Politico writes an ostensibly negative piece on Trump. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...rump-foreign-policy-analysis-dangerous-216202 The writer still manages to put in this BS. "Call them the Reassurers. Substantively, they make their case more or less like this: Trump hasn’t gotten us into any new wars, and is confronting bad actors in North Korea and Iran with renewed vigor, continuing tough sanctions against Russia despite his public praise of Kremlin strongman Vladimir Putin, dismantling the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and forcing European allies to pay more for NATO after years of ineffectual American complaints." That feckless Obama was such a pushover!!! <sigh>
For Trump, a Steep Learning Curve Leads to Policy Reversals.' All about how he's learning on the job. By Peter Baker, April 13, 2017. https://t.co/KO6kVQPIfA https://t.co/rmXlqI6gmi— Jay Rosen (@jayrosen_nyu) January 6, 2018 Part of the reason for the initial backlash against Wolff was that he exposed the uselessness of the MSM. They knew and know the truth, but their self imposed restraints kept them from telling the truth. In fact, they actively misled their audience. They gave up the backlash within a day because it was just too obvious that Wolff did their job better than they did; they couldn’t hide from it. Thanks to jitty for pointing me to this twitter feed.
Well dude is a back pages writer with a tendency to make some of his shit up, so yes, I would expect that the reporters would be careful to fully embrace the book before they can independently confirm some of the stories, it is the right thing to do. Now it seems like they are all in, they are careful to admit that some stories do not check or seem created/embellished.
On Thursday, the NYT is not running any editorials in print. The ed board is devoting the page to letters from Trump supporters. Check it out https://t.co/feU41BwXNU— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) January 17, 2018
A wasted gesture. Those letters are for the left to reassure itself of its fairness -- a concept that matters little, if at all, outside of lefty circles. Fox will not be reciprocating, and centrists won't be saying, "Gee there actually is a difference in how the two sides operate."
Inside the room: House GOP read out headlines of NYT and AP, among others, and talked up idea this is a Dem-causes shutdown, per person there. Person adds that GOP holding to position and believe Senate Dems have to move toward them...— Robert Costa (@costareports) January 20, 2018 NYT once again operating as a Trump propaganda outlet, with its lies used by the GOP to shape policy that causes citizens to suffer https://t.co/6g8z4azOYn— Sarah Kendzior (@sarahkendzior) January 20, 2018 The Times sucks.
I always want to give them credit and give them the benefit of doubt (especially since they have a DC office), but then they regularly do shit that is simply inexcusable. They have many of the worst takes in media. In the end, it often comes down to them being a NYC paper with a ********ed up POV that doesn't fully understand anything outside of New York City. ********, we even saw the same with NY versus DC FBI.
CNN has an article near the top of today's page blaming the shutdown on Democrats. It was written by Ted Cruz's former communications director. Anybody see the left-wing equivalent on Fox? Yeah, I thought not.
Check back in a few hours. They'll have an opinion piece saying the opposite from a Democrat. Their error is that they don't label those pieces properly on the front page.
Will Fox have Opinion pieces from both sides, with the Democratic position (at least for a while) placed near the top of its page?
Fox is Propaganda, CNN is not, that is the difference. But to give some of the Fox people some Credit. They still have a handful of token journalists.
This goes here as well as anywhere. Lately there’s been this move on the left to criticize the NYT op-ed page for its lame intellectual diversity hires. They’ve hired a couple of mediocre at best conservatives to “challenge” their readers. the idea is to be more in touch with the America that shocked them by electing Trump. The obvious problem with these hires is that they don’t represent Trump or the GOP. But the Times isnt going to hire a trolling racist like Ann Coulter or Alex Jones. The effect is that its readers aren’t just ignorant about Trump’s America, it’s worse than that. They are being misled about it. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/15/17113176/new-york-times-opinion-page-conservatism
When the Times opinion page pretends that conservatism is David Brooks or Bret Stephens when it maintains the comforting illusion that American politics is a contest of ideas, it is not exposing its readers to uncomfortable truths — it is sheltering them. Do NYT readers — who mostly read mainstream sources, mostly live in cities, mostly are not exposed to right-wing media — understand that the most active voices on the American right today are filled with paranoid rage, hopped up on lies and conspiracy theories, unmoved by reason, and devoted to their total destruction? Do they understand that the values and norms they assume safe and sacrosanct are in fact under heavy siege? Do they know that American democracy is in danger of coming apart? I’m not sure they do; I think they still imagine Republican moderates gathered in a cave somewhere, ready to swoop in and take charge again at the sight of the David Brooks bat signal. I'm pretty sure this is lost on very few NYT readers. At least those who check the comments section.
https://splinternews.com/if-we-had-...ve-had-a-paul-ry-1825304484?rev=1524160016950 A fun read/polemic making the argument that if we had a liberal media, Paul Ryan would have always been seen as a fringe extremist. I enjoyed it, I think it’s true, and I think many of you will enjoy it. I liked Alex’ point about imagining how the Sunday Shows would treat a rising Democrat whose economic views were as far left as Ryan’s are to the right.
The problem with Chris Cillizza is in two parts. First, he's an idiot. Second, he's an unteachable idiot.
One of the things you learn as you grow up is that most people do not score high on the self-awareness charts. That's by definition; this ain't Lake Woebegone were all the adults are above average. Further, you learn that people who aren't terribly self aware don't consider their oddball behaviors to be outliers. They think their oddball behaviors to be normal. They assume everyone else acts like them. Which brings us to right wing nuttery regarding the allegedly liberal media and its bias. conservative assumptions about how the rest of the media operates make more sense when you learn how conservative media operates https://t.co/XX3BlGBNue pic.twitter.com/eAn5SHwmej— Adam Serwer 🍝 (@AdamSerwer) May 10, 2018
What bothers me is not that a man would fake his own medical report, while trashing his opponent's health. What bothers me is that so many Americans not only think that is acceptable, but will attack those who criticize that man. I mean, this isn't a borderline case. Every school in the country, public or private, regular or charter, teaches that such a thing is wrong.
Really? Every school? Well, maybe most, but I don't think that clause is in the mission statement of Trump University, a.k.a The Harvard of Atlantic City.