Wikileaks was in the tank for Trump

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

CM156:

Sonmi:
His goal is not as much "See the world burn" as it is "Taking down the oppressive Western hegemony at any cost".

I have known several people like this. They never seem to reflect on what realistically will follow. Sure, they all have an idea of what they want to happen with the fall of the West, but have no real proof it would happen that way, beyond their desire.

Absolutely.

Their cause is somewhat admirable, but they're usually short-sighted morons, as is the case with Julian here.

altnameJag:
You realize you say this about a story where the journalist is asking someone to intentionally "leak" something through them clandestinely so that they could bolster their reputation and have their actual leaks hit with more impact, right?

Yes, but the legitimate issue has now been tainted by an unnecessary twisting of the full story, which can now allow those who should be held to account for these shenanigans to dismiss the whole thing as biased reporting.
It is a fair point that wikileaks may not have been acting as an agent for a foreign power, but rather just out of self-defence and a perhaps somewhat justified sense of persecution, but this article tries to hide the latter option and points at the former as the only possible interpretation.
It's just unnecessary obfuscation of the Quest For Truth, which I still naively believe in, and most likely motivated by market logic, ie, clicks.

altnameJag:
Now combine that by not actually leaking anything substantial about Trump ever.

I'll bite. What do they have on Trump to leak? Were they not supposed to leak what they had on the DNC unless they had a certain amount of stuff on Trump to leak with it?

Kwak:

Full quote.
"because it won't be perceived as coming from a "pro-Trump" "pro-Russia" source, which the Clinton campaign is constantly slandering us with."
An appeal that may be considered dodgy, but given the context-establishing phrase which was inexplicably edited out of the communication can also be understood in a different light.

Inexplicably? You really think that trimming quotes to change the context, then going "oops!" once they've thoroughly primed everyone's views is hard to explain? Retractions and corrections never get the attention stories do.

Kwak:

It is a fair point that wikileaks may not have been acting as an agent for a foreign power, but rather just out of self-defence and a perhaps somewhat justified sense of persecution, but this article tries to hide the latter option and points at the former as the only possible interpretation.

You mean trying to sell someone on the idea that leaking info to them could act in their benefit by making the stuff leaked about his opponent look less partisan and thus more accurate?

The funniest thing about this whole topic, I think, is the people trying to invoke Russia to discount the anti-Clinton leaks as though somehow the accuracy of them is irrelevant, only whether or not Russians were involved. Which is an amateur deflection that pro-Clinton folks eat up because it's just what they want -- an excuse to discount the leaks that doesn't rely on evaluating the truth of them.

Zontar:

TheFinish:
So apparently the Atlantic purposefully ommited parts of Wikileaks' message. Specifically the part where it refers to "pro-Russia" and "pro-Trump"

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/the-atlantic-commits-malpractice-selectively-edits-to-smear-wikileaks-65ecd7c2468f

Trump Jr. also backs this up, since he's posted the messages on his twitter:

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/930228239494209536/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fmedium.com%2Fmedia%2F529984315706a6c4b803cee5c158685f%3FpostId%3D65ecd7c2468f

I love how the anti-democrats have been hating Wikileaks ever since they started making it clear that they are in fact neutral and not the politically partisan organisation they thought it was, and because their corrupt candidate and party had its dirty laundry exposed they try to blame Wikileaks for it instead of blaming the only people who deserve it.

The religious left never ceases to amaze me. Though I pity the sane liberals due to the association.

Religious left... that is pretty good. Usually called them radical left to highlight the insanity of their taking their ideology to extremes that ignored rationality or civility, but I like the idea it associates their views with zealous religious fervor and blind faith. Fits well.

As for the sane liberals, I try to take it in stride myself. Watching the party start to burn alive as hypocrites and zealots get outed or hit with criminal investigations has been rather cathartic after the party platform shift into being corporate lackeys entirely instead of being the worker's party. Sort of fitting that after being spurned for wanting the party to concentrate on equality and worker problems instead of divisive identity politics and corporate sophistry, it falls apart with corruption and being guilty of the same bullshit it accused of so many others. I hope it burns to the core so it can rebuilt without the cancer infesting it. I still feel there is value in the goals and intentions of the left-leaning party's root members who supported the old platform, it is just that currently they are screwed into supporting terrible candidates who push terrible policy and waste time and money on virtue-signally instead of worthwhile laws and legal reform.

As for wikileaks, I liked them as a concept and still do. Too much secrecy, too much abuse of power. Nice to have a group that roots it out and reveals it. They are a bit dramatic and the way they release stuff is annoying, but I do sort of get why they do it. As for the political bias thing, honestly, that is a silly point. Even if it only targeted a single party (and we know it doesn't), it would not matter as long as what they revealed was always true. Worst case scenario, you have one party that is full of corrupt assholes being cleaned out, and anyone who cares more about how that hurts the party image over the fact they were corrupt assholes in the first place, shows they care more about maintaining thee faith to the party than integrity. And I suppose they would fit that new term to the letter, don't they?

runic knight:
Religious left... that is pretty good. Usually called them radical left to highlight the insanity of their taking their ideology to extremes that ignored rationality or civility, but I like the idea it associates their views with zealous religious fervor and blind faith. Fits well.

You and Zontar think in some weird logic. Like, "religious left" means nothing to me. I heard it, and I was like "I might ask Zontar to explain that one," and then I rethought.

I mean, if you meant fanatical left, say fanatical left. Religious and fanatical aren't the same thing. Do you think all religious people are crazy and rude? Why say "religious" when that implies an actual religious belief? Especially when you could say "fanatical," which can be used in a secular manner?

runic knight:
As for wikileaks, I liked them as a concept and still do. Too much secrecy, too much abuse of power. Nice to have a group that roots it out and reveals it.

Ironically, secrecy and abuse of power are two of my main problems with Wikileaks now. Wikileaks doesn't disclose any information on its internal operation, hasn't disclosed its finances ever since it got put under a banking blockade, and was fairly blatantly abusing its position as an international whistleblower in 2016.

I'd say that it's weird for you to support Wikileaks when I've previously seen you argue very strongly against doxxing and the publication of private information, but I think I have the gist of your way of thinking, and somehow I don't think an allegation of hypocrisy is going to affect you too much.

runic knight:
As for the political bias thing, honestly, that is a silly point. Even if it only targeted a single party (and we know it doesn't), it would not matter as long as what they revealed was always true.

No, it does matter. I'm tired of hearing this particular argument; that it "doesn't matter" that Wikileaks made the decision to only leak information damaging to Clinton and not leak any information - any information at all - damaging to Trump. It does matter, because that decision is a partisan decision. It displays partisan reasoning. And you cannot have an international transparency organisation that releases information selectively on the basis of partisan reasoning. That's no longer an organisation working for fairness and honesty in politics. That's an opposition research firm.

You want to know why selective enforcement is a problem? Imagine a cop deciding to arrest a rapist because he's a Republican and then deciding to not arrest another rapist because he's a Democrat. That's what Wikileaks did; they picked a side.

Schadrach:
I'll bite. What do they have on Trump to leak? Were they not supposed to leak what they had on the DNC unless they had a certain amount of stuff on Trump to leak with it?

Do you really think that the guys who routinely leak classified military information couldn't get their hands on Donald Trump's tax returns? Or the Access Hollywood tape?

Schadrach:
The funniest thing about this whole topic, I think, is the people trying to invoke Russia to discount the anti-Clinton leaks as though somehow the accuracy of them is irrelevant, only whether or not Russians were involved. Which is an amateur deflection that pro-Clinton folks eat up because it's just what they want -- an excuse to discount the leaks that doesn't rely on evaluating the truth of them.

This is the thing, though: there is nothing in the DNC or Podesta email leaks that would disqualify someone from being the president. There is no evidence of any crimes, whatsoever. I know this because I read the emails, which very few people seem to do, and I found a whole lot of jack shit. There isn't even anything too scandalous in there; some DNC staffers talking shit about Bernie Sanders.

What there was was a whole bunch of back-room political shop talk. The stuff that's only surprising to anyone who's never seen a sausage being made. The Republicans keep saying "lock her up" and I'm like, for what?

bastardofmelbourne:

You and Zontar think in some weird logic. Like, "religious left" means nothing to me. I heard it, and I was like "I might ask Zontar to explain that one," and then I rethought.

