• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No, Donald, the WH press corps is not biased against you...

Xelor

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Are you old enough to remember roasts like The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast? I am.




​

The tradition of roasting celebrities endures. Comedy Central does them.

​


Being roasted is a mark of honor. It's one's peers, friends, associates and colleagues acknowledging that while they are not oblivious to one's flaws and foibles, they appreciate and respect one as a human being by dint of their knowing they too are flawed. What all involved share is owning their flaws. Doing so shows one as not only human, but also humbly and honorably so.


Last night, the political journalists held their annual awards ceremony, the White House Correspondents Dinner, the entertainment portion of which is a roast of all things and all folks "Political Washington." (Yes, Mathilda, there are people in D.C. who don't have a darn thing to do with the federal government or politics.) The keynote roaster was Michelle Wolf. While the press and most politicians alike hold the "business" part of the event -- giving out awards and recognizing scholarship -- in high regard and as worthy, that's not the big draw, especially for non-journalists. The jokes, especially those delivered by a POTUS and the keynote comedian are the highlight.

Wolf spoke for about twenty minutes.

​



Donald Trump and his conservative echo chamber have long been on about the press being calumniously biased against him. Perspicacious observers know better, of course, but there's no telling a Trumpkin that for in their eyes it's all about the ad hominem, and not about the fact that Trump's words and deeds giving rise to editorialists' recriminations of his character and policy are indeed reprobate and deserve the ridicule they attract. I suppose some folks were "raised in a barn," but most of us were taught far better manners and given educations that allow us to express ourselves with far more articulateness than does Trump. Moreover, we all were taught to tell the truth; who doesn't know the "Cherry Tree" myth?

Even as Trump deserves all the chiding he gets for lying and so on, Wolf last night went too far. If the press' stolid quiescence (watch the video) be an inadequately poignant indicator that for all the ridicule they levy at Trump and his cohorts, none of it is personal, ad hominem, the post-event commentary about Wolf's remarks sure should. More than a few odiously ribald the jibes of Sarah Sanders.
What the two examples above show is that people of integrity, though quick to rebuke one when one is wrong, are equally quick to come to one's defense when one is by others unjustly wronged. Were Trump not such an hubristically insecure boor who believes his own BS, he'd know that and stop trying to paint the media as being biased against him, the man. Their job is to report to the people what a POTUS says and does and to do so without regard to whether doing so paints the POTUS in a good light or bad light.

This isn't the 1930s or 1960s, Donald. The "gentleman's agreement" between the WH and the press is defunct. The press will tell what it discovers, which is what it's supposed to do. Don't do things that will reflect poorly on you and won't get "bad" press.
 
No, Donald, the WH press corps is not biased against you...
Click to expand...

i hate roasts. i find them to be mean, though i do like Dean Martin.

that being said, most journalists probably are biased against Trump. this is because he is one of the most unfit presidents that this nation has ever produced, and that's one hell of a story. it's a train wreck, but people buy tickets for those, and the press has a constant need to sell tickets.
 
Helix said:
i hate roasts. i find them to be mean, though i do like Dean Martin.

that being said, most journalists probably are biased against Trump. this is because he is one of the most unfit presidents that this nation has ever produced, and that's one hell of a story. it's a train wreck, but people buy tickets for those, and the press has a constant need to sell tickets.
Click to expand...

The main problem with roasts is that they are far too heavy handed and in your face. The result is crap like we heard last night which while funny at times - rare times - it mostly was simply mean and offensive to everybody.
 
haymarket said:
The main problem with roasts is that they are far too heavy handed and in your face. The result is crap like we heard last night which while funny at times - rare times - it mostly was simply mean and offensive to everybody.
Click to expand...

i've seen some clips of the Dean Martin roasts. they were ok. i wouldn't watch them, but those people had some class. these days, it's just too over the top.

also, get off of my lawn.

:lol:
 
Xelor said:
Are you old enough to remember roasts like The Dean Martin Celebrity Roast? I am.




​

The tradition of roasting celebrities endures. Comedy Central does them.

​


Being roasted is a mark of honor. It's one's peers, friends, associates and colleagues acknowledging that while they are not oblivious to one's flaws and foibles, they appreciate and respect one as a human being by dint of their knowing they too are flawed. What all involved share is owning their flaws. Doing so shows one as not only human, but also humbly and honorably so.


