3 ms·

> I meant to call the barrage of anti-Trump media propaganda, because that's typically what one calls anything that's almost exclusively one-sided. It's too ea

> I meant to call the barrage of anti-Trump media propaganda, because that's typically what one calls anything that's almost exclusively one-sided. It's too easy to attack the messenger (or reporter) when someone doesn't like the report. The attacker needs evidence too. The media in total isn't all critical. Consider Fox, the leading cable news channel, and the Wall Street Journal, the leading newspaper among the business elite, as examples. Many smaller publications are strongly pro-Trump. A barrage of criticism isn't necessarily propaganda; sometimes the subject of criticism is doing a lot that's wrong: Uber got a lot of criticism recently; Kim Jong-Un is continually criticized; the coach of a winless sports team is continually criticized; Harvey Weinstein is getting it now; that's not propaganda. Trump is in office and it's part of being a public figure. The NY Times, for example, goes after all public figures. It broke the story of Hillary Clinton's email servers, ran continual reporting on the DNC emails, and criticized Obama plenty. Every politician complains about the press coverage. Trump, IMHO and in that of many others, including many Republicans (Sen. Corker, as a recent example, and apparently Sec. of State Tillerson), does an extraordinary amount that's wrong and therefore gets a lot of criticism. > I'm simply questioning the prevailing narrative Always a good idea, but quoting FEMA to support how well FEMA is doing is not much support. I'm doing a great job today - just ask me! :) I know what Metro is; I've read it before but I've never seen its reporting taken seriously - I wish I knew something about its credibility.

m52go 9y ago
The logic behind quoting FEMA is that the figures in there seem to contradict the mainstream media accounts of the USA not doing anything right about the Puerto Rico disaster. Of course, figures alone mean little without context, but they somewhat dispell the spirit of the mindset that was pushed in the past few days. Simple example: it was commonly stated that the USA was late in sending rescue personnel/resources to Puerto Rico...when in reality, forces were already on the move before the storm even hit. > A barrage of criticism isn't necessarily propaganda; sometimes the subject of criticism is doing a lot that's wrong: Uber got a lot of criticism recently; Kim Jong-Un is continually criticized; the coach of a winless sports team is continually criticized; Harvey Weinstein is getting it now; that's not propaganda. Totally agree. But I see the problem with Trump as permanent, unconditional criticism. It's not wrong to criticize, and there's certainly a LOT to criticize this administration for, and none of that is propaganda. Much of the time it's just poor performance and stupid antics being called out, fair and square. The issue with Trump, however, is that this criticism pervades everything. Even positive glimmers are drawn as negatives too. I think this could be demonstrated by asking a non-Trump supporter to name a single positive thing he's done so far--I don't think the vast majority of people could do it. Trump didn't go to Texas to survey & help; he & Melania were disrespectful because she wore high-heels when walking out of the White House. Trump wasn't standing for the long-ignored ghettos in Chicago; he was being bigoted because he called them "inner-cities." Trump wasn't being thoughtful in proposing safe-zones to keep Syrians safer while keeping them near home; he was being a monstrous idiot whose stupid idea deserves no consideration. Now I know there are a gazillion things you could say to criticize the examples I cited above, and that's fine. But what I'm trying to say is that the bad sides of those examples are the only sides most media expose people to--the criticism overwhelmingly outweighs the praise, every time. I don't think that's a healthy way of guiding national discourse. And I guess I see it as a sort of propaganda in itself...none of those items are themselves false, but in the aggregate, the resulting mindset is a negative one with little balance. But yes--you're totally right on all counts. That certainly wasn't my best comment ever, and I guess I paid the price :/

m52go 9y ago

The logic behind quoting FEMA is that the figures in there seem to contradict the mainstream media accounts of the USA not doing anything right about the Puerto Rico disaster. Of course, figures alone mean little without context, but they somewhat dispell the spirit of the mindset that was pushed in the past few days. Simple example: it was commonly stated that the USA was late in sending rescue personnel/resources to Puerto Rico...when in reality, forces were already on the move before the storm even hit. > A barrage of criticism isn't necessarily propaganda; sometimes the subject of criticism is doing a lot that's wrong: Uber got a lot of criticism recently; Kim Jong-Un is continually criticized; the coach of a winless sports team is continually criticized; Harvey Weinstein is getting it now; that's not propaganda. Totally agree. But I see the problem with Trump as permanent, unconditional criticism. It's not wrong to criticize, and there's certainly a LOT to criticize this administration for, and none of that is propaganda. Much of the time it's just poor performance and stupid antics being called out, fair and square. The issue with Trump, however, is that this criticism pervades everything. Even positive glimmers are drawn as negatives too. I think this could be demonstrated by asking a non-Trump supporter to name a single positive thing he's done so far--I don't think the vast majority of people could do it. Trump didn't go to Texas to survey & help; he & Melania were disrespectful because she wore high-heels when walking out of the White House. Trump wasn't standing for the long-ignored ghettos in Chicago; he was being bigoted because he called them "inner-cities." Trump wasn't being thoughtful in proposing safe-zones to keep Syrians safer while keeping them near home; he was being a monstrous idiot whose stupid idea deserves no consideration. Now I know there are a gazillion things you could say to criticize the examples I cited above, and that's fine. But what I'm trying to say is that the bad sides of those examples are the only sides most media expose people to--the criticism overwhelmingly outweighs the praise, every time. I don't think that's a healthy way of guiding national discourse. And I guess I see it as a sort of propaganda in itself...none of those items are themselves false, but in the aggregate, the resulting mindset is a negative one with little balance. But yes--you're totally right on all counts. That certainly wasn't my best comment ever, and I guess I paid the price :/