• 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!

Gang warfare against a president is a dangerous game.

R

Ray9

Active member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
342
Reaction score
201
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
 
nah, no "gang warfare." we're just going to vote against Trumpism.
 
Ray9 said:
But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider.
Click to expand...

Trump is on the inside, so I guess that makes the free press "the outsiders", as you stated they should be. Their job is to report on the president to the American people, and that seems to piss you off because Trump's actions and statements make him look stupid. No, the free press doesn't serve the President, they serve the American people.
 
Ray9 said:
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
Click to expand...

"Gang warfare." HAHAHAHAHAHA

I just love how some conservatives love to preach the gospel of free speech while deliberately ignoring the very next right in the First Amendment: The freedom of the press, which many of them now hate.

Sorry, but you don't get to pick and choose which rights count and which rights don't. :)
 
Ray9 said:
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
Click to expand...

Once you accept that there are two standards of justice and there are people running companies who have the means to disconnect you and your opinions from the national conversation, it makes sense. The left is busy creating anti-Trump apartheid along political lines. That is what they have always done, except Obamas use of Googles analytical services brought that up to critical mass in isolating America into tribes.
 
Do you not include Brietbart and Fox as part of the so called problem? Do you not see a President who ignores intelligence and quotes extreme right wing rhetoric, a real problem?

Indeed, we need to vote him out.
 
It's nearly impossible for any news source to not have some bias. It's important to understand that there is incentive to take stances for news outlets. It means more clicks or higher ratings. It is an absolute failure of basic common sense to think that since CNN shows bias you should turn to hard right reactionary sources like Breitbart. In today's world people don't just disagree but live in different realities. A lot of this is because we allow ourselves to be manipulated by emotional writing and box ourselves in by only reading things that confirm our biases. As far as Trump goes, most of the stories that come out about him are just things that he literally says out loud. You may like him, and get upset that other people don't, but that is not evidence of "gang warfare" by the media. Don't allow yourself to be reactionary media's puppet.
 
Helix said:
nah, no "gang warfare." we're just going to vote against Trumpism.
Click to expand...

Hmm... that seemed to amount to voting for Hillaryism as the viable alternative in 2016. Vote as you wish but don't try to paint those that voted otherwise as having some evil intent.
 
Ray9 said:
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
Click to expand...

You mention Obama regarding the Free Press but you need to keep in mind that Trump is giving the press ammunition every single day while Obama was only giving ammunition once in a Blue Moon. In addition, there was press that was biased against Obama's color and that was press that was trying to find fault. With Trump, there is no bias other than bias against incompetence, which Trump is totally incompetent in everything he does. The press don't have to find fault, it stares them in the face and all they have to do is report it.

There will "always" be some mistakes made but in Trump's case the percentage remains the same but the amount of ammunition he gives is ten-fold over any other President. As such, it looks like it a higher percentage but it is not.
 
MrPeanut said:
It's nearly impossible for any news source to not have some bias. It's important to understand that there is incentive to take stances for news outlets. It means more clicks or higher ratings. It is an absolute failure of basic common sense to think that since CNN shows bias you should turn to hard right reactionary sources like Breitbart. In today's world people don't just disagree but live in different realities. A lot of this is because we allow ourselves to be manipulated by emotional writing and box ourselves in by only reading things that confirm our biases. As far as Trump goes, most of the stories that come out about him are just things that he literally says out loud. You may like him, and get upset that other people don't, but that is not evidence of "gang warfare" by the media. Don't allow yourself to be reactionary media's puppet.
Click to expand...

Spewing 90% (or greater) negative press about 'Trumpism' is far from having some bias. It is one thing to report on a policy position or event (journalism) and quite another to 'explain' why it is either a good or bad policy position or event (editorialization). Most media bias is indeed 'natural' and occurs mainly by simple omission - the media outlet only has so much bandwidth and will report on what it deems most important (best supporting their view). Much of our 'news' is simply whatever 'sound bites' make a policy position or event seem good or bad - very careful editorial selection or, as the NYT so aptly puts it, "All the news that's fit to print".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Spewing 90% (or greater) negative press about 'Trumpism' is far from having some bias. It is one thing to report on a policy position or event (journalism) and quite another to 'explain' why it is either a good or bad policy position or event (editorialization). Most media bias is indeed 'natural' and occurs mainly by simple omission - the media outlet only has so much bandwidth and will report on what it deems most important (best supporting their view). Much of our 'news' is simply whatever 'sound bites' make a policy position or event seem good or bad - very careful editorial selection or, as the NYT so aptly puts it, "All the news that's fit to print".
Click to expand...

What if there are more negative stories about the Trump administration than positive stories naturally? Would you like them to ignore when the POTUS threatens to destroy countries or get into spats with celebrities on Twitter? Are professionalism and maturity not important traits for a president? I would like to see more policy coverage, but I would argue that a lot of the bad press Trump gets is due to his wild behavior. I'd bet that if he wasn't so sensitive we would see a media environment more like Bush's. There would still be the occasional video of a Trump gaffe, but it would mostly be discussion about what policy proposals are getting pushed or reporting on the wars we are involved in.
 
Ray9 said:
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
Click to expand...

No US president has ever been as unpresidential and as vindictive as Donald Trump. He well deserves all the opprobrium that comes his way.
 
Ray9 said:
No functioning democracy would be complete without a free press. But that press must always be an outsider, never an insider. Some are fond of saying that the job of the press is to comfort the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable.

Every US president has had issues with the press and most accused it of being unfair or biased. But now the afflicted-comfortable are insiders in the press that have either forgotten the rules or have just decided to break them. They are playing a dangerous game as they resort to mob warfare against a president. Journalistic hypocrisy is never a good strategy particularly when it’s from a bandwagon that insults the intelligence of readers as the gang editorials of Aug. 16 clearly did.

Most newspapers make an effort to be balanced and will print opposing views but there is no evidence that these publications ever joined in a national group effort to hold President Obama accountable for his shabby treatment of journalists and rabid attacks on the freedom of the press. There’s too much available sourcing out there so these rioting editorial staffs can run but they cannot hide.

A quick trip to Breitbart reveals that Obama wire tapped James Rosen, a correspondent for Fox News and seized the phone records of reporters and editors of the Associated Press. Obama would go months without holding press conferences and when he did he used them for launching into long-winded talking points while he belittled and impugned the motives of reporters who asked tough questions.

Sharyl Attkinson, a former reporter for CBS made the mistake of aggressively questioning the debacles of Fast and Furious and Benghazi which got her investigated by the DOJ while her computer was hacked. Eric Holder, Obama’s Attorney General, signed off on a warrant for James Rosen’s emails. Rosen was just doing his job as a reporter.

These are just a few examples. Do these papers believe their readers have forgotten Obama’s transgressions against a free press? Do these editorial staffs not realize they are hurling stones from a glass house?

A free press is for everyone and everyone is fair game. It is not just for those who live in a self-righteous insider’s ivory tower. Once the press comes in from the cold it is no longer free; it is owned by the masters it should be keeping honest.
Click to expand...

Whew!

Well, it's going to come across as a huge relief to you when I tell you that no gang warfare, or any type of nature, is being carried out against the POTUS.

I love being the bearer of great news!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Spewing 90% (or greater) negative press about 'Trumpism' is far from having some bias.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Hillary coverage.... And Trump's behavior...might...have something to do with the negative coverage. Such as the endless stream of shameless lies for example, or hiring then firing a series of corrupt incompetents, or his constant attempts to undermine the press, and the IC, and Mueller, and the FBI. Etc.

It is one thing to report on a policy position or event (journalism) and quite another to 'explain' why it is either a good or bad policy position or event (editorialization). Most media bias is indeed 'natural' and occurs mainly by simple omission - the media outlet only has so much bandwidth and will report on what it deems most important (best supporting their view). Much of our 'news' is simply whatever 'sound bites' make a policy position or event seem good or bad - very careful editorial selection or, as the NYT so aptly puts it, "All the news that's fit to print".
Click to expand...

Much of our news is what gets clicks and views. Just for example, the NYT ran more stories just on Hillary's emails than on policy issues by both candidates. Were they in the tank for Trump? Doesn't seem likely, so why run more on a story with very little changing from week to week than on policy? No one reads or clicks stories about policy.
 
MrPeanut said:
What if there are more negative stories about the Trump administration than positive stories naturally? Would you like them to ignore when the POTUS threatens to destroy countries or get into spats with celebrities on Twitter? Are professionalism and maturity not important traits for a president? I would like to see more policy coverage, but I would argue that a lot of the bad press Trump gets is due to his wild behavior. I'd bet that if he wasn't so sensitive we would see a media environment more like Bush's. There would still be the occasional video of a Trump gaffe, but it would mostly be discussion about what policy proposals are getting pushed or reporting on the wars we are involved in.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously going to try to agrue that Trump's petty tweets/gaffes are equally (or even up to 90% more) important as his policy positions or their results? If you can't see that CNN is heavily into Trump bashing then there is no point in discussing the matter further.
 
JasperL said:
Sounds like Hillary coverage.... And Trump's behavior...might...have something to do with the negative coverage. Such as the endless stream of shameless lies for example, or hiring then firing a series of corrupt incompetents, or his constant attempts to undermine the press, and the IC, and Mueller, and the FBI. Etc.



