Political Roundtable Part X

[Zonkerbl]

Yeah you guys are attributing way too much intelligence and coordination to CNN. They are selling garbage news to the lowest common denominator, that's all.

Back when print journalism was a thing and each newspaper had a nice little monopoly over its local populace the number of prestigious journalism positions was scarce and you could fight your way to the top by discrediting other journalists sloppiness and being a better journalist yourself.

With the internet being the way it is there's no self policing among journalists any more and it's just a crowd of carnival barkers trying to out shout each other.

I honestly don't know where to go for unbiased journalism. Any source that just describes politics in an unbiased way is likely to be boring as crap. Think C-SPAN.

I don't really have a favorite news source. I get news topics crammed down my throat in my facebook feed and then I'm forced to do a google search to learn more about it. I scan the WaPos headlines every morning and that's about it. WaPo is biased as hell too btw. I listen to NPR too because my wife does. NPR's alright - they seem pretty unbiased except for their choice of what to report on.

I mean having grown up in bible-thumping Ohio I have never trusted anything I saw on tv (or later read on the internet) anywhere. My whole academic career has been an exercise in learning how to avoid being manipulated by propaganda peddlers. Sometimes I am unpleasantly surprised that not everyone is like that.

[keynote]

Or...perhaps the GOP Convention (and Trump's speech in particular) *was* dark.

I'm sure Democratic surrogates offered that reaction, too. I don't doubt that the Dem's spin doctors are more polished than Trump's: most of the top professional GOP surrogates are sitting this one out, and the folks that are left are doing dumb things like blaming Obama's policies for Khan's son's death in 2004 (when he was a state senator in Illinois). So, it's entirely possible that the Dems did a better job of agreeing on a talking point -- "dark" -- and hammering it home. This isn't just a Democratic phenomenon: the GOP has had some success with this in the past: think "death panels," etc. And, the debate about guns is still usually referred to as "gun control" (NRA-friendly term), and not "gun safety" (the terminology Democrats desperately want the media to use instead).

But I watched all of the GOP prime time speeches, and they painted a fairly bleak picture of the current state of affairs. Now, some of that is normal: the non-incumbent party always has to point to problems, and blame the incumbent party for it. Obama certainly blamed Bush's policies for the problems he identified back in '08. But whereas Obama and the Dems in '08 would then pivot and speak about hope, "yes we can" etc. (soaring oratory, or empty rhetoric, depending on your political views), the GOP *stayed* fairly bleak.

I'm sure some have seen the John Oliver bit about when Gingrich was pressed on CNN about the tone of the GOP convention vis-a-vis the facts.

Watch on YouTube

Unless Gingrich was taken out of context, his point is clear: voters "feel" like the country is going in the wrong direction, regardless of any facts to the contrary. So, he (and the GOP) are more interested in addressing the *feelings* they perceive the voting public to have about the state of affairs than the *actual* state of affairs. I guess it's smart politics. But Trump/the GOP can't be annoyed if the media then focuses on the tone of the convention, since that was apparently their focus as well.

[gtn130]

Just to recap, Nate is condemning The Liberal Media™ for being biased, yet is supporting the candidate who is actively and deliberately campaigning to dismantle the free press.

bump

[nate33]

BTW, Abby Phillip is a Washington Post reporter.

[nate33]

Just to recap, Nate is condemning The Liberal Media™ for being biased, yet is supporting the candidate who is actively and deliberately campaigning to dismantle the free press.

bump

He made one offhand comment several months ago because he was frustrated with the negative coverage. I'd hardly call that "campaigning to dismantle the free press".

[nate33]

Or...perhaps the GOP Convention (and Trump's speech in particular) *was* dark.

C'mon keynote, not you too.

I don't disagree that the speech was pessimistic. If there was multiple headlines saying the Trump's view was "pessimistic", or "negative", or "dismal" or "gloomy", or "dark", it would have been one thing. But the universal use of the word "dark" is indefensible. It was coordinated. You don't get coincidences like that.

[gtn130]

Just to recap, Nate is condemning The Liberal Media™ for being biased, yet is supporting the candidate who is actively and deliberately campaigning to dismantle the free press.

bump

He made one offhand comment several months ago because he was frustrated with the negative coverage. I'd hardly call that "campaigning to dismantle the free press".

Oh. So should we just not take him at his word? When do we know when he's serious and when he isn't?

Just to remind you of his "offhand comment" in case you forgot:

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

Just an offhand comment! Nothing to see here!

[gtn130]

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

(Nate right now)

[Weganator]

The funny thing, though, about your pronouncement about liberal media conspiracy is that Trump has said "we're gonna open up those libel laws" in order to sue the NYT when it reports negatively about him as president. Your candidate is effectively saying he wants to do away with freedom of the press, and you're here worried about The Liberal Media™ saying the word "dark" too much.

Apathetic about the 2 candidates, but:

These reporters aren't being gathered up by secret police with bags on their heads. If he believes he has been libeled, he is well within his rights to take them to civil court. A judge can make that decision as opposed to the court of public opinion.

[popper]

Although it's a big long-shot my hope is that Hillary and Trump tie 269-269 and the House is compelled to choose one of the three top vote getters. I think in the event that happens we may very well end up with Gary Johnson as President. The R controlled House would never select Hillary and there are enough never-Trumper's to deny him as well.

[Zonkerbl]

Breitbart lost the right to call itself a news agency when it got Shirley Sherrod fired by deliberately reediting a video to manufacture a lie about what she said.

You can't possibly make any claim to legitimacy after doing something like that. Stop reading Breitbart. Cite something else.

I don't know what will qualify as an "unbiased" news agency to you Nate. But Breitbart ain't it.

NBC edited the police dispatch recording of the Zimmerman/Martin incident to make Zimmerman seem like a racist, which essentially launched the BLM movement, leading to riots in many cities and the execution of several cops. Does NBC have legitimacy?

Classic misdirection tactic. "Hey look over there though!"

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Breitbart makes money by selling lies. It isn't journalism. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with what passes for "journalism" today.

There's news sources that would be embarrassed to find out that something they thought was true wasn't. And then there's Breitbart, who BRAGGED about how they outsmarted the Obama administration in getting Sherrod fired BY DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURING A LIE. So how anyone could take them seriously as a news organization after that just baffles me. Maybe NBC did that too, who knows. We're talking about Breitbart though.

[gtn130]

The funny thing, though, about your pronouncement about liberal media conspiracy is that Trump has said "we're gonna open up those libel laws" in order to sue the NYT when it reports negatively about him as president. Your candidate is effectively saying he wants to do away with freedom of the press, and you're here worried about The Liberal Media™ saying the word "dark" too much.

Apathetic about the 2 candidates, but:

These reporters aren't being gathered up by secret police with bags on their heads. If he believes he has been libeled, he is well within his rights to take them to civil court. A judge can make that decision as opposed to the court of public opinion.

I'm pretty sure (actually I'm positive) Trump is saying he would like to change libel laws so he can sue anyone who says anything negative about him.

He probably could never actually do this, but the fact that he stands for this and is openly campaigning for this is highly alarming.

[AFM]

The silver lining to a trump presidency is Lena Dunham, Rosie O'Donnel, and Whoopi Goldberg have all sworn to leave the country if he's elected.
Any time you can banish three creatures from the depths of hell, from whence they came, you have to do so.

[nate33]

Breitbart lost the right to call itself a news agency when it got Shirley Sherrod fired by deliberately reediting a video to manufacture a lie about what she said.

You can't possibly make any claim to legitimacy after doing something like that. Stop reading Breitbart. Cite something else.

I don't know what will qualify as an "unbiased" news agency to you Nate. But Breitbart ain't it.

NBC edited the police dispatch recording of the Zimmerman/Martin incident to make Zimmerman seem like a racist, which essentially launched the BLM movement, leading to riots in many cities and the execution of several cops. Does NBC have legitimacy?

Classic misdirection tactic. "Hey look over there though!"

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Breitbart makes money by selling lies. It isn't journalism. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with what passes for "journalism" today.

There's news sources that would be embarrassed to find out that something they thought was true wasn't. And then there's Breitbart, who BRAGGED about how they outsmarted the Obama administration in getting Sherrod fired BY DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURING A LIE. So how anyone could take them seriously as a news organization after that just baffles me. Maybe NBC did that too, who knows. We're talking about Breitbart though.

