I know that Rudy is providing his services for free....but I thimk Trump is overpaying for them.
Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon
- Thread starter kithnou
- Start date
- Status
IMO it's entirely reasonable to say Trump's comments are reckless, further indication of painting with a broad brush, etc. Even calculated to dehumanize (although I don't believe that).
It's entirely inexplicable and extremely revealing for 95% of the media reporting the story yesterday to say Trump was speaking about "immigrants" or "some immigrants" with no mention that it directly followed an explicit reference to MS-13. I didn't see a single newscast that showed the immediately preceding question until today. I didn't see a single mainstream media journalist give the context until Jake Tapper did it this morning.
I agree that the clip should have included the immediately preceding question because I think it exposes what is most troubling about Trump’s comments - that he deliberately uses vague language that conflates MS13 gang members with a broader immigrant group.
However when he is talking about a white criminal (say Parkland shooter) that persons actions are described as sick and in no way representative of a broader group - even the white nationalists of Charlottesville were “fine people” unsullied by the murder commited by one of their members.
Thought this was an excellent thread
I don't have a lot of respect for Julian, considering he tends to demonize by political/ideological loyalties and comes off quite hypocritical here. But certainly it's a more valid (and fair - though it makes a lot of assumptions) critique of the comments than the "hiding the ball" approach we saw yesterday.
Of course, he brushes past the orchestrated media effort to deliver the comments in the way the media wanted them to be heard by the public, something I think is a pervasive ill in our politics, and one which Trump has and will continue to use to his advantage. But, for those like Julian, who are convinced that Trump is engaging in some calculated dehumanization campaign, I can understand why they'd be singularly focused on what they think these comments are really intended to accomplish.
I’m not as convinced as you were that there was media intent to “hide the ball”
1) because I don’t find the full context changes how bad the comments are or what they were trying to convey, especially given the extensive history of Trump demagoguing.
2) media frequently take the most “juicy” comments without providing full context for all politicians, for instance I recall Hillary’s deplorables comment being presented similarly to this “animals” comment - I don’t recall howls of outrage by Trump supporters that it was presented without the full context. Or Obama’s “cling to guns and relgion” or Romney’s “47 percent”.
If you as a politician are going to use imprecise language and sweeping generalizations I don’t think you can whine later that you were merely taken out of context - think before you speak so you can’t.
Last edited:
Going to be interesting to see what price they are getting, whole thing stinks to high heaven.
We'll just have to disagree. Not including the immediately preceding question is blatant in my opinion, particularly as many of the reports yesterday did include context (just not accurate context). Stuff like "Trump, referring to some immigrants, says they're "not even human."
AP, to their credit, deleted their context-less tweet.
As for imprecise language meaning you can't "whine", I think there are a lot of examples for Trump where this is true. I don't think this is one, nor do I think the media taking things out of context, IMO very intentionally, is something that can/should be glossed over. We have a huge credibility issue with American media, and much of it is very well deserved.
Looking forward to getting the actual docs and information here. It's a shame it'll be filtered through Nunes, although without his persistence they might never have come out in the first place.
I hope you equally are outraged by Fox News and other right wing media sources that intentionally bend the truth/lie for their agenda.
I certainly am. Unfortunately, while Fox and WSJ and other right-leaning outlets have reach/audience that helps level the field, the left-leaning sources far outnumber those on the right. Hence, a handful of sources on the right calling the plethora of sources on the left biased is often laughed off, while hundreds of sources on the left calling a handful of sources on the right biased isn't questioned.
That said, given America's opinion of media and that Trump got elected, maybe I need not worry about the disparity of influence too much.
# of sources does not mean the playing field is not level. Especially considering the main networks (ABC, CBS, AND NBC) get thrown into the mix.
Fox News has the highest ratings for a reason. It's sources like Fox, Limbaugh, etc that have beating the drum of media distrust for ages...when it is them who lie, tell half truths, and foster conspiracy theories to create the mistrust to begin with.
I mean, my post sets out that while the left has a higher # of sources, the right's sources are larger and more far-reaching. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I generally include the networks in with the left-leaning sources, where they generally belong.
Fox has the highest ratings because of consolidation. It's the only game in town for right-leaning news, although there are some upstarts now. But, as noted, Fox doesn't have "backers" like the others do. CNN reporting will be echoed as legitimate by ABC which will be picked up and repeated by WaPo, etc.
I noticed you failed to address the point that Fox and Limbaugh and other right wing media outlets have created the mistrust in the media through their tactics of building conspiracy theories based on half truths and lies.
Sinclair spreading their propaganda on local news is an even bigger concern.
Fox and Limbaugh have exploited an opportunity given to them by left-leaning media. There are certainly those who peddle outright falsehoods, Alex Jones, for example, and others who brush up against it, like Hannity. But they're not fabricating this issue.
Not to belabor the point, but as an example of what I'm talking about that ties into new "breaking" news:
Last edited:
- Status