Political Roundtable Part XII

[DCZards]

I honestly don't care about the inauguration crowd size controversy. The Obama inauguration was an historical event and it doesn't surprise me if the turnout was higher for him. However, the media is lying about the turnout for Trump.

Nat, I agree that this controversy over the crowd size is kinda silly. (Although, your making the above statement and then proceeding to use a series of photos to show more of the crowd from Trump’s inauguration does seems to suggest that this issue matters more to you than you say it does.)

You’re right about the historic nature of the Obama presidency and the DC region is a “blue” area with many more Democratic voters in close proximity to the inauguration.

What I don’t understand is why the Trump Admin. felt it necessary to have Press Sec. Sean Spicer use his first press briefing to make a big deal about the reporting of the crowd size.

To make matters worse, Spicer lied. The Trump inauguration was clearly not “the largest audience” to ever witness an inauguration in person and, despite Spicer’s claim to the contrary, Metro reported a far lower ridership for this inauguration than it did for the 2009 and 2013 inaugurations. According to Metro, 193,000 trips had been taken by 11am on Donald Trump’s inauguration day, compared with 513,000 during the same period on January 20, 2009.

And, sorry, pictures don’t lie. The side-by-side overhead shots makes it obvious that the turnout last Friday was nowhere near what it was in 2009.

Trump really needs to check his ego, for the sake of the country that he now leads. Why can’t he and his administration simply admit that there were more people in 2009, probably twice as many, and move on to more important business?

BTW, there were also twice as many people at the Women’s March in DC yesterday than there were at Trump’s inauguration. Not to mention the 1 million plus people who marched elsewhere in the country on Saturday.

[JWizmentality]

I honestly don't care about the inauguration crowd size controversy. The Obama inauguration was an historical event and it doesn't surprise me if the turnout was higher for him. However, the media is lying about the turnout for Trump. Read this article:

http://ijr.com/2017/01/783119-brit-hume-calls-bs-on-trump-and-obama-inauguration-pics-claims-theres-a-deceptive-trick-to-photos/

Here's the well-known photo used to make Trump's turnout look bad:


But compare it to some other photos of Trump's crowd:




In Trump's inauguration, they had white tarp on the ground which made empty space stand out much more. And it appears that they sectioned off some areas of white completely.

Stop it, there is no deception. The WaPo and some others sites had those pictures in their initial story yesterday. I've seen it already. The space in front of the capitol reserved for dignitaries, government officials and the like should be full, but the the mall as a whole wasn't that full. And really, so f*cking what? Who cares. The media was always going to go crazy over that, but that's not the point. We have a man who goes out of his way to proclaim how popular he is, how tremendous the inauguration was going to be so yeah the media was going to do comparisons. But now you're on here calling foul on the media? Then send out the press secretary to straight up lie? I look forward to your mental gymnastics for the next 4 years.

[Illuminaire]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

[Benjammin]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

I used to follow the news and educate myself about policy issues and foreign affairs (minor in Foreign Affairs from UVA), but I honestly don't bother anymore because all news seems to come from a political slant, from one side or the other.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

[Induveca]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

Very well stated. Propaganda has been heavily infused into nearly every media product the past few years.

[gtn130]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

They showed the comparison pictures from the exact same time down to the minute, so I have no clue what you're talking about.

Also there is more data available than those pictures, which you're more than welcome to go look at.

[gtn130]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

Very well stated. Propaganda has been heavily infused into nearly every media product the past few years.

But Wikileaks, though.

WIKILEAKS is free, free of bias, let alone propaganda.









I side with Wikileaks.

[gtn130]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

I used to follow the news and educate myself about policy issues and foreign affairs (minor in Foreign Affairs from UVA), but I honestly don't bother anymore because all news seems to come from a political slant, from one side or the other.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app

You realize it's virtually impossible for news to be completely free of political slant, right? News is created by humans.

[Wizardspride]

Gonna do my best to avoid/ignore Trump for the next four years. Not gonna be easy...but I'll manage.


But in all seriousness, my advice to SOME of the people complaining the most...VOTE in the midterms and VOTE in the Presidential election.

[JWizmentality]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

You're analogy falls flat on it's face. It's telling the media you'll be ready for your mugshot at 7am but when they show up you're still in bed, then angry that your picture sucks.

Trump: My inauguration will set records. It will be the grandest thing of all time.
Media: Hey, not a lot of people watched or even showed up for your inauguration.
Trump: How dare you point that out!

The media promotes a lot of propaganda, but this contortion of just basic stuff in unnecessary and ridiculous. Have a YMCA in NC banning showing CNN on their TVs because it's fake news? This is becoming a banana republic. Up is down and down is up.

[Induveca]

Ironically, the real problem with major news media is they cover Trump 24/7 for ratings. The more stories they can make up with the word "Trump" their ratings go higher. Variety used to be a necessity, no longer.

Trump to CNN is like Tebow was to ESPN a few years ago.

[montestewart]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

You're analogy falls flat on it's face. It's telling the media you'll be ready for your mugshot at 7am but when they show up you're still in bed, then angry that your picture sucks.

Trump: My inauguration will set records. It will be the grandest thing of all time.
Media: Hey, not a lot of people watched or even showed up for your inauguration.
Trump: How dare you point that out!

The media promotes a lot of propaganda, but this contortion of just basic stuff in unnecessary and ridiculous. Have a YMCA in NC banning showing CNN on their TVs because it's fake news? This is becoming a banana republic. Up is down and down is up.

Taking the middle ground, or really changing the subject a little, I've watched the ratings game and pandering to target audiences cheapen television hard news over time. Back in the 80s, before 24 hour news, I had a roommate who worked as a freelance cameraman for various news agencies. He was much more attuned to reporting and several times showed me, using a stopwatch, how little actual news was reported in a given news segment, timing out the lifestyle, sports, entertainment, and other soft news coverage. I recall once a figure of barely 2 minutes for the 11 o'clock news, and he was able to show similar regardless of network, and how national news was not all that much better.

In theory, 24 hour news, along with the internet, should allow for more in-depth coverage, but it instead frequently leads to redundancy, poorly verified information spreading like wildfire as fact, relentless sensationalizing of each tidbit of information, and a clear pandering to target audiences. Add to that the explosion of news sources presented as alternatives to MSM but doing no better and frequently much worse (as they have a much narrower target audience to pander to, and all the more reason to sensationalize and grow that audience) and journalism in general has a serious problem, with people routinely embracing one source as virtual gospel and rejecting another source as pure lies.

I'm not very good at judging crowd size, usually using an approximate of "How many Verizon Centers?" or "How many Fedex Fields?", which probably isn't very scientific. I do live in DC, and was out and around for the 2009 inauguration, the 2017 inauguration, and the march. It seemed very clear that there were more people Saturday than Friday, and many of the people present Friday were clearly there for Saturday's march (as distinguished from the small cadre of ninja-clad poseur trouble makers who got all the media coverage Friday). Between the 2009 and 2017 inaugurals, there's just no comparison. In 2009 I easily saw more people on the mall than any two other events combined, overflowing back across 17th street, filling up adjacent side streets, under trees, etc.

For logical reasons previously stated, it makes sense that Trump was not as big a draw as the other two events, and I'll add that one local relative who I'm pretty sure voted for Trump attended the march but not the inauguration. Even anti-Clinton people who voted for Trump may have serious concerns about him and the state of women's rights. To me, the contrasting attendances is not all that telling about anything right now, but I agree that Trump brought such coverage on himself by his grandiose claims in advance of his inauguration, and coverage will continue as he claims that it is all lies. The more facts that are presented (like the live, realtime feeds of the events) the more he will claim "lies," and wherever the truth is won't really matter, as so many people will believe what they want to believe. This is a serious problem for all journalism, and I'm not sure where you begin to solve it.

[JWizmentality]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

You're analogy falls flat on it's face. It's telling the media you'll be ready for your mugshot at 7am but when they show up you're still in bed, then angry that your picture sucks.

Trump: My inauguration will set records. It will be the grandest thing of all time.
Media: Hey, not a lot of people watched or even showed up for your inauguration.
Trump: How dare you point that out!

The media promotes a lot of propaganda, but this contortion of just basic stuff in unnecessary and ridiculous. Have a YMCA in NC banning showing CNN on their TVs because it's fake news? This is becoming a banana republic. Up is down and down is up.

Taking the middle ground, or really changing the subject a little, I've watched the ratings game and pandering to target audiences cheapen television hard news over time. Back in the 80s, before 24 hour news, I had a roommate who worked as a freelance cameraman for various news agencies. He was much more attuned to reporting and several times showed me, using a stopwatch, how little actual news was reported in a given news segment, timing out the lifestyle, sports, entertainment, and other soft news coverage. I recall once a figure of barely 2 minutes for the 11 o'clock news, and he was able to show similar regardless of network, and how national news was not all that much better.

In theory, 24 hour news, along with the internet, should allow for more in-depth coverage, but it instead frequently leads to redundancy, poorly verified information spreading like wildfire as fact, relentless sensationalizing of each tidbit of information, and a clear pandering to target audiences. Add to that the explosion of news sources presented as alternatives to MSM but doing no better and frequently much worse (as they have a much narrower target audience to pander to, and all the more reason to sensationalize and grow that audience) and journalism in general has a serious problem, with people routinely embracing one source as virtual gospel and rejecting another source as pure lies.

I'm not very good at judging crowd size, usually using an approximate of "How many Verizon Centers?" or "How many Fedex Fields?", which probably isn't very scientific. I do live in DC, and was out and around for the 2009 inauguration, the 2017 inauguration, and the march. It seemed very clear that there were more people Saturday than Friday, and many of the people present Friday were clearly there for Saturday's march (as distinguished from the small cadre of ninja-clad poseur trouble makers who got all the media coverage Friday). Between the 2009 and 2017 inaugurals, there's just no comparison. In 2009 I easily saw more people on the mall than any two other events combined, overflowing back across 17th street, filling up adjacent side streets, under trees, etc.

For logical reasons previously stated, it makes sense that Trump was not as big a draw as the other two events, and I'll add that one local relative who I'm pretty sure voted for Trump attended the march but not the inauguration. Even anti-Clinton people who voted for Trump may have serious concerns about him and the state of women's rights. To me, the contrasting attendances is not all that telling about anything right now, but I agree that Trump brought such coverage on himself by his grandiose claims in advance of his inauguration, and coverage will continue as he claims that it is all lies. The more facts that are presented (like the live, realtime feeds of the events) the more he will claims "lies," and wherever the truth is won't really matter, as so many people will believe what they want to believe. This is a serious problem for all journalism, and I'm not sure where you begin to solve it.

This. Thank you.

Again, I could care less about crowd size. Hell the media ran with the parade route pictures too, but I know that was a scheduling f*ck up by the inauguration team. It's this rejection of reality that bothers me. If the weatherman tells me it's going to be 70 tomorrow and it turns out to be 50...I dont care. But if throughout the day your telling me how warm it is outside, you're going to get called on it. It reminds me of a time earlier last year when I was stuck at the airport for the whole day. They had cancelled my flight early in the morning then ushered a large group of us to another terminal stating that they had another flight for us at around 3pm. Well, 3pm came and went and they kept coming over the intercom with excuse after excuse. But the kicker came at 10pm when they announced that our alternate flight had arrived and was now at the terminal. Nevermind the fact that we have a 360 degree panoramic view of the tarmac and can see that there is no plane out there. But that didn't stop them from giving 10 minute updates about how they were cleaning the plane and we would be boarding shortly. Shortly before 12pm, a large contingent of police officers arrived at the front desk and then they made the announcment that yeah...aint no flight here. Come back tomorrow

It's just amazing to me. This level of blatant, brazen dishonesty is the norm now.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Ironically, the real problem with major news media is they cover Trump 24/7 for ratings. The more stories they can make up with the word "Trump" their ratings go higher. Variety used to be a necessity, no longer.

Trump to CNN is like Tebow was to ESPN a few years ago.

I agree with this.

Trump if nothing else is the master at making them play his game. He is, in a word, a troll. But a very effective one. The more we trip over ourselves being flummoxed by obvious lies, the less we talk about other stuff... like appointing a person who has exactly zero qualifications to lead HUD.

[montestewart]

To the discussion about crowd sizes in DC, I would add that people (often very large crowds of people) were marching in other large cities (including Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Boston, Denver, New York), medium-sized cities (including Birmingham, St. Petersburg, Portland), and smaller cities and towns (including Juneau, Alaska and Park City, Utah). My sister-in-law (not to keep harping on it, but another independent who votes both Democrat and Republican) marched with 1000 in New Smyrna Beach, FL (pop 23,398). And, while Trump's election might have been the instigator, and (judging by signs) many issues were being aired, the unifying focus of these marches was women's rights.

[Ruzious]

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-conway-interview-presidents-aren-t-judged-by-crowd-size-860134979785
OMFG.

How?

Why?

OMFG.

[Ruzious]

Using that 5 7 5 formula, it's real easy to come up with Kellyanne Conway Haiku's. The first 5 and last 5 syllables are a given.

[payitforward]

Trump has been the least liked POTUS at inauguration in the history of such polls. The media report this fact. This is the kind of thing called "media bias" by Presidentnyet Trump & his gang of merry mischief makers.

As to "media bias" in principle, it's not a contemporary phenomenon, it's a perennial one. It's easy to find the newspaper articles written in the 1800 election (choice between John Adams for a 2d term & Thomas Jefferson). Go take a look at them. They are a lot more blatant than anything you'd find in major media these days -- a lot more like extreme media sources.

And anyone growing up in Chicago in the '50s - '60s was perfectly aware of the far right (as far right as there was room on any issue) Republican bias of the Chicago Tribune. Just to take one obvious example.

Does the NY Times management detest Donald Trump? Probably -- & in fact they'd be nuts not to. He's called the Times & its people liars over & over. In fact, the NY Times is one of the best newspapers in the history of American journalism.

The WSJ the other day pointed out that if Trump did one of his "create 1000 jobs for Americans" deals every single day, it'd take him 20 years to create the number of jobs that the American economy produces in one month. More lies from the media? No.

It's a sad moment, this one. But we'll get through it.

[montestewart]

Using that 5 7 5 formula, it's real easy to come up with Kellyanne Conway Haiku's. The first 5 and last 5 syllables are a given.

You cannot project
Effectiveness from crowd size
Or junk from hand size

[payitforward]

This was the media equivalent of using someone's "just woke up and haven't combed hair yet" selfie for an official mugshot. It's not technically wrong, but it sure as hell is misleading and designed to make them look bad.

I do call that deceptive. It's a kind of deception that happens all the time, from every major news service (obviously including Fox and right-wing side dishes like Breitbard). Personally, I'm sick of how politicized every article and newscast seems to be. It's deeply frustrating how many people care more about agenda than truth.

You're analogy falls flat on it's face. It's telling the media you'll be ready for your mugshot at 7am but when they show up you're still in bed, then angry that your picture sucks.

Trump: My inauguration will set records. It will be the grandest thing of all time.
Media: Hey, not a lot of people watched or even showed up for your inauguration.
Trump: How dare you point that out!

The media promotes a lot of propaganda, but this contortion of just basic stuff in unnecessary and ridiculous. Have a YMCA in NC banning showing CNN on their TVs because it's fake news? This is becoming a banana republic. Up is down and down is up.

Illuminaire, I'd say you have this exactly wrong.

If someone makes a claim -- e.g. that a buzillion (whatever number) people watched his inauguration because of its importance as a historic moment, and that's not true, it's the responsibility of journalism to call the lie a lie. It's not "politicized" in the slightest to do so. What's politicized is the lie in the first place.

Moreover, how does "agenda" factor at all into reporting the actual attendance at an event? "Agenda" could only make you lie to make it seem that fewer people attended than actually did, or else make you lie to make it seem that more people attended than actually did.

Responding to either kind of lie by telling the truth is the job of the media. Staying away from the issue is not the media's job. It would be avoiding doing its job.