I mean, if you meant fanatical left, say fanatical left.

Quite. Calling certain elements of the left [1] "religious" when many or most of them are conspicuously atheist and/or do not derive their political beliefs from religion is absurd.

[1] whichever leftists are even referred to - Zontar as far as I can see can't tell one type of leftist from another

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
Religious left... that is pretty good. Usually called them radical left to highlight the insanity of their taking their ideology to extremes that ignored rationality or civility, but I like the idea it associates their views with zealous religious fervor and blind faith. Fits well.

You and Zontar think in some weird logic. Like, "religious left" means nothing to me. I heard it, and I was like "I might ask Zontar to explain that one," and then I rethought.

I mean, if you meant fanatical left, say fanatical left. Religious and fanatical aren't the same thing. Do you think all religious people are crazy and rude? Why say "religious" when that implies an actual religious belief? Especially when you could say "fanatical," which can be used in a secular manner?

runic knight:
As for wikileaks, I liked them as a concept and still do. Too much secrecy, too much abuse of power. Nice to have a group that roots it out and reveals it.

Ironically, secrecy and abuse of power are two of my main problems with Wikileaks now. Wikileaks doesn't disclose any information on its internal operation, hasn't disclosed its finances ever since it got put under a banking blockade, and was fairly blatantly abusing its position as an international whistleblower in 2016.

I'd say that it's weird for you to support Wikileaks when I've previously seen you argue very strongly against doxxing and the publication of private information, but I think I have the gist of your way of thinking, and somehow I don't think an allegation of hypocrisy is going to affect you too much.

runic knight:
As for the political bias thing, honestly, that is a silly point. Even if it only targeted a single party (and we know it doesn't), it would not matter as long as what they revealed was always true.

No, it does matter. I'm tired of hearing this particular argument; that it "doesn't matter" that Wikileaks made the decision to only leak information damaging to Clinton and not leak any information - any information at all - damaging to Trump. It does matter, because that decision is a partisan decision. It displays partisan reasoning. And you cannot have an international transparency organisation that releases information selectively on the basis of partisan reasoning. That's no longer an organisation working for fairness and honesty in politics. That's an opposition research firm.

You want to know why selective enforcement is a problem? Imagine a cop deciding to arrest a rapist because he's a Republican and then deciding to not arrest another rapist because he's a Democrat. That's what Wikileaks did; they picked a side.

i think religious left is supposed to invoke images of deeply religions people who believe something because they believe it and therefore its impossible to argue with them since like a creationist they would refuse to accept facts or proof.
or it might be a referring to the belief of the average /pol user that the "left" for some reason loves islam.
but if i channel my inner Zontar the religious left might be people who believe everyone should convert to leftism or die possibly in use because of IS use of islam.

bastardofmelbourne:
The Republicans keep saying "lock her up" and I'm like, for what?

For being a high ranking Democratic Party member who opposed Donald Trump, obviously. What more reason do they need?

I don't think those Trump supporters have noticed that aggressively attempting to prosecute opposition politicians over approximately nothing is a tactic of illiberal, authoritarian regimes. That or they are illiberal authoritarians, in which case it's not a moral and democratic problem for them to worry about.

lionsprey:
i think religious left is supposed to invoke images of deeply religions people who believe something because they believe it and therefore its impossible to argue with them since like a creationist they would refuse to accept facts or proof.
or it might be a referring to the belief of the average /pol user that the "left" for some reason loves islam.
but if i channel my inner Zontar the religious left might be people who believe everyone should convert to leftism or die possibly in use because of IS use of islam.

I believe most of us understand the idea behind the term religious left. Reading this now amused me however, since the new leader of the Swedish conservative party was on the radio when I got my hair done this morning. He got a question about the fact that the conservative party has been rather vague on if they could form a government with the racist Sweden Democrats. His answer? "If people are misinterpreting what you are saying, you first need to take a step back and consider what you are saying, because you are not being clear enough."

That's the irony with Zontar and Runic being so excited about another derogatory slur for people that disagree with them. Because in their world it is because those people are too stupid or uninformed to see that they are wrong, not that Zontar, Runic and their compatriots are terrible at making their points or simply espouse views that others don't agree with. Now, I can't be too harsh, because apparently a guy like that is the PotUS, but I can't help but feel that a certain degree of introspection and self-awareness are very useful tools to have.

bastardofmelbourne:

runic knight:
Religious left... that is pretty good. Usually called them radical left to highlight the insanity of their taking their ideology to extremes that ignored rationality or civility, but I like the idea it associates their views with zealous religious fervor and blind faith. Fits well.

You and Zontar think in some weird logic. Like, "religious left" means nothing to me. I heard it, and I was like "I might ask Zontar to explain that one," and then I rethought..

I mean the right are the side that bring us phrases like "journalistic malpractice". They keep coming up with worse names for things we already have names for to make themselves feel like big clever boys. It's funny how a group that prides themselves on independent thinking have some of the most uniform and silly language. Same way when Trump won democracy was just " tyranny of the majority" yet when anyone argues against brexit suddenly democracy is the highest ideal one can hold on to. It's funny, you see these phrases paraded out by the right all at the same time. A phrase I may have seen once or twice suddenly becomes common right wing parlance because it's the word of the day for conservative echo chambers.

Assange has always been a shithead. This is simply more evidence of it. Wikileaks has had a habit of releasing information that could have led to deaths without any discretion. He was NEVER too keen on publishing against Russia and now I see why, he was always in their pocket in the first place.

May he continue to rot in his self imposed hell.

bastardofmelbourne:

No, it does matter. I'm tired of hearing this particular argument; that it "doesn't matter" that Wikileaks made the decision to only leak information damaging to Clinton and not leak any information - any information at all - damaging to Trump. It does matter, because that decision is a partisan decision. It displays partisan reasoning. And you cannot have an international transparency organisation that releases information selectively on the basis of partisan reasoning. That's no longer an organisation working for fairness and honesty in politics. That's an opposition research firm.

You want to know why selective enforcement is a problem? Imagine a cop deciding to arrest a rapist because he's a Republican and then deciding to not arrest another rapist because he's a Democrat. That's what Wikileaks did; they picked a side.

To be fair, if it was a situation where both the democratic and republican camps were equally treated by the media then the observed bias (real or not) would have mattered, but the situation is so massively skewed towards one side that there are just more things to uncover from the Dem side than Trump's side (that are not actively seeked by most of the media).

I think a more apt comparison is the cops only arresting rapists because they are republicans and when a vigilante comes and beats up democratic rapists the police complains how biased the vigilante is... with their hands red from blood.

Apple, tree, chip, block, you know the drill.

inu-kun:

bastardofmelbourne:

No, it does matter. I'm tired of hearing this particular argument; that it "doesn't matter" that Wikileaks made the decision to only leak information damaging to Clinton and not leak any information - any information at all - damaging to Trump. It does matter, because that decision is a partisan decision. It displays partisan reasoning. And you cannot have an international transparency organisation that releases information selectively on the basis of partisan reasoning. That's no longer an organisation working for fairness and honesty in politics. That's an opposition research firm.

You want to know why selective enforcement is a problem? Imagine a cop deciding to arrest a rapist because he's a Republican and then deciding to not arrest another rapist because he's a Democrat. That's what Wikileaks did; they picked a side.

To be fair, if it was a situation where both the democratic and republican camps were equally treated by the media then the observed bias (real or not) would have mattered, but the situation is so massively skewed towards one side that there are just more things to uncover from the Dem side than Trump's side (that are not actively seeked by most of the media).

I think a more apt comparison is the cops only arresting rapists because they are republicans and when a vigilante comes and beats up democratic rapists the police complains how biased the vigilante is... with their hands red from blood.

Thats just not true. Nothing you said in this post is true at all.

Saelune:

inu-kun:

bastardofmelbourne:

No, it does matter. I'm tired of hearing this particular argument; that it "doesn't matter" that Wikileaks made the decision to only leak information damaging to Clinton and not leak any information - any information at all - damaging to Trump. It does matter, because that decision is a partisan decision. It displays partisan reasoning. And you cannot have an international transparency organisation that releases information selectively on the basis of partisan reasoning. That's no longer an organisation working for fairness and honesty in politics. That's an opposition research firm.

You want to know why selective enforcement is a problem? Imagine a cop deciding to arrest a rapist because he's a Republican and then deciding to not arrest another rapist because he's a Democrat. That's what Wikileaks did; they picked a side.

To be fair, if it was a situation where both the democratic and republican camps were equally treated by the media then the observed bias (real or not) would have mattered, but the situation is so massively skewed towards one side that there are just more things to uncover from the Dem side than Trump's side (that are not actively seeked by most of the media).

I think a more apt comparison is the cops only arresting rapists because they are republicans and when a vigilante comes and beats up democratic rapists the police complains how biased the vigilante is... with their hands red from blood.

Thats just not true. Nothing you said in this post is true at all.

Name me a right wing biased media organization you feel safe to get your information from that is not Fox (to put into context how bad the situation is).

inu-kun:

Saelune:

inu-kun:

To be fair, if it was a situation where both the democratic and republican camps were equally treated by the media then the observed bias (real or not) would have mattered, but the situation is so massively skewed towards one side that there are just more things to uncover from the Dem side than Trump's side (that are not actively seeked by most of the media).

I think a more apt comparison is the cops only arresting rapists because they are republicans and when a vigilante comes and beats up democratic rapists the police complains how biased the vigilante is... with their hands red from blood.

Thats just not true. Nothing you said in this post is true at all.

Name me a right wing biased media organization you feel safe to get your information from that is not Fox (to put into context how bad the situation is).

Name me a place in Nazi Germany that was safe for a Jew to get some coffee.

I dont get your point on this one. Right-wing organizations lie through their teeth all the time. I dont feel 'safe' getting information from any of them because the right actively opposes me as a human.

Why isn't participating in this considered treason?

Leaked email, Bill Ivey to John Podesta:
And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

This is an admission of... well, of being an enemy of the people of the United States. Is the distinction really just that "the people" of the United States aren't actually the United States? You want a conspiracy? There's the conspiracy, and it's been in place for decades.

inu-kun:

Name me a right wing biased media organization you feel safe to get your information from that is not Fox (to put into context how bad the situation is).

Implying that Fox is a organization I feel safe getting my information from, as opposed to the dumpster fire it is.

And there are plenty of right wing news sources out there. And nearly all of them suck. Because they're pure and utter poison. That's not really anyone's fault expect the fault of the people who make them.

Saelune:
Name me a place in Nazi Germany that was safe for a Jew to get some coffee.

I dont get your point on this one. Right-wing organizations lie through their teeth all the time. I dont feel 'safe' getting information from any of them because the right actively opposes me as a human.

Dude really, conservatives are literally nazis now?

As for my point, I recall an expression, something like "Watchdogs of Democracy" that journalism prides itself as. A lot of the rotten dealings and unlawful behaviour are FAR more likely to be exposed by journalists digging in rather than the overworked police getting a whiff of the information or the FBI digging in the private lives of the people's chosen. And when you have that whole group of journalists (which are only considered "legitimate" leftwards of the center) as having the means to carry those investigations it's obvious you'd get a massive imbalance in reportings between political wings.

And that's before the modern day politics where going against the left will make you branded as a heretic trump supporter.

Seanchaidh:
Why isn't participating in this considered treason?

Leaked email, Bill Ivey to John Podesta:
And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

This is an admission of... well, of being an enemy of the people of the United States. Is the distinction really just that "the people" of the United States aren't actually the United States? You want a conspiracy? There's the conspiracy, and it's been in place for decades.

Except it's very clearly not when you take the entirety of the email into the equation. Context is important...

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process.

Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious.

How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not. And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.

(The paragraph breaks are mine because the wikileaks formatting didn't transfer well)

--------------------------------------------------------

inu-kun:
Snippy

Perhaps you should take your issue up with the conservative rags themselves? If they changed their mission from reporting a conservative viewpoint slightly influenced by the news to reporting the news slightly influenced by a conservative viewpoint, they'd go a long way. As long as their primary goal is to influence their readers and feed pre-conceived biases, they belong in the tabloid section.

Conservatives love to cry about the "lying liberal media," but it's that "lying liberal media" that have editorial standards and issue retractions while reprimanding/punishing/firing reporters who fuck up while their beloved conservative blogs never follow suit.

"Right-wing" news sources were founded with the primary focus of their identities as being right-wing. The "left-wing" news sources were (if we're talking about the major networks and sources) founded with the primary focus of their identities as reporting news.

Avnger:

inu-kun:
Snippy

Perhaps you should take your issue up with the conservative rags themselves? If they changed their mission from reporting a conservative viewpoint slightly influenced by the news to reporting the news slightly influenced by a conservative viewpoint, they'd go a long way. As long as their primary goal is to influence their readers and feed pre-conceived biases, they belong in the tabloid section.

Conservatives love to cry about the "lying liberal media," but it's that "lying liberal media" that have editorial standards and issue retractions while reprimanding/punishing/firing reporters who fuck up while their beloved conservative blogs never follow suit.

"Right-wing" news sources were founded with the primary focus of their identities as being right-wing. The "left-wing" news sources were (if we're talking about the major networks and sources) founded with the primary focus of their identities as reporting news.

I'm kinda doubtful that in a country with 300M people a political wing that represents around half the populace doesn't have any reasonable representation in written journalism without anyone "constributing" for that fact. Either that or conservative people genetically can't be good journos.

inu-kun:

Saelune:
Name me a place in Nazi Germany that was safe for a Jew to get some coffee.

I dont get your point on this one. Right-wing organizations lie through their teeth all the time. I dont feel 'safe' getting information from any of them because the right actively opposes me as a human.

Dude really, conservatives are literally nazis now?

As for my point, I recall an expression, something like "Watchdogs of Democracy" that journalism prides itself as. A lot of the rotten dealings and unlawful behaviour are FAR more likely to be exposed by journalists digging in rather than the overworked police getting a whiff of the information or the FBI digging in the private lives of the people's chosen. And when you have that whole group of journalists (which are only considered "legitimate" leftwards of the center) as having the means to carry those investigations it's obvious you'd get a massive imbalance in reportings between political wings.

And that's before the modern day politics where going against the left will make you branded as a heretic trump supporter.

"Heretic Trump supporter'? I dont think you know what heretic means, since uh, TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!. You cant exactly be a heretic against the powers in charge.

All Nazis in America are conservatives, yes. Maybe some conservatives arent Nazis, but so few of them seem to want to actually make that distinction.

But my point was that everything you said in that initial post was outright untrue. You keep trying to paint it as if Trump isnt in charge of the government, that the right arent in charge of the government. They are and he is. Right-wingers arent some oppressed minority woefully abused by left-wing overlords. The right ARE the overlords too busy sexually assaulting women, shooting blacks, banning Muslims, refusing service to gays and denying trans people In the service.

Stop defending people who support and are supported by Nazis, yes, literal Nazis. They want to kill you for being Jewish. Stop defending that, if not for anyone else's sake, then for your own.

inu-kun:

Avnger:

inu-kun:
Snippy

Perhaps you should take your issue up with the conservative rags themselves? If they changed their mission from reporting a conservative viewpoint slightly influenced by the news to reporting the news slightly influenced by a conservative viewpoint, they'd go a long way. As long as their primary goal is to influence their readers and feed pre-conceived biases, they belong in the tabloid section.

Conservatives love to cry about the "lying liberal media," but it's that "lying liberal media" that have editorial standards and issue retractions while reprimanding/punishing/firing reporters who fuck up while their beloved conservative blogs never follow suit.

"Right-wing" news sources were founded with the primary focus of their identities as being right-wing. The "left-wing" news sources were (if we're talking about the major networks and sources) founded with the primary focus of their identities as reporting news.

I'm kinda doubtful that in a country with 300M people a political wing that represents around half the populace doesn't have any reasonable representation in written journalism without anyone "constributing" for that fact. Either that or conservative people genetically can't be good journos.

Being a bigot is hopefully not a genetic thing. But being a bigot does deny one from being a good journalist.

Seanchaidh:
Why isn't participating in this considered treason?

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason under US law.

Sausage making, man. It's ugly. It's not illegal.

Saelune:
Being a bigot is hopefully not a genetic thing. But being a bigot does deny one from being a good journalist.

I never thought I'd see you flat out state that there are pretty much no left wing journalists who are also good journalists.

Zontar:

Saelune:
Being a bigot is hopefully not a genetic thing. But being a bigot does deny one from being a good journalist.

I never thought I'd see you flat out state that there are pretty much no left wing journalists who are also good journalists.

Try harder.

Zontar:

Saelune:
Being a bigot is hopefully not a genetic thing. But being a bigot does deny one from being a good journalist.

I never thought I'd see you flat out state that there are pretty much no left wing journalists who are also good journalists.

Bigoted against whom exactly?

bastardofmelbourne:

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason under US law.

I think this is a fact often overlooked. Treason has a very specific definition under US law and a lot of what I see rhetorically referred to as treason actually isn't.

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Why isn't participating in this considered treason?

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason under US law.

Sausage making, man. It's ugly. It's not illegal.

They're talking like Bond villains. That's some hilarious incompetency and NOT what I would expect for "standard politics". I just think you have a really warped view of how politics is supposed to work.

crimson5pheonix:

bastardofmelbourne:

Seanchaidh:
Why isn't participating in this considered treason?

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason under US law.

Sausage making, man. It's ugly. It's not illegal.

They're talking like Bond villains. That's some hilarious incompetency and NOT what I would expect for "standard politics". I just think you have a really warped view of how politics is supposed to work.

Except they really aren't. They certainly sound like it when removed from context, but in context what originally sounded like some cabalistic confession, in actuality is sardonic commentary. I mean hell, who do you think Bill Ivey even is? A senator? Speech writer? Part of someone's inner circle? Ivey is a folklorist and former head of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Contextually, "we" in his text wasn't "me and my confederates", it was a general "we" without particular target. The email as a whole was commentary about how while ignorance has been a recurring theme among voters, Trump was exploiting the fact that being entertaining and dominating airtime was actually more effective than trying to convince people that you would actually be a good choice for the role.

This is the source of the wry comment about "[conflating] entertainment and the electoral process", how "TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard", that "free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman", how JFK Jr's George magazine "saw celebrity politics coming". And it's why he says that "Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold", and that he was doubtful that policy would return to the forefront after the conventions.

There is a very clear theme throughout the email, and it's not the "dear diary, today I embezzled a million dollars" confession that it's being spun as.

Full text:

Dear John:

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process.

Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious.

How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not.

And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging. Rubio's press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles.

I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just get to wave without a "hello." I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

Sent with a handshake,
Bill

Asita:

crimson5pheonix:

bastardofmelbourne:

Because it doesn't meet the definition of treason under US law.

Sausage making, man. It's ugly. It's not illegal.

They're talking like Bond villains. That's some hilarious incompetency and NOT what I would expect for "standard politics". I just think you have a really warped view of how politics is supposed to work.

Except they really aren't. They certainly sound like it when removed from context, but in context what originally sounded like some cabalistic confession, in actuality is sardonic commentary. I mean hell, who do you think Bill Ivey even is? A senator? Speech writer? Part of someone's inner circle? Ivey is a folklorist and former head of the National Endowment for the Arts.

Contextually, "we" in his text wasn't "me and my confederates", it was a general "we" without particular target. The email as a whole was commentary about how while ignorance has been a recurring theme among voters, Trump was exploiting the fact that being entertaining and dominating airtime was actually more effective than trying to convince people that you would actually be a good choice for the role.

This is the source of the wry comment about "[conflating] entertainment and the electoral process", how "TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard", that "free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman", how JFK Jr's George magazine "saw celebrity politics coming". And it's why he says that "Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold", and that he was doubtful that policy would return to the forefront after the conventions.

There is a very clear theme throughout the email, and it's not the "dear diary, today I embezzled a million dollars" confession that it's being spun as.

Full text:

Dear John:

Well, we all thought the big problem for our US democracy was Citizens United/Koch Brothers big money in politics. Silly us; turns out that money isn't all that important if you can conflate entertainment with the electoral process.

Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running. JFK, Jr would be delighted by all this as his "George" magazine saw celebrity politics coming. The magazine struggled as it was ahead of its time but now looks prescient. George, of course, played the development pretty lightly, basically for charm and gossip, like People, but what we are dealing with now is dead serious.

How does this get handled in the general? Secretary Clinton is not an entertainer, and not a celebrity in the Trump, Kardashian mold; what can she do to offset this? I'm certain the poll-directed insiders are sure things will default to policy as soon as the conventions are over, but I think not.

And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging. Rubio's press conference yesterday AM was good and should be repeated in its entirety, not just in nibbles.

I will attend the Clinton fundraiser here next week but as I can only afford the low level of participation may just get to wave without a "hello." I fear we are all now trying to navigate a set of forces that cannot be simply explained or fully understood, so it is and will reamin interesting!

Sent with a handshake,
Bill

Then why say the compliance problem needs to be addressed, as if it was on their group to enforce compliance?

inu-kun:

Name me a right wing biased media organization you feel safe to get your information from that is not Fox (to put into context how bad the situation is).

As long as it isn't about one of their pet issues, the Christian Science Monitor has some good reporting.

Just has a few huge ideological blind spots.

Likewise, Shepherd Smith. A.k.a.: The only journalist working at Fox News who bothers to give a damn.

And there's the problem: those are the only two right wing sources I can think of that won't go out of their way to actively and knowingly lie to me. And in the CSM's case, that comes with a huge *.

Meanwhile, the FCC is voting to eliminate media ownership rules, allowing one company to own the only local news stations in any given area. Which means the conservative-leaning Sinclair group would, after a merger they're alr3ady gunning for, would have 72% total coverage over the United States.

See, they aren't the big shiny examples, but like Murdoch's empire, conservative media is huge, ever present business.

Saelune:
"Heretic Trump supporter'? I dont think you know what heretic means, since uh, TRUMP IS PRESIDENT!. You cant exactly be a heretic against the powers in charge.

All Nazis in America are conservatives, yes. Maybe some conservatives arent Nazis, but so few of them seem to want to actually make that distinction.

But my point was that everything you said in that initial post was outright untrue. You keep trying to paint it as if Trump isnt in charge of the government, that the right arent in charge of the government. They are and he is. Right-wingers arent some oppressed minority woefully abused by left-wing overlords. The right ARE the overlords too busy sexually assaulting women, shooting blacks, banning Muslims, refusing service to gays and denying trans people In the service.

Stop defending people who support and are supported by Nazis, yes, literal Nazis. They want to kill you for being Jewish. Stop defending that, if not for anyone else's sake, then for your own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy, considering the hate here for Trump supporters then yes, being a Trump supporter is is strongly at variance with established beliefs or customs of the left.

But not all jew haters and LGBT haters are conservative, take for example: "male feminists".

...is it even worth talking with you about the subject? Reading the next 2 paragraphs you don't even consider conservatives human anymore.

altnameJag:

inu-kun:

Name me a right wing biased media organization you feel safe to get your information from that is not Fox (to put into context how bad the situation is).

As long as it isn't about one of their pet issues, the Christian Science Monitor has some good reporting.

Just has a few huge ideological blind spots.

Likewise, Shepherd Smith. A.k.a.: The only journalist working at Fox News who bothers to give a damn.

And there's the problem: those are the only two right wing sources I can think of that won't go out of their way to actively and knowingly lie to me. And in the CSM's case, that comes with a huge *.

Meanwhile, the FCC is voting to eliminate media ownership rules, allowing one company to own the only local news stations in any given area. Which means the conservative-leaning Sinclair group would, after a merger they're alr3ady gunning for, would have 72% total coverage over the United States.

See, they aren't the big shiny examples, but like Murdoch's empire, conservative media is huge, ever present business.

Actaully I found even a better way to illustrate my problem:
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053

The question is how many people actively working to root out corruption in the other party lines (very little). With the added question how it got to that point.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here