|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything.
Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic.
On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism.
The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings!
Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics.
|
On August 08 2019 23:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. The image looks like it's from a newspaper, not a webpage, yet the newspaper somehow got pressured into changing the titled after print? (All of the titles and fonts looks suspiciously digital, but I have never seen a news page that looks like a 1990s newspaper). But the thing that rings the most alarm bells for me is that Trump would absolutely never in a million years urge "Unity vs. racism" in the first place. Both himself and his core supporters are massively racist, and he has refused to take stance on the subject before. Or have you forgotten about "both sides"? Photoshop is a thing, and it's abused massively exactly to trick people, who aren't inclined to dig for sources, into getting offended by stuff like this. Unless you provide actual evidence then I'm going to treat it as such.
I shall gladly provide you some left-wing biased MSM sources who have completely no intention of helping Trump.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/trump-praises-new-york-times-headline-that-sparked-uproar-after-shootings
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/06/new-york-times-headline-trump-backlash/
|
On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics.
You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself.
|
On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics.
It is one of the worlds most commonly known truths. Trump is a narcisstic racist. If you say otherwise you are at best delusional, or worse a devoted racist yourself.
|
On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:![[image loading]](https://cdni-rt.secure2.footprint.net/files/2019.08/article/5d4994b7dda4c8e0178b45ab.jpg) NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama.
They’ve been trending in the Fox News approach for quite some time now. The news business is in the business of making money, so give the customers what they want to hear. In this case, it means saying nothing positive about Trump’s response in the headline. Never mind that they could include moderating language, such as critics saying why his speech rings hollow in light of x y z other things.
It’s gone on long enough that I don’t think this truly surprises anyone. Editorial page starts on #1.
|
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit.
|
On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics.
Oh, well he shook his head, clearly there's nothing to see here.
He hasn't disavowed anything. There were "very fine people" on both sides of Charlottesville. Nobody's walked that one back yet. When you really mean to condemn the hate and the violence, you don't just joke it off. You take a stand. He's the president. He sets the highest example. And White Supremacists routinely say that Trump empowers them, and they feel he has their backs.
But he gets a pass from folks like you because, eh, he made the most half-assed attempt to cover his ass anyone could possibly give. That's good enough, right? If you say "well, if you just look at what he literally said, and nothing else, he condemns them", and think you're done explaining it away, it's an insult to your intelligence and mine.
|
Northern Ireland26475 Posts
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
|
|
|
On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake.
The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track.
|
|
|
On August 08 2019 23:51 Pangpootata wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:39 Excludos wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. The image looks like it's from a newspaper, not a webpage, yet the newspaper somehow got pressured into changing the titled after print? (All of the titles and fonts looks suspiciously digital, but I have never seen a news page that looks like a 1990s newspaper). But the thing that rings the most alarm bells for me is that Trump would absolutely never in a million years urge "Unity vs. racism" in the first place. Both himself and his core supporters are massively racist, and he has refused to take stance on the subject before. Or have you forgotten about "both sides"? Photoshop is a thing, and it's abused massively exactly to trick people, who aren't inclined to dig for sources, into getting offended by stuff like this. Unless you provide actual evidence then I'm going to treat it as such. I shall gladly provide you some left-wing biased MSM sources who have completely no intention of helping Trump. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/07/trump-praises-new-york-times-headline-that-sparked-uproar-after-shootingshttps://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/06/new-york-times-headline-trump-backlash/
Appreciate the source. This had all the hallmarks of being fake, and I'm very surprised it ended up not being so.
However, once you actually look at the source, a very different story starts to appear:
"Many readers complained that the wording fed Trump’s claims that those who criticised his persistent anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric – some of which was repeated in the El Paso gunman’s alleged manifesto – were playing politics." is nowhere near the same as "People complained it didn't make Trump look bad".
And in the end it was false anyways, because, as I stated earlier, Trump did not and never will actually condemn racism. In the speech that is being reported upon, he blamed video games.
And this being a video game forum, I will throw the ball back to you and Danglars: What do you think about Trump blaming mass shootings on video games instead of actually taking a stance on the problems that are facing your society? Do you agree with him?
|
On August 09 2019 00:56 JimmiC wrote:
If Trump followed through my opinion on him would change, but he says a lot of stuff.
Exactly. Trump says so much shit I'm not going to hold my breath for anything until he actually puts it into effect. If he does, I'll give him a stick-on star on the left side of the book containing a million pages of the bad shit he's done.
|
On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track.
are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad?
this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours.
how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy
|
Just to follow up on this (especially given this mass shooting thread and the recent comments about Trump surprisingly not being a victim of attempted murder), tomorrow will be the 3-year anniversary of that time Donald Trump told his 2nd Amendment supporters to assassinate Hillary Clinton: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton Last year, of course, we know that Clinton, Obama, and many others were sent pipe bombs by Trump supporters.
|
On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy
I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere.
Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality.
I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings.
|
On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings.
and i dont think that anyone who judges opinions based soly on opinions instead of facts and arguments can capably judge anything.
about trumps underlying motivations, i suspect they are rather shallow. Build a wall here n there, have a big trump sign on a tall building, maybe be a bit of a "pussy grabber" and generally just be angry (cuz thats real manly!) and in denial because everyone else is so stupid and misunderstanding and it feels really good to be right especially when everyone knows you are not.
|
Northern Ireland26475 Posts
On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings.
I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’.
I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US.
Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit.
