Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, May 15, 2017

OTP 15 May 2017: A sport dominated by politics

And that would be … cricket – what were you expecting?

Tanya Alfred draws our attention to the world-threatening problem of climate change — which more than 97 per cent of climate scientists agree on’ — and bemoans the lack of a strategy from the English Cricket Board (ECB) for how cricket is organised today and its lack of preparation for the future.
In 2016, for instance, the Indian Premier League was forced to relocate matches from Maharashtra because of a water shortage. Bangladesh is threatened by extreme river floods, rising sea levels and high temperatures.
Zimbabwe has uncertain precipitation patterns, as does the southern part of Australia, while England is predicted to get more rainfall.

Does MLB have a climate-change contingency plan? I am sure Rob Manfred would consider it.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

 

BDC Posted: May 15, 2017 at 08:43 AM | 2684 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: cricket, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 25 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 > 
   2401. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:22 PM (#5459838)
Oh, I didn't realize that by "treated badly," you/Trump meant "talked about on an off-topic thread on a baseball website."

Hard to believe anyone here would contend that BBTF-OTP doesn't have the pulse of America. Next, some may even contend that posting here is a colossal waste of time. Just coincidentally, Harvard's Kennedy School has a report out today on News Coverage Of Trump's First 100 Days, concluding, among other things, that:
Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president. Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.

It's quite lengthy, and frankly I don't care enough about the topic to get beyond the summary, so there may be other aspects deserving of attention for those more interested.
   2402. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:38 PM (#5459845)
It's quite lengthy, and frankly I don't care enough about the topic to get beyond the summary, so there may be other aspects deserving of attention for those more interested.

Yeah, here are some other parts of that Shorenstein Center report you might have, er, missed...

Thoughts on Trump’s Coverage

…the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.

Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days was negative even by the standards of today’s hyper-critical press. Studies of earlier presidents found nothing comparable to the level of unfavorable coverage afforded Trump. Should it continue, it would exceed even that received by Bill Clinton. There was not a single quarter during any year of Clinton’s presidency where his positive coverage exceeded his negative coverage, a dubious record no president before or since has matched.[29] Trump can’t top that string of bad news but he could take it to a new level. During his first 100 days, Clinton’s coverage was 3-to-2 negative over positive.[30] Trump’s first 100 days were 4-to-1 negative over positive.

Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.

What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”[32]....

If a mud fight with Trump will not serve the media’s interests, neither will a soft peddling of his coverage. Never in the nation’s history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy. The media’s credibility today is at low ebb, but the Trump presidency is not the time for the press to pull back.
The news media gave Trump a boost when he entered presidential politics. But a head-on collision at some point was inevitable. It’s happened, it isn’t pretty, and it isn’t over....


Emphasis added within the text.
   2403. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:39 PM (#5459847)
SBB would have no problem with that, right?


Can you have a problem with something if you've literally died from the cardiac arrest from the initial event?
   2404. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:39 PM (#5459848)
Israeli intelligence officials have expressed anger that President Trump revealed sensitive information during a meeting with Russian officials last week, saying it could have compromised a source, Foreign Policy reported Friday.

"To them, it is horrifying," a U.S. defense official told Foreign Policy. "Their first question was: What is going on? What is this?"

The official said that Israeli intelligence officials were shouting at their American counterparts in meetings just days before Trump arrives in Tel Aviv.

The report follows another article earlier this week that said Israeli intelligence officers were "boiling mad and demanding answers" over Trump's disclosure, which came during an Oval Office meeting with two Russian diplomats last week.


Yes, but Trump wants all his accountants to be Jewish, so it all evens out.
   2405. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:40 PM (#5459849)
Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative,


It is unsurprising and utterly unproblematic that a complete ####-show of an administration is covered as a complete ####-show.
   2406. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:49 PM (#5459854)
And in fact he actually did get positive coverage for reading his "presidential" speech before congress from a teleprompter without going into a tirade about Hillary or the media. The bar for him has been set about as high as it would be if some five year old were made President For A Day.
   2407. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:55 PM (#5459858)
And in fact he actually did get positive coverage for reading his "presidential" speech before congress from a teleprompter without going into a tirade about Hillary or the media.


And when he threw some missiles at empty Syrian hangers. Both times you could literally feel the establishment infotainment complex shivering with the hope that "*this* will be the thing that gives us the 'Donald Trump becomes truly Presidential' lede!"
   2408. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:56 PM (#5459860)
It is unsurprising and utterly unproblematic that a complete ####-show of an administration is covered as a complete ####-show.

This.

Setting aside the ethical story lines for a second and sticking straight to policy, there isn't a way to cover the AHCA objectively in a way that's favorable. It's simply terrible policy. Same thing with their tax reform "plan": the claim that it will be financed by endogenous growth is completely rejected by mainstream economists. Proposing to take money away from programs like meals-on-wheels because they are ineffective is simply not accurate. The border wall is not a policy proposal that anyone who seriously studies illegal immigration (or drugs) thinks is an effective strategy. And so forth.

DJT's policies are simply terrible in the view of the vast majority of public policy experts across the ideological spectrum. It's also the case that many of his policy proposals do not reflect what he ran on (e.g., healthcare will provide more coverage and be cheaper). The senior leadership of his administration is completely incompetent and underqualified. And he's facing criminal investigations on multiple fronts.

The only way to cover DJT favorably is to either misrepresent facts and/or ignore major stories. FNC tries to do both, but according to this study, even FNC gave DJT slightly more unfavorable coverage than favorable (52% versus 48%).

Not everyone who voted for DJT in November is necessarily an idiot or evil. But anyone who is still defending him at this point is either not paying attention or has an IQ below room temperature.
   2409. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:58 PM (#5459862)
And in fact he actually did get positive coverage for reading his "presidential" speech before congress from a teleprompter without going into a tirade about Hillary or the media. The bar for him has been set about as high as it would be if some five year old were made President For A Day.