Last night, the political journalists held their annual awards ceremony, the White House Correspondents Dinner, the entertainment portion of which is a roast of all things and all folks "Political Washington." (Yes, Mathilda, there are people in D.C. who don't have a darn thing to do with the federal government or politics.) The keynote roaster was Michelle Wolf. While the press and most politicians alike hold the "business" part of the event -- giving out awards and recognizing scholarship -- in high regard and as worthy, that's not the big draw, especially for non-journalists. The jokes, especially those delivered by a POTUS and the keynote comedian are the highlight.

Wolf spoke for about twenty minutes.

​



Donald Trump and his conservative echo chamber have long been on about the press being calumniously biased against him. Perspicacious observers know better, of course, but there's no telling a Trumpkin that for in their eyes it's all about the ad hominem, and not about the fact that Trump's words and deeds giving rise to editorialists' recriminations of his character and policy are indeed reprobate and deserve the ridicule they attract. I suppose some folks were "raised in a barn," but most of us were taught far better manners and given educations that allow us to express ourselves with far more articulateness than does Trump. Moreover, we all were taught to tell the truth; who doesn't know the "Cherry Tree" myth?

Even as Trump deserves all the chiding he gets for lying and so on, Wolf last night went too far. If the press' stolid quiescence (watch the video) be an inadequately poignant indicator that for all the ridicule they levy at Trump and his cohorts, none of it is personal, ad hominem, the post-event commentary about Wolf's remarks sure should. More than a few odiously ribald the jibes of Sarah Sanders.
What the two examples above show is that people of integrity, though quick to rebuke one when one is wrong, are equally quick to come to one's defense when one is by others unjustly wronged. Were Trump not such an hubristically insecure boor who believes his own BS, he'd know that and stop trying to paint the media as being biased against him, the man. Their job is to report to the people what a POTUS says and does and to do so without regard to whether doing so paints the POTUS in a good light or bad light.

This isn't the 1930s or 1960s, Donald. The "gentleman's agreement" between the WH and the press is defunct. The press will tell what it discovers, which is what it's supposed to do. Don't do things that will reflect poorly on you and won't get "bad" press.
Click to expand...


You seem to have lost your tether to reality.

Are you seriously saying that the bias of the media produces exactly the same coverage from all media outlets for all political personalities?
 
Helix said:
i hate roasts. i find them to be mean, though i do like Dean Martin.

that being said, most journalists probably are biased against Trump. this is because he is one of the most unfit presidents that this nation has ever produced, and that's one hell of a story. it's a train wreck, but people buy tickets for those, and the press has a constant need to sell tickets.
Click to expand...
I won't get into projecting what be the political affinity of the individuals who happen to have journalism careers. What I know is that those individuals who are professional reporters are, like all professionals, able to do their jobs without imposing their personal views into it.

Professionals of all sorts do it all the time.
  • Attorneys can as ably argue either side of case; they'd be lousy attorneys if they couldn't. It doesn't matter what they think. They've been hired to do a job, so they do they job they've been hired to do. If they have personal matters that disallow them to argue the side a potential client wants them to argue, they don't take the case.
  • Economists have terms for the distinction between what's opinion and what's fact. They call statements about economic facts "positive statements" and they call opinions "normative statements." Indeed, ever since the advent of cheap computing's having made empirical testing of economic principles relatively easy, economists are especially careful about distinguishing the two types of statements. All of us have opinions, but we don't disregard the fact that at times our opinions run counter to our ethical views on an economic policy matter.
It's quite similar for professionals of any stripe, including journalists. What's different is that some journalists are also given the job of commenting on events instead of or in addition to reporting on them. As commentators, their job expressly calls them to share their analysis and personal conclusions. (There's also the matter that some commentators aren't at all journalists.) At the end of the day, while all of us are taught to adroitly consider and expound on either side of a matter, journalists and attorneys are among the very few who are called to actually do so as part of their job.

Just as journalism includes the roles of reporter and commentator, along with others, it entails multiple content types. It's an audience member's "job" to accurately distinguish which type they encounter at any given moment. Unless the story is an editorial, a reader/viewer/listener shouldn't at all conclude tha that the story's conclusions are those of the journalist who composed the story or those of the publisher. It's just a story, information someone thought deserved to be made available.
 
code1211 said:
You seem to have lost your tether to reality.

Are you seriously saying that the bias of the media produces exactly the same coverage from all media outlets for all political personalities?
Click to expand...

Did I write anything remotely like that assertion? No.

What I wrote is what I am, at least in this thread, saying. Period.
 
A trashy evening for the very biased press who despises President Trump.
Glad he spent his time in Washington, Michigan. One of the states that helped him become president.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
A trashy evening for the very biased press who despises President Trump.
Glad he spent his time in Washington, Michigan. One of the states that helped him become president.
Click to expand...

What other reaction would you expect from the press or anyone else to a President that constantly lies about almost everything.
 
But much of the room went silent with Wolf's personalized attacks — and an abortion joke that wasn't well received — and after the Comedy Central comedian joked that she wished a tree would fall on Conway, adding that she did not hope that the White House aide would get hurt, but only "that she would get stuck."

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer deemed the evening a "disgrace" in a tweet, to which Wolf replied: "Thanks!"

Echoing Spicer, former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus called Wolf's set "R/X rated" and said the performance left Trump as the clear winner.

An R/X rated spectacle that started poorly and ended up in the bottom of the canyon. Another victory for @realDonaldTrump for not attending and proving his point once again. The room was uncomfortable. Trump lovers and even a large number of Trump haters were pretty miserable.
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) April 29, 2018
 
haymarket said:
The main problem with roasts is that they are far too heavy handed and in your face. The result is crap like we heard last night which while funny at times - rare times - it mostly was simply mean and offensive to everybody.
Click to expand...

The abortion material was way over the line.

Perhaps for next year the WHC need not to stoop to Trump's level. The comments about the press secretary's looks reminds me back to when Trump laughed at the looks of candidate Carly Fiorina.
 
Crosscheck said:
The abortion material was way over the line.

Perhaps for next year the WHC need not to stoop to Trump's level. The comments about the press secretary's looks reminds me back to when Trump laughed at the looks of candidate Carly Fiorina.
Click to expand...

The abortion joke was really bad even if it set up a good zinger about the Republican fundraiser and his mistress. You could have had the same punchline with a far less offensive set up.
 
Xelor said:
This isn't the 1930s or 1960s, Donald. The "gentleman's agreement" between the WH and the press is defunct. The press will tell what it discovers, which is what it's supposed to do. Don't do things that will reflect poorly on you and won't get "bad" press.
Click to expand...

What you are saying here is akin to blaming the female rape victim for wearing provocative clothing. "It wouldn't have happened if she didn't dress like a slut."

I thought we, as a society, were past that kind of attitude. Guess not.
 
Maybe the underlying problem is that Michelle Wolf just isn't that funny.
 
"Intense criticism of her physical appearance" reagarding SHuckS? All I caught was a makeup joke.
 
Xelor said:
Wolf spoke for about twenty minutes.

​
Click to expand...

Comedian?? Destroyed Trump??? There was nothing funny about that routine and the only thing she destroyed was what was left of her own career.
 
Xelor said:
Did I write anything remotely like that assertion? No.

What I wrote is what I am, at least in this thread, saying. Period.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the comments posted in the Thread with the title it has are from you or were cut and pasted from another source or sources.

It is impossible to watch a variety of sources and not notice the variations in the tone and bias of the coverage.

I find it delightful to watch as the major networks and CNN parade the talking heads out to say that the progress in the Korean situation is due to the efforts of Trump and his administration.

While they are saying the words, the looks on their faces make it seem like they're trying to get a bad taste out of their mouths.

Hearing them report on the outright lies from Tester regarding the Trump nominee for the VA leadership was enlightening.

Rather than focusing on the real story which was that Tester lied, they said that the "misrepresentations" were not important because the guy was not qualified and would not have been approved anyway- they didn't need the lies.

Since day one when the propagandists were openly weeping for Hillary's loss, they have been in attack mode.
 
A roast is comedy disguised as insults, this was insults disguised as comedy. Im surprised anyone expected anything different from those people. This type of thing has been pointed out many times and many on the left acknowledge it and go on to justify it by telling us its because trump and his people deserve to be treated poorly by them.

Cant really say i blame people who know they are targets for not attending. It would be cool if their targets all showed up and gave them a taste of their own medicine but staying away or conducting themselves as Sarah did was certainly the classier thing to do.

