media matters

[seacoaster]

Acosta has a good bit of evidence to justify his question (and more every day and, almost certainly, tonight at a little after 9:00). The only silly thing is why ask it of the principal lying alternative facts hack in this Administration.

[youthathletics]

Acosta has a good bit of evidence to justify his question (and more every day and, almost certainly, tonight at a little after 9:00). The only silly thing is why ask it of the principal lying alternative facts hack in this Administration.

What evidence does Acosta have on the speech tonight? Other than the talking points from CNN that they should not air the feed until afterwards so they can fact check it. Yet I am willing to bet CNN will go live with Chuckie and Nancy and go full out counter everything immediately following.

[Trinity]

The coddling continues. Leave us not forget. During the 2016 presidential campaign:
* WSJ killed op-ed on Trump's mafia ties.
* Multiple outlets lied about Trump's Kremlin ties and FBI investigation after being briefed.
* Multiple outlets killed Trump porn star and hush money stories.

Useful information Americans didn’t get. Why won’t Acosta learn to trust Trump?

[seacoaster]

Acosta has a good bit of evidence to justify his question (and more every day and, almost certainly, tonight at a little after 9:00). The only silly thing is why ask it of the principal lying alternative facts hack in this Administration.

What evidence does Acosta have on the speech tonight? Other than the talking points from CNN that they should not air the feed until afterwards so they can fact check it. Yet I am willing to bet CNN will go live with Chuckie and Nancy and go full out counter everything immediately following.

Acosta may be a jerk, but he predicted it about right:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/01/factc ... on-address

"The president made some false and misleading claims, and provided some facts without context:

Despite the president’s claims of a “crisis,” the number of apprehensions at the Southwest border remains historically low.

Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

Trump suggested that 20,000 children were illegally brought into the country last month by “vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs,” but there’s no evidence of that in the available statistics.

The president falsely claimed “the border wall would very quickly pay for itself” by stopping the flow of illegal drugs. But the majority of illicit drugs is smuggled through legal ports of entry in cars and tractor-trailers, and would not be stopped by a wall.

Trump continued to claim Mexico would pay for the border wall “indirectly” through a new international trade agreement. Economic experts told us the new trade pact won’t generate enough additional federal revenues to pay for a border wall. "

I think the empirical evidence we have demonstrates that it's OK to ask in advance of virtually anything this President says, "Is this the truth?"

[Trinity]

Safer still to assume he’s lying.

[seacoaster]

I get a newsletter from Frank Bruni of the NY Times every Wednesday, which I sometime read and sometimes don't read. Bruni is emphatically a left of center guy, but he is basically an honest dealer (again, to me, anyway), and he is a very good writer (by this I mean his command of the language). This is from the one I received today:

"I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the relationship between the media and Trump and about the bind I mentioned above. I plan to delve deeper into all of that in my column for this coming weekend. And I reflected on it last weekend in an appearance on Brian Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” on CNN. Stelter noted that in a forthcoming book, “Merchants of Truth,” Jill Abramson describes some of The Times’s coverage as “unmistakably anti-Trump.” Abramson is a former executive editor of the newspaper; there were years during which I reported to her, and I considered and still consider her a friend. But I politely disagree with her, as I explained to Stelter.

Before I explain why, I should make clear that Abramson in her book has plenty of compliments for The Times, including for tough stories about Trump. She also has at least as many quibbles with coverage of Hillary Clinton as she does about coverage of Trump. Her take is complicated and nuanced, and she makes many excellent points.

But in regard to her or anyone else’s characterization of The Times and other mainstream news organizations as anti-Trump, I’d say this: We’re in a tough, challenging situation.
How do we cover this utterly singular politician — and the singular magnitude of his falsehoods, his boasts, his shady dealings, his assault on norms, his areas of ignorance, his amorality — without seeming to go off the deep end? How do we do justice to all of that without coming across as, and turning into, lavishly derisive broken records?

His behavior compels coverage more negative than usual. But negative doesn’t mean anti-Trump, because we’re not driven by some partisan animus toward him. We’re driven by the way he behaves — by his own words, his own deeds. We’re driven by the truth. Negative coverage of Trump is honest coverage of Trump.

Where we could and maybe should take a look at ourselves and do better is in the area of tone. To be withering toward him is frequently called for, and fine, but to be condescending is probably counterproductive. To make the occasional jokes is no problem, certainly on the Opinion pages; we can all use the levity. But to be smugly mocking is different.

I want to watch my own tone more carefully going forward, because my goal isn’t to hand ammunition to Trump’s supporters. It’s to get them to see him more clearly, so that we can all move on from him and this dark period as quickly as possible. So that we can return to a better definition of American greatness."

[kramerica.inc]

Where we could and maybe should take a look at ourselves and do better is in the area of tone. To be withering toward him is frequently called for, and fine, but to be condescending is probably counterproductive. To make the occasional jokes is no problem, certainly on the Opinion pages; we can all use the levity. But to be smugly mocking is different.

I want to watch my own tone more carefully going forward, because my goal isn’t to hand ammunition to Trump’s supporters. It’s to get them to see him more clearly, so that we can all move on from him and this dark period as quickly as possible. So that we can return to a better definition of American greatness."

+1

[dislaxxic]

Hey! Lookit THAT! I agree with Kramerica (this time).

I'd hasten to highlight the paragraph immediately preceding the two he quoted to add +1 to:

His behavior compels coverage more negative than usual. But negative doesn’t mean anti-Trump, because we’re not driven by some partisan animus toward him. We’re driven by the way he behaves — by his own words, his own deeds. We’re driven by the truth. Negative coverage of Trump is honest coverage of Trump.

That's the devil in THIS detail. That's the part of this whole shebang that our right-leaning friends often fail to take into account...our POTUS absolutely LIVES by a harsh, condescending tone. We like to chew around these details here at FanLax...so lamenting what seems like a constant stream could rightly elicit a "aww, Boo Hoo(dat)"

..

[kramerica.inc]

Believe it or not, I meant to highlight that previous prgh too!

[jhu72]

I get a newsletter from Frank Bruni of the NY Times every Wednesday, which I sometime read and sometimes don't read. Bruni is emphatically a left of center guy, but he is basically an honest dealer (again, to me, anyway), and he is a very good writer (by this I mean his command of the language). This is from the one I received today:

"I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the relationship between the media and Trump and about the bind I mentioned above. I plan to delve deeper into all of that in my column for this coming weekend. And I reflected on it last weekend in an appearance on Brian Stelter’s “Reliable Sources” on CNN. Stelter noted that in a forthcoming book, “Merchants of Truth,” Jill Abramson describes some of The Times’s coverage as “unmistakably anti-Trump.” Abramson is a former executive editor of the newspaper; there were years during which I reported to her, and I considered and still consider her a friend. But I politely disagree with her, as I explained to Stelter.

Before I explain why, I should make clear that Abramson in her book has plenty of compliments for The Times, including for tough stories about Trump. She also has at least as many quibbles with coverage of Hillary Clinton as she does about coverage of Trump. Her take is complicated and nuanced, and she makes many excellent points.

But in regard to her or anyone else’s characterization of The Times and other mainstream news organizations as anti-Trump, I’d say this: We’re in a tough, challenging situation.
How do we cover this utterly singular politician — and the singular magnitude of his falsehoods, his boasts, his shady dealings, his assault on norms, his areas of ignorance, his amorality — without seeming to go off the deep end? How do we do justice to all of that without coming across as, and turning into, lavishly derisive broken records?

His behavior compels coverage more negative than usual. But negative doesn’t mean anti-Trump, because we’re not driven by some partisan animus toward him. We’re driven by the way he behaves — by his own words, his own deeds. We’re driven by the truth. Negative coverage of Trump is honest coverage of Trump.

Where we could and maybe should take a look at ourselves and do better is in the area of tone. To be withering toward him is frequently called for, and fine, but to be condescending is probably counterproductive. To make the occasional jokes is no problem, certainly on the Opinion pages; we can all use the levity. But to be smugly mocking is different.

I want to watch my own tone more carefully going forward, because my goal isn’t to hand ammunition to Trump’s supporters. It’s to get them to see him more clearly, so that we can all move on from him and this dark period as quickly as possible. So that we can return to a better definition of American greatness."

