I have said that two (2) journalists in the press conference showed an agenda. I have also extrapolated that and suggested the media needs to fix itself.
Why attack an alleged overstatement with an overstatement?
Edit: I've been working on the idea to write a paper to argue that the election of Trump is as much a failure of the media as it is of American democracy. It makes little sense that Trump is president. It is the mistrust of the media that allowed him to become elected and he is now exploiting that. I have floated this idea among quite a few people and its interesting how much push-back I have received. I'll keep plugging away and everyone feel free to attack the idea but let's not make it personal.
Where did I make it personal?
By pointing out that your method to prove your point was ineffective in silly?
I don't know how that is making it personal.
You are using the "media" has a broad catch-all term. So what exactly are you referring to?
And as many have pointed out - certainly at least one of the questions you object to was 100% valid for that journalist to be asking.
I would also strongly suggest that you clearly have a biased making your "paper" nothing more than an opinion piece.
"Mr. Trudeau, do you intend to support a pipeline to coastal waters in support of the oilsands, and why or why not?"
Isn't that advocating for the oilsands by suggesting that the pipeline would support the oilsands? Isn't that essentially pigeonholing Trudeau into sounding like he's saying he doesn't support the oilsands if he doesn't support the pipeline?
Harder than it looks, isn't it?
I think the example you're going for is:
"Are you going to support a pipeline from the oilsands to coastal waters, why or why not."
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Isn't that advocating for the oilsands by suggesting that the pipeline would support the oilsands? Isn't that essentially pigeonholing Trudeau into sounding like he's saying he doesn't support the oilsands if he doesn't support the pipeline?
Harder than it looks, isn't it?
I think the example you're going for is:
"Are you going to support a pipeline from the oilsands to coastal waters, why or why not."
I'd put the blame more on the Dems campaign strategy of "damn that other guy is so crazy lol" and forgetting to run a real strat than I would on the media reporting the reality of his crazyness.
Also this is apparently now the year of soft-willed right-leaning centrists blaming various forms of out-of-control progressivism for them voting for a ####ty candidate, the weak-minded limp dishrags that they are.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
"Holy $#*@ we are about to hit an iceberg! And also, to be fair, EMAILS!!!"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
This president is a charlatan. But its not the media's job to advocate positions within their questions to achieve an agenda. That's the basic point I'm trying to convey. I'm apparently not doing a good job.
You seem to be confusing providing context with advocacy.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Some of these comments have been quite helpful. Jiri, the personal comment was not directed at you.
This is question I'm trying to answer:
"Did the US media, by overwhelmingly negatively reporting about Donald Trump's candidacy, contribute to him becoming elected?"
Except your question is wrong right out of the gate. Empirical evidence supports the claim that coverage of Hillary Clinton was far more negative and far more damaging than any of the coverage Donald Trump received, especially down the stretch. The media provided far more opportunities for Trump to be in the media, but did so in a way that allowed him to drive the narrative and frame issues. The Clinton coverage was much more damaging and never allowed her a chance to frame the issues around her. The fact that coverage allowed Trump to frame issues, use specific language and dog whistle terms, meant the tenor of the articles was irrelevant. In fact, it had the opposite affect, making Trump a sympathetic figure to some in the electorate who fell for the line that he was being treated unfairly, even in the face of empirical evidence.
The media fixation of Trump's twitter feed was a big part of the election cycle victory. They allowed him to frame issues and people in his terms, and then acted as an amplifier to extend the reach of those tweets. They failed to push back on these things and allowed Trump to get his unedited message to masses, dog whistle language and all.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Fox news is reporting that Trump was fully briefed on Flynn regarding his Russian calls and it was Pence that was left out of the loop. Reporters at Fox say "Someone on the GOP side has pressed the "emergency impeachment" button. This doesn't get leaked unless the GOP is seeing red."
Quote:
President Trump was given a comprehensive summary of the contents of his former-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador prior to Flynn’s resignation, a source told Fox News.
Trump did not see the actual transcript of the communications, but the summary was delivered by people outside the White House. Trump has maintained that he believes Flynn did nothing wrong.
"Mike was doing his job," Trump said at a news conference Thursday. "He was calling countries and his counterparts ... I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn't doing it. I didn't direct him, but I would have directed him because that's his job."
Flynn was forced to resign Monday over discussions he had with Russian officials before Trump took office.
All these DOD and intelligence leaks are getting totally out of control!
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Fox news is reporting that Trump was fully briefed on Flynn regarding his Russian calls and it was Pence that was left out of the loop. Reporters at Fox say "Someone on the GOP side has pressed the "emergency impeachment" button. This doesn't get leaked unless the GOP is seeing red."
The Trump administration is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants, including millions living nowhere near the Mexico border, according to a draft memo obtained by The Associated Press.
The 11-page document calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.
Four states that border on Mexico are included in the proposal — California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas — but it also encompasses seven states contiguous to those four — Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana.
Governors in the 11 states would have a choice whether to have their guard troops participate, according to the memo, written by U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general.
While National Guard personnel have been used to assist with immigration-related missions on the U.S.-Mexico border before, they have never been used as broadly or as far north.
Guys, stop with the hysterics about fascism. This is just a massive military force they're considering using to round up undesirables. Totally normal. Just give him a chance.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post: