US Bans Travelers from Certain Muslim Countries

[dkotschessaa]

A free press is important, but they need to maintain standards, or they aren't living up to their responsibility.

Agreed. They have been far too easy on him.

-Dave K

 

[nsaspook]

Agreed. They have been far too easy on him.

-Dave K

They really need to drill down to actual facts and to stay off of the Russian Conspiracy track. The amount of ink in reports about Trump with the word Russia as some sort of Trump puppet master is astounding.

Example:

Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies intercepted the communications around the same time they were discovering evidence that Russia was trying to disrupt the presidential election by hacking into the Democratic National Committee, three of the officials said. The intelligence agencies then sought to learn whether the Trump campaign was colluding with the Russians on the hacking or other efforts to influence the election.

The officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation.

"Unidentified “officials” are saying that unidentified Trump people talked to unidentified Russians about something, maybe." Now maybe the unidentified “officials" know who the unidentified Russians are but we don't have a clue if the unidentified Trump people knew if the unidentified Russians were unidentified senior Russian intelligence officials.

 

[dkotschessaa]

They really need to drill down to actual facts and to stay off of the Russian Conspiracy track. The amount of ink in reports about Trump with the word Russia as some sort of Trump puppet master is astounding.

I have to agree with you there. Trump's behavior is not consistent enough to put such a narrative on it. I think judicious application of Hanlon's[/PLAIN] Razor is in order, or a variant replacing "stupidity" with "narcissism."

Dave K

 

[dkotschessaa]

I think we have all said things that were not quite what we meant. President Trump has explained what he meant. Of course when you are President of the USA, every word is examined. People will continue to use your mistake against you, even after you have explained yourself. So it does pay to be extra careful.

No, examining every word is when you say something like "57 states" or say the wrong age of your daughter or talk about training ISIL. (oops)

Some of those are eyebrow raising, but understandable for a person who has a huge responsibility and who is in front of the press all day.

But this isn't that. Mr. Trump makes entire statements that are counterfactual.

Then he repeats them: (Repeated lie about Popular Vote, Repeated Lie About U.S. Murder Rate..)

Then when he is corrected he shoots off an angry twitter rant.

So no, it's not that.

-Dave K

 

[russ_watters]

When a reporter wrote that Trump had removed the bust of Martin Luther King from the White House, it turned out to be a stupid error: he simply couldn't see it because someone was standing in front of it. Trump cried "Fake News!," to the high heavens for that.

And can't you just see the reporter licking his/her lips when reporting this?

To me, the situation looks almost exactly symmetrical, with both feeding off of each other:

Trump doesn't care about the truth (or hopes the truth is what he wants it to be or thinks he can make it the truth by saying it) so he says a loooot of untrue things. In response, the media hammers him for it. That's fair.

Flip the page over, and the media reaaaally dislikes Trump, so they trip all over themselves to find bad things to say about him and don't pay any attention to whether they are true or not. A story like Trump removing a bust of MLK is ohgodihopeitstruenotimetocheckigottareportit! And in response, Trump hammers the media for it. And that's fair too.

It looks to me like Trump fans and Trump haters each think their side is making the errors in good faith while the other is not. In reality I think neither side is making the errors in good faith. And that hurts the media's credibility more than Trump's, since most people didn't think Trump had any to begin with, while for the media, credibility is all they are.

 

[Buckleymanor]

It looks to me like Trump fans and Trump haters each think their side is making the errors in good faith while the other is not. In reality I think neither side is making the errors in good faith. And that hurts the media's credibility more than Trump's, since most people didn't think Trump had any to begin with, while for the media, credibility is all they are.

Well from that statement you only deduce that the one thing the media can do to insure there credibility is to say nothing to enable them to maintain credibility.
Which is nonsense.

 

[mheslep]

...Exactly. Lie about a nuclear program of some country: Bad and with bad consequences, but at least I can see the motivation behind it. ...

