THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

Here's the thing..

Right now, all the evidence suggests Trump is the real thing. We have a guy in the White House who will represent us, the American people, no matter what the establishment or corporate-controlled press tries to do.

The man just flushed TPP down the fucking toilet on DAY ONE.

He has nothing to lose in carrying out the will of Americans and nothing really to gain by becoming a typical politician. These are his last years in life and he already has everything else. He's rich. He has a beautiful wife and kids. He's built a huge real estate empire.

Avail yourselves of this while you have the chance, kids, because you were just given the chance of a century.

Unless and until Trump becomes a total politician and reneges on his promises and starts doing shit that few Americans support (like passing TPP), you really need to pull your heads out of your asses and stop behaving like meat puppets for the fake MSM. The MSM is playing you for fools right now.

Maybe Trump will fuck it up. Maybe not. But, right here and now, he is delivering.

But wasn't the TPP was already on it's way out, before Trump took office?

LOL, no.

Some members of Congress were trying to fight it back. Obama could have killed it at any time the same way Trump did. If Clinton were elected, odds were ZERO she would do the same.

[Speaker to Animals]

Aside from the fact that US journalism's issues are more than just partisanship, I'd say the only surprises and worries I have about that list are the AP contact and the Reuters contacts. Most TV journalism today is just reporting on news already made. Investigations, foreign correspondents cost money and because news have to come out fast, even they aren't going to get any time to research whatever they're sent to research. VICE usually do ok, but that's their niche. Something that was common for most TV news back in the day. Reuters and AP AFAIK provide alot of US news sites and TV channels with their original news, and so are more important than all those CNN and MSNBC folks.

I do not dispute that Clinton had alot of influence in MSM media. Never did. But "the press" is more than the MSM. Identifying "the press" as the villain is like identifying your Republic as the villain, or identifying the US constitution as the villain. The press may currently be.... sick, but it is still the press. Cure it, encourage it to become better, identify the cause of its ills and improve the conditions for it to change. Because you will forever need a collection of strong civic, non-governmental checks on both the power of the government and the bullshit your government will try and sell you.

I really don't give a shit about partisanship. Just be upfront about what you are doing. What pisses me off is the lying and propaganda. That has to stop.

Also, I don't doubt it's just as bad or worse in Europe. They just have not yet been caught doing it.

[Okeefenokee]

Aside from the fact that US journalism's issues are more than just partisanship, I'd say the only surprises and worries I have about that list are the AP contact and the Reuters contacts. Most TV journalism today is just reporting on news already made. Investigations, foreign correspondents cost money and because news have to come out fast, even they aren't going to get any time to research whatever they're sent to research. VICE usually do ok, but that's their niche. Something that was common for most TV news back in the day. Reuters and AP AFAIK provide alot of US news sites and TV channels with their original news, and so are more important than all those CNN and MSNBC folks.

I do not dispute that Clinton had alot of influence in MSM media. Never did. But "the press" is more than the MSM. Identifying "the press" as the villain is like identifying your Republic as the villain, or identifying the US constitution as the villain. The press may currently be.... sick, but it is still the press. Cure it, encourage it to become better, identify the cause of its ills and improve the conditions for it to change. Because you will forever need a collection of strong civic, non-governmental checks on both the power of the government and the bullshit your government will try and sell you.

I really don't give a shit about partisanship. Just be upfront about what you are doing. What pisses me off is the lying and propaganda. That has to stop.

Also, I don't doubt it's just as bad or worse in Europe. They just have not yet been caught doing it.

Being able to lock people up for the wrong opinions goes a long way to making it possible to be a LOT worse in Europe.

[BjornP]

When I read US news, I don't really get the impression they need any sort of disclaimers telling readers: "This is a Conservative opinion being expressed" or "This article main contain traces of progressive bias" or whatever. People shouldn't expect disclaimers. If you can't identify what sort of opinion is expressed between the lines, that's entirely on you to rectify. If an article uses progressive buzzwords, it's probably progressive, if an article uses buzzwords like "disordered", "Marxist" and "cuck", I'm guessing it's you, StA. All without you having to write any disclaimers.

