Political Roundtable Part X

[keynote]

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.

Of *course* the Dems want the press to parrot their talking points. The GOP wants the media to do the same. But there's a big difference between the media responding to an effective spin campaign from the Dems and adopting their (apt) catchphrase of choice, and some "coordinated" effort -- i.e., a cabal of big media types actively conspiring behind the scenes to use the same term. Do you have any evidence that it's the latter, and not the former?

[AFM]

Monte I found PDFs of his original writings if you're actually interested. I'm on my phone so I don't have an easy way to link to them right now

The whole thing is blown out of proportion. Obviously it's a bad look for the dems to have someone who believes in sharia law speaking at their convention

[montestewart]

Since Mother Jones came up, I'll add that she had a DC area connection, living her final years on a farm in what is now Adelphi, Maryland, and dying at age 93 in Silver Spring, Maryland.

[dckingsfan]

Classic misdirection tactic...

I saw this and I was thinking, don't you feel like that is this election cycle in a nutshell?

Debt exceeds $19 trillion.

The projected accumulated deficit over the next 30 yearsis $103 trillion (CBO).

The net value of all assets held by American households and businesses today totals $121 trillion, definition of unsustainable?

Trump and Clinton aren't even trying to address our financial house of cards, no?

[dckingsfan]

The whole thing is blown out of proportion. Obviously it's a bad look for the dems to have someone who believes in sharia law speaking at their convention

Well, during this election cycle anyway...

[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.

Of *course* the Dems want the press to parrot their talking points. The GOP wants the media to do the same. But there's a big difference between the media responding to an effective spin campaign from the Dems and adopting their (apt) catchphrase of choice, and some "coordinated" effort -- i.e., a cabal of big media types actively conspiring behind the scenes to use the same term. Do you have any evidence that it's the latter, and not the former?

I don't think the NY Times called up the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune and told them how to write their headline. I think the DNC contacted all the media outlets with a statement saying that the speech was, in the DNC's opinion, "dark". The media got the message and repeated it.

It's not the DNC contacting the media that gives me trouble. I'm sure the RNC contacts the media and tries to spin things their way too. The difference is that the media complies with the DNC... completely. It's because they don't have an interest in merely reporting the news. They have an interest in getting Hillary Clinton elected.

[gtn130]

I think a better analogy to Breitbart is Huffington Post (from a few years back when they had a bigger budget), not Vox or Mother Jones. Are they partisan? Sure. But Breitbart actually has legitimate reporters out working in the field. They don't just sit back and opine about the news. They report stories first hand.

Sounds reasonable. Both are completely unreliable propagandist rags

[montestewart]

Monte I found PDFs of his original writings if you're actually interested. I'm on my phone so I don't have an easy way to link to them right now

The whole thing is blown out of proportion. Obviously it's a bad look for the dems to have someone who believes in sharia law speaking at their convention

Whenever you get a chance, thanks.

[keynote]

BTW, Abby Phillip is a Washington Post reporter.

Sigh. Are you saying that's only 50 people? That back row is more than 30 across, so even in the wide shot, that crowd looks to be fairly sizable. And, of course, Phillip responded to this accusation.

Read on Twitter

I don't know how boisterous the crowd was, but it's clearly not "50 people."

*Really?* *This* is the smoking gun that leads you to believe that Abby is somehow in the bag for Hillary? Did you even bother counting the actual people in the room? Did you click on the twitter thread to investigate, or was the sight gag of the photo good enough for you?

Did you read the local news article about the event?

http://www.ketv.com/news/hillary-clinton-visits-the-omaha-metro/41003880

She drew 3,500 attendees, with long lines required to get in.

...or is KETV-Omaha also a notorious left-leaning media outlet? I suppose the local fire marshal is an honorary member of the media cabal as well?

[AFM]

Monte I found PDFs of his original writings if you're actually interested. I'm on my phone so I don't have an easy way to link to them right now

The whole thing is blown out of proportion. Obviously it's a bad look for the dems to have someone who believes in sharia law speaking at their convention

Whenever you get a chance, thanks.

https://www.docdroid.net/pRyHOFo/juristic-classification-islamic-law.pdf.html

[nate33]

FWIW, I didn't say 50. Whoever tweeted that did. But I think it's notable that the camera angle was zoomed in at the most favorable angle to make it appear as if the venue was completely full. It's just one small contribution to the overall media bias. If there was empty gymnasium floor at a Trump rally, the pictures would show it.

[keynote]

I think a better analogy to Breitbart is Huffington Post (from a few years back when they had a bigger budget), not Vox or Mother Jones. Are they partisan? Sure. But Breitbart actually has legitimate reporters out working in the field. They don't just sit back and opine about the news. They report stories first hand.

I'm shocked that anyone would defend the journalistic process that excreted the Khan articles posted earlier. Who cares if they report stores first hand, if they report them in such a shoddy manner?

[nate33]

I think a better analogy to Breitbart is Huffington Post (from a few years back when they had a bigger budget), not Vox or Mother Jones. Are they partisan? Sure. But Breitbart actually has legitimate reporters out working in the field. They don't just sit back and opine about the news. They report stories first hand.

I'm shocked that anyone would defend the journalistic process that excreted the Khan articles posted earlier. Who cares if they report stores first hand, if they report them in such a shoddy manner?