The motivation behind a policy lie with life and death consequences may not be made in the best interest of the country; it may be in the best interest of the politician, the country be damned. Following your example, some rogue foreign nuclear program is falsely dismissed since responsible action will have negative political consequences. Or, see the reverse, saber rattling lies to win support of a hawkish populace. And finally, back to reality: a lie about a lethal terror attack on an American consulate as the truth runs counter to the administrations contention that terror groups are "on the run."

 

[russ_watters]

Well from that statement you only deduce that the one thing the media can do to insure there credibility is to say nothing to enable them to maintain credibility.
Which is nonsense.

I can't parse that: where do I say the media can only say nothing? You're right: that's nonsense. Clearly, the solution for the media is to make sure what they report is true before they report it, rather than fire off the story as soon as they hear it because it portrays Trump in their chosen light.

I suppose it could be selection bias, but you may have noticed that the false stories from the left-leaning media seem to be anti-Trump and the false stories from the right-leaning media pro-Trump. While the errors themselves may be accidental, the fact that they fit their biases is not an accident.

 

[Evo]

The problem I have is that I expect more from a President. I expect him to be wiser and to use better judgement and not act like a spolied brat, ok, if he wants to pout in private about the size of his inauguration attendance and how many electoral votes he got etc..., do it in private, not over and over publicly. Act like the ruler of an important country, not some teenager with a twitter account that accidentally found himself POTUS. It's embarrassing and really disheartening. Do I think he and his cabinet can handle a major disaster? No. Has he instilled that kind of confidence? No.

But we're really getting off topic.

 

[Buckleymanor]

I can't parse that: where do I say the media can only say nothing? You're right: that's nonsense. Clearly, the solution for the media is to make sure what they report is true before they report it, rather than fire off the story as soon as they hear it because it portrays Trump in their chosen light.

I suppose it could be selection bias, but you may have noticed that the false stories from the left-leaning media seem to be anti-Trump and the false stories from the right-leaning media pro-Trump. While the errors themselves may be accidental, the fact that they fit their biases is not an accident.

I never mentioned you said nothing .What I was trying to explain was if the media followed that line of reasoning they would end up saying nothing to maintain there credibility.
Which might suit some.

 

[russ_watters]

What I was trying to explain was if the media followed that line of reasoning they would end up saying nothing to maintain there credibility.

I don't think that's following the line of reasoning at all.

 

[StevieTNZ]

What did Lamar Smith, representative in the US House of Reps for the 21st District, Texas, say?

"Better to get your news directly from the President. In fact it might be the only way to get the unvarnished truth."

HELP.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And can't you just see the reporter licking his/her lips when reporting this?

A person can see anything they want in their imagination, but that vision of things doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

So, I looked into the bust. Long involved history here:

The story of the bust started when Obama went into the oval office. He had the bust of Churchill removed and replaced it with one of MLK jr. This prompted many lip-licking Breitbart types to propose he did this for racist reasons. The bust has become an issue. Trump makes a note of this.

Now when Trump is elected, he mentions to the press he might bring the bust of Churchill back into the oval office.

The King bust had replaced a Winston Churchill bust during BarackObama's presidency. Trump told the New York Times shortly after his election that he was thinking about returning the Churchill bust to the Oval Office, which naturally put the King bust's status in doubt. The idea that the King bust might be removed was not a media invention; it originated with Trump himself.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-lost-all-meaning/?utm_term=.8d0c0c66e194

So: "The idea that the King bust might be removed was not a media invention; it originated with Trump himself." Thus, Trump had made the two busts a thing to watch, a little sideshow; black president's icon vs white president's icon. How would the new POTUS decide?

Inauguration eve:

Zeke was in the Oval Office on Friday night as part of the press pool on hand to document one of President Trump’s first official acts. He wrote a brief report, naming the aides who were there and noting that a bust of Winston Churchill was present in a new spot. Asked by other reporters about the bust of Martin Luther King, Jr., Zeke said he had looked for it and not seen it. As a result, a pool report by another reporter sent out at 7:31 p.m., based partly on Zeke’s observations, included this: “More decorating details: Apart from the return of the Churchill bust, the MLK bust was no longer on display.”

