4 ms·

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that th

by pdx 10y ago

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding, but perhaps understandable. You recognize and admit (as you have no choice doing, after the mountain of proof) that the media willingly prostitutes itself to further the cause of the current administration, with no regard for actual truth. But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. Imagine if a mean girl in your office told everybody that you were a brown-nosing little weasel who stared at her all the time, even though it's not true. Nobody will sit next to you at lunch, and you refuse to sit next to Billy, since that same girl said he picks is nose and eats it. Can't you understand that once you know she's a liar, you can't trust her about Billy either?

the_duke 10y ago
I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) - sexist and abusive (enough evidence there, he says so himself) - racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) - only cares about his own interests (yay, big tax cuts for the rich are his tax plan) - very uneducated and uninformed on the actual issues and just generally a disgusting man (my opinion). It might very well be that he is not actually racist and that a lot of what he says is just what works with the crowds. That really doesn't matter much, though. He is a populist par excellence. You can't trust anything he says. And a very dangerous man to be the head of state in a country where that position holds so much power. Were I American, I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton too. But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them. For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here. This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is? > But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me. There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent. One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries. Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down. So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? The only thing I've heard about it so far is that in a profile piece, a portion was talked about off the record, and the reporter requested the use of some of the off the record material, and gave them a chance to review what could be used, since it was at their discretion it be used at all. The same reporter explained that there was a portion of his profile of Trump earlier he didn't use because it was off the record as well. The reporter is on record explaining this[1]. If there are other instances, please explain them, otherwise people are going to assume you are referring to this, which I think is pretty well explained. This is the reason people keep asking for sources. Without sources, it's just hearsay. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
    - shard972 10y ago
      > Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? How about Jake Tapper of CNN describing one of the events described in the emails about a question being leaked to the clinton campaign as "Journalistically it’s horrifying"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/13/cnns-jake-tapper-blasts-leak-of-town-hall-question-to-clinton-campaign-journalistically-its-horrifying/?utm_term=.56781940c950 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/...
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Whether a single person passed along information they shouldn't have to the Clinton campaign, for unknown reasons (in the hopes of garnering favor? Because of opposition to Trump? We don't know) does not constitute "the mainstream media" actively colluding with her campaign. It constitutes a single person possibly colluding with her campaign. Even then, Brazile says it wasn't about the presidential debate (and that she didn't have access to questions for that)[1], but about a separate panel she was participating on: A Democratic Party official suggested the question was actually prep for a panel Brazile was set to appear on, saying Brazile normally checked with both Democratic candidates for their positions. The day after the email was sent, Brazile appeared on ABC's "This Week" as a panelist. Now, this isn't the best excuse, so I'm not sure I believe it, but I'm also not sure what I'm supposed to expect the Clinton campaign to have done. Loudly proclaim they got a town hall question beforehand when Brazile may have been misinterpreted, or wrong? Denounce her afterwards when they had already benefited from the knowledge, so people would vilify them anyway? If this was as bad as it looks, I'm still left concluding it was, until proven otherwise, and isolated incident, and one in which I think the campaign may have benefited, but ultimately didn't act in any way I wouldn't have expected them to (barring further information, such as them pumping her for more info). I also don't harbor any fantasies that the Trump campaign would have acted any differently. Finally, I agree, it is journalistically horrifying. That's because journalism has it's own standards and ethics to consider. It was horrible for a journalist. But Clinton and her staff aren't journalists, they are politicians, and while it would be great if it wasn't true, we expect less from them. That's why journalism is so important and why it's protected under the first amendment, because it keeps politicians in check. 1: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-clinton-donna-brazile-229609 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-c...
- pdx 10y ago
  >racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) You're wrong, and I think you know it. Liberals have used the racist word against anybody who was winning an argument with them for too many years. It ends now. Trump has more support of black and hispanic people than any other Republican presidential nominee. [1] He has that because the ones who speak English (not getting their news only from Univision) understand that he wants to help Americans of all ethnic groups. The co-opting of minority votes by the democratic machine is legendary, but it's over. Those minority AMERICANS that are getting the message undistorted by the media are understanding that their lives are made worse by liberal policies, not better. It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. If you're reading HN, I know you actually understand this, but choose to spit venom anyway. [1] http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beating-romney-and-mccain-with-hispanic-voters/17830/ http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beat...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Trump is not doing better than other recent Republicans among blacks or Hispanics according to most polling, which shows him doing far worse than other recent GOP nominees with these groups. The only way you can defend this kind of claim is cherry picking a high outlier poll against the comparable-time polling consensus (or low outliers) for previous GOP nominees.
    - pdx 10y ago
      http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beating-romney-and-mccain-with-hispanic-voters/17830/ http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beat...
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Yes, thank you for demonstrating my point about taking a single outlier poll.
        10y ago
Lewton 10y ago
>But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. This is absolutely ridiculous, trump has been a public figure for 30+(?) years. Even if you ignore the smearing that's been happening for the past year in the media, there's plenty of reasons to think this guy is the last person you'd want as president
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The "smearing" in the last year consists largely of repeating the reporting of facts of what Trump has done and said in the period in which he has been a public celebrity.

by pdx 10y ago

the_duke 10y ago

I don't need the media's opinion on Donald Trump. Watching a video of one of his rallies or a debate is sufficient to form my own opinion. He (is) - lies or distorts the truth almost everytime he opens his mouth - extremely authoritarian - very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) - sexist and abusive (enough evidence there, he says so himself) - racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) - only cares about his own interests (yay, big tax cuts for the rich are his tax plan) - very uneducated and uninformed on the actual issues and just generally a disgusting man (my opinion). It might very well be that he is not actually racist and that a lot of what he says is just what works with the crowds. That really doesn't matter much, though. He is a populist par excellence. You can't trust anything he says. And a very dangerous man to be the head of state in a country where that position holds so much power. Were I American, I'd have a hard time voting for Clinton too. But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me.

alphapapa 10y ago
> very anti free media (at his rallys, media is cordoned off and he gets the crowd to yell at them for minutes. that is if the outlet hasn't been banned for reporting the truth. I wonder why the media is anti Trump...) I guess you haven't been paying attention. Trump was, for many years, a celebrity, making millions of dollars for NBC with his TV shows. Everything about him that they complain about now they happily accepted then, when it suited them. For example, where was this 11-year-old video during the primaries? Answer that question and you will begin to understand what's going on here. This "anti-free-media" claim is weird when you compare it to Clinton's campaign. For nearly a year she had zero press conferences--not even giving the media a chance. Now we find that her campaign specifically wanted to avoid answering any questions, to prevent the media from having a chance to question her about inconvenient stories. And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. So shouldn't you at least claim that she is as anti-free-media as he is? > But that more than 40% would even consider voting for Trump scares me. There is much more at stake here than these two individual people running for the office. The real contest here is between the movements they represent. One of these two campaigns has been co-opted by a candidate who is not even a member of it. How did this candidate do so? With the help of the media, which vehemently attacked all other candidates during the primaries. Now that same media is trying to destroy that candidate. That candidate is virtually a strawman candidate, set up for the sake of being torn down. So, what does that tell you? Based on that, which candidate--which movement--should one vote for?
- kbenson 10y ago
  > And we discover that the mainstream media is actively colluding with her campaign, giving them veto power over stories and quotes, etc. Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? The only thing I've heard about it so far is that in a profile piece, a portion was talked about off the record, and the reporter requested the use of some of the off the record material, and gave them a chance to review what could be used, since it was at their discretion it be used at all. The same reporter explained that there was a portion of his profile of Trump earlier he didn't use because it was off the record as well. The reporter is on record explaining this[1]. If there are other instances, please explain them, otherwise people are going to assume you are referring to this, which I think is pretty well explained. This is the reason people keep asking for sources. Without sources, it's just hearsay. 1: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
  - shard972 10y ago
    > Seriously, can you provide references to back up some of this? How about Jake Tapper of CNN describing one of the events described in the emails about a question being leaked to the clinton campaign as "Journalistically it’s horrifying"? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/13/cnns-jake-tapper-blasts-leak-of-town-hall-question-to-clinton-campaign-journalistically-its-horrifying/?utm_term=.56781940c950 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/...
