Trumpled (Alternative Leading)

[Thryleon]

You have to look at and consider who actually owns the media.

As Mike Moore quipped before the election of Trump - "This is going to be the biggest FU in history!"

I would buy into that theory, but the media serves up propaganda and slander as news.

What I was hoping to highlight was that this couldn't be trumps playbook as it has been repeated throughout history.

It would also be laughable to suggest that Trump started it during the Obama years.

This is party politics being confused with fact.

[Mav]

Perhaps you might provide some concrete examples regarding Trump so we can see how much the media has promulgated "fake news" rather than telling it like it is and not as Trump would like it to be. 

As for the insinuation that the media has a liberal bias in the US, that's just about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard.  FoxNews is so biased in favour of conservative politics that it isn't funny.  It's boast that it's "fair and balanced" must surely be a tongue-in-cheek joke.  Then you have Brietbart which is an AltRight mouthpiece.  How surprising that Steve Bannon was at Brietbart prior to joining Trump.  Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and member of Trump's team, owns the New York Observer.  Papers, TV stations and online services span the political spectrum. 

Trump's complaints about "fake news" aren't made about unsubstantiated reports - they seem to be trotted out when particularly well-researched items hit the papers.  No one doubts that the stories about General Flynn's contacts with Russians were absolutely true - Trump complained that the leakers had broken the law rather than made up the story.  Nevertheless, he claimed that the reports were "fake news".  The reports about TrumpU and Trump's charity were also well researched. 

An interesting development is that Trump's White House is refusing to comment when journalists seek comment about reports they're going to file but then immediately the White House claims those stories are false when they are published.  Journalists seek comment in part so they can kill a story if there's no substance to it.  An example of this was when a journalist discovered a policy paper which suggested that the Home Guard might be enlisted to round up illegal immigrants.  Comment was sought and none was given.  The story ran.  Then the White House thundered about how untrue it was to suggest that this was being considered.  The fact that the position paper was true wasn't disputed - the only objection was that it had been dismissed as an option.  Hmmm ... you'd think that would have been an easy comment to make before the story was published. 

[Thryleon]

Perhaps you might provide some concrete examples regarding Trump so we can see how much the media has promulgated "fake news" rather than telling it like it is and not as Trump would like it to be. 

As for the insinuation that the media has a liberal bias in the US, that's just about the biggest load of nonsense I've heard.  FoxNews is so biased in favour of conservative politics that it isn't funny.  It's boast that it's "fair and balanced" must surely be a tongue-in-cheek joke.  Then you have Brietbart which is an AltRight mouthpiece.  How surprising that Steve Bannon was at Brietbart prior to joining Trump.  Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and member of Trump's team, owns the New York Observer.  Papers, TV stations and online services span the political spectrum. 

Trump's complaints about "fake news" aren't made about unsubstantiated reports - they seem to be trotted out when particularly well-researched items hit the papers.  No one doubts that the stories about General Flynn's contacts with Russians were absolutely true - Trump complained that the leakers had broken the law rather than made up the story.  Nevertheless, he claimed that the reports were "fake news".  The reports about TrumpU and Trump's charity were also well researched. 

An interesting development is that Trump's White House is refusing to comment when journalists seek comment about reports they're going to file but then immediately the White House claims those stories are false when they are published.  Journalists seek comment in part so they can kill a story if there's no substance to it.  An example of this was when a journalist discovered a policy paper which suggested that the Home Guard might be enlisted to round up illegal immigrants.  Comment was sought and none was given.  The story ran.  Then the White House thundered about how untrue it was to suggest that this was being considered.  The fact that the position paper was true wasn't disputed - the only objection was that it had been dismissed as an option.  Hmmm ... you'd think that would have been an easy comment to make before the story was published.

misrepresenting what I am saying, and attacking what is known as "the straw man" will simply achieve nought.

The news is anything but balanced in its reporting and simply spouts propaganda, dressed like news stories.  They are as quick to condemn and praise the same event, to keep the conversation rolling on any topic, recycle stories, and often attempt to socially engineer more than report facts.

Why?  I don't know, and frankly I don't care.  The whole presidency and election process is to provide Joe Average the illusion of choice, and keep them focussed away from where the balance of power in the USA really lies.

Now go eat up your reality television about people who simply cannot be real and keep up with the kardashians.  You cannot seperate the stories they deliver from the overall programming (interesting word that one) and hope to present a "balanced" argument when talking about the crap these people serve the public.

You're just sour that you can't tar Trump with this brush because its an age old tactic

[PaulP]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BdhDjqtCSQ

[Mav]

misrepresenting what I am saying, and attacking what is known as "the straw man" will simply achieve nought.

Maybe you should accept the blame for not making your meaning plain.  Even after your 2nd attempt, you've failed to clarify it (other than repeating the general complaint that the Meeja is creating fake news - you know, that monolithic entity which everyone knows is playing evil games).

Maybe some examples could clarify what you mean.  But I've already asked for them and got nada.  But why let a good conspiracy theory get bogged down in facts. 

I suppose you could have put forward FoxNews coverage of Trump's claim that Obama was born overseas and the insinuation that he's actually a Muslim who spent his time trying to help the Muslim terrorists win.  Or maybe the Bowling Green Massacre.  Or the fact that serious crime is the worst for 50 years (even though it isn't by a long shot).  Etc. etc.  Sorry to tar Trump with that - hope you forgive me. 

Sen. John McCain spoke out Saturday in defense of the free press after President Trump lashed out against the news media several times over the past week, at one point declaring it “the enemy of the American People!”

Such talk, McCain (R-Ariz.) said on NBC News in an interview set to air Sunday, was “how dictators get started.”

“In other words, a consolidation of power,” McCain told “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd from Munich. “When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.”

The 80-year-old Republican senator was responding to several tweets by Trump over the past week, in which he repeatedly attacked the media as “fake news.” In one widely shared tweet Friday, Trump said the press was “not my enemy” but that of the American people.

In it, Trump tagged the New York Times, CNN and broadcast news networks NBC, ABC and CBS.

In the backlash to the tweet, #NotTheEnemy began trending, with people sharing stories about journalists who had dedicated their lives to — and, in some instances, paid the ultimate price for — reporting the news.

In the “Meet the Press” interview, McCain told Todd that a free press was central to a functional democracy, even if news organizations' stories challenged those being held accountable.

“I hate the press. I hate you, especially,” he said to Todd, who laughed. “But the fact is, we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital.”

“If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and, many times, adversarial press,” McCain added. “And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started.”

Which is not to say that all media coverage is good.  As I've noted, Brietbart, FoxNews and Alex Jones are real exponents of fake news.  But to use them to beat quality journalists over the head is like saying that Carlton players are drug cheats because Essendon players were. 

[Thryleon]

Maybe you should accept the blame for not making your meaning plain.  Even after your 2nd attempt, you've failed to clarify it (other than repeating the general complaint that the Meeja is creating fake news - you know, that monolithic entity which everyone knows is playing evil games).

Maybe some examples could clarify what you mean.  But I've already asked for them and got nada.  But why let a good conspiracy theory get bogged down in facts. 

I suppose you could have put forward FoxNews coverage of Trump's claim that Obama was born overseas and the insinuation that he's actually a Muslim who spent his time trying to help the Muslim terrorists win.  Or maybe the Bowling Green Massacre.  Or the fact that serious crime is the worst for 50 years (even though it isn't by a long shot).  Etc. etc.  Sorry to tar Trump with that - hope you forgive me. 

Which is not to say that all media coverage is good.  As I've noted, Brietbart, FoxNews and Alex Jones are real exponents of fake news.  But to use them to beat quality journalists over the head is like saying that Carlton players are drug cheats because Essendon players were.

The part I find funny, is you believing I am standing up for Trump when I state this stuff.

The media, has and always be full of crap, and that dates back as far as the French revolution as far as I am concerned.

Or you can keep refuting my facts with the apparent straw mans argument you have created, and then attacked.


What I was hoping to highlight was that this couldn't be trumps playbook as it has been repeated throughout history.


He isnt the first, nor will he be the last.  The next president will be attacked with the same bullcrap, as this one and the previous one before him.


As for me being at fault for not making things clearer, you cannot blame me for how you decided to respond to something I have written based on an assumption you have made.  Particularly when you are the mayor of legal speak.

This is a conversational forum, not a place for people to provide a body of evidence to substantiate any point made. 

[Mav]

What I was hoping to highlight was that this couldn't be trumps playbook as it has been repeated throughout history.

He isnt the first, nor will he be the last.  The next president will be attacked with the same bullcrap, as this one and the previous one before him.

And there you have it - a particularly impressive straw man argument.  Please tell me where in hell I suggested he was the first to use such tactics.  So you can't have a playbook unless it contains original strategies?  You know there's no copyright on playbooks, don't you?  It's been no secret that he's been riding on the coattails of the AltRight ever since he first called a press conference over Obama's birth certificate.  Neither originality nor ideology has been his bedrock, but he's just been better at selling their politics.  As I know you hate straw man arguments, I know you'll be giving me a grovelling apology in due course.  Waiting, waiting ...

Now, if that was your big point, whoop-di-do. 

PS: At least Trump can make a claim to raising bald-faced lying to a new level.  His lack of embarrassment about being caught red-handed in lies must make him quite exceptional even in the world of politics.  He truly is the Liar-in-Chief.

[PaulP]

When I read Mav's reply #181, I don't get the impression that Mav implies the strategy is Trump's original idea. You seem to be getting hung up on a minor detail.

The playbook for most politicians starts with "denounce the opposition as much as possible", and then deteriorates rapidly from there.

[cookie2]

The term "controlling the narrative" springs to mind.

[LP]

I found out today you can purchase the Trump manifesto, it's been out for years!

"The Men Who Stare at Goats."

Forword allegedly by Andrew Bolt!