Point is, compared to news from my country, US news seems more saturated with either value judgement calls or a need for the dramatic. Probably comes from the higher degree of popularity of privately owned media. The solution to the lying and propaganda you mention is not counter-lying and counter-propagandizing. There are Americans, I'm sure who hate and detest both media outlets like Salon and Slate and Breitbart and PJMedia. If you counter lies and propaganda, with lies and propaganda of your own, you'll lose the middle ground people, and you also lose the possibility of changing the trend amongst the MSM. Teach and inspire instead of scold. The opposite of the SJW, progressive tactic.

[Speaker to Animals]

False equivalence.

[Okeefenokee]

When I read US news, I don't really get the impression they need any sort of disclaimers telling readers: "This is a Conservative opinion being expressed" or "This article main contain traces of progressive bias" or whatever. People shouldn't expect disclaimers. If you can't identify what sort of opinion is expressed between the lines, that's entirely on you to rectify. If an article uses progressive buzzwords, it's probably progressive, if an article uses buzzwords like "disordered", "Marxist" and "cuck", I'm guessing it's you, StA. All without you having to write any disclaimers.

Point is, compared to news from my country, US news seems more saturated with either value judgement calls or a need for the dramatic. Probably comes from the higher degree of popularity of privately owned media. The solution to the lying and propaganda you mention is not counter-lying and counter-propagandizing. There are Americans, I'm sure who hate and detest both media outlets like Salon and Slate and Breitbart and PJMedia. If you counter lies and propaganda, with lies and propaganda of your own, you'll lose the middle ground people, and you also lose the possibility of changing the trend amongst the MSM. Teach and inspire instead of scold. The opposite of the SJW, progressive tactic.

NPR, the National Public Radio, put together a report about DeVos, saying that school choice was the same thing as Pakistani schools that teach radical Islam.

They opened the piece with a description of what a school like that is like, and then they said school choice in the US would result in the same thing happening here, that Americans would put their children in schools that teach violent radical Christianity if the government wasn't in charge of education.

That came from the government's mouthpiece, broadcast from sea to shining sea.

[K@th]

Link, please? That's rather appalling and I listen to NPR often enough to know that's not their general style.

[BjornP]

Also, I don't doubt it's just as bad or worse in Europe. They just have not yet been caught doing it.

Dunno about Europe. The journalist -> Spin doctor path is the same in my country as in the US, politicians here often avoid any mention of fault or taking responsibility if they can. And they have got caught feeding journalists "embarrassing" stories about their rivals. The Conservative party nearly destroyed itself with it, because people got fed up with their constant in-fighting. Took them over a decade to recover from that.

But the press....? We have nine political parties in parliament, StA and eight main newspapers, generally representing the ideological landscape from far left to conservative. The degree of influence Okee's list hinted at, isn't really feasible - or would be effective - here to the same degree. There are narratives, of course, but they differ very much from newspaper to newspaper because of the different ideological perspectives.

[Okeefenokee]

Link, please? That's rather appalling and I listen to NPR often enough to know that's not their general style.

I'll look for it. I heard it on the radio after he threw out DeVos' name for education.

Nah, I'm not seeing it.

It was around this date. Maybe the day before.

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=1229&p=7582&hilit=pakistan#p7582

[BjornP]

They opened the piece with a description of what a school like that is like, and then they said school choice in the US would result in the same thing happening here, that Americans would put their children in schools that teach violent radical Christianity if the government wasn't in charge of education.

That came from the government's mouthpiece, broadcast from sea to shining sea.

Well, that certainly qualifies as "dramatic"...

That's a pretty clear cut argument for firing the guy and being more prudent about who to hire in the future, then.

If you were quoting that as a counter-argument to my musing about it possibly being due to degree of privately owned media:

Public media is not immune to the influence of culture wars pushed by privately owned media. They're just as susceptible to hype, hyperbole and bad reality TV as any other channel. That you can't manage it, fail to prioritize properly or hire crazy people is just bad management. In any case, it's not a major gripe. VICE is privately owned, and they do in-dept reporting, journalism and background articles.