No lip licking exitement by Miller. In fact, someone else had asked him to look and see if it was still there. The question here was: when Trump said he might bring back the Churchill, did that mean he was also getting rid of the MLK? Zeke couldn't see it anywhere, so, when asked, he said it "was no longer on display."

Apparently there were more inquiries:

Within minutes, when inquiries began to come in about the missing bust, Zeke reviewed videos and wire photos, and tried to find a member of the White House staff who could answer whether the bust had been moved. He found an aide who went int o the office to check and texted Zeke at 8:10 p.m. that the bust was there.

Two minutes later Zeke emailed a correction to a large list of White House reporters. “The MLK bust remains in the Oval Office in addition to the Churchill bust per a WH aide. It was apparently obscured by a door and an agent earlier. My sincerest apologies.” He tweeted a correction as well. A TIME story that included the error was corrected, and for the next several hours, Zeke worked to alert colleagues of the mistake. He sent out several emails to reporters and eight tweets, including, at 8:41 p.m.“Tweeting again: wh aide confirms the MLK bust is still there. I looked for it in the oval 2x & didn't see it. My apologies to my colleagues.” At 8:46 p.m., Press Secretary Sean Spicer retweeted that message with the words “Apology accepted.” To that, Zeke replied: “This is on me, not my colleagues. I've been doing everything I can to fix my error. My apologies.”

http://time.com/4645541/donald-trump-white-house-oval-office/

Zeke checked the oval office twice and couldn't see it, because it was obscured by both a door and a guard. He asked a White House aid who, I guess, knew to look behind the door, and he took their word that it was still there, even though he, himself, couldn't see it.

Regardless, some of the other reporters had already reported it was not there anymore. Were they lip-licking? Or just reporting the outcome of the little sideshow Trump had set up?

Flip the page over, and the media reaaaally dislikes Trump, so they trip all over themselves to find bad things to say about him and don't pay any attention to whether they are true or not. A story like Trump removing a bust of MLK is ohgodihopeitstruenotimetocheckigottareportit! And in response, Trump hammers the media for it. And that's fair too.

What actually happened is that Trump reinstated the Churchill bust in a prominent place and put the MLK bust, in a very obscure place where no one was likely to be able to see it.

So, now I'm suddenly wondering if Trump didn't design it this way. He had certainly primed everyone to keep their eye on the bust. So, I wonder if he didn't gaslight the media and lead them into an ambush:

The President and White House aides have cited this mistake as an example of “deliberately false reporting.”

http://time.com/4645541/donald-trump-white-house-oval-office/

Can't you just see Trump licking his lips, waiting for the "fake news" that the bust had been removed?

Trump called out the reporter, Zeke Miller, while speaking to staff at the Central Intelligence Agency, even though Miller quickly acknowledged and corrected the mistake the previous day.

“They said that ‘Donald Trump took down the bust — the statue of Dr. Martin Luther King.’ But it was right there. There was a cameraman that was in front of it,” Trump said, standing in front of the CIA’s Memorial Wall honoring the employees who died in the line of duty.
“So Zeke, Zeke from Time magazine writes this story about ‘I took down’ — I would never do that because I have great respect for Dr. Martin Luther King.

“But this is how dishonest the media is,” Trump continued. “Now big story, the retraction was like, where? Was it a line or do they even bother putting it in?”

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/315486-trump-attacks-time-report-for-mistake-about-mlk-bust

Maybe it was an ambush, maybe it wasn't. But can't you just imagine it was? By which I mean: it doesn't matter if you can. Someone's ability to imagine something being done for any given reason pretty much means squat. The scenarios that pop into our heads are generated by confirmation bias.

In any event, the reporter had tried very hard to correct it and to apologize, but Trump ignored that and bashed him loudly, right and left. The initial report the bust was not there only stood uncorrected from 7:31 PM to 8:12 PM. And Miller spent considerable time after that making sure everyone got the correction, and also apologizing, and taking responsibility. Not good enough for Trump. He insisted it was deliberate fake news.

It looks to me like Trump fans and Trump haters each think their side is making the errors in good faith while the other is not. In reality I think neither side is making the errors in good faith. And that hurts the media's credibility more than Trump's, since most people didn't think Trump had any to begin with, while for the media, credibility is all they are.

In the case of the Time report on the MLK bust, I am convinced the error was a "good faith" error. I think you would have been too, had you checked over the whole story before automatically assuming it wasn't.

I don't think the media has lost any credibility at all lately. It's never had completely trustworthy status in its history. But I do know that Steve Bannon has been very hard at work for years pushing the meme that the mainstream media just about completely consists of fake news. He has been trying, with some success, to herd people into very alternate media sources, Breitbart and alt-right forums and youtube channels that he has a hand in so he can control what they hear and think. Trump's whole anti-media attitude comes straight from Steve Bannon. Fox News, I guess, is on board with this, with their reports that the Swedish media is engaged in a massive cover-up of the 'appalling depredations' being committed there by Muslim immigrants.

Which brings us back (roughly) on topic: Steve Bannon is the one who pushed Trump to sign the muslim ban without getting anyone else in the cabinet or staff to check it over and vet it. That is why it had enough legal holes in it for the judges to get traction on to block it. Bannon is not good for anyone. (And, yeah, he's the one who wants you to envision lip-licking reporters cravenly scouring events for misleading unchecked facts to print. That's not the press. That's the mind of Bannon.)

 

[StatGuy2000]

A person can see anything they want in their imagination, but that vision of things doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality.

So, I looked into the bust. Long involved history here:

The story of the bust started when Obama went into the oval office. He had the bust of Churchill removed and replaced it with one of MLK jr. This prompted many lip-licking Breitbart types to propose he did this for racist reasons. The bust has become an issue. Trump makes a note of this.

Now when Trump is elected, he mentions to the press he might bring the bust of Churchill back into the oval office.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-lost-all-meaning/?utm_term=.8d0c0c66e194

So: "The idea that the King bust might be removed was not a media invention; it originated with Trump himself." Thus, Trump had made the two busts a thing to watch, a little sideshow; black president's icon vs white president's icon. How would the new POTUS decide?

Inauguration eve:
No lip licking exitement by Miller. In fact, someone else had asked him to look and see if it was still there. The question here was: when Trump said he might bring back the Churchill, did that mean he was also getting rid of the MLK? Zeke couldn't see it anywhere, so, when asked, he said it "was no longer on display."

Apparently there were more inquiries:http://time.com/4645541/donald-trump-white-house-oval-office/

Zeke checked the oval office twice and couldn't see it, because it was obscured by both a door and a guard. He asked a White House aid who, I guess, knew to look behind the door, and he took their word that it was still there, even though he, himself, couldn't see it.

Regardless, some of the other reporters had already reported it was not there anymore. Were they lip-licking? Or just reporting the outcome of the little sideshow Trump had set up?What actually happened is that Trump reinstated the Churchill bust in a prominent place and put the MLK bust, in a very obscure place where no one was likely to be able to see it.

So, now I'm suddenly wondering if Trump didn't design it this way. He had certainly primed everyone to keep their eye on the bust. So, I wonder if he didn't gaslight the media and lead them into an ambush:http://time.com/4645541/donald-trump-white-house-oval-office/

Can't you just see Trump licking his lips, waiting for the "fake news" that the bust had been removed?http://thehill.com/homenews/media/315486-trump-attacks-time-report-for-mistake-about-mlk-bust

Maybe it was an ambush, maybe it wasn't. But can't you just imagine it was? By which I mean: it doesn't matter if you can. Someone's ability to imagine something being done for any given reason pretty much means squat. The scenarios that pop into our heads are generated by confirmation bias.

In any event, the reporter had tried very hard to correct it and to apologize, but Trump ignored that and bashed him loudly, right and left. The initial report the bust was not there only stood uncorrected from 7:31 PM to 8:12 PM. And Miller spent considerable time after that making sure everyone got the correction, and also apologizing, and taking responsibility. Not good enough for Trump. He insisted it was deliberate fake news.In the case of the Time report on the MLK bust, I am convinced the error was a "good faith" error. I think you would have been too, had you checked over the whole story before automatically assuming it wasn't.

I don't think the media has lost any credibility at all lately. It's never had completely trustworthy status in its history. But I do know that Steve Bannon has been very hard at work for years pushing the meme that the mainstream media just about completely consists of fake news. He has been trying, with some success, to herd people into very alternate media sources, Breitbart and alt-right forums and youtube channels that he has a hand in so he can control what they hear and think. Trump's whole anti-media attitude comes straight from Steve Bannon. Fox News, I guess, is on board with this, with their reports that the Swedish media is engaged in a massive cover-up of the 'appalling depredations' being committed there by Muslim immigrants.

Which brings us back (roughly) on topic: Steve Bannon is the one who pushed Trump to sign the muslim ban without getting anyone else in the cabinet or staff to check it over and vet it. That is why it had enough legal holes in it for the judges to get traction on to block it. Bannon is not good for anyone. (And, yeah, he's the one who wants you to envision lip-licking reporters cravenly scouring events for misleading unchecked facts to print. That's not the press. That's the mind of Bannon.)

If you want to get a sense of how authoritarianism can get a foothold in the US, I would look no further than the actions of Steve Bannon and his playbook with respect to demonizing the media, the Muslim ban. It's heartening that this first measure had enough legal holes for the courts to put a stop to it (so there is at least some sense of checks and balances in place), but we (that's we, the American people, and people the world over) can't be complacent, because there will be more of this to come throughout the Trump presidency. That I'm quite confident of.

 

[NTL2009]

I don't know how to really address this w/o writing a book (that I don't want to write, and you don't want to read!), so let me just say:

I am not a Trump apologist - as I've said before, I cringe at some of the things he says, and he should be called on them. I mostly cringe because it undermines his chances of making progress in some important areas. For example, I do think we need to investigate and take steps to ensure that the ballot box is secure - one vote per citizen, and that citizen is who they say they are. But stating numbers grabbed from thin air doesn't help, it hurts. It makes him look small, and gives detractors a legitimate claim to point and say “Fake News!”.

But there is a lot of 'fake news' and 'ignored news' from the press - who is going to challenge that? A free press is an essential part of our system, but they also have a responsibility. They should be admired by the public, but their approval ratings are dismal (~ 14%?)

And even when what Trump says is not wrong, it is often taken out of context, twisted in the most negative way possible, rarely given any benefit of doubt by the media. And it was just the opposite with Obama (see his interview with Gina Rodriguez here). Yes, if you watch all of it, you can interpret what Obama says to not be in support of illegal voting, but you can also say Obama sure should have been clearer, and definitely taken the interviewer to task for saying that somebody is a 'citizen' just because she decides they are, and if you take him out of context (like the right-wing press did), it sounds like he is encouraging illegal voting. But main stream media either ignored it, or defended him. I honestly don't think Trump is getting a pass like that on anything he says.

There's so much more I could say, so many examples, but I'm disappointed by the words and tone I'm seeing. Clearly, some/many posters are not interested in information, they are only looking for confirmation. I had hoped there could be an exchange of info here, with each side learning from the other, but I'm not seeing that. I expected more from a group that is very likely above average intelligence.

 

[dkotschessaa]

And even when what Trump says is not wrong, it is often taken out of context, twisted in the most negative way possible, rarely given any benefit of doubt by the media.

As I pointed out earlier, this is so not the case here. Trump not only lies, but he lies in big long paragraphs, which he then repeats. He then criticizes others for correcting him - repeatedly - on Twitter. How is "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" out of context? How is https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigrationout of context? What's the context that makes these acceptable things for him to say?

There's so much more I could say, so many examples, but I'm disappointed by the words and tone I'm seeing. Clearly, some/many posters are not interested in information, they are only looking for confirmation. I had hoped there could be an exchange of info here, with each side learning from the other, but I'm not seeing that. I expected more from a group that is very likely above average intelligence.

Look at the Trump apologist posts and look at the posts from people challenging him... Count which have more references, links, and data. When you've completed this assignment, report back and tell me which people are "not interested in information."

-Dave K

 

[Buckleymanor]

I honestly don't think Trump is getting a pass like that on anything he says.

And no wonder when this is happening http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-39037385
A teacher no less.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And even when what Trump says is not wrong, it is often taken out of context, twisted in the most negative way possible, rarely given any benefit of doubt by the media.

It's entirely possible for something like this to happen. But do you have any examples to link to? You said "often," so you should have a lot of links.

 

[russ_watters]

A person can see anything they want in their imagination, but that vision of things doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality...

So, now I'm suddenly wondering if Trump didn't design it this way. He had certainly primed everyone to keep their eye on the bust. So, I wonder if he didn't gaslight the media and lead them into an ambush:

Indeed they can! I'm not sure if that was intentional or unintentional irony, but in either case:

In the case of the Time report on the MLK bust, I am convinced the error was a "good faith" error. I think you would have been too, had you checked over the whole story before automatically assuming it wasn't.

I did read what happened and I'm not sure what you think it means that changes things. Perhaps our definitions of "good faith" differ, but that's really not the main point, which you didn't really address. So I'll rephrase: Regardless of whether you think these errors are made "in good faith" or maliciously/negligently, do you believe it is a coincidence that FoxNews tends to make pro-Trump errors and the left leaning news sources tend to make anti-Trump errors?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Indeed they can! I'm not sure if that was intentional or unintentional irony...

Please reread the post.

 

[russ_watters]

Please reread the post.

I honestly had hoped to find an area of common ground here, zooby, where we all could agree that the two sides of the media, plus Trump each have their level of blame, per David Reeves' and NTL2009's posts on the previous page. I find it disheartening that you seem not to be inclined to hold the left side of the media accountable for what they say or acknowledge that when they err it is typically (always?) in alignment with their bias (which is a tautology).

I also think (and I suspect most agree) that the media's accuracy problem has gotten worse recently. Whether that is a reflection of their response to Trump or more associated with the rise of Twitter I'm not sure, but I suspect it is more the latter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Indeed they can! I'm not sure if that was intentional or unintentional irony...

Did rereading it clear this up for you? I'm pretty sure we can't agree on anything till you demonstrate you can read and understand my posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Did rereading it clear this up for you? I'm pretty sure we can't agree on anything till you demonstrate you can read and understand my posts.

I understood just fine, zooby.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I understood just fine, zooby.

Then, what was the point of my saying, "So, now I'm suddenly wondering if Trump didn't design it this way. He had certainly primed everyone to keep their eye on the bust. So, I wonder if he didn't gaslight the media and lead them into an ambush..."

 

[mfb]

And even when what Trump says is not wrong, it is often taken out of context, twisted in the most negative way possible, rarely given any benefit of doubt by the media. And it was just the opposite with Obama

I think context matters a lot here. If a person repeatedly tells the world that he wants to ban all Muslims in some way, then a statement that can be interpreted as being against Muslims will be interpreted that way. It is the obvious interpretation. If a person repeatedly posts things that are objectively completely wrong, another statement that could be somewhat right with a lot of goodwill won't be seen with a lot of goodwill.

Make some odd-sounding statement once, and everyone will understand that you didn't mean it that way. Support it by 10 explicit statements saying the same odd things, and you make clear that you indeed mean it.

 

[russ_watters]

Then, what was the point of my saying, "So, now I'm suddenly wondering if Trump didn't design it this way. He had certainly primed everyone to keep their eye on the bust. So, I wonder if he didn't gaslight the media and lead them into an ambush..."

zoobyshoe; I'm not going to bicker about it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

zoobyshoe; I'm not going to bicker about it.

I'm not either. I got a clear indication you did not understand one of the main points of my post. I'm trying to clear that up.

 

[russ_watters]

I think context matters a lot here. If a person repeatedly tells the world that he wants to ban all Muslims in some way, then a statement that can be interpreted as being against Muslims will be interpreted that way. It is the obvious interpretation. If a person repeatedly posts things that are objectively completely wrong, another statement that could be somewhat right with a lot of goodwill won't be seen with a lot of goodwill.

Make some odd-sounding statement once, and everyone will understand that you didn't mean it that way. Support it by 10 explicit statements saying the same odd things, and you make clear that you indeed mean it.

I tend to agree. Trump's shooting from the hip does leave a lot of room to interpret just what he means. Unlike other politicians where you might find a hidden meaning that is accurate, the competing interpretations are just predictions and all fair if he said them. Until campaign bluster is replaced with real policy, he leaves the door open.

I think Trump's actions are bearing-out that he is less extreme than his most extreme statements, but there is of course still time for him to carve-out more extreme policies.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's one for the people who think the media is currently worse than it's ever been:

The Spanish–American War (April–August 1898) is considered to be both a turning point in the history of propaganda and the beginning of the practice of yellow journalism.

It was the first conflict in which military action was precipitated by media involvement. The war grew out of U.S. interest in a fight for revolution between the Spanish military and citizens of their Cuban colony. American newspapers fanned the flames of interest in the war by fabricating atrocities which justified intervention in a number of Spanish colonies worldwide.

Several forces within the United States were pushing for a war with Spain. Their tactics were wide-ranging and their goal was to engage the opinion of the American people in any way possible. Men such as William Hearst, the owner of The New York Journal was involved in a circulation war with Joseph Pulitzer of the New York World and saw the conflict as a way to sell papers. Many newspapers ran articles of a sensationalist nature and sent correspondents to Cuba to cover the war. Correspondents had to evade Spanish Authorities; usually they were unable to get reliable news and relied heavily on informants for their stories. Many stories were derived from second or third hand accounts and were either elaborated, misrepresented or completely fabricated by journalists to enhance their dramatic effect.Theodore Roosevelt, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy at this time, wanted to use the conflict both to help heal the wounds still fresh from the American Civil War, and to increase the strength of the US Navy, while simultaneously establishing America as a presence on the world stage. Roosevelt put pressure on theUnited States Congress to come to the aid of the Cuban people. He emphasized Cuban weakness and femininity to justify America's military intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish–American_War

 

[Evo]

And even when what Trump says is not wrong, it is often taken out of context, twisted in the most negative way possible, rarely given any benefit of doubt by the media

Please give some examples.

Here is an example of his falacies with links to his actual twitters.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-gets-caught-lying-about-his-charitable-foundation

Also, when you make a statement of fact like you did, it is a requirement that you then post sources for those facts. So, you actually now have to post your many examples.

 

[russ_watters]

Please give some examples.[of anti-Trump spin]

My favorite are the multitude of examples from the campaign, reintroduced after the election, of analysis purporting to show Trump a fascist on the scale of Hitler himself. Those should be common knowledge by now.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I'm not sure I see what the contention in the recent argument was here. Surely, the POTUS is held to a higher standard of veracity than media? How does one's failings justify the other's?
On the one hand, we'll have more Daily Mails and Fox News' among once-more respectable crowd, on the other we have a man with a questionable hold on reality at the helm of a major military and economic power.

I've just watched Trump's recent conference, and I'm aghast.

 

[Evo]

My favorite are the multitude of examples from the campaign, reintroduced after the election, of analysis purporting to show Trump a fascist on the scale of Hitler himself. Those should be common knowledge by now.

I hate to ask what you've been reading Russ. I think I've only heard of Bannon linked that way.

 

[russ_watters]

I hate to ask what you've been reading Russ.

Um...the thread in the moderator's forum...?

 

[Evo]

Um...the thread in the moderator's forum...?

LOL!