to be unbiased. Yes, there was a time when they at least tried to appear as if they were unbiased. NOW, they don't give a fuck. THIS FUCKING PISSES ME OFF because the "Free Press" was a cornerstone for keeping the government honest and for providing the public with information to make informed decisions.

Isgrimnur wrote:The term 'yellow journalism' dates to the 1890s. Tabloid journalism comes from the same timeframe in England. Your belief that journalism has ever been unbiased is not supported by a cursory examination of its history.

ImLawBoy wrote:

Smutly wrote:There is a journalist "code of ethics" which represents what I am describing. The difference is that NOW people don't even pretend to try to be unbiased. Yes, there was a time when they at least tried to appear as if they were unbiased. NOW, they don't give a fuck. THIS FUCKING PISSES ME OFF because the "Free Press" was a cornerstone for keeping the government honest and for providing the public with information to make informed decisions.

But this just isn't true for much of the democratic experiment. Just google "myth of the unbiased media" for general agreement that the idea of an unbiased media is really only about 100 years old. Prior to that, every expected and assumed that their news was going to have bias.

Now, the idea of a free press, where the government can't censor the media, is a truly sacred cow, but that's not the same thing.

Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. I don't want a return to the days of true yellow journalism (typified today by the fringe media sites), but I'm OK with a bit of "flavor" - even to the extremes taken by Fox News or MSNBC. As long as I understand the bias, I can account for it in my reading of the news.

This particular issue (the modified tweet) seems a particularly strange hill to fight the issue on, though, as it's not really indicative of a bias. If anything, it's sloppy, but not really biased.

The newspaper wars of the 1790s, in which Callender enlisted, were ferocious. “The golden age of America’s founding was also the gutter age of American reporting,” writes historian Eric Burns. Papers were partisan, not impartial. Editors attacked each other in the street, cursing each other with prolixity and backward-running sentences. They seemed to have the typesetting equivalent of unlimited minutes when it came to using insulting synonyms found in the thesaurus. Their enemies were “depraved,” “worthless,” “vile,” “intemperate,” and “wicked.” Accusations of drunkenness were frequent (and accurate) as were charges of corruption and debauchery.

gbasden wrote:Anyone that believes that a neutral press was anything but a recent invention hasn't studied a lot of early American history. One example:

The newspaper wars of the 1790s, in which Callender enlisted, were ferocious. “The golden age of America’s founding was also the gutter age of American reporting,” writes historian Eric Burns. Papers were partisan, not impartial. Editors attacked each other in the street, cursing each other with prolixity and backward-running sentences. They seemed to have the typesetting equivalent of unlimited minutes when it came to using insulting synonyms found in the thesaurus. Their enemies were “depraved,” “worthless,” “vile,” “intemperate,” and “wicked.” Accusations of drunkenness were frequent (and accurate) as were charges of corruption and debauchery.

Public Policy Polling (PPP) is known for its outlandish survey questions.

Though they may seem frivolous at first, they can also reveal disturbing truths about a voter base.

According to the latest national survey conducted by the left-leaning organization, 31 percent of Donald Trump supporters would be in favor of building a wall along the Atlantic Ocean in order to keep Muslims from entering the U.S. from the Middle East.

El Guapo wrote:I'll be curious to see how this Mexico visit goes. I really don't know anything about Nieto, though I get the general sense from people talking about his visit that he's currently deeply unpopular in Mexico. The question is what is Nieto's self-interest in this, which should shape his posture when meeting with Drumpf.

Intuitively you would think that Nieto would want to be seen as tough with Drumpf, given how (understandably) unpopular he is in Mexico, and given the odds that Drumpf won't ultimately be elected.

El Guapo wrote: Intuitively you would think that Nieto would want to be seen as tough with Trump, given how (understandably) unpopular he is in Mexico, and given the odds that Trump won't ultimately be elected.

Scraper wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I'll be curious to see how this Mexico visit goes. I really don't know anything about Nieto, though I get the general sense from people talking about his visit that he's currently deeply unpopular in Mexico. The question is what is Nieto's self-interest in this, which should shape his posture when meeting with Drumpf.

Intuitively you would think that Nieto would want to be seen as tough with Drumpf, given how (understandably) unpopular he is in Mexico, and given the odds that Drumpf won't ultimately be elected.

I agree, it would be a huge surprise if Nieto didn't use this as an opportunity to bolster his own image in Mexico and he does that by making Trump look like the fool that he is.

Kraken wrote:

Scraper wrote:

El Guapo wrote:I'll be curious to see how this Mexico visit goes. I really don't know anything about Nieto, though I get the general sense from people talking about his visit that he's currently deeply unpopular in Mexico. The question is what is Nieto's self-interest in this, which should shape his posture when meeting with Drumpf.

Intuitively you would think that Nieto would want to be seen as tough with Drumpf, given how (understandably) unpopular he is in Mexico, and given the odds that Drumpf won't ultimately be elected.

I agree, it would be a huge surprise if Nieto didn't use this as an opportunity to bolster his own image in Mexico and he does that by making Trump look like the fool that he is.

...which plays into Trump's "Mexico is our enemy" narrative. Trump only loses if he approaches it unimaginably humble and conciliatory and is rebuffed. More likely he plays Emperor of North America and Mexico is the rebellious client.

I'm... I'm... I'm just a grifter, Nieto. I'm... I'm... I'm... I'm... I'm an nobody! But I'll tell you what, I never crossed a friend, Nieto. I never killed anybody, I never crossed a border, nor you, I'll bet. We're not like those rapists outside! This is not us! Th... th... this is some hop dream! It's a dream, Nieto! I'm praying to you! I can't lose! I can't lose... out here in Mexico, like a dumb animal! In Mexico, LIKE A DUMB ANIMAL! Like a dumb animal! I can't... I can't... I CAN'T LOSE OUT HERE IN MEXICO!... like a dumb animal. I can't... lose

El Guapo wrote: I'm not sure that wins him any more support, though.

Holman wrote:Trump, Rudy, and Jeff Sessions?

When the USA sends its people, they're not sending their best.

Daveman wrote:"Make the hemisphere great again" just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily.