Victor Davis Hanson writes at The Hoover Institution:
The media suffer the lowest approval numbers in nearly a half-century. In a recent Emerson College poll, 49 percent of American voters termed the Trump administration "truthful"; yet only 39 percent believed the same about the news media.
Every president needs media audit. The role of journalists in a free society is to act as disinterested censors of government power—neither going on witch-hunts against political opponents nor deifying ideological fellow-travelers.
Sadly, the contemporary mainstream media—the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), the traditional blue-chip newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times), and the public affiliates (NPR, PBS)—have lost credibility. They are no more reliable critics of President Trump's excesses than they were believable cheerleaders for Barack Obama's policies.
Source: http://www.hoover.org/research/presidential-payback-media-hubris
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:19AM (16 children)
The Hoover Institution is an American public policy think tank [...] generally described as conservative
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution [wikipedia.org]
That much is quite apparent from the summary as well.
(Score: 5, Informative) by termigator on Saturday March 04 2017, @12:12PM (7 children)
A common technique of think-tank-based propaganda: assert something as "truth", without verifiable evidence, and then make conclusion based on that assertion.
The Hoover Institute, and many other "think tanks" are extremely biased, but they hope that the misinformed public does not know this. Think tank names sound impressive and important, and give members titles like "Senior Fellow" to sound academic and objective. It's all a ruse and a text book example of 3rd-party propaganda.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:53PM (5 children)
No, Trump did not have any plans to invade Mexico, as Buzzfeed and the Associated Press alleged.
No, Trump’s father did not run for Mayor of New York by peddling racist television ads, as reported by Sidney Blumenthal.
No, there were not mass resignations at the State Department in protest of its new leaders, as was reported by the Washington Post.
No, Trump’s attorney did not cut a deal with the Russians in Prague. Nor did Trump indulge in sexual escapades in Moscow. Buzzfeed again peddled those fake news stories.
No, a supposedly racist Trump did not remove the bust of Martin Luther King Jr. from the White House, as a Time Magazine reporter claimed.
No, election results in three states were not altered by hackers or computer criminals to give Trump the election, as implied by New York Magazine.
No, Michael Flynn did not tweet that he was a scapegoat. That was a media fantasy endorsed by Nancy Pelosi.
In fact, Daniel Payne of the Federalist has compiled a lengthy list of sensational stories about Trump’s supposed buffooneries, mistakes, and crudities that all proved either outright lies or were gross exaggerations and distortions.
There should be something in those accusations, right?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:17PM (4 children)
Gee a bunch of one-liners without any elaboration. Seems like they are doing exactly the same thing they are complaining about. Because, if you dig into them it turns out that in each case (a) corrections/retractions were issued in the cases of outright error or (b) as further details were discovered more articles were published with the new info. And yet this hoover essay just leaves them as conveniently bare assertions written in sensationalized language.
Its nothing more than a series of examples of how the press isn't perfect so they are shit.
Take the complaint about the Blumenthal article - two paragraphs about videos out of a 60+ paragraph article. [lrb.co.uk] Videos that were faked but were believable fakes because they were accurate representations of Fred Trump's behavior. Two paragraphs that were removed once the videos were discovered as fakes and for which a retraction notice was attached to the article.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:35PM (3 children)
Gee a bunch of one-liners without any elaboration.
And?
Take the complaint about the Blumenthal article - two paragraphs about videos out of a 60+ paragraph article.
In other words, the accusation was correct.
Videos that were faked but were believable fakes because they were accurate representations of Fred Trump's behavior.
Fake but true. So we have both the fake news and the bullshit apology (the fake news was believable because it confirmed our biases about Fred Trump).
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:23PM (2 children)
You are aggressively stupid in the furtherance of intellectual dishonesty. Its tiresome.
I think I'm going to add you to my killfile, the only other entry being crawford. At least his excuse is mental illness.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:38PM (1 child)
I think I'm going to add you to my killfile, the only other entry being crawford. At least his excuse is mental illness.
Good riddance. Perhaps I won't have to deal with your stupidity in the future then? But I will note here, the earlier post indeed looked into the matter and indeed found that the article wasn't exaggerating. The rationalizing that followed should be educational to anyone paying attention. But it's only a paragraph out of sixty. But it confirms my biases. These are the games that get played around fake news.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:07PM
> But it confirms my biases.
The irony, it burns!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:46PM
assert something as "truth", without verifiable evidence, and then make conclusion based on that assertion
That's called begging the question. [wikipedia.org]
...for those who continually use that term incorrectly.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:31PM (5 children)
Come on. The article is quite good, with plenty of excellent examples. I guess they are "conservative" because they don't suppress information like this?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:47PM (3 children)
TFS quotes them defining "the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN)".
Anyone who includes CNN on that list BUT NOT FOX or FOX NEWS, is about to spout right-wing "mainstream media is bad" bullshit.
Fox News is sadly the leader in the category, and nobody disputes that Fox is one of the Big Four (often ahead of NBC, for example). They ARE the mainstream, according to the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:13AM (2 children)
Fox does not belong in the list, even though it is major, because that list is part of a larger list being shown to have certain problems.
I mean, like this: there are news companies with names that start with the letter "C" including the major networks (CBS, CNN) and newspapers (Chicago Tribune, Cleavland Post)...
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)
> TFS, quoting: "Sadly, the contemporary mainstream media—the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN), the trad"
How are the two Fox not part of "the contemporary mainstream media" ?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday March 05 2017, @04:36PM
Not really relevant, but I remember when CNN wasn't part of the traditional MSM. In Iraq, they were a fresh-faced youthful organization that provided coverage that the jaded elders couldn't be bothered with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PBRGD-z95o [youtube.com]
CNN has truly sunk low since those days.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @10:08PM
The article is quite good, with plenty of excellent examples
Yes, the lack of fact-checking in "journalism" in the previous decades is a huge problem--notably, since Ronnie Raygun stopped enforcing the Fairness Doctrine and O'Bummer scrubbed it from the books entirely.
2 more glaring examples of where Lamestream Media has failed:
First, during the campaign, The Orange Clown got $5B worth of free media.
Other candidates got zip without paying.
Of Trump's candidacy, CBS CEO Les Moonves said, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."
It's clear that once the news division was no longer a loss leader and was expected to became a profit center, the quality of their output declined precipitously.
Second, Lamestream Media doesn't cover the stories I want to see covered (protests against the regime or against corporate malfeasance).
If they do "cover" such an event, they will seek out the goofiest looking, most inarticulate dude, who is the least representative person around WRT the protest, and will stick a microphone in his face.
There's been a name for that for well over a century: Yellow Journalism. [ufl.edu]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @01:13AM (1 child)
I was pretty much at that same conclusion, survey by righties, about righties, for righties.
Last I checked, the Orange one has the lowest approval rating right out of the gate, as any president, any time, ever.
Doesn't help that he's a delusional raving lunatic.
But what the hell. What were the alternatives?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:34AM
She qualified for the ballot in 48 states plus DC [cloudfront.net] and, unlike the Neoliberal and the Reactionaries, had an actual plan for jobs, jobs, jobs. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [ontheissues.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:28AM (11 children)
If both the orange one and the media would tone down their behaviour, maybe something good would happen.
One can only wish, but then... this may be an old fool's hope (and maybe nothing short of a world war would teach humanity a lesson. I certainly don't want one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @12:04PM (7 children)
America does quite well out of World Wars. Something for Trump to think about.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday March 04 2017, @12:44PM (6 children)
In both cases, it joined the war well after it started. If the will be a WW3 in the near future, it will be because America started it.
In spite of Bush’s "Mission accomplished", USA is definitely not better because of the war in Iraq.
If that is a result of a conflict with a puny local power, I don't expect it will be better against a major one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Saturday March 04 2017, @02:36PM (1 child)
No, it shouldn't be America does quite well, it should be 'certain Americans do well off of selling weapons and such'.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 06 2017, @07:16PM
The reason America did so well in the World Wars was because the other major powers were decimated by them.
If WWIII results in heavy devastation in India, China, Japan and Europe, without major losses in the Americas, then we can expect similar results. If America gets hit hard at home (for the first time since the mid 1800s), the results will be quite different.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:32PM (3 children)
Yeah, think many of us have been asking how it was possible to win WWI and WWII in 5 years each, but wars against the much weaker foes Afghanistan and Iraq drag on and on, seemingly over until the next terrorist event or guerrilla action. True, after WWII, it did take a further 5 years to settle Japan down, and 10 more years to settle Germany down. And true, WWI did not ultimately resolve the issues, or there never would have been a WWII. Nevertheless, our record after WWII hasn't been so great. The Korean War was the first of these more recent wars. It did not eliminate North Korea. Even now, with the Cold War over, 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Korea remains unresolved. Vietnam was next, lasting for 20 years, ending when the US finally gave up and pulled out, leading to the collapse of South Vietnam soon after. Another intractable problem has been the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Actually we have a lot of ideas why, and it doesn't reflect well on the West. It begins with, basically, profoundly simplistic and wrong thinking about the causes and reasons, Western hubris over our supposed better ways, our superior intellect and virtues, our too eager use of force, and proceeds to the hidden agendas and motives, and the corruption. There are many people in the West who got it right, analysts whose job is to understand foreign affairs, but they were sidelined and ignored while the political leaders and media turned the wars into circuses for a variety of unworthy reasons such as feeding the Military Industrial Complex, securing oil supplies, and testing and demonstrating American military prowess and such flag waving. And, selling more news. What happened to Western ideals? Was the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East just wishful thinking at best? Or was it a load of crap cynically used for justification, a propaganda move that suckered the American people? So much for superior intellect. Analysts warned that Iraq would fragment into Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions, warned that far more troops were needed to pacify Iraq once major combat was over, warned that Saddam Hussein didn't actually have Weapons of Mass Destruction. As for superior virtues, how can social conservatives who profess a love of life in their ofttimes bitter opposition to abortion, callously pull the trigger on war without being damn sure, without caring to be sure it really was necessary? Well, there's one easy way to resolve the seeming contradiction: they don't actually love life, they only want to ensure there's plenty of cannon fodder for the wars and understand, perhaps at a subconscious level, that abortion, family planning, and women's rights are direct threats. The US has been edging closer to empowering moronic barbarians who will blunder about and finally stumble into war to solve the issues we all face. They'll preach crap about restarting the Crusades, or bringing on nuclear Armageddon and that God is planning to end the world soon. This is why the Doomsday Clock is so close to midnight. America had better shape up and eat some humble pie. The rest of the world could rightfully blame the US for Global Warming and stirring up war. America is not so mighty that it can take on the entire rest of the world singlehandedly, and win.
The media has joined the barbarians in being more concerned about selling news than anything else. Are that really going to continue their act of disinterested journalism for truly apocalyptic events such as nuclear war? Is nuclear war just good copy? In a sense, the tabloids are more honest, as they don't make any pretenses about telling things straight.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:46PM
"Was the idea of bringing democracy to the Middle East just wishful thinking at best? Or was it a load of crap cynically used for justification, a propaganda move"
Yes, and yes. The US, the UK, and the West DO NOT LOVE DEMOCRACIES! Never have, never will. We destroy democracies for the sake of the price of oil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ajax [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @08:07PM
...would appreciate more paragraph breaks in large globs of text.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:33AM
No, that isn't it. Well, it's at most half.
The problem is that we start wars that we are unwilling to finish. War means killing, and modern western democracies are unable to do this seriously.
When we fought Germany, we turned Dresden into a giant fire tornado. Circular winds caused by the fire helped to power the fire. Even the people deep down in bomb shelters died, killed by the carbon dioxide from the fire. Pretty much everybody died, wiping out a rather large city.
When we fought Japan, we did that to Tokyo, and then we nuked a couple cities.
We have the capability to win wars. Had we played our cards right, right after World War II we could have wiped Islam from the Earth. Today this is more difficult, but minor issues like North Korea and ISIS are still trivial. Yes, it requires lots of death. Heck, years ago we could have wiped Iraq clean of all humans. We could do that to Syria today. Even without going nuclear, we could empty Syria in less than a year by carpet bombing with cluster bombs. The country just... goes bye-bye. It would still be land, like Antarctica, but less populated.
Instead we are going to screw around until Islam is able to fully turn the tables on us. They won't hesitate to serve up death. This is the way of the world: kill or be killed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:01PM (1 child)
Well, the Orange One is just one guy who should tame himself (kind of like the Uber CEO). The media are thousands of people running the gamut from the New York Times to Brietbart and the National Enquirer. Good luck getting the Enquirer to act any more grown up than Trump, to get them to stop running ignorant nonsense like stories about women getting pregnant fro space aliens.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 05 2017, @06:19AM
While you're perfectly right, the irony is that your comment ends with,
...
and then there is your sig,
Still laughing, got to find some humour in these orange times, and obviously I've been drinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:32PM
They learned well from the days of Obama, when the conservatives would peddle nonsense like "Obama was born in Kenya!" or "Obama is a muslim!". As an observer who normally leans left, but does not feel bound to any party, having to listen to the nonsense of either party's mouthpieces is endlessly frustrating.
I did laugh at the "smirking chimp" meme about Baby Bush. Attacks on Obama's appearance were taboo because of his race. After eight years of not hearing appearance based barbs in polite society, having the media restart them with "yellow hair! yukyukyuk! small hands! yukyukyuk!" just feels mean now.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:38AM (1 child)
The evilest orange doesn't need the press to make a fool of himself. He is such a prolific twitterer it's impossible to avoid the exposure of his short-commings [telegraph.co.uk].
aristarchus, I hear by the mean of the vine you have some gra'ma' lessons handy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @02:42PM
I think aristarchus is busy doin' his gra'ma'. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIIUW0UW8AA7q1Q.jpg [twimg.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:42AM (2 children)
When did the mainstream media ever have any credibility? The last decades descent into blatant, editorialised bullshit was simply the final nail in the coffin of the propaganda machine. How many newspapers would Randolph Hurst have to purchase now to control the opinion of the American public?
To be informed has always been to read news sources from both sides of the (false) political divide. More people than ever can now do so, although the traditional mainstream media has little to offer. I've recently taken to consuming only right-wing news sources and traditional alternate liberal and left-leaning editorialising (counterpunch, consortium, spiked etc).
I can get all the unhinged, childish, authoritarian screeching I need off social media. So it is that the mainstream liberal media has set itself on a course to extinction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @12:06PM (1 child)
Whoever dreamt up putting 4 talking heads on the screen at the same time is responsible for this mess.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Saturday March 04 2017, @01:04PM
Future entry in dictionaries: dream-crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 04 2017, @02:24PM (19 children)
Funny, only 3% more people believe Trump is truthful than actually voted for him.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:34PM (17 children)
It's important to remember that basically nobody thought Hillary Clinton was trustworthy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:00PM (16 children)
Cardinal Richelieu only needed 6 lines.
Republicans had 30+ years to work with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
to gain the evidence to hang her with :)
Coincidentally, where is that fucking jailtime for her that Trump promised us? I would like to get at least one good thing out of his presidency and at least putting Clinton to trial over the email server would be nice, even if she gets proven 'innocent' (whether because she truly is in the eyes of the law, or simply due to lack of evidence.) Doing so would help set an example for American politicians that as unlikely as it is they COULD be prosecuted for their misdeeds. Something that has been sorely lacking in recent years especially amongst the elite of the politically elite.
(Score: 2) by http on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:53PM
If he jails Clinton, he's given his successor (if he doesn't prohibit further elections) clearance to go after Pence and probably a third to half of his cabinet. That's not treating your friends right.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @04:45PM (13 children)
Cardinal Richelieu only needed 6 lines. Republicans had 30+ years to work with.
Nonsense. If you're going to frame someone, you don't need anything at all. Fabricating evidence was trivial in France of the time. Cardinal Richelieu no doubt was aware of that. He's just making a joking pretense to morality - he's so honest he needs 6 lines to frame someone.
As to Clinton's 30+ years of behavior, you're glossing over a lot of stuff such as two orders of magnitude ROI on a commodity options bet, participation in Whitewater, her role in damage control for her husband's bimbo eruptions, and pay-for-play bribery in the Clinton Foundation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:26PM (5 children)
> As to Clinton's 30+ years of behavior, you're glossing over a lot of stuff
You're exaggerating a lot of stuff a thousand-fold. Is that you, cardinal?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:35PM (4 children)
You're exaggerating a lot of stuff a thousand-fold.
By all means, show me these alleged exaggerations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:11PM (3 children)
> By all means, show me these alleged exaggerations.
Why would anyone bother?
Time and time again you've proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest.
What's in it for me? No amount of evidence will change your mind.
So what's the point? Enjoy the pleasures of your little echo-chamber of self-reinforcing idiocy. You built it to be impervious to contradictory evidence, and it works great!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:43AM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @05:36AM (1 child)
(not that AC)
You can damn well find it if you want it. It's very well known. I know you have an Internet connection. Use it.
You can start with cattle futures.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 05 2017, @07:13AM
Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday.