The difference is that nobody is acting like Breitbart is and unbiased media source. They're clearly biased, everyone knows it, and Breitbart doesn't attempt to hide it. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT and WaPo actually make the audacious claim that they're unbiased.

[AFM]

Zonk I'm Uninviting myself to your annual RealGM BBQ. Probably serving gluten free tofu burgers anyway.

[montestewart]

Good roundtable today. Very round. Thanks to EG, we all need a distraction.

[Zonkerbl]

Zonk I'm Uninviting myself to your annual RealGM BBQ. Probably serving gluten free tofu burgers anyway.

Carb free. Steaks and broccoli, yay!

[Wizardspride]

Click to read the rest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scarborough-trump-nukes_us_57a1e47ae4b0693164c347d0?

Joe Scarborough: Donald Trump Repeatedly Asked Why We Couldn’t Use Nukes


Donald Trump repeatedly asked an unnamed foreign policy expert why the U.S. couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile during a national security briefing earlier this year, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough said Wednesday.

Scarborough told the anecdote amid an interview with former CIA director Michael Hayden, who said he could not see himself voting for the “inconsistent” and “dangerous” GOP nominee. Asked if he was aware of anyone among his peers who was advising Trump, Hayden said “no one.”

“I’ll have to be very careful here,” Scarborough said. “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, if we have them, why can’t we use them? That’s one of the reasons he just doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him. Three times, in an hour briefing, why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”

Scarborough learned of the exchange “in the last few days,” according to an MSNBC executive.

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort denied the claim on Wednesday morning.

“Absolutely not true,” he said in an interview with Fox News. “The idea that he’s trying to understand where to use nuclear weapons? It just didn’t happen. I was in the meeting, it didn’t happen.”

[Zonkerbl]

NBC edited the police dispatch recording of the Zimmerman/Martin incident to make Zimmerman seem like a racist, which essentially launched the BLM movement, leading to riots in many cities and the execution of several cops. Does NBC have legitimacy?

Classic misdirection tactic. "Hey look over there though!"

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Breitbart makes money by selling lies. It isn't journalism. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with what passes for "journalism" today.

There's news sources that would be embarrassed to find out that something they thought was true wasn't. And then there's Breitbart, who BRAGGED about how they outsmarted the Obama administration in getting Sherrod fired BY DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURING A LIE. So how anyone could take them seriously as a news organization after that just baffles me. Maybe NBC did that too, who knows. We're talking about Breitbart though.

The difference is that nobody is acting like Breitbart is and unbiased media source. They're clearly biased, everyone knows it, and Breitbart doesn't attempt to hide it. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT and WaPo actually make the audacious claim that they're unbiased.

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

[Zonkerbl]

:(

Click to read the rest
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scarborough-trump-nukes_us_57a1e47ae4b0693164c347d0?

Joe Scarborough: Donald Trump Repeatedly Asked Why We Couldn’t Use Nukes


Donald Trump repeatedly asked an unnamed foreign policy expert why the U.S. couldn’t use its nuclear weapons stockpile during a national security briefing earlier this year, MSNBC “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough said Wednesday.

Scarborough told the anecdote amid an interview with former CIA director Michael Hayden, who said he could not see himself voting for the “inconsistent” and “dangerous” GOP nominee. Asked if he was aware of anyone among his peers who was advising Trump, Hayden said “no one.”

“I’ll have to be very careful here,” Scarborough said. “Several months ago, a foreign policy expert on international level went to advise Donald Trump, and three times he asked about the use of nuclear weapons. Three times he asked, at one point, if we have them, why can’t we use them? That’s one of the reasons he just doesn’t have foreign policy experts around him. Three times, in an hour briefing, why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”

Scarborough learned of the exchange “in the last few days,” according to an MSNBC executive.

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort denied the claim on Wednesday morning.

“Absolutely not true,” he said in an interview with Fox News. “The idea that he’s trying to understand where to use nuclear weapons? It just didn’t happen. I was in the meeting, it didn’t happen.”

You know, ok, Trump is an ahole, but I don't get this. If I was getting my first security briefing ever that would be my first question too. "Tell me why we have all these nukes around if we're not supposed to use them. You're the security expert, explain this to me. How much are we spending on this again? Why can't we use them? If we're not going to use them, why do we have them?"

If the person giving me the security briefing can't answer these questions, I would fire him instantly.