In moments like that, many of the media essentially play the part of a parent of toddler throwing a huge celebration for the kid when he successfully uses the toilet.
   2410. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 10:59 PM (#5459863)
Not everyone who voted for DJT in November is necessarily an idiot or evil


Hmmm. You're going to have to sell me on that. Willful refusal to see the clear and obvious failings and faults of Trump and his organization is a form of evil. Anyone who didn't see them must be stupid by definition. People like Ray who honestly believe(d) Hillary would have been worse are incapable of rationally assessing the world.
   2411. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:00 PM (#5459864)
Hard to believe anyone here would contend that BBTF-OTP doesn't have the pulse of America. Next, some may even contend that posting here is a colossal waste of time. Just coincidentally, Harvard's Kennedy School has a report out today on News Coverage Of Trump's First 100 Days, concluding, among other things, that:

Trump has received unsparing coverage for most weeks of his presidency, without a single major topic where Trump’s coverage, on balance, was more positive than negative, setting a new standard for unfavorable press coverage of a president. Fox was the only news outlet in the study that came close to giving Trump positive coverage overall, however, there was variation in the tone of Fox’s coverage depending on the topic.


Yes, I recall reading the same study about Obama's coverage. <eye roll>

People are really deluded.
   2412. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:01 PM (#5459865)
People are really deluded.


People like you, who believe that the problem is the coverage rather than the regime, yes. You're deluded beyond measure.
   2413. greenback fixes the cable Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:02 PM (#5459866)
From the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Trump’s aides have also been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter , and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an “intervention.” Aides have been concerned about the president’s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims, notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, had wiretapped his offices.

In that meeting, aides warned Mr. Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would “paint him into a corner,” both in terms of political messaging and legally, one official said.

Yes, the President of the United States needed an intervention.
   2414. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:08 PM (#5459873)
Yes, the President of the United States needed an intervention.


For ####### TWITTER! The POTUS is a mopey ####### tween.
   2415. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:09 PM (#5459874)
The bar for him has been set about as high as it would be if some five year old were made President For A Day.

One can debate how fair the substantive coverage has been, and one's take may depend somewhat on how one feels about such issues. However, there is no shortage of non-substantive stories that have come with an anti-Trump spin. When the White House Curator recently retired (after 40 years!!) the Post was quick to imply he must have had a problem working for the Trumps, although there is nothing indicating that. Earlier when Trump replaced the WH Chief Usher, they made it sound like she had been fired because she had been close to the Obamas. More balanced coverage noted that the Trumps got along fine with her, the problem was that her subordinates disliked her intensely. There were reportedly cheers at the staff meeting where her departure was announced. Pretty clear those articles were part of a larger agenda prevalent in the newsroom.
   2416. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:16 PM (#5459876)
When the White House Curator recently retired (after 40 years!!)


Literally no one outside of DC paid consulting circles knew or cared.
   2417. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:18 PM (#5459878)
Yeah, here are some other parts of that Shorenstein Center report you might have, er, missed...


Nobody "missed" those. They don't refute the central point that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.
   2418. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:19 PM (#5459879)
When the White House Curator recently retired (after 40 years!!) the Post was quick to imply he must have had a problem working for the Trumps, although there is nothing indicating that. Earlier when Trump replaced the WH Chief Usher, they made it sound like she had been fired because she had been close to the Obamas.

I follow politics fairly closely and I have no recollection of either of these stories.

And obviously both are complete non-stories. As was so-called Travelgate 25 years ago.
   2419. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:19 PM (#5459880)
The White House Curator, the White House Chief Usher, and the FBI Director are all literally of the same importance to the US public.
   2420. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:19 PM (#5459881)
They don't refute the central point that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative


Perhaps if he tried doing something positive that would change.
   2421. Lassus Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:20 PM (#5459882)
I wonder if Ray will try and explain away #2413.

Also, what is the positive Trump story that isn't getting any - or sufficient - coverage?
   2422. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:21 PM (#5459883)
I follow politics fairly closely and I have no recollection of either of these stories.


Literally no one not buried in the cocktail circuit of the DC Village, people who hold grudges because the Post's stringer-X for beat-Y stole their booth at happy hour three years ago, does. This is a tell for what Clapper really is.
   2423. greenback fixes the cable Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:24 PM (#5459885)
The White House Curator, the White House Chief Usher, and the FBI Director are all literally of the same importance to the US public.


The Fall of the White House Usher does sound like an appropriate headline.
   2424. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:25 PM (#5459886)
I wonder if Ray will try and explain away #2413.


Like the other story, which I've already forgotten, the takeaway is why are staffers talking to the press about such trivial things? And I don't ask that in a sinister "OMG Deep State!!!" way like SBB, but in how ###### up is this White House that people feel the need to talk about this stuff?

Perhaps the biggest indicator that Trump is not long for this world is the actions of his staff. Underlings don't torpedo a successful President. The leaks aren't about us, or Obama holdovers, or Deep State. They speak to a real disfunction within the West Wing.
   2425. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:26 PM (#5459888)
Perhaps if he tried doing something positive that would change.


Concession accepted.
   2426. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:27 PM (#5459889)
I wonder if Ray will try and explain away #2413.


What's to explain away? What's written there is as surprising as water being wet.
   2427. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:29 PM (#5459892)
Perhaps the biggest indicator that Trump is not long for this world is the actions of his staff. Underlings don't torpedo a successful President.


Trump is not long for this world? It's almost like people here don't have any idea how difficult it is to remove a sitting president.
   2428. Lassus Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:31 PM (#5459894)
What's to explain away? What's written there is as surprising as water being wet.

And yet you find this man's Presidency undeserving of denigration.
   2429. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:32 PM (#5459895)
Not everyone who voted for DJT in November is necessarily an idiot or evil. But anyone who is still defending him at this point is either not paying attention or has an IQ below room temperature.


I disagree. I think many people have an emotional connection to Trump, and no amount of facts, logic, or outcomes really disrupt that emotional connection. Put another way you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Now I think people should use reason when selecting and evaluating a president, but many people use tribalism and emotion. Doesn't make them idiots or evil.
   2430. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:32 PM (#5459896)
It's almost like people here don't have any idea how difficult it is to remove a sitting president.


I fail to see how this is any way on point. Of course it's difficult. It should be. That doesn't address the fact that his staff appears to be deeply at odds with his behavior, which is telling. It's one thing for the opposition and press to be. It's another for his hand picked staff to be.

edit: I see that ray edited his post after my response. Classy move. I'm not going to feel obligated to change my response to his edit.
   2431. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:35 PM (#5459899)
I fail to see how this is any way on point.


It's not on point. It's one of those things Ray does to avoid having to look "on point." Of course removing him from office will be difficult. That doesn't change the fact that he's yet to do a single positive thing and removing him from office is necessary. But Ray can't look at those facts, because Dilbert's written by a hypnotist.
   2432. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:40 PM (#5459902)

And yet you find this man's Presidency undeserving of denigration.


Don't recall saying that.
   2433. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:43 PM (#5459905)
The White House Curator, the White House Chief Usher, and the FBI Director are all literally of the same importance to the US public.

Really? I doubt anyone else thinks so. Perhaps the original post was too subtle for some, as if they couldn't grasp the idea that those willing to spin even a minor story to Trump's detriment might not be any fairer on, at least some of, the big stuff?
   2434. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:43 PM (#5459906)
edit: I see that ray edited his post after my response. Classy move. I'm not going to feel obligated to change my response to his edit.


I did not edit my post after your response. I edited my post immediately after I posted. And I always do that. Literally every time I post I go back and re-read and very often make changes. I don't see what the issue is. Jim allows for it. I'm posting on a message board, not sending an email. They're my words. If I don't like them I can change them. And often do, within a few seconds after posting. (Look. I just did it again.) There's no trick or game attached to it. I proofread after posting, not before. And I didn't see your post before I edited mine.
   2435. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:49 PM (#5459909)
Not everyone who voted for DJT in November is necessarily an idiot or evil. But anyone who is still defending him at this point is either not paying attention or has an IQ below room temperature.


How far below room temperature must one's IQ be to not understand that the alternative was Hillary and the deplorables didn't want her and still don't and wouldn't make the change to her now even if they could.
   2436. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:54 PM (#5459911)
I did not edit my post after your response. I edited my post immediately after I posted.


My point is, you posted, I responded. Whether you edited before or after I responded is immaterial. What I quoted was your entire response as I saw it at the time. Then after I posted, I saw you added more, and now it looks like I was selectively quoting you and leaving out key pieces, leaving me open to attacks of selectively quoting, so I felt I needed to point that out. If you are going to materially change your post after "proofreading", you should annotate that.
   2437. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 19, 2017 at 11:57 PM (#5459912)
How far below room temperature must one's IQ be to not understand that the alternative was Hillary and the deplorables didn't want her and still don't and wouldn't make the change to her now even if they could.


Trump support is down to what, 75% among Republicans? In an election as close as the last one, even a small drop among his base would have cost him the presidency. We're not talking Reagan '84 here.
   2438. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:09 AM (#5459919)
Trump support is down to what, 75% among Republicans?

According to the latest Reuter's poll, Trump's approval rating among people who report voting for Trump is 85%.
   2439. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:13 AM (#5459922)
According to the latest Reuter's poll, Trump's approval rating among people who report voting for Trump is 85%.


That would have been more than enough to have cost him the election.
   2440. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:23 AM (#5459929)
And your point is?
   2441. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:24 AM (#5459930)
That would have been more than enough to have cost him the election.

Disapproving of DJT doesn't necessarily mean that they would have voted for HRC instead. A non-trivial portion of DJT voters indicated that they didn't think he was qualified to be president on the election day exit polls. For some, DJT was the least bad option.
   2442. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:28 AM (#5459932)
Disapproving of DJT doesn't necessarily mean that they would have voted for HRC instead. A non-trivial portion of DJT voters indicated that they didn't think he was qualified to be president on the election day exit polls. For some, DJT was the least bad option.


If 1/3 of those Trump voters who currently disapprove of him voted for someone else or did not vote, that's 3.15 million fewer votes gets. Even if none of them voted for Hillary, there's no way he wins the election while losing the popular vote by over 6 million.
   2443. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:46 AM (#5459937)
Disapproving of DJT doesn't necessarily mean that they would have voted for HRC instead. A non-trivial portion of DJT voters indicated that they didn't think he was qualified to be president on the election day exit polls. For some, DJT was the least bad option.

Even more importantly for the immediate issue at hand, disapproval of Trump doesn't equate to supporting his impeachment. Folks on the left have convinced themselves that there is already an air-tight case for that, but that's not close to right. If there is anything there, there's a pretty good chance Mueller gets to the bottom of it, but if Trump gets his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval™, he's likely to get a bit of a bounce and his critics have blown a significant chunk of their credibility. A lot can change in 3-6 months.
   2444. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:55 AM (#5459947)
Pro Tip for our frequent (or infrequent) flyers, don't strip naked at the TSA checkpoint:
When Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers at Portland International Airport told John Brennan that he needed to undergo additional security screening because he tested positive for explosives, Brennan, in the middle of a TSA checkpoint, stripped naked. When TSA officers told Brennan to get dressed, he refused — three times. After TSA officers had to close down the checkpoint and surround Brennan’s naked body with bins until the police arrived to remove him, the TSA fined Brennan $500 for interfering with screening personnel in the performance of their duties. See 49 C.F.R. § 1540.109 (“No person may interfere with, assault, threaten, or intimidate screening personnel in the performance of their screening duties under this subchapter.”). Brennan petitioned for our review. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 46110, and we deny the petition.

Brennan’s core contention is that stripping naked in the middle of a TSA checkpoint is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. But Brennan fails to carry his burden of showing that a viewer would have understood his stripping naked to be communicative. See Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 n.5 (1984). Therefore, his conduct is not protected by the First Amendment.

That's the 9th Circuit, so one would think that if you can't win there, you can't win anywhere, but the guy did beat a separate Oregon state public nudity rap. There were 8 million stories in the Naked City, but the Beaver State is trying to catch up. More at link (SFW).
   2445. tshipman Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:22 AM (#5459950)
Folks on the left have convinced themselves that there is already an air-tight case for that, but that's not close to right.


First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say


Washington (CNN)Russian officials bragged in conversations during the presidential campaign that they had cultivated a strong relationship with former Trump adviser retired Gen. Michael Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team, sources told CNN.


Sources tell CNN that Flynn told Kislyak that the Trump administration would look favorably on a decision by Russia to hold off on retaliating with its own sanctions. The next day, Putin said he wouldn't retaliate.Sources say Flynn also told Kislyak that the incoming Trump administration would revisit US sanctions on Russia once in office. The US has applied sanctions on Russia since 2014 for its actions in Ukraine.


   2446. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:42 AM (#5459951)
Folks on the left have convinced themselves that there is already an air-tight case for that, but that's not close to right.