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Whether a single person passed along information they shouldn't have to the Clinton campaign, for unknown reasons (in the hopes of garnering favor? Because of opposition to Trump? We don't know) does not constitute "the mainstream media" actively colluding with her campaign. It constitutes a single person possibly colluding with her campaign. Even then, Brazile says it wasn't about the presidential debate (and that she didn't have access to questions for that)[1], but about a separate panel she was participating on: A Democratic Party official suggested the question was actually prep for a panel Brazile was set to appear on, saying Brazile normally checked with both Democratic candidates for their positions. The day after the email was sent, Brazile appeared on ABC's "This Week" as a panelist. Now, this isn't the best excuse, so I'm not sure I believe it, but I'm also not sure what I'm supposed to expect the Clinton campaign to have done. Loudly proclaim they got a town hall question beforehand when Brazile may have been misinterpreted, or wrong? Denounce her afterwards when they had already benefited from the knowledge, so people would vilify them anyway? If this was as bad as it looks, I'm still left concluding it was, until proven otherwise, and isolated incident, and one in which I think the campaign may have benefited, but ultimately didn't act in any way I wouldn't have expected them to (barring further information, such as them pumping her for more info). I also don't harbor any fantasies that the Trump campaign would have acted any differently. Finally, I agree, it is journalistically horrifying. That's because journalism has it's own standards and ethics to consider. It was horrible for a journalist. But Clinton and her staff aren't journalists, they are politicians, and while it would be great if it wasn't true, we expect less from them. That's why journalism is so important and why it's protected under the first amendment, because it keeps politicians in check. 1: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-clinton-donna-brazile-229609 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-email-hack-c...
pdx 10y ago
>racist (again, no more evidence needed, he said it all) You're wrong, and I think you know it. Liberals have used the racist word against anybody who was winning an argument with them for too many years. It ends now. Trump has more support of black and hispanic people than any other Republican presidential nominee. [1] He has that because the ones who speak English (not getting their news only from Univision) understand that he wants to help Americans of all ethnic groups. The co-opting of minority votes by the democratic machine is legendary, but it's over. Those minority AMERICANS that are getting the message undistorted by the media are understanding that their lives are made worse by liberal policies, not better. It's not racist to wish to enforce current immigration law. It's not racist to wish to protect the jobs and lives of American citizens. If you're reading HN, I know you actually understand this, but choose to spit venom anyway. [1] http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beating-romney-and-mccain-with-hispanic-voters/17830/ http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beat...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Trump is not doing better than other recent Republicans among blacks or Hispanics according to most polling, which shows him doing far worse than other recent GOP nominees with these groups. The only way you can defend this kind of claim is cherry picking a high outlier poll against the comparable-time polling consensus (or low outliers) for previous GOP nominees.
  - pdx 10y ago
    http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beating-romney-and-mccain-with-hispanic-voters/17830/ http://truthfeed.com/trump-surging-with-black-americans-beat...
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      Yes, thank you for demonstrating my point about taking a single outlier poll.
      - 10y ago

Lewton 10y ago

>But you allow yourself to be influenced in your opinion of Donald Trump by that same media. This is absolutely ridiculous, trump has been a public figure for 30+(?) years. Even if you ignore the smearing that's been happening for the past year in the media, there's plenty of reasons to think this guy is the last person you'd want as president

dragonwriter 10y ago
The "smearing" in the last year consists largely of repeating the reporting of facts of what Trump has done and said in the period in which he has been a public celebrity.