3 ms·

Never thought I'd say this but maybe Trump is right about the media. Part of me wants to think this is real reporting but to another part of me this screams lik

Never thought I'd say this but maybe Trump is right about the media. Part of me wants to think this is real reporting but to another part of me this screams like speculative albeit sophisticated conspiracy babble. It seems like the times by publishing this piece are really the ones culpable in sowing seeds of dissent and opposition in the mind of officials working for us gov. There's a lot of things wrong with this administration but in many cases the media is certainly not helping by amplifying the speakers on the circus.

alphabettsy 10y ago
That's exactly what Trump wants. He wants to be a primary source of information however inaccurate or incorrect, but lets be honest of "the media" because its a very wide spectrum that includes the likes of the NYTimes, WSJ, as well as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. It wasn't long ago that many Trump supporters were reading articles likes this "Obama drops the pretense - He aims for confiscation of private arms, not ‘control’ of guns" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-obama-aims-for-confiscation-of-private-a/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-oba...)
- just2n 10y ago
  So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect? They so frequently use half-truths, lies by omission, complete removal of context, and in many cases report on things without substantiating evidence or credible sources, that it's hard to think they have much value at all. And it's not just one outlet, it's all of them. Sometimes they'll be accurate when the story fits what they want to say, and when it doesn't they will either say nothing at all (see: Sweden, Germany, France) or they'll grossly misrepresent things. The recent Felix Kjellberg incident is a fine example of what I've seen happen non-stop over the past 4-5 years. Every single week it's yet again the same exact thing, this time with a different story. It has never relented. If the choices are: direct from the source which may or may not be accurate 100% of the time, or via a media known to be incredibly dishonest and inaccurate at an alarming rate, it's really not a hard choice here for me.
  - alphabettsy 10y ago
    "So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect?" Where did this come from? I absolutely do not support inaccuracy by the media, nor did I suggest that I did. I do recognize that most all publications and writers exhibit bias, which is why it is important to get information representing multiple points of view. Considering you likely have little or no access to most primary sources of information, like everyone else, I don't see how you have any choice other than to rely on their coverage combined with your own critical thinking and research. Also considering that an incredible number of Donald Trump's statements are easily verifiably false, I don't see how he could be considered a primary source of anything other than his own words. As far as "The recent Felix Kjellberg incident", What exactly do you mean? Some publications condemning his actions while others rush to his defense?

alphabettsy 10y ago

That's exactly what Trump wants. He wants to be a primary source of information however inaccurate or incorrect, but lets be honest of "the media" because its a very wide spectrum that includes the likes of the NYTimes, WSJ, as well as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. It wasn't long ago that many Trump supporters were reading articles likes this "Obama drops the pretense - He aims for confiscation of private arms, not ‘control’ of guns" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-obama-aims-for-confiscation-of-private-a/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/5/editorial-oba...)

just2n 10y ago
So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect? They so frequently use half-truths, lies by omission, complete removal of context, and in many cases report on things without substantiating evidence or credible sources, that it's hard to think they have much value at all. And it's not just one outlet, it's all of them. Sometimes they'll be accurate when the story fits what they want to say, and when it doesn't they will either say nothing at all (see: Sweden, Germany, France) or they'll grossly misrepresent things. The recent Felix Kjellberg incident is a fine example of what I've seen happen non-stop over the past 4-5 years. Every single week it's yet again the same exact thing, this time with a different story. It has never relented. If the choices are: direct from the source which may or may not be accurate 100% of the time, or via a media known to be incredibly dishonest and inaccurate at an alarming rate, it's really not a hard choice here for me.
- alphabettsy 10y ago
  "So it's better when the media is inaccurate or incorrect?" Where did this come from? I absolutely do not support inaccuracy by the media, nor did I suggest that I did. I do recognize that most all publications and writers exhibit bias, which is why it is important to get information representing multiple points of view. Considering you likely have little or no access to most primary sources of information, like everyone else, I don't see how you have any choice other than to rely on their coverage combined with your own critical thinking and research. Also considering that an incredible number of Donald Trump's statements are easily verifiably false, I don't see how he could be considered a primary source of anything other than his own words. As far as "The recent Felix Kjellberg incident", What exactly do you mean? Some publications condemning his actions while others rush to his defense?