5 ms·

Media - "Muslim ban" Reality - "90 day travel suspension from 7 countries" As someone who did not vote for Trump I can detect an ovious bias on just how that

Media - "Muslim ban" Reality - "90 day travel suspension from 7 countries" As someone who did not vote for Trump I can detect an ovious bias on just how that one story alone was covered. I could spend days going over every way the media speaks incorrectly\lies about things. What I find most sad is often "intelligent" people will buy into the bias because they take a political side instead of sticking to the truth.

arjie 10y ago
I don't think anyone is fooled there, though. If you list the countries and you listened to his campaign speeches you know what he's going for. No one is going to have a different position if you do that. EDIT: In case, it wasn't clear, I mean that his opponents will see it as a Muslim ban and dislike him for it and his fans will see it as such and like him for it. He ran on that platform. There's nothing disingenuous here.
- hrxn 10y ago
  So, your interpretation over facts?
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  There is no fooling needed. Report exactly what it is, then you can report exactly what Trump said in present or past. Its not medias job to create a "Muslim ban". Anyone who is honest at all will tell you there is no Muslim ban. The media does no one any favors by just making things up.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - cazum 10y ago
    You're going to have a tough time finding any msm articles that aren't directly labeled as opinion peices calling it a "Muslim ban"
  - Chathamization 10y ago
    That's what most of the MSM does though. Here's a CNN article on the ban, for instance[1]. The only time it talks about a "Muslim ban" is when it's quoting what a Democratic politician said. [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-e...
- graycat 10y ago
  We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to US aliens outside the US who want to immigrate to the US. Instead the US, and under US law the POTUS, e.g., see section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 starting with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... are permitted to deny entry to any alien outside the US for essentially any reason or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat, as is fully clear from the law, "essentially any reason or no reason". So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So what? Whatever the answer, such a ban would be both constitutional and legal. For more detail, is Trump against all Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the Republican convention, the last speaker before Trump accepted the nomination was a long time Trump friend and Muslim. It is fair to conclude that Trump is trying to keep terrorists out of the US. Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in the world and not even just in the US. But: In recent decades, somehow too many terrorists have been Muslims, from "radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San Bernardino. A good summary of the threat of radical Islam with recent data was from Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention as at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos There is a nice introduction by Newt's wife, but watch and listen to his actual speech, especially his list of events from radical Islam from "the last 37 days". Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good first step is to carefully vet all Islamists. There's so far not much sense in looking for radical Islamist terrorists among Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.
  - SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago
    I don't really care whether it's legal. It's just a bad idea, morally and realistically. Alienating people is what turns them into terrorists. To paraphrase a line from "Legally Blonde" (I know I'm really helping my case here), "Happy people just don't kill people, they just don't." I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Except it wasn't a Muslim ban. At least report facts as facts and warranted supposition as warranted supposition. Else we wind up in a post-factual society.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    It was the start of the fulfillment of his campaign promise for a Muslim ban. Nobody was fooled about what it was for or why.
    - mercer 10y ago
      Surely it's possible to report the facts without embellishment, and also point out how worrying those facts are in context? If indeed 'nobody was fooled', it shouldn't even be necessarily to embellish headlines or content.
__m 10y ago
*7 Muslim-majority countries. Trump himself called for a muslim ban.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  Does not change fact its not a "Muslim ban" Surprised so many in here are defending the press making things up...but goes to show how the bias is effective.
  - foldr 10y ago
    It was intended to be an implementation of the Muslim ban that he's previously called for, as Guiliani has admitted (as if it wasn't already obvious). Also, most MSM articles do not refer to it as a Muslim ban.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Dude campaigned on implementing a Muslim ban, one of his associates explains that the EO was developed after Trump specifically asked for a legal way to do a Muslim ban, and Trump himself has referred to it in his tweets as a Muslim ban. How much more do you personally feel you'd need to have before you'd be OK with someone using the term "Muslim ban" to refer to it?
    - gd1 10y ago
      All those things you said are true, but it's still not, in fact, a Muslim ban. Someone up-thread mentioned intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter... well yes, but in this case there isn't even a body to begin with. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't (or wouldn't have been) banned from coming to the United States. Not only is it not a "Muslim ban", and doesn't magically become one based on intent, it's also a temporary order. So "temporary muslim ban" would at least be in the ballpark of honest reporting. We didn't even get that.
throwaway_374 10y ago
I see your point but it's entirely academic. How exactly do you think a "muslim ban" would be enforced? Do you actually for a second think there's going to be a registry or a proclamation for POTUS to ban all muslims? This is how it's implemented in practice; you're just splitting hairs to determine the theoretical merits on whether it constitutes a "muslim ban" or not.
purple-again 10y ago
It's the same tired argument with a new skin. Headline: "McDonalds refuses to hire blacks for being inferior". Reality: A racist shift store manager of a single store owned by an absentee franchiser is caught discriminating in his hiring practices and promptly fired. Is the headline misleading? It's a factual statement that a McDonalds in the context described above did do exactly what they were accused of. So back on point, yes it was a Muslim ban and no it wasn't a ban on Muslims. Both sides are trying to frame it for maximum affect and the result is we grow further divided as a people.
- wattt 10y ago
  80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.
  - purple-again 10y ago
    That's what "no it wasn't a Muslim ban" is saying. You can not have a rational discussion on the topic without first agreeing to the context of the words. I hope you understand the other side of the argument is just as correct and valid. Any subset of a group (5% of Muslims, a single McDonalds store) can still be referred to by the group moniker (Muslims, McDonalds) without it being a false statement. Hence "yes it was a ban on Muslims". Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.
    - mercer 10y ago
      > Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order. Which of course benefits the writers of (news) articles, furthering the profit-driven media circle-jerk. Surely one step in the right direction would be to simply avoid terms that apparently 'both sides' interpret differently? But then that would attract fewer eyeballs :-/.
felixge 10y ago
I think there is plenty of evidence that the EO order was designed to be a "muslim ban" [1]. Fortunately it was done poorly, and didn't hold up in court so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE&feature=youtu.be&t=174 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE&feature=youtu.be... If you're suggesting the media is wrong for trying to investigate the motivation behind policy decisions, I don't know what to say to you. I think this is absolutely what the media should be doing, as long as it's backed up by evidence.
maxerickson 10y ago
The so-called failing New York Times has repeatedly used "travel ban" and "immigration order" and such, often referring to 7 Muslim majority countries: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/donald-trump-white-house https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/donald-trump-white-house Here's an early piece from them: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Fdonald-trump-white-house https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-... Here's the lead: President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries. It's Rudy Giuliani who was running around calling it a Muslim ban.