He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board.
|
On August 09 2019 08:45 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 01:45 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 01:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:On August 09 2019 00:52 Danglars wrote:On August 09 2019 00:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
Well hopefully some of the damage can be repaired after he fucks off anyway. Not so sure myself.
The traction that ‘fake news’ has gathered has pushed segments of the country into such isolated media spheres that have completely different narratives that lack areas of shared agreement from which they can ideologically diverge.
Sure this was the case prior to this era but it’s far more pronounced.
The media mainstream was also deeply flawed, but Trump decided to burn the whole house down instead of fixing the plumbing.
You do have a point. I think the problem has gone on for enough decades that the time had come for a President to punch back at poor journalism. Criticism of Fox News was vile but accepted, but when NYT WaPo and CNN gets it, suddenly it's destroying the country. The mass shooting angle, very obviously saying that even good speeches by Trump must be ignored and attacked, is just the latest iteration. I guess they're writing off people that would devalue criticism of bad speeches, since they can't recognize the good ones. The changed headline is just a stark example of an old phenomenon. Its age is why I think it's not on Trump for breaking the news media, such that even a headline that doesn't attack him is a mistake. https://twitter.com/SethAMandel/status/1158777925690437632The industry will recover if they can report mass shootings and presidential responses, and not continue on the Fox-News-ification track. are you somehow insinuating that trump was justified in shouting "fake news" at whatever news he didnt like or made him look bad? this isnt a president that is taking a stand against manipulative or deceitful media, far from it. what were seeing now is a president that is manipulating the masses by completely blocking out legitimate criticisms against him and painting all media that calls him out as deceitful (not that im saying every single claim has merit. but most of them do). you gotta give him credit in the fact that he absolutely knows how to control his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses, but theres some serious mental gymnastics going on if you think trump has shown the world the media's true colours. how you could think trump is doing the noble deed by "punching back at poor journalism" is beyond me. the guy is literally the master of manipulation and deceit, so much that he could write a textbook on divide and conquer strategy. the media could only dream of being as effective as this guy I made reference to exactly what I think the problem is within the first paragraph, and I hope you will read and respond to what I've written there before taking this elsewhere. Secondarily, I don't think Trump's motivations deny the underlying reality. I don't think anyone who can seriously say "his supporters because 90% of them are dumbasses" can capably judge fake news, Trump, the media, or mass shootings. I think his motivations are entirely pertinent here, pushing for the fourth estate to spout less bullshit vs espousing anything that scrutinises you as ‘fake news’. I don’t particularly blame him singularly but he’s punched through the wall and many others have followed into the breach. Hell its permeated way beyond the US. Equally I think we as a populace have a large degree of culpability in retrenching into our spheres, it may be comforting to some to blame Trump for everything but it’s total bullshit. He’s one man, regardless of office. We’ve collectively taken the decision to further polarise and this goes across the board.
Trump’s low accuracy is pertinent to some questions, but I’m saying you can’t use it toss out the bullseyes which empower him. His favorability ratings are up, and that’s scaring people. For the rest, you may need to tell me exactly what part of my previous post your point was pertinent to.
The NYT is not the place you go to read reporting on Trump’s speech, it’s where what you already believe about mass shootings and presidential responses gets fed back to you to make you feel good. The Fox News Channel model, if you will.
|
On August 08 2019 23:53 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2019 23:49 Pangpootata wrote:On August 08 2019 23:36 NewSunshine wrote:On August 08 2019 22:50 Pangpootata wrote:+ Show Spoiler +NYT changed headlines under pressure from people who just want Trump to be the bad guy. Trump always condemns violence from mass shootings. The media frames his rhetoric as incendiary and some far right extremists (whom Trump has disavowed) try to misappropriate his words to advance their goals. The original headline would have been a small but good step towards healing the nation. Imagine what you would be reading every day if Trump was a darling of the MSM like Obama. I mean, you can't on one hand claim you could shoot someone in broad daylight and not lose support, or joke about "only in the Panhandle" could you get away with shooting immigrants, or do any of the things he constantly does at his rallies to "suggest" that having your guns handy will be an awful nice idea, and then "oh btw I disavow that guy who basically said what I said, word for word, I have literally no idea where he got the idea to do what he did". He's not disavowing anything, because that steps into actions and not just words. You're the president. Anything you want to do, you can tell people to make it happen. Words are cheap. How many times have Republicans said all the right things following a mass shooting, only for nothing to change and the cycle to repeat? Words don't do anything. Go rewatch the video again. He clearly shakes his head in disapproval after hearing the shooting comment before making the panhandle joke. He has never said anything that encourages shootings; it's all people inferring it through leaps of logic. On the other hand Trump has clearly condemned violence and racism. The logic you are promoting is: Trump has clearly and literally condemned shootings, but he says some other words that I interpret as being indirectly encouraging shootings. Therefore on the whole Trump must be encouraging shootings! Only the same leftists who have invented "microaggressions" can misconstrue certain small actions of Trump as being responsibility for shootings. It's all a state of mind where one wishes to interpret political opponents as bad people, and ends up unconsciously performing mental gymnastics. You can't say Trump has clearly condemned racism when he tweets absolutely racist stuff himself.
That is not true. It's the way you interpret it. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist. Condemning someone who happens to be a person of color is not racist.
The problem in modern western society is toxic femininity where some people like to get very upset and offended about small things.
On August 09 2019 00:23 Jockmcplop wrote:
What we have here is a right wing who elected a president based solely on the fact that he triggers the left, complaining that the left is triggered by the president.
Politics has turned to a steaming pile of shit.
Wow! Voters on one side are voting only for one reason! Absolutely magnificent logic! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
