5 ms·

Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press (or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth. Just th

Trump attacks the press (and people) that question him, and praises the press (or people) that supports him. That's it. He doesn't care about the truth. Just that people say good things about him. He is by no means a moral voice in this cause, he's a part of the problem: he lies consistently, and when he's taken to task, he just screams 'liar' or bullies people - instead of explaining, justifying. Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true. But it's a problem because the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' - because there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing it. This is not fair, because instead of playing 'against Trump' they should be being more objective. But they really hate Trump, and can't but help themselves play hardball back against him (and I don't mean 'doing more of a better job, I mean cheating a bit with the bias). And the press is definitely hurting their credibility in that way. The paradox is, that it is very easy to read any of the MSM headlines and easily find anti-Trump bias - which lends credence to Trump supporters acceptance of his 'anti press' rants. Example: Trump's orders on immigration were pretty hardcore. Possibly illegal. Instead of explaining it, and highlighting concerns - the press mostly lambasted it, and created a sense of 'national fury'. Buried away were the polls that showed more Americans supported the action, than were against it. This demonstrates the paradox because although the press were 'truthful' in their response to Trump's policy - they were also somewhat biased, which is a form of misrepresentation - and were also creating the idea that 'America was outraged' when really it wasn't so clear. The press was not allowing for nuance ... they were playing the role of 'vocal opposition'. Which isn't quite their job. But more to the point of the article: 'the press' was never considered truthful at all, not up until the modern era and Television, when at least the notion of 'truth' and 'impartiality' was supposed to be observed. In the 19th century, Newspapers existed as businesses only, and to push the propaganda and flame-wars of their owners. Obviously this exists today, but not quite as much. It's between the lines, and in the bias.

rtpg 10y ago
The EO is a good example of how your request could be very hard to satisfy. I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did! They explained the legal issues, expanded on the natsec consequences (we all know about the Iraqi interpreters now). And I saw polls in the NYT about this. Asking multiple questions as well, notably showing that a solid majority did not support touching permanent residents (which was the crux of the legal argument) Let's say Trump decided to nuke the ocean. How does the media cover that objectively? If you just say "Trump is going to nuke the ocean" without stating more facts, that's bias by omission. Like when they would report on Trump's voter fraud claim without stating that there's zero evidence. But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias! Some things are"objectively" bad ideas! But if you say "Trump is doing something stupid with no logical basis" then that looks like bias. If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH, then it's the press's responsibility to point that out.
- edblarney 10y ago
  >> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!" Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it. Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO: CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen. When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well. More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya? It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at. Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries. Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US. Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should. So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not. CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story. >> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this." That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective. Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big. >> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!" CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'. Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim". But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here". Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context. But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here". This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased. Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban'). What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump. What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'. Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines. >> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH" I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them. Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased. Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words. Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.
hackuser 10y ago
> the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' I strongly disagree. Their job is discover and publish information important to the public and 'speak truth to power'. Trump doesn't like that role, of course, and his administration's high level of corruption, illegality, and incompetence so far has resulted in a lot for the news media to cover. He can allege that he's unfairly persecuted - people can make empty allegations about anything - but so does every public figure, from every president to business figures to celebrities. The press was just as aggressive with Hillary Clinton (remember the email server scandal, Benghazi, and the continuous reports on the leaked DNC emails; she wouldn't give press conferences in order to avoid the journalists), Obama, Bush, etc.
- rustynails 10y ago
  "He can allege that he's unfairly persecuted - people can make empty allegations about anything" Try starting with these Google searches, (A) Hillary Lunatic and (B) Trump lunatic. You will see that almost all of the personal attacks in the media (not policy criticisms, personal attacks) were directed squarely at Trump. I am not a Trump supporter (I need to caveat that because people who correct false negatives about Trump tend to be attacked aggressively)... This caveat in itself is just another example that not all things are equal on that front. In case you still doubt, look for other terms against both candidates like delusional, psychotic, etc. it's almost solely pointed at Trump only. If one checks with Google searches rather than taking advice from the MSM, the landscape looks very different.
mszcz 10y ago
Little OT but this comment proves to me that HN is the only (if unlikely) place I can read a balanced and calm discussion on somewhat incendiary subjects. It seems to me that every political discussion lately turns into a shitshow instantly. Anyhow, does anyone know some outlet similar to HN discussion-quality-wise? I don't mean political discussions exclusively.
wallace_f 10y ago
First, Greenwald: >1) Trump presidency is dangerous. 2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected >Govt is dangerous. One can cogently believe both. Second, the media is not to be trusted. Truman, JFK, Bernie Sanders, Eisenhower, Ron Paul, all warned of the CIA, and all said it should be basically destroyed or returned to its original mission. The CIA meddling in media and pushing agendas through our newspapers, cable news, and respectable media outlets has been long established. It is no conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird >Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true. CNN stating on national broadcast TV that the people are not allowed to read Wikileaks because it is illegal to read fake news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE Washington Post calling the Ron Paul Institute Russian Propaganda. Seriously. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace... Then there's the issue of what they choose to publish >Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News” Source: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ Most people I've encountered, when informed of Hillary's connections to Saudi Arabia, simply do not believe me. This problem can be summarized by Douglas Adams: >"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." Full quote: “[Ford said] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.” If the era of lizards is allowed to continue, tyranny is closer around the corner than most people would believe, and almost everyone loses. Finally, we're very lucky for Glenn Greenwald and people like him. Without people like him the world would be a much darker place.

rtpg 10y ago

The EO is a good example of how your request could be very hard to satisfy. I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did! They explained the legal issues, expanded on the natsec consequences (we all know about the Iraqi interpreters now). And I saw polls in the NYT about this. Asking multiple questions as well, notably showing that a solid majority did not support touching permanent residents (which was the crux of the legal argument) Let's say Trump decided to nuke the ocean. How does the media cover that objectively? If you just say "Trump is going to nuke the ocean" without stating more facts, that's bias by omission. Like when they would report on Trump's voter fraud claim without stating that there's zero evidence. But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias! Some things are"objectively" bad ideas! But if you say "Trump is doing something stupid with no logical basis" then that looks like bias. If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH, then it's the press's responsibility to point that out.

edblarney 10y ago
>> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!" Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it. Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO: CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen. When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well. More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya? It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at. Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries. Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US. Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should. So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not. CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story. >> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this." That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective. Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big. >> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!" CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'. Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim". But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here". Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context. But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here". This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased. Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban'). What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump. What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'. Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines. >> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH" I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them. Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased. Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words. Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.

hackuser 10y ago

> the press is now playing the role of 'political opposition' I strongly disagree. Their job is discover and publish information important to the public and 'speak truth to power'. Trump doesn't like that role, of course, and his administration's high level of corruption, illegality, and incompetence so far has resulted in a lot for the news media to cover. He can allege that he's unfairly persecuted - people can make empty allegations about anything - but so does every public figure, from every president to business figures to celebrities. The press was just as aggressive with Hillary Clinton (remember the email server scandal, Benghazi, and the continuous reports on the leaked DNC emails; she wouldn't give press conferences in order to avoid the journalists), Obama, Bush, etc.

rustynails 10y ago
"He can allege that he's unfairly persecuted - people can make empty allegations about anything" Try starting with these Google searches, (A) Hillary Lunatic and (B) Trump lunatic. You will see that almost all of the personal attacks in the media (not policy criticisms, personal attacks) were directed squarely at Trump. I am not a Trump supporter (I need to caveat that because people who correct false negatives about Trump tend to be attacked aggressively)... This caveat in itself is just another example that not all things are equal on that front. In case you still doubt, look for other terms against both candidates like delusional, psychotic, etc. it's almost solely pointed at Trump only. If one checks with Google searches rather than taking advice from the MSM, the landscape looks very different.

mszcz 10y ago

Little OT but this comment proves to me that HN is the only (if unlikely) place I can read a balanced and calm discussion on somewhat incendiary subjects. It seems to me that every political discussion lately turns into a shitshow instantly. Anyhow, does anyone know some outlet similar to HN discussion-quality-wise? I don't mean political discussions exclusively.

wallace_f 10y ago

First, Greenwald: >1) Trump presidency is dangerous. 2) CIA/DeepState abuse of spy powers to subvert elected >Govt is dangerous. One can cogently believe both. Second, the media is not to be trusted. Truman, JFK, Bernie Sanders, Eisenhower, Ron Paul, all warned of the CIA, and all said it should be basically destroyed or returned to its original mission. The CIA meddling in media and pushing agendas through our newspapers, cable news, and respectable media outlets has been long established. It is no conspiracy theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird >Yes - the press is definitely biased, but most of what the MSM publishes is essentially true. CNN stating on national broadcast TV that the people are not allowed to read Wikileaks because it is illegal to read fake news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5aOou-2BpE Washington Post calling the Ron Paul Institute Russian Propaganda. Seriously. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgracefully-promotes-a-mccarthyite-blacklist-from-a-new-hidden-and-very-shady-group/ https://theintercept.com/2016/11/26/washington-post-disgrace... Then there's the issue of what they choose to publish >Emails Show Hillary Clinton Aides Celebrating F-15 Sales to Saudi Arabia: “Good News” Source: https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/ Most people I've encountered, when informed of Hillary's connections to Saudi Arabia, simply do not believe me. This problem can be summarized by Douglas Adams: >"The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." Full quote: “[Ford said] ".. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people." "Odd," said Arthur. "I thought you said it was a democracy." "I did," said Ford. "It is." "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going in for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.” If the era of lizards is allowed to continue, tyranny is closer around the corner than most people would believe, and almost everyone loses. Finally, we're very lucky for Glenn Greenwald and people like him. Without people like him the world would be a much darker place.