First on CNN: Russian officials bragged they could use Flynn to influence Trump, sources say

OK, that just reinforces the point. Trump isn't going to be impeached over what the Russians allegedly thought about Flynn. Or is this another one of those fanciful Logan Act claims? And good luck getting those "sources" on the record. There will need to be a lot more before there is a real case against Trump.
   2447. tshipman Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:46 AM (#5459952)
OK, that just reinforces the point. Trump isn't going to be impeached over what the Russians allegedly thought about Flynn. Or is this another one of those fanciful Logan Act claims? And good luck getting those "sources" on the record. There will need to be a lot more before there is a real case against Trump.


Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Hope

Good luck!
   2448. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:52 AM (#5459955)
One can't take a victory lap after one has already lost.
I dunno; Trump did an entire victory party over not passing his health care plan.
   2449. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:56 AM (#5459956)
Setting aside the ethical story lines for a second and sticking straight to policy, there isn't a way to cover the AHCA objectively in a way that's favorable. It's simply terrible policy. Same thing with their tax reform "plan": the claim that it will be financed by endogenous growth is completely rejected by mainstream economists. Proposing to take money away from programs like meals-on-wheels because they are ineffective is simply not accurate. The border wall is not a policy proposal that anyone who seriously studies illegal immigration (or drugs) thinks is an effective strategy. And so forth.
You don't help the argument when you include #fakenews like "proposing to take money from meals-on-wheels."

(To be sure, that's sort of the bog-standard leftist media attacks on Republicans, not unique to Trump. But still.)
   2450. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 04:02 AM (#5459957)
Now I think people should use reason when selecting and evaluating a president, but many people use tribalism and emotion. Doesn't make them idiots or evil.
Not sure how that doesn't make them idiots. That's almost definitionally idiocy.
   2451. Barnaby Jones Posted: May 20, 2017 at 05:26 AM (#5459958)
[Pedantry]"uncharted." You charter airplanes, not territories.[/Pedantry]


Tell that to Virginia.
   2452. Lassus Posted: May 20, 2017 at 05:56 AM (#5459960)
And I always do that. Literally every time I post I go back and re-read and very often make changes. I don't see what the issue is.

I am in full agreement with this. (I also realize it can be a bit irritating.)
   2453. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 07:44 AM (#5459961)
Whether it's is a long term trend remains to be seen----it may be being fueled solely by Donald Trump----but it's still a hopeful sign that at least for now, old-fashioned reporting seems to be paying off:

Washington Post, Breaking News, Is Also Breaking New Ground

As a private company since 2013, when the deep-pocketed Amazon founder Jeff Bezos bought it for $250 million, The [Washington] Post doesn’t disclose much financial data. But by all visible measures, including the vital but hard-to-measure buzz factor, the resurrection of The Post, both editorially and financially, in less than four years has been little short of astonishing.

The Post has said that it was profitable last year — and not through cost-cutting. On the contrary, under the newsroom leadership of Martin Baron, the former editor of The Boston Globe memorably portrayed in the film “Spotlight,” The Post has gone on a hiring spree. It has hired hundreds of reporters and editors and has more than tripled its technology staff.

Last month, according to figures from comScore, The Post had 78.7 million unique users and 811 million digital page views, trailing only CNN and The New York Times among news organizations.

“The published numbers speculating about our subscription and ad revenue have so underestimated the reality that it’s comical,” The Post’s chief revenue officer, Jed Hartman, told me this week. “Our digital ad revenue is in the solid nine figures,” that is, in excess of $100 million. This year, he added, “we’ll have our third straight year of double-digit revenue growth.”...

To be sure, as with other newspapers, The Post’s economic picture is still encumbered by print, where declines in circulation and advertising revenue continue unabated. And its digital rebound has most likely come from a modest base.

But editorially, The Post’s recent scoops have often shaped the national conversation. David Fahrenthold won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting this year for his series debunking President Trump’s claims to charitable contributions and for the biggest bombshell of the presidential campaign: the revelation of the “Access Hollywood” recording in which Mr. Trump boasted of groping women. (The Post was also a finalist for feature and editorial writing.)

It was The Post’s revelation that Michael T. Flynn had lied about his contacts with the Russians that cost him his job as national security adviser and plunged the White House into a continuing crisis over Mr. Trump’s attempts to limit the investigation into his administration’s ties to Russia....

Scoops — and high-quality journalism more generally — are integral to The Post’s business model at a time when the future of digital journalism seemed to be veering toward the lowest common denominator of exploding watermelons and stupid pet tricks.

“Investigative reporting is absolutely critical to our business model,” Mr. Baron told me. “We add value. We tell people what they didn’t already know. We hold government and powerful people and institutions accountable. This cannot happen without financial support. We’re at the point where the public realizes that and is willing to step up and support that work by buying subscriptions.”

He said digital subscriptions had soared this week in the wake of the latest Russia revelations, as they have with other scoops. In the first quarter of this year, The Post says, it added hundreds of thousands of new digital subscribers. (It would not disclose the overall number of subscribers.)

Investigative journalism also drives advertising, Mr. Hartman said. “It’s what elevates our brand,” he said. “And other brands want to attach themselves to a trusted brand.”

Mr. Huber, the analyst, concurred. “The only future for newspapers is at the high end of quality journalism,” he said. “That and only that are what people are willing to pay for....


I'd also say that further proof of the Post's success is the way that Trump and his defenders, including those here on BTF, are forever whining about the "unfair" reporting against their he's-not-my-hero. You can often tell a lot about a person by the type of enemies he or she acquires, and you can make a similar observation about a newspaper.
   2454. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 20, 2017 at 08:22 AM (#5459964)
The Post's success is based on generating clickbait for the echo chamber.
   2455. Morty Causa Posted: May 20, 2017 at 09:14 AM (#5459970)
2447:

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Hope

Good luck!


Five Stages
   2456. BDC Posted: May 20, 2017 at 09:59 AM (#5459974)
there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative

As Lassus was saying, which major topic would you propose? Trump has made progress on nearly none of his policy initiatives, even from the deplorable perspective, so there hasn't even been much for Deplorable News Network to crow about. The AHCA, which passed by a couple of votes and is doomed in the Senate, is not just a failure from the perspective of the non-partisan bean counters and wonks that 6-4-3 invokes (though it's that too); it's not what the Republicans campaigned on, and not what Trump campaigned on, and it's not even a compromise between truly opposing visions: it's just a "we got something random to pass" moment. How are you going to spin that into positive coverage? From what responsible angle, either right or left?