Largely agree with Bruni. His biggest problem is the last paragraph. He is wasting his time. The 30% will never see Trump's flaws, let alone the exponential abnormality of him as a political office holder.

[6ftstick]

Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

If you're asking that question seriously, 6ft, do you really think that less than 2 is "multiple"???
If so, you need a little return to school.

It's not plural until it's 2 or more. Less than 2 just ain't multiple or plural.

By "thousands", plural, Trump is implying at the very minimum two thousand, with the possibility of meaning many more.

But facts, being stubborn things, belie Trump's statement.
Trump exaggerates "for effect", but it's surely not an attempt to be accurate or truthful.

[MDlaxfan76]

Trump made the misleading claim that Customs and Border Protection agents “encounter thousands of illegal immigrants” every day trying to enter the U.S. The average number of apprehensions at the border is less than 2,000 a day.

So more than 1 thousand isn't "Thousands" in forumspeak

[MDlaxfan76]

If you're asking that question seriously, 6ft, do you really think that less than 2 is "multiple"???
If so, you need a little return to school.

It's not plural until it's 2 or more. Less than 2 just ain't multiple or plural.

By "thousands", plural, Trump is implying at the very minimum two thousand, with the possibility of meaning many more.

But facts, being stubborn things, belie Trump's statement.
Trump exaggerates "for effect", but it's surely not an attempt to be accurate or truthful.

[old salt]

My gawd ! Sam Donaldson's still wearing the same rug. CNN's getting desperate.

[Trinity]

Sam Donaldson is in the same hair club as Traficante and Trump.

[Trinity]

https://www.fastcompany.com/90228218/oh ... rer-parent

Chris Christie had NJ pension system invest in Pecker. Small world, huh?
Jeff Bezos is gonna tear these humps to shreds.
Wait until SDNY revokes the Pecker deal. He’ll roll on Toadstool in a heartbeat.
How big a dirtbag must one be to join Mara-Lago?
Trump’s rooting for the blackmailer. #maga

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-w ... spartandhp So the FLP mainstream media is grudgingly admitting that they screwed the pooch on this story. I hope this young man is compensated for the abuse and torment brought upon him by the FLP mainstream media. He was standing there waiting for a bus to pick him up which he and the other students were instructed to do. The FLP nut jobs forced this confrontation on a 16 year old high school student and then passed judgement on him by how he reacted to the FLP provocation. Hell in NYS you can be 16 years old and beat some body to death and you will be acknowledged as a innocent young child that was not responsible for his/her actions. Not if you are a 16 year old high school student wearing a MAGA... you are scum in the eyes of the hate filled racist far left folks. The only thing missing here is that one of these ANTIFA piles of chit was not on site to beat the hell out of this young lad to give him the FLP indoctrination about what love trumps hate is all about. https://www.ny.gov/programs/raise-age-0

[holmes435]

We should read all news stories with a grain of salt, especially breaking ones. I certainly didn't comment on that one as I didn't know the details.

That being said, do you know what news orgs get things right the most often? And do you know what news orgs actually issue more corrections? Could you dig a little and let us know what you find?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-w ... spartandhp So the FLP mainstream media is grudgingly admitting that they screwed the pooch on this story. I hope this young man is compensated for the abuse and torment brought upon him by the FLP mainstream media. He was standing there waiting for a bus to pick him up which he and the other students were instructed to do. The FLP nut jobs forced this confrontation on a 16 year old high school student and then passed judgement on him by how he reacted to the FLP provocation. Hell in NYS you can be 16 years old and beat some body to death and you will be acknowledged as a innocent young child that was not responsible for his/her actions. Not if you are a 16 year old high school student wearing a MAGA... you are scum in the eyes of the hate filled racist far left folks. The only thing missing here is that one of these ANTIFA piles of chit was not on site to beat the hell out of this young lad to give him the FLP indoctrination about what love trumps hate is all about. https://www.ny.gov/programs/raise-age-0

Give it a rest Mr. Moderate

search.php?keywords=FLP&terms=all&autho ... mit=Search

search.php?keywords=Far+right&terms=all ... mit=Search