Thing about this is it isnt a spontaneous event. It is all planned out. The people who hosted this event and those their that supporting it, should all be ashamed of themselves. They owe everyone an appology. I wont hold my breath waiting because its obvious they are not ashamed, they are proud of their behavior. They wear it like some sort of leftist badge of honor.

I can honestly say that when bad things happen to them, i feel no remorse for them.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
"Intense criticism of her physical appearance" reagarding SHuckS? All I caught was a makeup joke.
Click to expand...

Inoright?

Wolf didn't say that it is obvious SHS has burned through her Dorian Gray painting or anything.
 
Xelor said:
I won't get into projecting what be the political affinity of the individuals who happen to have journalism careers. What I know is that those individuals who are professional reporters are, like all professionals, able to do their jobs without imposing their personal views into it.

Professionals of all sorts do it all the time.
  • Attorneys can as ably argue either side of case; they'd be lousy attorneys if they couldn't. It doesn't matter what they think. They've been hired to do a job, so they do they job they've been hired to do. If they have personal matters that disallow them to argue the side a potential client wants them to argue, they don't take the case.
  • Economists have terms for the distinction between what's opinion and what's fact. They call statements about economic facts "positive statements" and they call opinions "normative statements." Indeed, ever since the advent of cheap computing's having made empirical testing of economic principles relatively easy, economists are especially careful about distinguishing the two types of statements. All of us have opinions, but we don't disregard the fact that at times our opinions run counter to our ethical views on an economic policy matter.
It's quite similar for professionals of any stripe, including journalists. What's different is that some journalists are also given the job of commenting on events instead of or in addition to reporting on them. As commentators, their job expressly calls them to share their analysis and personal conclusions. (There's also the matter that some commentators aren't at all journalists.) At the end of the day, while all of us are taught to adroitly consider and expound on either side of a matter, journalists and attorneys are among the very few who are called to actually do so as part of their job.

Just as journalism includes the roles of reporter and commentator, along with others, it entails multiple content types. It's an audience member's "job" to accurately distinguish which type they encounter at any given moment. Unless the story is an editorial, a reader/viewer/listener shouldn't at all conclude tha that the story's conclusions are those of the journalist who composed the story or those of the publisher. It's just a story, information someone thought deserved to be made available.
Click to expand...

at some point, it's impossible not to say "this is ****ing insane" even if you are a professional journalist. the reason is because this is ****ing insane. it will never not be ****ing insane. it will not become normal. we have a dangerously megalomaniacal fool for a president. he blatantly lies. he peppers us with half baked tweets every morning. he's a ****ing idiot, and all of our fates are tied to him not ****ing everything up. that's frightening, and this reality has bent journalism a bit.
 
Fletch said:
Comedian?? Destroyed Trump??? There was nothing funny about that routine and the only thing she destroyed was what was left of her own career.
Click to expand...

They tell absolutely predictable jokes that are allowed to be finished before the other folks who have or should have predicted the end of the joke laugh to show they are in on the joke.

Criticism of Trump is like a Porn video. Everyone knows what the story is and how it will end.

Those that are really on board with it are more like audience participants than critical observers.
 
Helix said:
at some point, it's impossible not to say "this is ****ing insane" even if you are a professional journalist. the reason is because this is ****ing insane. it will never not be ****ing insane. it will not become normal. we have a dangerously megalomaniacal fool for a president. he blatantly lies. he peppers us with half baked tweets every morning. he's a ****ing idiot, and all of our fates are tied to him not ****ing everything up. that's frightening, and this reality has bent journalism a bit.
Click to expand...

And yet the Korean Peninsula is about to be de-nuclearized.

Go figure.
 
code1211 said:
And yet the Korean Peninsula is about to be de-nuclearized.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

color me skeptical. however, if it happens without war, awesome.
 
code1211 said:
They tell absolutely predictable jokes that are allowed to be finished before the other folks who have or should have predicted the end of the joke laugh to show they are in on the joke.

Criticism of Trump is like a Porn video. Everyone knows what the story is and how it will end.

Those that are really on board with it are more like audience participants than critical observers.
Click to expand...

These things have traditionally been good natured jabs at the president and other politicians. But what this 'comedian' did was use comedy as a cover for mean spirited attacks. I supposed that great if you hate Trump, but if you are looking for comic relief, it was a major fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom