advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
My quote of the day:
Posted by: $tevie
Date: August 22, 2018 09:04PM
The part of this link that I am sharing is, to me, the best observation of the day:

I’ve been wondering what’s going through the minds of reporters, and not just the ones who spent the election trying to sex up Emails! I don’t think it is possible to say that reporters definitely should have been able to uncover the hush-money payments. Or the fact that Manafort has horrible taste in clothing. But I do think that missing big stories should cause a great deal of retrospection on the part of reporters who cover politics. Or crime.

[www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com]

YES



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: deckeda
Date: August 22, 2018 09:20PM
Conservatives had already shrugged off the Access Hollywood recording. There weren't "big stories" unrevealed; certainly Daniels said nothing prior to Nov. 8.

Yes, yes and yes, Butter Emails was given stupid attention, for a very long time. Comey must have watched far too much TV to save his decision-making for how to act in October '16 ... and he's been given a pass there.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: sekker
Date: August 22, 2018 10:33PM
Mueller is going down as a Hero of the State. Even Faux News polls show that now.

The fact that the press missed ALL of this should be sobering.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2018 10:34PM by sekker.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: zeppo2
Date: August 22, 2018 10:50PM
I disagree. If you read the WP and NYT before the election, there was plenty there that should have disqualified Trump. David Farenthold's excellent and dense multi-part (and Pulitzer winning) series on the sham that is the Trump Foundation, the exposés of Trump U, articles of how he shafted suppliers and contractors, the many, many essays on his birtherism, his treatment of women, etc. I think several things kept any of them from getting enough traction:
1: Americans have changed how they get news. We're no longer serious newspaper readers. During Watergate some of the best breaking news came from the newsrooms of medium-sized cities. Today there's there's the Post and the Times (and half the country distrusts New York and Washington), and the rest are hobbled by small budgets, part of bland or partisan syndicates, or timid editorial boards. Seriously, though, go back and read Farethold's series--I thought for sure that would sink Trump, but it didn't have the sparkle and shine of poorly researched articles demonizing the Clinton Foundation.

2. For 25+ years the right has demonized the press, no one quite as successfully as the Trump Administration. Fake news has been his mantra, giving his supporters or even those who are neutral permission to ignore serious news.

3. Journalism is shifting. Online "news" makes money by pushing sensational stories made out of crap and pushing herbal supplements in the pop up windows that distract you from the article itself. While the New York Times isn't failing, it hasn't figured out how to compete. And a lot of the best essays and articles before the elections came out in non-traditional places, like Vanity Fair or Esquire--often places less rigorous and more open to skepticism, but freer in terms of editorial restraint than newspapers like the Washington Post.

4. A 40-year war on education has created a population more open to propaganda than critical thinking.

5. The Trump crime family is unlike any other president we've ever had. The signal to noise ratio strains newsroom resources. Just as modern web surfers often have trouble sorting out the valid from the junk in their inbox (god I've helped a lot of friends and family recover from phishing attempts), as a journalist I'd think it's hard to know which way to jump. Pee tape? Racial slur tapes? Hours spent golfing? I think it's just taken awhile to get to this point.

Sorry...long night, second martini, and the strange mix of ennui and anger I'm becoming familiar with.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: bfd
Date: August 22, 2018 10:51PM
The press must now go full press - pedal to the metal, and full speed ahead. Deep Throat, where are you?

The San Diego Union-Tribune has been after Duncan "D" Hunter for the past few years - and they barely scratched the surface of the charges in the indictment that was handed down yesterday. It's what happens when there's no free press. Now, what's left is mainly a few large conglomerates and then NYT and WP… and a bunch of local gossip columns.

We've done this to ourselves.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: hal
Date: August 22, 2018 10:55PM
Frankly, I think it's a lot to ask of newsrooms whose size have shrunken to 20% of they're heyday. Uncovering these stories wold have required people with great connections and there just aren't as many as there used to be.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 23, 2018 12:48AM
Quote
zeppo2
I disagree. If you read the WP and NYT before the election, there was plenty there that should have disqualified Trump. David Farenthold's excellent and dense multi-part (and Pulitzer winning) series on the sham that is the Trump Foundation, the exposés of Trump U, articles of how he shafted suppliers and contractors, the many, many essays on his birtherism, his treatment of women, etc. I think several things kept any of them from getting enough traction:
1: Americans have changed how they get news. We're no longer serious newspaper readers. During Watergate some of the best breaking news came from the newsrooms of medium-sized cities. Today there's there's the Post and the Times (and half the country distrusts New York and Washington), and the rest are hobbled by small budgets, part of bland or partisan syndicates, or timid editorial boards. Seriously, though, go back and read Farethold's series--I thought for sure that would sink Trump, but it didn't have the sparkle and shine of poorly researched articles demonizing the Clinton Foundation.

2. For 25+ years the right has demonized the press, no one quite as successfully as the Trump Administration. Fake news has been his mantra, giving his supporters or even those who are neutral permission to ignore serious news.

3. Journalism is shifting. Online "news" makes money by pushing sensational stories made out of crap and pushing herbal supplements in the pop up windows that distract you from the article itself. While the New York Times isn't failing, it hasn't figured out how to compete. And a lot of the best essays and articles before the elections came out in non-traditional places, like Vanity Fair or Esquire--often places less rigorous and more open to skepticism, but freer in terms of editorial restraint than newspapers like the Washington Post.

4. A 40-year war on education has created a population more open to propaganda than critical thinking.

5. The Trump crime family is unlike any other president we've ever had. The signal to noise ratio strains newsroom resources. Just as modern web surfers often have trouble sorting out the valid from the junk in their inbox (god I've helped a lot of friends and family recover from phishing attempts), as a journalist I'd think it's hard to know which way to jump. Pee tape? Racial slur tapes? Hours spent golfing? I think it's just taken awhile to get to this point.

Sorry...long night, second martini, and the strange mix of ennui and anger I'm becoming familiar with.

1- The main culprit. People don't read newspapers any more. It used to take me nearly an hour to read the entire L.A. Times in 1982. This has the potential to get even worse with people being so willing to believe the crap on Faecesbook.
2- I think it's been going on longer than that. IIRC, people on the far right started planning how to slant news back when Johnson was in office. Nixon almost whispered things on tapes with only 2 or 3 people in the room. 45 now says the same kinds of things to news cameras on a daily basis. A Face in the Crowd came out in 1957.
3- I mostly agree. It's hard to see where the news business will be in 5 years.
4- You might be underestimating the war on education by saying it's only 40 years. One of the regular posters here supposedly used to be a teacher, but s/he seems to drink deeply from nearly the worst swill available online and occasionally re posts items here only to go down in flames 95% of the time.
5- I think the idea is to generate so much noise and outrage that nobody can easily keep track of it all. They are distracting people from the distractions. List of 17 items in the WaPo that singly would have sunk any previous candidate (not running against Crooked Clinton) and it's not complete by any means. I saw one series briefly that was something like 'This weeks top ten outrages that previously would have ruined a presidency.' I think it lasted about three months before it disappeared in the noise.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: deckeda
Date: August 23, 2018 06:59AM
Truth has taken a hit. Guiliani’s statement ... “truth isn’t truth” is itself a kind of truism, now. Someone was wrong or did something outrageous? It “didn’t happen, don’t care.” This is an electorate running on fear and selfishness.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Ted King
Date: August 23, 2018 07:31AM
Quote
zeppo2
I disagree. If you read the WP and NYT before the election, there was plenty there that should have disqualified Trump. David Farenthold's excellent and dense multi-part (and Pulitzer winning) series on the sham that is the Trump Foundation, the exposés of Trump U, articles of how he shafted suppliers and contractors, the many, many essays on his birtherism, his treatment of women, etc. I think several things kept any of them from getting enough traction:
1: Americans have changed how they get news. We're no longer serious newspaper readers. During Watergate some of the best breaking news came from the newsrooms of medium-sized cities. Today there's there's the Post and the Times (and half the country distrusts New York and Washington), and the rest are hobbled by small budgets, part of bland or partisan syndicates, or timid editorial boards. Seriously, though, go back and read Farethold's series--I thought for sure that would sink Trump, but it didn't have the sparkle and shine of poorly researched articles demonizing the Clinton Foundation.

2. For 25+ years the right has demonized the press, no one quite as successfully as the Trump Administration. Fake news has been his mantra, giving his supporters or even those who are neutral permission to ignore serious news.

3. Journalism is shifting. Online "news" makes money by pushing sensational stories made out of crap and pushing herbal supplements in the pop up windows that distract you from the article itself. While the New York Times isn't failing, it hasn't figured out how to compete. And a lot of the best essays and articles before the elections came out in non-traditional places, like Vanity Fair or Esquire--often places less rigorous and more open to skepticism, but freer in terms of editorial restraint than newspapers like the Washington Post.

4. A 40-year war on education has created a population more open to propaganda than critical thinking.

5. The Trump crime family is unlike any other president we've ever had. The signal to noise ratio strains newsroom resources. Just as modern web surfers often have trouble sorting out the valid from the junk in their inbox (god I've helped a lot of friends and family recover from phishing attempts), as a journalist I'd think it's hard to know which way to jump. Pee tape? Racial slur tapes? Hours spent golfing? I think it's just taken awhile to get to this point.

Sorry...long night, second martini, and the strange mix of ennui and anger I'm becoming familiar with.

Excellent post. Hope it felt better to get that off your chest. I can empathize with the feeling of ennui and anger - I feel it myself more and more as well.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: pdq
Date: August 23, 2018 08:57AM
Quote
zeppo2
I disagree. If you read the WP and NYT before the election, there was plenty there that should have disqualified Trump. David Farenthold's excellent and dense multi-part (and Pulitzer winning) series on the sham that is the Trump Foundation, the exposés of Trump U, articles of how he shafted suppliers and contractors, the many, many essays on his birtherism, his treatment of women, etc.

Very well put. The press can certainly be faulted for playing along with faux-scandals like Clinton’s emails, but Trump’s disqualifications were also largely exposed, for anyone who wanted to see.

But that’s the problem, of course - there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: zeppo2
Date: August 23, 2018 10:50AM
Thanks...it did feel good to get it off my chest. I think my wife was tired of being the sole recipient of my complaints :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: August 23, 2018 11:22AM
Quote
Ted King
Quote
zeppo2
I disagree. If you read the WP and NYT before the election, there was plenty there that should have disqualified Trump. David Farenthold's excellent and dense multi-part (and Pulitzer winning) series on the sham that is the Trump Foundation, the exposés of Trump U, articles of how he shafted suppliers and contractors, the many, many essays on his birtherism, his treatment of women, etc. I think several things kept any of them from getting enough traction:
1: Americans have changed how they get news. We're no longer serious newspaper readers. During Watergate some of the best breaking news came from the newsrooms of medium-sized cities. Today there's there's the Post and the Times (and half the country distrusts New York and Washington), and the rest are hobbled by small budgets, part of bland or partisan syndicates, or timid editorial boards. Seriously, though, go back and read Farethold's series--I thought for sure that would sink Trump, but it didn't have the sparkle and shine of poorly researched articles demonizing the Clinton Foundation.

2. For 25+ years the right has demonized the press, no one quite as successfully as the Trump Administration. Fake news has been his mantra, giving his supporters or even those who are neutral permission to ignore serious news.

3. Journalism is shifting. Online "news" makes money by pushing sensational stories made out of crap and pushing herbal supplements in the pop up windows that distract you from the article itself. While the New York Times isn't failing, it hasn't figured out how to compete. And a lot of the best essays and articles before the elections came out in non-traditional places, like Vanity Fair or Esquire--often places less rigorous and more open to skepticism, but freer in terms of editorial restraint than newspapers like the Washington Post.

4. A 40-year war on education has created a population more open to propaganda than critical thinking.

5. The Trump crime family is unlike any other president we've ever had. The signal to noise ratio strains newsroom resources. Just as modern web surfers often have trouble sorting out the valid from the junk in their inbox (god I've helped a lot of friends and family recover from phishing attempts), as a journalist I'd think it's hard to know which way to jump. Pee tape? Racial slur tapes? Hours spent golfing? I think it's just taken awhile to get to this point.

Sorry...long night, second martini, and the strange mix of ennui and anger I'm becoming familiar with.

Excellent post. Hope it felt better to get that off your chest. I can empathize with the feeling of ennui and anger - I feel it myself more and more as well.

I agree - great post.

I have one point of disagreement though and that's with a "war on education" being somehow responsible for people voting for Trump. It was old people who voted for him in droves, not young ones. Young people are more savvy about current events than their parents were, not less. They are more likely to volunteer and to engage in some sort of community work.
They are more cynical too and who can blame them. This cynicism can cause people to be less likely to vote because they don't think their voices will be heard. And who can blame them. I feel a new surge of interest in civic matters from young people, partly as a result of the Resistance to Trump, and I hope that bears fruit in November.

Baby Boomers brought us Trump, not Millennials.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: August 23, 2018 11:28AM
There was plenty reported on Trump for people to understand he's not qualified temperamentally to be President and has generally low character. The primary thing I think this election demonstrated is that enough people will pick PARTY over anything else even if it means electing a criminal incompetent. Trump himself admitted it during the campaign; why else try to make Hillary look like the BIGGER crook? Yeah I'm bad but she's worse.

I think what the media missed is the fact that so many people were supporting Trump, especially in the Midwestern states that were expected to be Dem.
If you only consume left-leaning media you would most definitely have missed that.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: August 23, 2018 12:08PM
"Baby Boomers brought us Trump, not Millennials."

No. Racists and uneducated people brought us Trump.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: August 23, 2018 12:36PM
Quote
Dennis S
"Baby Boomers brought us Trump, not Millennials."

No. Racists and uneducated people brought us Trump.

I get that everyone wants to eliminate their own demographic as being to blame for Trump but the facts don't lie: the majority of people over age 40 voted for Trump. Younger voters went for Clinton but not enough of them voted to offset the older folks.

[kingcounty.gov]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: August 23, 2018 07:33PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
[kingcounty.gov]

What does the water taxi have to do with this?



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: My quote of the day:
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: August 23, 2018 07:49PM
Quote
Filliam H. Muffman
Quote
Lemon Drop
[kingcounty.gov]

What does the water taxi have to do with this?

LOL sorry wrong linky that's my commuting schedule,,,
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 191
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018