arjie 10y ago

I don't think anyone is fooled there, though. If you list the countries and you listened to his campaign speeches you know what he's going for. No one is going to have a different position if you do that. EDIT: In case, it wasn't clear, I mean that his opponents will see it as a Muslim ban and dislike him for it and his fans will see it as such and like him for it. He ran on that platform. There's nothing disingenuous here.

hrxn 10y ago
So, your interpretation over facts?
Mendenhall 10y ago
There is no fooling needed. Report exactly what it is, then you can report exactly what Trump said in present or past. Its not medias job to create a "Muslim ban". Anyone who is honest at all will tell you there is no Muslim ban. The media does no one any favors by just making things up.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cazum 10y ago
  You're going to have a tough time finding any msm articles that aren't directly labeled as opinion peices calling it a "Muslim ban"
- Chathamization 10y ago
  That's what most of the MSM does though. Here's a CNN article on the ban, for instance[1]. The only time it talks about a "Muslim ban" is when it's quoting what a Democratic politician said. [1]http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-executive-action-on-refugees-extreme-vetting/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/trump-plans-to-sign-e...
graycat 10y ago
We need to keep in mind that the US Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to US aliens outside the US who want to immigrate to the US. Instead the US, and under US law the POTUS, e.g., see section (f) of "8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens" as at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182 starting with: > (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President > Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate .... are permitted to deny entry to any alien outside the US for essentially any reason or no reason. In particular, a "Muslim ban" would be perfectly legal. I repeat, as is fully clear from the law, "essentially any reason or no reason". So, suppose there is a Muslim ban? So what? Whatever the answer, such a ban would be both constitutional and legal. For more detail, is Trump against all Muslims? Nope. Evidence: IIRC, at the Republican convention, the last speaker before Trump accepted the nomination was a long time Trump friend and Muslim. It is fair to conclude that Trump is trying to keep terrorists out of the US. Are all terrorists Muslims? Nope: Not in the world and not even just in the US. But: In recent decades, somehow too many terrorists have been Muslims, from "radical Islam". Europe has seen a lot of that in Nice, Paris, etc. The US saw a lot of that in 9/11, Orlando, and San Bernardino. A good summary of the threat of radical Islam with recent data was from Newt Gingrich at the Republican convention as at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BV8vGzmsos There is a nice introduction by Newt's wife, but watch and listen to his actual speech, especially his list of events from radical Islam from "the last 37 days". Or, to keep out radical Islam, a good first step is to carefully vet all Islamists. There's so far not much sense in looking for radical Islamist terrorists among Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or Jews.
- SnacksOnAPlane 10y ago
  I don't really care whether it's legal. It's just a bad idea, morally and realistically. Alienating people is what turns them into terrorists. To paraphrase a line from "Legally Blonde" (I know I'm really helping my case here), "Happy people just don't kill people, they just don't." I don't know if Trump doesn't understand this or if he really does understand it and wants another terrorist attack on the US so he can gain more power.
paulddraper 10y ago
Except it wasn't a Muslim ban. At least report facts as facts and warranted supposition as warranted supposition. Else we wind up in a post-factual society.
- mcphage 10y ago
  It was the start of the fulfillment of his campaign promise for a Muslim ban. Nobody was fooled about what it was for or why.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Surely it's possible to report the facts without embellishment, and also point out how worrying those facts are in context? If indeed 'nobody was fooled', it shouldn't even be necessarily to embellish headlines or content.

__m 10y ago

*7 Muslim-majority countries. Trump himself called for a muslim ban.

Mendenhall 10y ago
Does not change fact its not a "Muslim ban" Surprised so many in here are defending the press making things up...but goes to show how the bias is effective.
- foldr 10y ago
  It was intended to be an implementation of the Muslim ban that he's previously called for, as Guiliani has admitted (as if it wasn't already obvious). Also, most MSM articles do not refer to it as a Muslim ban.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Dude campaigned on implementing a Muslim ban, one of his associates explains that the EO was developed after Trump specifically asked for a legal way to do a Muslim ban, and Trump himself has referred to it in his tweets as a Muslim ban. How much more do you personally feel you'd need to have before you'd be OK with someone using the term "Muslim ban" to refer to it?
  - gd1 10y ago
    All those things you said are true, but it's still not, in fact, a Muslim ban. Someone up-thread mentioned intent being the difference between murder and manslaughter... well yes, but in this case there isn't even a body to begin with. The vast, overwhelming majority of Muslims aren't (or wouldn't have been) banned from coming to the United States. Not only is it not a "Muslim ban", and doesn't magically become one based on intent, it's also a temporary order. So "temporary muslim ban" would at least be in the ballpark of honest reporting. We didn't even get that.

throwaway_374 10y ago

I see your point but it's entirely academic. How exactly do you think a "muslim ban" would be enforced? Do you actually for a second think there's going to be a registry or a proclamation for POTUS to ban all muslims? This is how it's implemented in practice; you're just splitting hairs to determine the theoretical merits on whether it constitutes a "muslim ban" or not.

purple-again 10y ago

It's the same tired argument with a new skin. Headline: "McDonalds refuses to hire blacks for being inferior". Reality: A racist shift store manager of a single store owned by an absentee franchiser is caught discriminating in his hiring practices and promptly fired. Is the headline misleading? It's a factual statement that a McDonalds in the context described above did do exactly what they were accused of. So back on point, yes it was a Muslim ban and no it wasn't a ban on Muslims. Both sides are trying to frame it for maximum affect and the result is we grow further divided as a people.

wattt 10y ago
80% of the world's Muslims were still permitted in during the ban.
- purple-again 10y ago
  That's what "no it wasn't a Muslim ban" is saying. You can not have a rational discussion on the topic without first agreeing to the context of the words. I hope you understand the other side of the argument is just as correct and valid. Any subset of a group (5% of Muslims, a single McDonalds store) can still be referred to by the group moniker (Muslims, McDonalds) without it being a false statement. Hence "yes it was a ban on Muslims". Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order.
  - mercer 10y ago
    > Both groups think the other side is being intentionally pedantic by refusing to accept their interpretation of "Muslim ban" which keeps every discussion on the topic in a permanent circle jerk instead of becoming a discussion on the merits, faults, and legality of the executive order. Which of course benefits the writers of (news) articles, furthering the profit-driven media circle-jerk. Surely one step in the right direction would be to simply avoid terms that apparently 'both sides' interpret differently? But then that would attract fewer eyeballs :-/.

felixge 10y ago

I think there is plenty of evidence that the EO order was designed to be a "muslim ban" [1]. Fortunately it was done poorly, and didn't hold up in court so far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE&feature=youtu.be&t=174 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE&feature=youtu.be... If you're suggesting the media is wrong for trying to investigate the motivation behind policy decisions, I don't know what to say to you. I think this is absolutely what the media should be doing, as long as it's backed up by evidence.

maxerickson 10y ago

The so-called failing New York Times has repeatedly used "travel ban" and "immigration order" and such, often referring to 7 Muslim majority countries: https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/donald-trump-white-house https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/donald-trump-white-house Here's an early piece from them: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-refugees.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Fdonald-trump-white-house https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/trump-syrian-... Here's the lead: President Trump on Friday closed the nation’s borders to refugees from around the world, ordering that families fleeing the slaughter in Syria be indefinitely blocked from entering the United States, and temporarily suspending immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries. It's Rudy Giuliani who was running around calling it a Muslim ban.