The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight. In about 10 months of trading, she made nearly $100,000, relying heavily on advice from her friend James B. Blair, an experienced futures trader.
The new records also raise the possibility that some of her profits -- as much as $40,000 – came from larger trades ordered by someone else and then shifted to her account, Leo Melamed, a former chairman of the Merc who reviewed the records for the White House, said in an interview. He said the discrepancies in Clinton's records also could have been caused by human error.
I wish my brokerage firm was this helpful. We see here the 1,000-fold exaggeration. She turned $1,000 into almost $100k which is greatly differently by a thousand-fold from the two orders of magnitude gain that I claimed she made. Well, maybe not, eh?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 04 2017, @07:19PM (6 children)
Still salty on Whitewater, dayummm son.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday March 04 2017, @09:36PM (5 children)
Yeah, um, you need to learn how to use that term. Hint, it does not go with stories where people died.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 04 2017, @11:51PM (4 children)
350 million people in this country, and counting. There is, on average, a death every 14 seconds. Harping on a 24 year old controversial scandal is just missing out on all the juicy things that happened since then. Get some current events, please. ~100 million US citizens have died since Whitewater.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 06 2017, @04:05AM (3 children)
You want to be the one to explain to the families of the people who died that it's now a laughing matter? Uncool, Joe. Very uncool.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 06 2017, @05:17AM (2 children)
Nobody is laughing. At national politics levels, people die - it's part of the position. Whatever Whitewater was (and, at national politics levels, I don't think you'll ever get the full true picture of what really happened), it happened 24 years ago, the Clintons emerged without charges (yes, slick Willie), and the system determined that they will not be punished. Maybe they're only guilty of losing money in a land deal they had little to do with, maybe they're in it up to their eyeballs and personally ordered people killed - my money would be on somewhere in between but very close to the former, but it's so wrapped up in legal proceedings that truth or justice as people like to think of them are gone - what we have is real world justice which says "he's cleared."
Stuff like this happens all the time, especially to figures at the national political level. Moaning about it as a political wrangling point for generations is disrespectful to the families who suffered whatever happened. The case is long since closed, everybody still breathing needs to get on with life.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 06 2017, @05:29PM (1 child)
Ahh, you have no idea how to use the term "salt(y)" then. It is for mocking. Heaping derisive scorn on someone for caring about something you give not a shit about. In your case it could only be taken as mocking someone for their concern over the deaths of fellow Americans. Thus, it either was used improperly or you are a real piece of shit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday March 06 2017, @07:12PM
Ah, see - I thought it was heaping derisive scorn on someone for harping on an issue (often confused with caring about it) that is decided, contrary to their preferred outcome, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it. You could say it was a misuse on my part, though I view Whitewater more as an overblown witch hunt around an old land deal (the unilaterally accepted facts of the case) than a bunch of nefarious unsolved murders (out there with the folks who think that Bush ordered the planes to hit the towers - IMO, but I readily admit that I _might_ be wrong about either or both).
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mth on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:21PM
That's surprisingly high. I always assumed most Trump voters knew he was making stuff up, but didn't care.
Or perhaps they do know, but have redefined "truthful" or are practicing doublethink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:05PM (1 child)
Is the 'home' link in the footer of this article supposed to point to the politics section or the main front page? Is this a bug following the latest updates?
(Score: 1) by charon on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:31PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 04 2017, @05:58PM
Just looking through this thread I see ~ 25% of the posts are false flag Trump supporters (associating drivel like "orange one" with anti-Trump sentiment). You guys should just really get rid of the politics stories, but I will stop reading them now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 05 2017, @12:18AM
On the Colbert show, John Stewart made a guest appearance and suggested that the media take some time to learn Journalism. We really need that in today's world of half truths being spun as facts, or should I say "alternate facts".
(Score: 2) by Bethany.Saint on Sunday March 05 2017, @02:34PM (1 child)
Seriously, who cares if the media is taking sides. We'll have Republican news and Democrat news. We'll have Liberal news and Conservative news. Each group will read their own news. It's just like the web. Why should the TV and paper news be any different? Why do we even need neutral news in today's America?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 06 2017, @05:46PM
Take a moment and consider the value that would be lost if I my views were the only ones being pushed out to the front page here, or gewg's, or Runaway's, or anyone else's. That's what's been lost multiplied by every single time you see partisan agenda pushing masquerading as news.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.