Different topic. I wasn't talking about the Kahn story. I'm talking about Breitbart as an entity. They're more than just guys who opine on the news. I already said (twice) that the Kahn story was guilt by association.

In terms of integrity, is Breitbart's reporting on Kahn really much different than the media universally labeling Trump a racist and white supremacist because he didn't condemn David Duke quickly and vociferously enough (even though he had already condemned him twice within the prior week on different media outlets).

[nate33]

Read on Twitter

[keynote]

FWIW, I didn't say 50. Whoever tweeted that did. But I think it's notable that the camera angle was zoomed in at the most favorable angle to make it appear as if the venue was completely full. It's just one small contribution to the overall media bias. If there was empty gymnasium floor at a Trump rally, the pictures would show it.

Zoomed in? Or, the reporter was standing at the edge of the crowd, instead of 100 feet away like the second photographer. It's only "notable" if you want it to be -- i.e., if you want to think that this reporter is intentionally framing photographs to favor one client over another.

As for what would happen at a Trump rally: I can't/won't argue against a hypothetical counter-example. If you have a photo of the Trump campaign taken by the same journalist (or one of her WaPo colleagues), framed in an manner to be misleading, I'd love to see it.

[keynote]

I think a better analogy to Breitbart is Huffington Post (from a few years back when they had a bigger budget), not Vox or Mother Jones. Are they partisan? Sure. But Breitbart actually has legitimate reporters out working in the field. They don't just sit back and opine about the news. They report stories first hand.

I'm shocked that anyone would defend the journalistic process that excreted the Khan articles posted earlier. Who cares if they report stores first hand, if they report them in such a shoddy manner?

Different topic. I wasn't talking about the Kahn story. I'm talking about Breitbart as an entity. They're more than just guys who opine on the news. I already said (twice) that the Kahn story was guilt by association.

It's not a different topic. You have yet to acknowledge that the reporting of that story was shoddy. Using a "guilt by association" strategy to promote a partisan agenda doesn't absolve a journalist of the responsibility to substantiate their conclusions. An article can be partisan *and* well-written/well-reported (although, those are usually called "columns" by reputable outlets); or, it can be partisan *and* hacky. This is the latter.

[keynote]

I don't think the NY Times called up the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune and told them how to write their headline. I think the DNC contacted all the media outlets with a statement saying that the speech was, in the DNC's opinion, "dark". The media got the message and repeated it.

It's not the DNC contacting the media that gives me trouble. I'm sure the RNC contacts the media and tries to spin things their way too. The difference is that the media complies with the DNC... completely.

Okay, let's assume this is true. It could be that the DNC's spin machine is *much* better than Trump's inexperienced group of surrogates and castoffs. It could be that the DNC didn't have to spin much this time around, because "dark" is an apt description. It could be that the TV show "Community" popularized the term "darkest timeline," and the DNC did a good job of picking a catchphrase that resonated with the zeitgeist. It could be that the Dems won this round, but that the GOP has won previous rounds about language (e.g., "death panels," "gun control"). The GOP certainly did a good job via the media of making the term "liberal" a dirty word -- to the point that lefties now prefer the term "progressive" instead. Karl Rove built up a huge reputation for his ability to play the media like a fiddle, and push catchphrases that ended up becoming the default terms used to frame critical issues.

Or, it could be...

It's because they don't have an interest in merely reporting the news. They have an interest in getting Hillary Clinton elected.

Yeah. Here's where you make a leap that isn't substantiated. You've identified what you consider to be a correlation. But you have absolutely no evidence of causation. And yet you sound so certain...

I've see you and other posters call each other out for positing unsupported theories about, say, Bradley Beal's scoring ability. Why not apply the same rigor to your analysis here?

[nate33]

I'm shocked that anyone would defend the journalistic process that excreted the Khan articles posted earlier. Who cares if they report stores first hand, if they report them in such a shoddy manner?

Different topic. I wasn't talking about the Kahn story. I'm talking about Breitbart as an entity. They're more than just guys who opine on the news. I already said (twice) that the Kahn story was guilt by association.

It's not a different topic. You have yet to acknowledge that the reporting of that story was shoddy. Using a "guilt by association" strategy to promote a partisan agenda doesn't absolve a journalist of the responsibility to substantiate their conclusions. An article can be partisan *and* well-written/well-reported (although, those are usually called "columns" by reputable outlets); or, it can be partisan *and* hacky. This is the latter.

I don't disagree. The reporting on the Kahn connections was hacky up until the point they took down the website. At that point, I can see why Breitbart smelled blood and reported it. Let's give it a few more days to see if they come up with anything.

[nate33]

I can do this all day folks:

[keynote]

I can do this all day folks:

Does this chart count the time CNN spent covering this back in January, when this was news?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/us-pays-iran-1-7-billion/

And, here's the WSJ's take:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-payment-of-1-7-billion-to-iran-raises-questions-of-ransom-1453421778

Will your chartmaker breathlessly bring this back up when the US makes the next installment payment?

With All Due Respect isn't a news show any more than Hannity or O'Reilly Factor are. It's a commentary show in a PTI-esque format.

So...is this what you're going to do all day? (shrugs)