• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

President Donald J. Trump

Started by The General, February 11, 2011, 01:33:34 AM

Quote from: Meister_000 on February 25, 2017, 12:22:45 AM
Those are cute headlines n-all Grav but it's too bad you (a) can't read (b) don't understand what a "White House Press Briefing" means (c) can't distinguish between calling BS on one single news org (Fox) and blanketly labeling ALL press as FAKE and "The Enemy of the People" and then BANNING the Top US press from attending White House Press Breifings...

The media can say whatever they like.  And the president or anyone else can invite anyone they like to their events.  That's how it works.

As far as the ''TOP'' US press, didn't FOX NEWS have the highest ratings when Obama decided he didn't like them?

And third, Trump is calling the Democrat Fake News Media fake news.  Because that's what they are.  And the enemy of the people.  Because that's what they are.  Them defending Obama's reckless unconstitutional deal giving Iran the green light to build nuclear weapons tells us Big Media is our enemy - just that alone, but there is so much more from them to despise.  All the rest of their destructive and dangerous lies.  All the rest of their false narratives and social engineering projects they are trying to force on us.  The endless clamoring for bigger government and more control over us.  How else should Trump describe it?


Look, why do you think average Americans are turning away from Big Media news?  Why are the major newspapers dying?  Why did talk radio come out of nowhere to have the listenership and influence they have?  Why do more and more people bypass the mainstream media completely and look for information on-line?  Why is trust in the Media at an all time low and continuing to plummet? 

Because Big Media is honest journalism, and simply reporting the events of the day as straightforward and professionally and accurately as they can?  How is it you don't see right through them, when most people can?


Meister_000

Quote from: 21st Century Man on February 24, 2017, 01:50:23 PM
I think I read a post where she was of the feminine persuasion but she could be a queen.  I will refer to her as a she until she tells me otherwise.  I would say her posts indicate femininity though.

21; Being a Romantic or a film-buff is one thing, but you look pretty silly self-identifying with recent history's most famous "Casanova" (see avitar) when you can't even tell the difference between boys and girls (wouldn't you say?). Since you require (and requested) explicit first-person verification and confirmation from me regarding my gender and sexual preference, I will tell you:

I am a heterosexual male in my early 60's, and prefer being refered to using pronouns from the masculine group: he/him/his, and the proper nouns man, male, etc.

Hope this helps suppliment the failing faculties, Casanova, till your next scheduled "radar" maintaince and upgrade cycle.

Meister

Meister_000

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 25, 2017, 12:34:39 AM
Go munch on your panties. Obama held limited press get togethers where only his favorite liberal outlets were allowed throughout his tenure.
This wasn't the daily press briefing as you would try to make people believe.

If you are going to pretend to go through the motions of "citing sources" then do it -- find some links that actually *support* your claims or counter-claims and ones that have at least some tiny bit of relevence and "gravity" comperable to the News Story you are (flacidly) attempting to refute.

Thank you so much for wasting more and more and more of my time.

Meister_000

Quote from: Pulling my Pud in Yorkshire on February 25, 2017, 01:13:35 AM
Wait.  Are you claiming not to have posted the image?

I "reposted" Gravity's image (within minutes of his first doing so) and explicitly said in my post that the img was so revealing that it deserves an *"instant replay"* (my words). You, Paladin, have an excuse for not seeing the larger landscape for what it was (you only drop in briefly once a day) but Kidneystone3 spends 2/3rds of his day here every day (and he's the biggest schmuck I've come across in many years, just btw). I'm not respondible for his laziness (here, in misattribution) and his countless other flaws (of character at least).

Quote from: Meister_000 on February 25, 2017, 02:17:51 AM
21; Being a Romantic or a film-buff is one thing, but you look pretty silly self-identifying with recent history's most famous "Casanova" (see avitar) when you can't even tell the difference between boys and girls (wouldn't you say?). Since you require (and requested) explicit first-person verification and confirmation from me regarding my gender and sexual preference, I will tell you:

I am a heterosexual male in my early 60's, and prefer being refered to using pronouns from the masculine group: he/him/his, and the proper nouns man, male, etc.

Hope this helps suppliment the failing faculties, Casanova, till your next scheduled "radar" maintaince and upgrade cycle.

Meister

Okey-doke.  I stand corrected.  I may or may not use she to describe you in the future but you better behave.  And please do use the spell-check when you write.  You see any words with a red line under them when you are typing then that generally means you are spelling something wrong.  As for me being a Casanova, well I'll leave that up to my fellow Bellgabbers' imaginations.  My wife tends to think I am though and that is all that really matters.

Meister_000

Quote from: Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost on February 25, 2017, 01:33:33 AM
This is the last thing I ever expected to hear from Darryl Issa at this point in time, I must say.

"You're right that you cannot have somebody â€" a friend of mine, Jeff Sessions â€" who was on the campaign and who is an appointee," Issa said. "You're going to need to use the special prosecutor's statute and office," adding it would be insufficient to hand the job off to the deputy attorney general, another political appointee.

Thanks for posting that RGG. Here's the 2 min edit (vid in tweet) just to help drive the point home that,
Republican Congressman Issa says;
YES; Attorney General Jeff Sessions *must* Recuse himself from heading the upcoming Trump-Russia investigations, AND (what's more) proceed with an Independant Special Prosecutor.

[tweet]835330134890663936[/tweet]

Meister_000

Quote from: 21st Century Man on February 25, 2017, 03:51:28 AM
Okey-doke.  I stand corrected.  I may or may not use she to describe you in the future but you better behave.  And please do use the spell-check when you write.  You see any words with a red line under them when you are typing then that generally means you are spelling something wrong.  As for me being a Casanova, well I'll leave that up to my fellow Bellgabbers' imaginations.  My wife tends to think I am though and that is all that really matters.

Thank you, and fyi cell phone browsers do not have spell-check -- I do the best I can (and did in fact correct the error within a minute and before I noticed your petty need to point it out (sorry, you asked for that).
Anywho, thanks, later.

WOTR

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on February 25, 2017, 12:33:39 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM1eO2Wu3FM

Great.  Any actual source on this aside from the youtube videos and other reliable sources?  If "the white house" has fingered him as the source of the leaks, I have not found any actual evidence (unless the white house leaked the source of the leaks to these "trusted youtubers".)  The rumours seem to date back around three days, and I would assume if they were true I might  be able to find something a little more trustworthy.  At this point, I will even accept FOX news... Alex Jones?

SredniVashtar

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on February 25, 2017, 02:00:30 AM
Look, why do you think average Americans are turning away from Big Media news?  Why are the major newspapers dying?  Why did talk radio come out of nowhere to have the listenership and influence they have?  Why do more and more people bypass the mainstream media completely and look for information on-line?  Why is trust in the Media at an all time low and continuing to plummet? 

Because it's free. I bet few people under 50 buy a paper any more, and that has less to do with the probity or otherwise of the media and more to do with people being cheap (guilty!). If people can get something for less somewhere else, they will, considerations of quality are secondary.

People are also lazy these days, which explains the popularity of talk radio. It's just fluff, easily consumed and digested. All these people who cite alternative sources as somehow more reliable than 'Big Media' don't realise that these sources rely on the MSM as much as anyone; all they do is provide comment, often tendentious. If the mainstream media went out of business today people like Alex Jones would be sunk, because they are like parasites who need a host to feed off.

Meister_000

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 25, 2017, 12:34:39 AM
This wasn't the daily press briefing as you would try to make people believe.

As usual you're wrong (re the briefing's significance or import). This was simply a (last minute change to) *off-camera* expanded press-pool Press Briefing, a "gaggle". By this I mean ANY full Press-Pool Press-Briefing from the WH is significant -- and this by WH definition was "expanded press pool" aka expanded to include explicitly partial Trump-Bitch rags. If anything then, by your standards Gravity, it must have been THE most important White House Press Briefing EVER!

"The “gaggle” with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, took place in lieu of his daily briefing and was originally scheduled as an on-camera event. But the White House press office announced later in the day that the Q&A session would take place off camera before only an “expanded pool” of journalists, and in Spicer’s West Wing office as opposed to the James S Brady press briefing room where it is typically held."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer

BTW, Not mentioned before; not only did the White House expressly exclude the Big Boys (including BBC I see now) , they _included_ their bed-buddies, Trump-friendly Conservative publications Breitbart News, Washington Times, One America News Net, etc.-- you know, the "Real" big-league!

And in case you missed it there; that Dimbart News now gets White House Press Pool slot is SICK!

PrairieGhost

Trump is right, CNN does fake a lot of shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO-TyETzNO8
CNN fakes being at sandy hook, green screen screw up
CNN fakes being in Middle east during gulf war
CNN Green screen fail, pretends to be on a boat
Hospital CEO Wins Major Court Victory After CNN fakes Statistics
Interview with fake protestor, who is really John Grkovic, a CNN cameraman.
CNN calling everyone else fake news vs. CNN saying 'fake news' is like the n-word
CNN's Chris Cuomo says generally ridiculous things
CNN uses Fallout 4 screencap for "hacking" footage
CNN fakes satellite interview - reporters are really in the same parking lot
CNN called out by Nancy Sinatra for making false claims
CNN's use of the word "rally"
CNN audience member seen with paper saying "Your Question"
CNN article headline ≠ article substance
CNN's Chris Cuomo says its illegal to read wikileaks
CNN reports on Trump eating KFC with fork, as poisonous gas attack scrolls by in small text
CNN refers to terrorist attack at German Christmas market as a "truck crash"
The election can't be hacked vs. Where's the outrage about hacking?
CNN reuses photo from Cincinnati anti-Trump rally for a rally in Philadelphia
CNN falsely reports that FLOTUS was not meeting with Akie Abe during Japan visit
CNN's Pam Brown caught coaching focus group after Presidential debate
CNN's Donna Brazile gets debate questions in advance
CNN's Chris Cuomo says 12 year old girls should be more 'tolerant' of seeing boys' penises
CNN's Abby Phillip caught misrepresenting Hillary's crowd sizes
CNN headline implies (falsely) that Trump's Executive Order was responsible for man's death
CNN falsely says illegal immigration is not necessarily a crime - 8 U.S. Code § 1325 begs to differ

Meister_000

Trump Speech at CPAC
Fri. Feb. 24, 2017 (Full: 51mins) ABC

https://youtu.be/-xX8B_dQKcM


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Meister_000 on February 25, 2017, 09:13:37 AM
Let There Be . . .√

I thought it almost amusing how he seriously suggested that news outlets should name their sources. Because Bannon knows that if that was ever made law (and I wouldn't put it past him to try), the whisteblowers wouldn't come forward. That way Bannon could continue his drunken quest for ensuring the only 'news' that was released to the masses, was what he had decided was news. Orwell wasn't far off the mark, just a few decades out in the timing.

Kidnostad3

Quote from: TigerLily on February 24, 2017, 03:31:12 PM
Kid. I doubt you have much concern for my views. But I do want to say this is an excellent commentary on the state of politics, the media bias and the sad state of our deeply entrenched ideologies. If you don't mind I will add my, hopefully, also thoughtful and thought-provoking commentary.

author=Kidnostad3 link=topic=2284.msg1014160#msg1014160 date=1487898967]
I get my news from all the usual places.  The question you should be asking is how do I evaluate the validity of what is being reported. 
I doubt your "usual places" are my usual places. Full disclosure, I do rely to an extent on mainstream news sources like AP, Reuters and also (gasp) on Wall Street Journal, NYTimes, and Washington Post. My experience has been the latter two get a lot of breaking news and corroborated insider leaks (leaks are good). For hard news, not editorials, commentaries, or opinion pieces. The latter two also seem to coincide with the actual facts which are often borne out later. I also use fact checking sites and also look for the actual quotes from the people involved.  I had never heard of Breitbart before I started hanging out here. I seriously researched and fact checked many articles that didn't seem to coincide with the actual facts as I understood them. It was easy to discover the distortions and downright lies in the articles I researched. Now I wouldn't even line my birdcage with Breitbart. I feel even more contempt for Info Wars, Drudge, News World Daily if they pass on opinions as "news". I also never bother with Mother Jones, Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc.