   2457. BDC Posted: May 20, 2017 at 10:01 AM (#5459976)
Literally every time I post I go back and re-read and very often make changes. I don't see what the issue is

Yeah, I'm the same way. Usually I edit to add a qualifier or something like that. Sometimes I haven't put a "not" or whatever in place, so that the whole post is even stupider than usual for me. Better proofreading would help, I reckon, but this is time-sensitive commentary, dammit!!
   2458. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 20, 2017 at 10:22 AM (#5459978)
Now I think people should use reason when selecting and evaluating a president, but many people use tribalism and emotion. Doesn't make them idiots or evil.

Not sure how that doesn't make them idiots. That's almost definitionally idiocy.


Nah. I think you are missing the point (or I am saying it wrong). People make decisions emotionally all the time. That doesn't mean those decisions are idiotic or evil. They could be, but not necessarily.

For some people voting for President is like shopping for something, where the primary mechanism is a cost benefit analysis. Is this the best bargain, quality, or whatever for my money? For other people voting for President is more of a relationship, where the emotional connection is more important than any cost/benefit analysis of the other party.

Some folks would rather have a relationship* with Trump, because of affinity, cultural signals, tribalism, attraction, or whatever than with Hillary, even if they recognize that Hillary would be objectively better at the job of President. They don't care, because they really don't want to be in that relationship.

I don't think you can call that idiotic, because from their own perspective it is a perfectly rational choice to accept a worse presidential outcome but a much better presidential relationship (and of course even more so if they see Hillary as just as bad a Presidential outcome).

We see the President fairly often, on TV, websites, newspapers and they come up in discussions. Personally I ignore all that (or at least try to) and look strictly at policies and effectiveness, but that doesn't make how I judge a president or candidate the only way, the right way.

* Get your mind out of the gutter. Sheesh, I try to have a conversation and THAT is where your mind goes?
   2459. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: May 20, 2017 at 10:25 AM (#5459979)
As Lassus was saying, which major topic would you propose?


Heh. I think whining about bad press is on the level of complaining about the refs in a game. Even if true it is not a good look, and anyway play better. Don't give the refs the opportunity to screw you out of what you deserve.

Every team thinks the reffing is against them, every President thinks they are unfairly covered by the press. Boo freaking hoo. Get over it.
   2460. McCoy Posted: May 20, 2017 at 10:35 AM (#5459982)
I followed the Chief Usher firing for a bit because I know the hotel she used to manage and know some people that worked there. Let me first start off by saying that a good chunk of the employees from that hotel were some of the most full of themselves people I have ever met. That being said, I read the Fox News article on Reid, and I can say their negatives of Reid are laughable. Secret Service agents weren't allowed to put their hands in their pockets? That's hospitality 101. 3 people didn't care for her? Gasp.

I don't care that Trump fired her, it seems to be the thing new Presidents do nowadays, but to say she should have been fired based on the flimsy information we've been given is stupid.
   2461. greenback fixes the cable Posted: May 20, 2017 at 10:44 AM (#5459984)
As Lassus was saying, which major topic would you propose?

Trump has been a libertarian's dream POTUS. He has authoritarian instincts, but he's been so incompetent at implementing his policy goals that he makes authoritarianism look bad without expanding his authority. It's a remarkable, though presumably unintentional, accomplishment.
   2462. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:05 AM (#5459987)
Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance
Hope

Good luck!


I see you're still at stage 2.
   2463. BDC Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:10 AM (#5459990)
The leftish press has given quite a bit of attention to deportations, so I figured I would look at what the rightish press was saying. Breitbart's coverage of deportations, under the new administration, has been the usual mix of OTT sneering at the "open borders lobby," which exists mainly in their fever-brains; and dime-a-dozen shock-horror items about repeat criminals who have somehow managed to escape deportation. They don't seem to have a serious comprehensive look at the Trump Admin's activity in this realm, not that serious comprehensiveness is their stock-in-trade anyway.

FOX, at least on-line, doesn't have a whole lot either. In fact their few web stories have tended to be of this sort, almost leftish pieces puzzling over a DACA illegal getting caught up in the dragnet – not wringing their hands, but not crowing either, and getting quotes from both sides.

I would think that a rightish news organization would by now have developed a feature story about how ICE is making our communities safer, stopping the carnage here and now, etc. Does anyone know of such a story? Maybe they don't have a whole lot to report.
   2464. Lassus Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:18 AM (#5459993)
I see you're still at stage 2.

Beats you, who hasn't stopped denying Trump is a clueless cipher.
   2465. Rickey! No. You move. Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:19 AM (#5459994)
From what responsible angle, either right or left?


If you're going to slant the playing field with your "responsible" gotchas, why would they even reply, huh? This is lamestream media and the deep state, bruh!
   2466. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:24 AM (#5459995)
I would think that a rightish news organization would by now have developed a feature story about how ICE is making our communities safer,

Which would largely be a fake news story, if you ask police chiefs around the country.
   2467. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: May 20, 2017 at 11:42 AM (#5459998)
Which would largely be a fake news story, if you ask police chiefs around the country.


FTA:

Police chiefs know that today’s unreported domestic violence or sexual assault or robbery can become tomorrow’s reported homicide. This is a special concern in immigrant communities, where many people fear that cooperating with the police may lead to scrutiny and even deportation. It’s why cities have adopted policies like the one in Los Angeles, and it’s why police departments have invested considerable time and resources to build trust and cooperation with all of their communities, including their immigrant communities. They know that when people step forward because they trust their local police, communities are safer.


This is so bleeding obvious, it's almost like the law and order types cheering on Federal efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities are purposefully ignoring it. The sanctuary cities aren't doing it merely to give a big FU to Trump, or to virtue signal, or to get warm and fuzzy feelings, or whatever the right wing talking point of the day is. They are doing it because it is what's best in the long run for law and order in their communities.
   2468. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:22 PM (#5460005)
Turns out Droopy Dawg isn't the only one whose law firm has ties to the administration ...


The White House may be looking at ways to undermine the special counsel investigation into the Trump campaign’s alleged ties with the White House, Reuters reported Friday.

According to anonymous sources close to the White House, the administration has begun reviewing an obscure ethics rule in the Code of Federal Regulations, which could prevent Robert Mueller, the newly appointed special counsel, from investigating anyone who was a client of his law firm — which includes President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and former campaign manager Paul Manafort.

The rule restricts newly appointed government officials from investigating clients of prior employers. Mueller's former law firm, WilmerHale, represents Kushner — who has been in the spotlight over the president’s decision to fire James Comey from the FBI and for meeting with Russian officials — and Manafort, who is currently under federal investigation.

If the White House couldn’t get Mueller removed, they’d use the rule to cast doubt on his impartiality, according to Reuters: “Under this strategy, the sources said the administration would raise the issue in press conferences and public statements,” Julia Edwards Ainsley reported. “Moreover, the White House has not ruled out the possibility of using the rule to challenge Mueller’s findings in court, should the investigation lead to prosecution.”


Link
   2469. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:23 PM (#5460006)
This is so bleeding obvious, it's almost like the law and order types cheering on Federal efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities are purposefully ignoring it.

Or in some cases, it's simply a matter of not giving a #### if crimes against Latinos go unsolved----"Hey, you don't want to get raped or beaten, you should've thought of that before. And what part of 'illegal' do you not understand?"
   2470. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:30 PM (#5460009)
I see Andy never actually rebutted the premise of the study, that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.

He waved his hands a lot, though. That he did.
   2471. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:43 PM (#5460013)
I see Andy never actually rebutted the premise of the study, that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.

And I see that you neither bothered to read the parts that I copied in #2402, nor can you come up with a single example of where Trump's serial lying and bullshitting should have resulted in positive coverage.

Christ, talk about handwaving and historical illiteracy. Did Bill Clinton get positive coverage during the Lewinsky affair? Did Carter get positive coverage during the Iran hostage crisis? Did Kennedy get positive coverage during the Bay of Pigs? You've got about as much sense of perspective as a baby chick who was hatched last night.

   2472. BDC Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5460015)
a single example of where Trump ... should have resulted in positive coverage

I guess we should have seen some headlines like TRUMP REVEALS TOP SECRETS TO RUSSIANS / Trump's Tie Less Than Four Feet Long For A Change.
   2473. Ray (RDP) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM (#5460016)
Christ, talk about handwaving and historical illiteracy. Did Bill Clinton get positive coverage during the Lewinsky affair? Did Carter get positive coverage during the Iran hostage crisis? Did Kennedy get positive coverage during the Bay of Pigs? You've got about as much sense of perspective as a baby chick who was hatched last night.


Please note that none of this rebuts the premise of the study that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.
   2474. greenback fixes the cable Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:54 PM (#5460018)
Press Coverage of 1899 Cleveland Spiders Reaches Record Level of Negativity

Team sources say fake news is to blame.
   2475. Morty Causa Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM (#5460019)
Please note that none of this rebuts the premise of the study that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.

And you think this doesn't reflect on Trump but instead on what?
   2476. He who brought the butter dish to Balshazar (CoB) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 12:58 PM (#5460022)
DJT on Twitter in 2015:

Many people are saying it was wonderful that Mrs. Obama refused to wear a scarf in Saudi Arabia, but they were insulted.We have enuf enemies


Melania and Ivanka in Saudi Arabia, today ...
   2477. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:20 PM (#5460025)
OBSTRUCTION OF SAUDI JUSTICE!!!!
   2478. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:21 PM (#5460027)
. . . and dime-a-dozen shock-horror items about repeat criminals who have somehow managed to escape deportation.

Yeah, who would want to deport criminals? Just the bigots, right?
   2479. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:25 PM (#5460028)
Is [2477] in reference to ... anything? Just down to LOUD NOISES?
   2480. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:31 PM (#5460029)

Christ, talk about handwaving and historical illiteracy. Did Bill Clinton get positive coverage during the Lewinsky affair? Did Carter get positive coverage during the Iran hostage crisis? Did Kennedy get positive coverage during the Bay of Pigs? You've got about as much sense of perspective as a baby chick who was hatched last night.

Please note that none of this rebuts the premise of the study that there wasn't a single major topic where Trump's coverage was more positive than negative -- which set a record, according to the study.


Beyond the fact that this wasn't the "premise" of the study, when there's no major topic deserving of positive coverage, what do you want? Affirmative action for morons?

I'll say this: When it comes to repeating Trumpian talking points, you're an absolute master.
   2481. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:38 PM (#5460031)
It certainly is easier to grumble and bitch about negative press coverage in toto, than to give specific examples of President Trump statements or actions or successes that have been unfairly criticized.

Just more of the right's never-ending, schizophrenic "victimhood/mastery" relationship with the media. Too many conservatives (including many see-through "not-a-conservatives") bask in it, and shape their self-images from it.
   2482. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:39 PM (#5460033)
. . . nor can you come up with a single example of where Trump's serial lying and bullshitting should have resulted in positive coverage.

Judicial nominations should have received more favorable coverage. Many news outlets soft-pedaled how unprecedented the Democratic opposition to Gorsuch was, as well as how well-qualified he was. It's the same story for the Circuit Courts, where the first group of nominees have been rather impressive, but it looks like they will face knee-jerk opposition from the usual suspects. Trump's first Circuit Court nominee, Amul Thapar, only made it out of the Judiciary Committee on a party line vote, despite his obvious qualifications. I can only conclude that racist Democrats don't want to see the country's first South Asian Federal Judge advance, a story that has been ignored to date.
   2483. BDC Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:43 PM (#5460034)
Moving right along, I would expect to find some rightish commentary on how "extreme vetting" is making us all safer. There is a certain dearth of stories about extreme vetting. Most consist of factual links to a proposed additional questionnaire which will be required of visa applicants who ring certain alarm bells, or Homeland Security just doesn't like the look of, or something.

If this is a triumph that offsets all the bad Trump news, right-wing organizations were free to publicize it widely. The National Review, though, to take a usual suspect, ran a fairly tepid assessment of the new extreme-vetting suggestions about six weeks ago. (Probing questions about ideology = good, says Daniel Pipes; monkeying with applicants' phones = probably pointless.)

This was the big stuff that was supposed to make us lots safer. And heck, it probably will make us a teeny bit safer, for all I know. So why aren't FOX and friends celebrating the initiative? I kinda think there might not be a whole lot to it: The big change is almost upon us, and it consists of one-half of one-percent of visa applicants answering a few more questions.

