THE ERA OF TRUMP

[K@th]

Except the press didn't completely lie. They stated correctly that his crowd size was smaller than Obama's. True story.

They posted a picture that created a visual lie, but what they said was true.

So.... they shot themselves in the foot. The crowd WAS smaller...why they felt the need to exaggerate is a very valid critique and they should have been called out on it. It was a great moment to say, "See? Gotcha media.... "

Instead, they showed themselves to be liars by countering a half truth with a lie.

Now peeps go fishing for more data and realize he's just a lying liar who lies.

[Speaker to Animals]

Come on, Kath. They totally lied. They presented a photo of a mostly empty Mall as if that was the crowd at the ceremony. It was total propaganda.

[StCapps]

Except the press didn't completely lie. They stated correctly that his crowd size was smaller than Obama's. True story.

They posted a picture that created a visual lie, but what they said was true.

So.... they shot themselves in the foot. The crowd WAS smaller...why they felt the need to exaggerate is a very valid critique and they should have been called out on it. It was a great moment to say, "See? Gotcha media.... "

Instead, they showed themselves to be liars by countering a half truth with a lie.

Now peeps go fishing for more data and realize he's just a lying liar who lies.

Who cares if they didn't completely lie and mixed a tiny amount of truth to help sell the lie? They deliberately mislead with visual trickery. That needed to be countered and the fact that some people figure out their ruse isn't enough because that story is nowhere as compelling or entertaining as the media lie was, therefore the truth will lose and you need to combine the truth with a lie, to take down the media's lie. The truth and only the truth isn't always the most compelling and entertaining story, and when it isn't it will lose out to the story that fits that bill. Regardless of what that stories truth content is.

[BjornP]

Funny how "The Press" apparantly is this one thing, this one, single entity. It's a bit like arguing against "The Government"'s Obamacare, or "The Government"'s building of The Wall. Sure, it's "the government" enacting those things, but... Trump is not Obama because both are "the government". One ought to mentally consider that the same applies even less to the "The Press".

[StCapps]

Funny how "The Press" apparantly is this one thing, this one, single entity. It's a bit like arguing against "The Government"'s Obamacare, or "The Government"'s building of The Wall. Sure, it's "the government" enacting those things, but... Trump is not Obama because both are "the government". One ought to mentally consider that the same applies even less to the "The Press".

The press isn't a monolith, they just live a bubble that leads to a large chunk of them holding the same views. I don't see anyone fronting like "The Press" is some monolith, you are misinterpreting people's posts.

[BjornP]

Funny how "The Press" apparantly is this one thing, this one, single entity. It's a bit like arguing against "The Government"'s Obamacare, or "The Government"'s building of The Wall. Sure, it's "the government" enacting those things, but... Trump is not Obama because both are "the government". One ought to mentally consider that the same applies even less to the "The Press".

The press isn't a monolith, they just live a bubble that leads to a large chunk of them holding the same views. I don't see anyone fronting like "The Press" is some monolith, you are misinterpreting people's posts.

...they deliberately mislead with visual trickery. That needed to be countered and the fact that people know it isn't true isn't enough because story is nowhere as compelling or entertaining as the media lie was, therefore the truth will lose and you need to combine the truth with a lie, to take down the media's lie. The truth and only the truth isn't always the most compelling and entertaining story, and when it isn't it will lose out to the story that fits that bill. Regardless of what that stories truth content is.

"The media" = "the press".

But I'm glad that you say that the press is not a monolith...but then immedietly get confused when you say "they" live in a bubble. "The media" is huge, consists of thousands of news outlets from the huge MSM, to smalltown print newspapers, to bloggers and YT'ers who do enough investigative reporting to be (or who should be) considered investigative journalists. Do those WH correspondents who have cultivated quid pro quo relationships with WH staffers for decades in return for positive reporting here and there fit your description of a bubble? Definilotely! Do all journalists have the same relationship with the people in power? Of course not.

And we agree that the truth isn't neccesarily considered the best story. Think you're vastly overselling that point, though. I have no problem detecting spin, when a journalist clearly didn't dig hard enough for background info, when they clearly have no idea what they're writing about, when they're trying to say something between the lines, etc. But sometimes, the news are just: "Interest rates went up today by X points" or "Two cars collided on X street today". Could that be lies...? Uhmm... Would be pretty dumb to set that precedent if one was the government, and if you're in finance you generally want to be able to trust your newspaper. In fact, that's the point of those I know who subscribe to a newspaper. Do newspapers have bias? Of course. But it would be bad business, and still gives a bad rep for them to be caught in an outright lie.

[StCapps]

"The media" = "the press".

But I'm glad that you say that the press is not a monolith...but then immedietly get confused when you say "they" live in a bubble. "The media" is huge, consists of thousands of news outlets from the huge MSM, to smalltown print newspapers, to bloggers and YT'ers who do enough investigative reporting to be (or who should be) considered investigative journalists. Do those WH correspondents who have cultivated quid pro quo relationships with WH staffers for decades in return for positive reporting here and there fit your description of a bubble? Definilotely! Do all journalists have the same relationship with the people in power? Of course not.

I never said all journalists have the same relationships, but a large group of well known journalists do.

And we agree that the truth isn't neccesarily considered the best story. Think you're vastly overselling that point, though. I have no problem detecting spin, when a journalist clearly didn't dig hard enough for background info, when they clearly have no idea what they're writing about, when they're trying to say something between the lines, etc. But sometimes, the news are just: "Interest rates went up today by X points" or "Two cars collided on X street today". Could that be lies...? Uhmm... Would be pretty dumb to set that precedent if one was the government, and if you're in finance you generally want to be able to trust your newspaper. In fact, that's the point of those I know who subscribe to a newspaper. Do newspapers have bias? Of course. But it would be bad business, and still gives a bad rep for them to be caught in an outright lie.

Just because you can detect spin easily doesn't mean the general public is as skilled at doing so. You over-estimate the American electorate's ability to discover the truth, sometimes they catch on but that's only when the media is being too obvious.

[adwinistrator]

"The media" = "the press".

But I'm glad that you say that the press is not a monolith...but then immedietly get confused when you say "they" live in a bubble. "The media" is huge, consists of thousands of news outlets from the huge MSM, to smalltown print newspapers, to bloggers and YT'ers who do enough investigative reporting to be (or who should be) considered investigative journalists. Do those WH correspondents who have cultivated quid pro quo relationships with WH staffers for decades in return for positive reporting here and there fit your description of a bubble? Definilotely! Do all journalists have the same relationship with the people in power? Of course not.

And we agree that the truth isn't neccesarily considered the best story. Think you're vastly overselling that point, though. I have no problem detecting spin, when a journalist clearly didn't dig hard enough for background info, when they clearly have no idea what they're writing about, when they're trying to say something between the lines, etc. But sometimes, the news are just: "Interest rates went up today by X points" or "Two cars collided on X street today". Could that be lies...? Uhmm... Would be pretty dumb to set that precedent if one was the government, and if you're in finance you generally want to be able to trust your newspaper. In fact, that's the point of those I know who subscribe to a newspaper. Do newspapers have bias? Of course. But it would be bad business, and still gives a bad rep for them to be caught in an outright lie.

Agree 100%. I posted this in another thread...

Is one reporter equivalent to the whole news outlet they work for? Is one reporter, or one outlet, equivalent to all reporters and outlets that make up "the press"? Is the credibility of AP and Reuters in doubt if a story some other outlets article contains falsehoods? Is Breitbart part of the press, and is their history of reporting also under review as part of "the press"?

If the discussion is about reporters, or news outlets and their editors, there is a discussion that can take place in regards to journalism and ethics.
If the discussion is about "the press", there's really nothing that can be said of any value, besides reinforcing the "us vs. them" narrative.

[StCapps]

Is one reporter equivalent to the whole news outlet they work for?

No.

Is one reporter, or one outlet, equivalent to all reporters and outlets that make up "the press"?

No.

Is the credibility of AP and Reuters in doubt if a story some other outlets article contains falsehoods?

Yes.

Is Breitbart part of the press, and is their history of reporting also under review as part of "the press"?

Yes.

If the discussion is about reporters, or news outlets and their editors, there is a discussion that can take place in regards to journalism and ethics.

Indeed.

If the discussion is about "the press", there's really nothing that can be said of any value, besides reinforcing the "us vs. them" narrative.

No, discussing "the press" can add value by comparing the similarities in how reporters and media outlets report the news, instead of pretending that there are none of these similarities shared by a rather large and prominent group of journalists.

[K@th]

Come on, Kath. They totally lied. They presented a photo of a mostly empty Mall as if that was the crowd at the ceremony. It was total propaganda.

Yes.