The networks are owned by corporations who have a vested interest in controlling the narrative and fostering globalism.  If one fails to see the pro right bias in the reporting of FN and the consistently pro left slant in the tone, tenor and arguments of news and commentary on virtually all other networks, one has given himself over completely to his cognitive biases.  If nothing else, the fact that all the commentators on those leftist news outlets told us that Hilliary was a sure bet right up until election night and that they were visibly crestfallen when she lost says it all.  Moreover, they continue their war against Trump with a vengeance.  The print media is similarly biased with Carlos Slim owning the NYT and Jeff Besos owning the WP.
Televised and radio "news" is clearly biased. Yes, I can see how Trump supporters would see a war on Trump by the "leftist" media. Are you going to say there wasn't a similar "war" on Obama and Clinton by the "rightist" media? I discount wild-eyed  propagandists and apologists. I applaud efforts to hold Power accountable to the people. For uncovering the truth and reporting the facts. To me, that is the number one job of a free press.

The political class is solely interested in maintaining the status quo and getting elected/reelected with the help of monied interests.  In other words, politicians are tools of special interests whether it's the Koch Brothers or Soros or any other major financial or commercial entities.  They pay homage to unions and social group advocates ( i.e. NAACP, various Latino groups, the LGBT community, etc.) but the big corporations are their main benefactors and call the shots.
No arguments here. Ask 21 how I feel about money in politics. So far, from my point of view, Trump is adding to the swamp, not draining it.

What you, the MSM and pols fighting Trump fail to realize is that it isn't about republicans versus democrats nor is it necessarily about left versus right.  It's about Americans against big government and corporate globalism and for economic nationalism and national integrity and sovereignty.  The steady nit picking and gotchas will not advance the cause of those opposing Trump.  It will just make them look increasingly petty and obstructionist.
There's quite a bit of generalized ideology in this statement but I agree nitpicking and gotchas should be the purview of sites like this, not news media. Investigation and fact finding are.

How I judge the veracity of reporting is how it comports with what I know to be the facts, the accuracy of reporting when viewed with the benefit of hindsight and what my senses tell me about the person delivering the news or opinion in terms of their level of emotion and body language and how they couch their arguments.  In other words, what my experience with people has taught me over the years.  Most intelligent people do not want to be told what their opinion should be.  Others want to be told.
All of us have our judgments colored by our own experiences and viewpoints and personal opinions. That doesn't make them the truth or factual.

Thus endeth the tome of the TigerLily. Let the sniping begin

Well stated.  I offer the following comments/counterpoints for your consideration:

News sources:  I tend to use news compendiums as I think most of us do.  I like Drudge because it is convenient and comprehensive.   I focus on the direct links to articles or videos produced by virtually all of the MSM sources and select those that interest me.  When I encounter one that comes down heavy on one side of an issue or appears to be trying to sell me on a particular point of view I most often look for an opposing view.  If I can't find one in the compendium I do a Google search using a qualifier like "alternative views" "controversy"  and even "_________ wrong about" "Sucks"  or "is a fraud" depending on my mood.   I include articles from the NYT and WP but certainly don't rely on the reporting because of their self admissions about getting things wrong and obvious disdain and bias against Trump and the right in general.  I also watch a lot of C-Span.   I do not watch network evening news or Sunday talk shows for reasons previously stated but I do view important excerpts.

I don't share your view that Trump is not draining the swamp when he has only been in office for just over a month.  That may change but I'm willing to give him some time to do it.

Of course you are right about the views of individuals being shaped by many things including prejudices. Within psychology there is a saying that before age 30 a person has prejudices but after that his prejudices have him.  I believe that is generally true but I tend to be wary of much that is said by the right and the left and try hard to understand the issue and apply intellect rather than emotion.  Needless to say I am not always successful in this effort. 

GravitySucks

Quote from: Meister_666 on February 25, 2017, 06:48:05 AM
As usual you're wrong (re the briefing's significance or import). This was simply a (last minute change to) *off-camera* expanded press-pool Press Briefing, a "gaggle". By this I mean ANY full Press-Pool Press-Briefing from the WH is significant -- and this by WH definition was "expanded press pool" aka expanded to include explicitly partial Trump-Bitch rags. If anything then, by your standards Gravity, it must have been THE most important White House Press Briefing EVER!

"The “gaggle” with Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, took place in lieu of his daily briefing and was originally scheduled as an on-camera event. But the White House press office announced later in the day that the Q&A session would take place off camera before only an “expanded pool” of journalists, and in Spicer’s West Wing office as opposed to the James S Brady press briefing room where it is typically held."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer

BTW, Not mentioned before; not only did the White House expressly exclude the Big Boys (including BBC I see now) , they _included_ their bed-buddies, Trump-friendly Conservative publications Breitbart News, Washington Times, One America News Net, etc.-- you know, the "Real" big-league!

And in case you missed it there; that Dimbart News now gets White House Press Pool slot is SICK!

Exactly which big boys were ignored?  CNN's screenshot. Go change your diaper.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: PrairieGhost on February 25, 2017, 07:07:17 AM
Trump is right, CNN does fake a lot of shit.


Because Trump is the go to authority on truth?

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: WOTR on February 25, 2017, 04:46:08 AM
Great.  Any actual source on this aside from the youtube videos and other reliable sources?  If "the white house" has fingered him as the source of the leaks, I have not found any actual evidence (unless the white house leaked the source of the leaks to these "trusted youtubers".)  The rumours seem to date back around three days, and I would assume if they were true I might  be able to find something a little more trustworthy.  At this point, I will even accept FOX news... Alex Jones?

Maybe try watching one for a change. THey do talk about the articles they're referencing in them. Oh, right! You just wanted to ridicule YouTube vids. Feel like one of the cool kids now?  ::)

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: GravitySucks on February 25, 2017, 09:28:53 AM
Exactly which big boys were ignored?  CNN's screenshot. Go change your diaper.

BBC were excluded. NYT.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on February 25, 2017, 09:28:59 AM
Because Trump is the go to authority on truth?

Well, you sure as hell NEVER are.  ::) :D


Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on February 25, 2017, 09:30:10 AM
Well, you sure as hell NEVER are.  ::) :D

Hey bitch, how is the proposed federal enforcement of mary jane being de legalised for recreational use, hanging with you? Cool about it?

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 25, 2017, 05:03:44 AM
Because it's free. I bet few people under 50 buy a paper any more, and that has less to do with the probity or otherwise of the media and more to do with people being cheap (guilty!). If people can get something for less somewhere else, they will, considerations of quality are secondary...

Well, except the move away from Big Media began in the 1960s, before the internet and smart phones.  It coincided precisely with the far left having more influence in the newsroom.  As that influence grew over the successive decades, more and more people stopped consuming it.  Yes, the internet is free, but so is the nightly news.

People simply don't appreciate heavily biased ''news''.  It's like watching a ball game.  People don't want to listen to an announcer they believe is subtly or not so subtly in support of the other team, but will tolerate or even enjoy the home town guy supporting their team.  It's why the Libs don't mind the Fake News outlets, and may not even really see it for what it is since it dovetails with their views.

The same can surely be said of talk radio listeners.  The difference is those commentators aren't pretending to be even handed.  The problem with the Fake News Media is their clam to be honest journalism, simply reporting the events of the day, when that is not the case.


Want proof:

Quick, tell me the Big Media position on abortion, transgender bathrooms, the death penalty, gun rights, the controversial aspects of the gay agenda, sanctuary cities, Moslem refugee immigration, etc.

We all know what side they are on for all these issues.  If they were simply reporting the events of the day, we wouldn't.

Meister_000

< "Let there be, no more sources." >

The Washington Post | Feb. 24, 2017

Trump administration sought to enlist Intelligence officials and key Congressional lawmakers to counter Trump-Russia contact stories

"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates’ ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not â€" participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumprussia-720pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fd9760ec287f

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 25, 2017, 05:03:44 AM
... People are also lazy these days, which explains the popularity of talk radio. It's just fluff, easily consumed and digested. All these people who cite alternative sources as somehow more reliable than 'Big Media' don't realise that these sources rely on the MSM as much as anyone; all they do is provide comment, often tendentious. If the mainstream media went out of business today people like Alex Jones would be sunk, because they are like parasites who need a host to feed off.

Yes, people are lazy these days.  But that does not explain the popularity of radio.  People at long last began to hear media content that mirrored their own world view - rather than the world view they'd been force fed from a media that had a monopoly on content.  Talk listeners know it's opinion and commentary on the news and not the news itself.  Again, that's the key difference - one side admits it's advocacy, the other side insists it has none.

I think most people understand Big Media has the means to gather the information.  Talk radio and the others find and discuss underreported information that was buried because it didn't fit the MSM narrative.  They also do get information from sources who don't go to Big Media, and interview people Big Media mostly ignore. 

So it's not as if all events and issues are presented equally - from either side - they aren't.  On any given day the Fake News Media and the non-FNM will often each focus on entirely different issues and events.  Don't you find it odd that the FNM outlets ALL focus on the same handful of issues and all have the same reactions to them every single day?

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on February 25, 2017, 09:34:38 AM
Hey bitch, how is the proposed federal enforcement of mary jane being de legalised for recreational use, hanging with you? Cool about it?

Totally!  8)

SredniVashtar

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on February 25, 2017, 09:35:58 AM
Well, except the move away from Big Media began in the 1960s, before the internet and smart phones.  It coincided precisely with the far left having more influence in the newsroom.  As that influence grew over the successive decades, more and more people stopped consuming it.  Yes, the internet is free, but so is the nightly news.

You're equating correlation with causation. I don't think it's so cut and dried. You could just as easily point to a  lack of engagement from the baby boomers about politics, the political slant having nothing to do with it. Even something like the nightly news involves opportunity costs in terms of time and attention, while the internet can be browsed more easily.

Quote from: PB the Deplorable on February 25, 2017, 09:35:58 AM
Want proof:

Quick, tell me the Big Media position on abortion, transgender bathrooms, the death penalty, gun rights, the controversial aspects of the gay agenda, sanctuary cities, etc.

We all know what side they are on for all these issues.  If they were simply reporting the events of the day, we wouldn't.

It's not as easy to be unbiased as you make it sound. For example, war. Reporters often get slammed for not being biased enough, when they are really just being even-handed. Can you imagine the uproar if there was a genuinely unbiased coverage of ISIS that really tried to understand where they were coming from? They would try to be fair, but it would appear to be biased. It depends on your standpoint.

Yorkshire pud

Quote from: Meister_000 on February 25, 2017, 09:42:34 AM
< "Let there be, no more sources." >

The Washington Post | Feb. 24, 2017

Trump administration sought to enlist Intelligence officials and key Congressional lawmakers to counter Trump-Russia contact stories

"The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates’ ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not â€" participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumprussia-720pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.fd9760ec287f

Only the cynical would think the WH gaming the investigation into the alleged Trump campaign/Russia connection by instructing the chairmen of the investigative committees and the security services to tell the press there's nothing to see before the investigation begins,  was wrong. After all only a tyranical, fascist third world despot would do that.

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: SredniVashtar on February 25, 2017, 09:52:27 AM
You're equating correlation with causation. I don't think it's so cut and dried. You could just as easily point to a  lack of engagement from the baby boomers about politics, the political slant having nothing to do with it. Even something like the nightly news involves opportunity costs in terms of time and attention, while the internet can be browsed more easily.

It's not as easy to be unbiased as you make it sound. For example, war. Reporters often get slammed for not being biased enough, when they are really just being even-handed. Can you imagine the uproar if there was a genuinely unbiased coverage of ISIS that really tried to understand where they were coming from? They would try to be fair, but it would appear to be biased. It depends on your standpoint.

So, essentially what you're saying is reporting is really, really hard! We should all give them a break, right?  ::) :D

Dr. MD MD

Quote from: Yorkshire Pud on February 25, 2017, 09:52:51 AM
After all only a tyranical, fascist third world despot would do that.

It would be as horrible as if a country's leadership just tried to ignore a referendum that didn't go in their favor.  ::)

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod