Good to see you on the thread treco…your wit and wisdom is always appreciated.
Time to go train.
Here’s wishing a great weekend to everyone on both sides of the political fence!
1 Like
From your first source:
"The study attributes the mostly negative coverage due to Trump’s inexperience and his own blunders, trying to put a positive spin on executive orders, legislative initiatives, political appointments and other undertakings.
“… the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising,” Patterson said. “The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.”
That is your opinion. I disagree completely. We will not resolve this difference in opinion, so we might as well let it go.
The quote I provided above was from the author of the Harvard study. So that study supports my point, not yours.
If you wish to make an empirical argument, feel free to do so.
See the quote from the Harvard study; it applies just as well to Trump’s campaign as it does to his admin.
I already provided a different explanation above.
I do not dispute that most of Trump’s core constituents believe there is an anti-Trump media agenda. Given how often and how loud he beat that drum during the campaign, this attribute became self-fulfilling; ie, any potential supporter who found the notion of a media agenda ludicrous abandoned him, leaving nothing but media-agenda believers as his constituents. But–and this is the key point, the one you don’t seem to get–the fact that his constituents fervently believe there is a media agenda doesn’t make it so.
Indeed. But he was not always POTUS. And there’s a big difference between the star of Celebrity Apprentice making outlandish public statements, and the POTUS doing so. Now, if it’s your contention that Trump supporters don’t care if the POTUS dissembles or behaves outrageously, fine–but you’re then in the awkward position of explaining why it was so outrageous when POTUS Obama did/said something you/they considered unpresidential.
It is not a fact; it is propaganda ginned up by the conservative political machine, as I explained above.
Well since not all of the people who watch these shows are liberals, then some people will be influenced unfairly by anonymous sources.
Don’t quite recall me saying anything along the sentiment you mentioned, nor saying Hillary had Parkinsons disease. Please quote wherever I said anything along those lines.
He swats the media on the nose every chance he gets. Its not a conspiracy or propaganda, its a strategy.
He’s playing the anti-hero. The guy we love to hate.
I’m not sure what’s your point here. Is there supposed to be some legislation or whatever in place to prevent media from referring to anonymous sources?
It seems to be all the rage nowadays in the White House. Interestingly, those pro-Trump folks were huge fans of anonymous sources a little less that a year ago, even raging at the mainstream media for questioning their credibility…
I wasn’t referring to you, I said that alt-righters suddenly started caring about vetting of anonymous sources.
My point is that these sources shouldn’t be taken as the truth and done so by the mostly liberal media otherwise people are influenced by the anonymous sources. Often times when it comes to fruition that the sources was not solid enough for a basis of a news story the damage has already been done. Unless people know where the source has come from directly it shouldn’t be presented as the truth by the media in any shape or form. It is deceitful.
1 Like
Back to Russia - it seems that the MSM picked up on the bizarre Kremlin Trump-defense through a flood of both Russian and English articles about the death of Seth Rich.
Even the Russian Embassies worldwide is trying to deflect the attention from Trump…
And this fascinating Twitter discussion perfectly encapsulates how Russian use “useful idiots” to undermine the faith in democracy…
You mean like this?
On Trump’s part? Absolutely. Demagogues have to have a ‘them’ to play off of.
Your reply back certainly isn’t a rebuttal of facts gathered by numerous polls and questionaires going back decades.
But dismissing them out of hand really doesn’t make for conversation, does it?
1 Like
If that were the standard, we’d never have known about Watergate, Iran-Contra, WMDs, etc.
The present system–honorable journalists at credible institutions working with anonymous sources that they (the journalists) vet, and whose info they cross-check–works just fine.
Did you read it? It contains much by way of rebuttal.
Actually l read it, along with quickly perusing the rest of the site - its contributors, articles, etc.
So should l post some articles from Breitbart to ‘prove’ the article is false?
Not that I would, but I have a Sunday School lesson to complete. Dang work making me procrastinate.
Enjoy your weekend.
1 Like
Tell you what. Rather than referring to “numerous polls and questionnaires going back decades,” how’s about you post a link to what you believe to be the particularly compelling and dispositive (in terms of the integrity of the source, rigor of the methods, and implications of the conclusions) report on the subject, and I’ll do my best to respond to it.
Kimdotcom says he can confirm seth rich was involved with wikileaks
You mean the Kimdotcom? Well, why didn’t you just say so?
2 Likes
At least there’s a name to the source. That’s 100x better than most of the secret source crap that comes out
A sketchy individual with a long history of outrageous false claims engaged in a costly legal battle with the US government cannot tell anything but the truth.
By the way, his Wikipedia is really worth a read, I knew him as the Megaupload guy, didn’t know some of this stuff beforehand.
1 Like
This is already a moot point, Julian Assange all but confirmed seth rich was one of their sources
So: Dotcom, who is facing extradition from New Zealand to America, and who has personally blamed Barack Obama for his legal trouble, claims in May 2017 that he knew crucial details about a political murder from July 2016. Why would he have sat on that during a hotly contested election, one that looked until the last minute to be queuing up Obama’s chosen successor?
3 Likes