   2484. Commissioner Bud Black Beltre Hillman Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:44 PM (#5460035)
The GOP's ceaseless advocacy and support for the South Asian community in the face of left wing apathy is truly one of this nation's untold stories; stay strong YC.
   2485. Lassus Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:45 PM (#5460036)
Man, Clapper really is Kehoskie, except from Long Island instead of Syracuse.
   2486. JJ1986 Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:48 PM (#5460039)
I'm sorry...the positive coverage that Trump should have received is more negative coverage of Democratic senators?
   2487. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 01:59 PM (#5460042)
. . . nor can you come up with a single example of where Trump's serial lying and bullshitting should have resulted in positive coverage.


Judicial nominations should have received more favorable coverage. Many news outlets soft-pedaled how unprecedented the Democratic opposition to Gorsuch was, as well as how well-qualified he was.


I don't know what you mean by "soft-pedaled", but every story and even every op-ed piece I've seen has (rightly) counted that as Trump's major accomplishment,** and IIRC none of the Big Three MSM papers opposed his confirmation. And while I'm sure that the Post and the Times will oppose many of those lower court nominees, I'm also sure they'll play it straight in their news coverage, treating it mostly in terms of whether or not Trump is succeeding (which he likely will) or failing.

** In the case of the op-eds, that doesn't mean that they necessarily favored him, but they can count votes as well as anyone.
   2488. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:07 PM (#5460045)
Even Bob Woodward has noticed - Reporters Binge Drinking Anti-Trump Koop-Aid:
Veteran journalist Bob Woodward called on the national media Friday to keep focused on reporting straight news, after many reporters have revealed a bias against President Trump. Friday on MSNBC, Woodward said he knows of too many reporters who have strayed from objectivity and shown an excessive hostility toward the White House.

"Stick to the reporting," he said. "Stick to the reporting. … One of the realities we have here is we have a good, old newspaper war going, the New York Times and the Washington Post and some very powerful stories. At the same time, I think it's time to dial back a little bit about because there are people around ... who are kind of binge drinking the anti-Trump Kool-Aid. And that is not going to work in journalism. Let the politicians have that binge drinking."

Let the attacks begin!
   2489. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:13 PM (#5460046)
Even Bob Woodward

"Even Bob Woodward" is a lifelong Republican who parlayed his Watergate moment into being the most irrelevant journalist in Washington for the past 30 years. He's a walking corpse.

Woodward said he knows of too many reporters


Cue all the previously expressed outrage against anonymous sources. I'm sure it'll be forthcoming.
   2490. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:36 PM (#5460054)
   2491. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:38 PM (#5460055)
Right, Andy -- nothing says "journalism" more than listening to someone tell you something on the telephone, tell you he/she doesn't want their name put on it, and then printing what the person says without confirming it in the least -- all with a big, splashy headline to boot.

The Washington Post is in the clickbait business. Their "stories" all flow from that. At the moment, there's big clickbait business in generating and feeding a false momentum and leaving in the impression of your clickbait that the nearest scandal crack hit is never more than a few hours away. If they don't get it from the Post, they're going to get it from one of the sites that Vox story talked about, so if you're the Post, there's a competitive imperative to give them the crack hit yourself.
   2492. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:44 PM (#5460056)
Cue all the previously expressed outrage against anonymous sources. I'm sure it'll be forthcoming.
Uh, Andy? While that's a vague and unhelpful statement, it's not anonymous. See where it says, "Woodward said"? That means Woodward said it. Since we know who Woodward is, that's not anonymous.
   2493. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5460057)
Let the attacks begin!

"Even Bob Woodward" is a lifelong Republican who parlayed his Watergate moment into being the most irrelevant journalist in Washington for the past 30 years. He's a walking corpse.

That didn't take long, but CNN says Woodward is an Independent who registers as a Democrat because their primary decides who is eventually elected in Washington, DC. "Bob Irrelevant" also wrote a dozen best selling books and won just about every journalism award since his Watergate days. Still, it's quite revealing that Andy considers a possible GOP affiliation as a valid criticism of the reporter who brought down Richard M. Nixon. What about all the reporters registered as Democrats? Oh, that's different?
   2494. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: May 20, 2017 at 02:45 PM (#5460058)
Right, Andy -- nothing says "journalism" more than listening to someone tell you something on the telephone, tell you he/she doesn't want their name put on it, and then printing what the person says without confirming it in the least
All of the stories have been confirmed by multiple sources.
   2495. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:15 PM (#5460063)
Ooh, I can respond to three consecutive posts from three different people.

SBB, #2491:
nothing says "journalism" more than listening to someone tell you something on the telephone, tell you he/she doesn't want their name put on it, and then printing what the person says without confirming it in the least -- all with a big, splashy headline to boot.
The Washington Post is in the clickbait business.



And yet Bob Woodward commends the Washington Post for rising to the challenge of a "good old newspaper war" and publishing "some very powerful stories." Who to trash? Who to cheer? Who's right/wrong and who's wrong/right? This is like the "Star Trek" episode where they made the computer melt down by telling it "I am lying."



David N, #2492:
Uh, Andy? While that's a vague and unhelpful statement, it's not anonymous. See where it says, "Woodward said"? That means Woodward said it. Since we know who Woodward is, that's not anonymous.


I assume Andy was referring to Woodward criticizing unnamed "people around" who (in Woodward's opinion) are drinking anti-Trump Kool-Aid.

It's fine advice, though. Obviously, Bob Woodward got his reputation and did his best work by "dialing it back a bit" in 1973-74 when misdeeds were emerging and the political mood got stormy.


Clapper, #2493:
"Bob Irrelevant" also wrote a dozen best selling books


My two favorite Woodward books are "Bush at War" (2002) in which Woodward paints a picture of George W. Bush as a bold and resolute leader and commander of men who imposes a sweeping vision in a time of crisis, and then "State of Denial" (2006) in which Woodward revisits and reshapes the identical facts and incidents to paint a picture of George W. Bush as a clueless, unprepared figurehead who doesn't comprehend policy, lies to the public, and lives in denial. Each was a #1 best seller.

And you know who else wrote a dozen best-selling books? (Safe to click; it's not Hitler.)
   2496. The Yankee Clapper Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:29 PM (#5460067)
A senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein - Still No Evidence Of Collusion Between Trump Camp and Russia:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she had seen no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump's associates and Russia during the 2016 campaign. CNN host Wolf Blitzer recalled Feinstein previously saying she hadn't seen any evidence of collusion and asked her on Thursday: "Has anything changed since we spoke last?"

"No it hasn't," Feinstein responded on Blitzer's show "Situation Room."
. . .
"I just want to be precise Senator… All the access you've had to very sensitive information. So far, you've not seen any evidence of collusion. Is that right?" he asked.

"Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion," Feinstein said before citing "rumors" and "newspaper stories" apparently suggesting collusion.

Let the attacks begin!
   2497. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:35 PM (#5460068)
On the record, named sources, sometimes under oath:

-- No evidence of collusion.

-- No impeding of Russia investigations.

-- Trump told by Comey not under investigation.

-- No "extra resource request" by Comey for Russia.

All the rest is anonymously-sourced clickbait.
   2498. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:36 PM (#5460069)
Cue all the previously expressed outrage against anonymous sources. I'm sure it'll be forthcoming.

Uh, Andy? While that's a vague and unhelpful statement, it's not anonymous. See where it says, "Woodward said"? That means Woodward said it. Since we know who Woodward is, that's not anonymous.


I was referring to the "too many reporters", none of whom Woodward identifies by name. But you're right, their anonymity was strictly as unnamed objects of criticism, not as critics themselves, and I should have made the distinction.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That didn't take long, but CNN says Woodward is an Independent who registers as a Democrat because their primary decides who is eventually elected in Washington, DC.

Woodward may be strategically registered as a Democrat for the reason he gives, but during Watergate it was widely noted that he grew up as a Republican in suburban Chicago. In this he was frequently portrayed as the opposite of Bernstein, who grew up in a decidedly leftist household.

"Bob Irrelevant" also wrote a dozen best selling books and won just about every journalism award since his Watergate days.

Woodward's post-Watergate books have been largely unedited compendiums of countless interviews he's been granted by insiders, filling a role that the late Christopher Hitchens described as "the stenographer for the rich and famous." He's the absolute embodiment of the journalistic branch of The Swamp, even if his books are sometimes useful in knowing what the CW in official Washington is in any given moment.**

What about all the reporters registered as Democrats? Oh, that's different?

Still, it's quite revealing that Andy considers a possible GOP affiliation as a valid criticism of the reporter who brought down Richard M. Nixon.


I wouldn't have made that criticism if Woodward had bothered to name some of those "too many reporters who have strayed from objectivity and shown an excessive hostility toward the White House", not to mention if he'd given some actual examples of the reporting he objects to. All he did in that CNN piece is essentially to reflect the same sort of whining about Trump's coverage that you can get from any garden variety Republican, yourself included.

** Or sometimes not, given his tendency to creatively enhance his notes with alleged words from his interview subjects that are almost impossible to believe, such as his rather infamous deathbed interview with William Casey.
   2499. SBB, Live from the Alt-Center Posted: May 20, 2017 at 03:48 PM (#5460071)
Channeling some themes found here, Matt Taibbi is starting to wonder if there's any there there, and is starting to ask some very important threshold questions. Headline: How did Russiagate Start?

Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.

But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.

What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.

...

However, let's say the FBI is actually investigating collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state. That's the most serious possibility, and the one exciting so much public dread.

If it's that, what's at the heart of that case? Why can't we be told what's going on? Operational secrecy would be a believable excuse, were it not for the fact that so much else has been leaked. Intelligence sources even appeared to give up their ability to capture Russian officials celebrating Trump's election win. If something like that can be leaked, and if even foreign governments can be told about "leverages of pressure" Russia allegedly has on Trump, it stands to reason that the American public should have heard what's behind the Trump-Russia investigation by now.

...

But when it comes to the collusion investigation, there are serious questions. A lot of our civil liberties protections and rules of press ethics are designed to prevent exactly this situation, in which a person lingers for extended periods of time under public suspicion without being aware of the exact nature, or origin, of the accusations.

It's why liberal thinkers have traditionally abhorred secret courts, secret surveillance and secret evidence, and in the past would have reflexively discouraged the news media from printing the unverified or unverifiable charges emanating from such secret sources. But because it's Donald Trump, no one seems to care.



Link

Suspicion of the FBI and intelligence agencies used to come naturally to actual liberals. Then came TDS.
   2500. PepTech Posted: May 20, 2017 at 04:21 PM (#5460076)
Flip
Page 25 of 27 pages ‹ First  < 23 24 25 26 27 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 26 June 2017: Confederations Cup shows how sports media in Russia differs from politics
(38 - 9:59am, Jun 27)
Last: Jesus Frankenstein

NewsblogDodgers rookie Cody Bellinger has never heard of 'Seinfeld,' teammates hilariously respond
(78 - 9:50am, Jun 27)
Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick

NewsblogTim Tebow moves up a level, proving Mets only care about one thing
(42 - 9:42am, Jun 27)
Last: Jose is El Absurd Bronson Y Pollo

NewsblogOT - March 2017 NBA thread
(7323 - 9:38am, Jun 27)
Last: Der-K: downgraded to lurker

NewsblogFox Sports eliminates digital writing staff in favor of promoting their debate shows
(9 - 9:34am, Jun 27)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogCENTRAL PARK - JULY 1, 2017 10 AM - BBTF ANNUAL SOFTBALL EXTRAVAGANZA
(278 - 9:10am, Jun 27)
Last: Blastin

Gonfalon CubsMeh
(40 - 9:04am, Jun 27)
Last: Moses Taylor, Unwavering Optimist

NewsblogMyself, OMNICHATTER, two droids, and no questions asked, for June 26, 2017
(67 - 8:56am, Jun 27)
Last: TomH

NewsblogEvery year, players emerge from nowhere to become All-Stars; here are this year’s candidates | The Seattle Times
(42 - 8:46am, Jun 27)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogVideo: Idiot Mets fan catches foul ball at Dodger Stadium, nearly drops baby, wife ready to kill him
(16 - 8:34am, Jun 27)
Last: Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens

NewsblogDetroit Tigers release struggling closer Francisco Rodriguez
(32 - 12:47am, Jun 27)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogSandy Alderson: Mets on the verge of being sellers
(10 - 12:31am, Jun 27)
Last: Russlan thinks deGrom is da bomb

NewsblogForbes: Seattle Mariners Owning Social Media And Not Just Sticking To Baseball
(3 - 12:26am, Jun 27)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogThe Giants chemistry is suffering because a guy they all hated is gone
(21 - 11:20pm, Jun 26)
Last: Joyful Calculus Instructor

NewsblogRays To Acquire Adeiny Hechavarria
(12 - 10:53pm, Jun 26)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

Page rendered in 1.3457 seconds
47 querie(s) executed