Much of our news is what gets clicks and views. Just for example, the NYT ran more stories just on Hillary's emails than on policy issues by both candidates. Were they in the tank for Trump? Doesn't seem likely, so why run more on a story with very little changing from week to week than on policy? No one reads or clicks stories about policy.
Click to expand...

OK, I agree with your assertion that much of our 'news' is simply entertainment, click bait and confirmation bias. Have you ever considered that much of Hillary's 'news' coverage was simply to keep her name in the news to help mask her otherwise dismal 'campaign trail' exposure?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, I agree with your assertion that much of our 'news' is simply entertainment, click bait and confirmation bias. Have you ever considered that much of Hillary's 'news' coverage was simply to keep her name in the news to help mask her otherwise dismal 'campaign trail' exposure?
Click to expand...

No, that's not a fair guess. There is no way in hell Hillary's campaign wanted the focus for 500 something straight days on the EMAILS!!!! story.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Are you seriously going to try to agrue that Trump's petty tweets/gaffes are equally (or even up to 90% more) important as his policy positions or their results? If you can't see that CNN is heavily into Trump bashing then there is no point in discussing the matter further.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily think they are more important, but they happen so frequently that if an outlet covers every one of them it appears like they are just attacking Trump personally. Trump is a very different kind of president. He tweets and says absurd things every day. The media does cover Trump's policies, and as far as know, they still do the traditional thing of bringing on a republican and a democrat to talk about those policies. Like I wrote earlier, if Trump was less sensitive about things we probably would see more policy discussion. If you are not willing to admit that the POTUS threatening to bomb countries and attack the free press on Twitter is a newsworthy topic we can stop discussing this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Hmm... that seemed to amount to voting for Hillaryism as the viable alternative in 2016.
Click to expand...

unfortunately. hardest vote that i ever cast. had to vote against Trump, though. hopefully the Democrats field a good candidate next time.

ttwtt78640 said:
Vote as you wish but don't try to paint those that voted otherwise as having some evil intent.
Click to expand...

some got snookered by a two bit huckster. some just voted against Clinton like i voted against Trump. let's hope that they vote differently next time.
 
JasperL said:
No, that's not a fair guess. There is no way in hell Hillary's campaign wanted the focus for 500 something straight days on the EMAILS!!!! story.
Click to expand...

Much (if not most) of Trump's 'news' coverage was negative but it was free 'front page' and/or 'prime time' publicity none the less. The truly sad part was as a result of the Trump, Hillary and Bernie MSM 'laser focus' that the other POTUS candidates had no chance. At best, they got a couple of days of post debate coverage.
 
MrPeanut said:
I don't necessarily think they are more important, but they happen so frequently that if an outlet covers every one of them it appears like they are just attacking Trump personally. Trump is a very different kind of president. He tweets and says absurd things every day. The media does cover Trump's policies, and as far as know, they still do the traditional thing of bringing on a republican and a democrat to talk about those policies. Like I wrote earlier, if Trump was less sensitive about things we probably would see more policy discussion. If you are not willing to admit that the POTUS threatening to bomb countries and attack the free press on Twitter is a newsworthy topic we can stop discussing this.
Click to expand...

Tump's tweets are already available for any that care to pay attention to them - I want more than a twitter recap (with editorial commentary) from the 'news'.
 
So I take it that Ray9, twtt and Chuckiechan don't think that the President is doing anything illegal.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Trump is on the inside, so I guess that makes the free press "the outsiders", as you stated they should be. Their job is to report on the president to the American people, and that seems to piss you off because Trump's actions and statements make him look stupid. No, the free press doesn't serve the President, they serve the American people.
Click to expand...

That's fine and I agree that this is the way it is supposed to be but today's biased press serves their political agenda. 90% of the news reports negative news on this president.

The people don't deserve this.... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/
 
Helix said:
unfortunately. hardest vote that i ever cast. had to vote against Trump, though. hopefully the Democrats field a good candidate next time.



some got snookered by a two bit huckster. some just voted against Clinton like i voted against Trump. let's hope that they vote differently next time.
Click to expand...

That disgusting 'major party' POTUS choice had me vote for Gary "Aleppo" Johnson instead.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That disgusting 'major party' POTUS choice had me vote for Gary "Aleppo" Johnson instead.
Click to expand...

though i am no longer a libertarian because there's no ****ing way that i want the remaining regulatory power of government sold to corporations, i still have a soft spot for libertarians because it's an appealing ideological theory that i used to vigorously defend. i voted Badnarik in '04. sometimes i miss debating from that angle. when you do that, you have the weapon of interpreting the constitution mathematically in the strictest terms possible even though that's not really how it works in practice. however, you get to slam some mother****ing heads into the dirt if you can do it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom