From yesterday: Tychicus, Hillary’s mistakes were those of an extremely corrupt and inept politician. Trump’s mistakes were those of a bombastic imbecile and deranged sexual predator. Given the choice, what is the press going to cover? Which one got more coverage than 16 opponents combined in the primaries with his idiotic antics? Politics is often boring and not appealing to viewers. However, an outrageous ignoramus who is also insane and a sexual predator will draw an audience.
Re: My 6:32 on yesterday’s Daily Thread.
I had not heard that before. It was mentioned in a Clancy Novel and I Googled it. This is what I found. It is serious business. Devastating. It means we don’t have a reliable navy.
What I can’t understand is why we haven’t heard this before. It’s out there. Just that no one has reported it.
The attack on the USS Donald Cook tells us that it is useless.
I have read in other places that most of our daily life is connected to the internet. Like the power grid. We are at the mercy of the bad guys.
Nothing is being done. They know that disaster is coming, just “Not on my watch”.
Tychicus, Yes. Trump brings a level of public ignorance, crudity and debauchery that we have never seen before. When he throws this behavior in our face, it is the job of the press to report it.
Trump gets more negative press coverage because those stories take 30 seconds to digest. The guy says, “I grope women,” and there’s not much to analyze. The myriad Clinton corruptions–speaking strictly politically and pragmatically–are of far greater consequence, but *take a few minutes* time to process. One must *READ* and *STUDY* for a few minutes to begin to grasp just how far reaching her corruption is. But that doesn’t sell papers.
rw: I’m referring, of course, to the extreme imbalance of the coverage. Do you really think that the salacious stuff (and a lot of it unproven) is somehow more worthy of coverage than Hillary’s (proven) crimes?
It may be the job of the press to report Trump’s bombast, and it may not even be “the press’s” fault for over-reporting Trump’s faults compared to Hillary’s, but as many of us may have seen from the Drudge link the other day (can’t recall the site), much of the press is unabashedly in Hillary’s camp, and is not called out on it. That’s a failure to do your job. Journalism has been a slimy profession for a few decades. Journalists are slimy, by and large.
Trump turns everything he touches into The Jerry Springer Show: his marriages, his businesses, the Republican primaries and the General election.
You can argue that his insane antics have cased the press to underreport Hillary’s faults. Other issues have been underreported. The most obvious one is Trump’s monumental ignorance which is separate and apart from his insanity and terrible behavior. He knows nothing about Obamacare, the Constitution, the nuclear triad, Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, the actual powers of the President, that judges don’t “write bills”, etc.
He is by far the most ignorant man ever to run for President. All he knows is that beauty queens must be thin and women must be attractive before he will sexually assault them.
Sure, there is more (or less?) to Trump than just his philandering, but it still remains that negative press about him far outweighs that on Hillary, despite the newsworthyness of Hillary’s profound corruption. How much of that has to do with numbers of journalists essentially being ‘inside’ her camp, I don’t know, but the media is failing. I suppose part of the argument could be that Hillary supporters simply are not moved by and/or interested in her background, so the media realizes they don’t have much of an audience there.
“In 2012 the Obama Administration granted temporary legal status to close to 750,000 illegal immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.Now they are going door-to-door campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.”
“The Washington Post followed the campaign activities in Norther Virginia, a crucial purple region that could very well determine the outcome in Virginia and, possibly the national electoral college results:”
———————-
“The Post story features anecdotes of the CASA activists working in tandem with the SEIU, the government employees union and long-time Democratic Party community organizing arm. CASA and the SEIU are using their resources to knock on doors in Virginia and Pennsylvania and plan to expand their operations into Arizona and other battleground states.
They are also focusing well beyond the presidential campaign. The illegal immigrant activists featured in the Post article were also working on behalf of Democrat LuAnn Bennett, who is locked in a tight race against incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock.”
“As Democrats scream at the top of their lungs about Russia trying to interfere with the American election it’s ironic to see them actively working with non-citizens to alter the results of that very same election.”
Trump has some good men around him. He may/may not listen to them.
Hillary has all evil people around her. She listens to them.
I have known Hillary for 25 years. Everything I know about her is bad.
That’s a good point, Chas. I’m not voting for Trump, but ignorance can be surmounted in various ways, including by good advisers. Hillary cannot NOT be corrupt (without some divine intervention).
Journalism isn’t a monolith and I know far more dedicated, hard-working and honest reporters than not.
But that said, a fairly strong majority of journalists are personally (socially and politically) liberal. There have been countless studies backing that up and I can attest to it based on any newsroom I’ve ever been in (though there are, also, always some conservatives sprinkled in).
Simply by the nature of their common liberal world view, reporters (many times unintentionally, it’s not a “conspiracy” or plot) slant left. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this discussion with liberal colleagues who seem really not to “see” it, they insist there’s no natural leftward bias. I’m left feeling exasperated with the inability to see and acknowledge something that’s so obvious, but there you have it.
It’s not intentional or created that way by design & there’s no easy fix to it. It’s just not going to really change any time soon and there’s no way TO change it. — other than with more media diversity (and media diversity has grown in recent years by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to the Internet).
Fox isn’t perfect and I personally can’t bear to watch or listen to a number of its commentators, as you all know. It needs an overhaul, in my opinion, and I’d love to see a stronger emphasis on hard news as opposed to predictable, knee-jerk, overly partisan commentary. More light, less heat, please.
But it’s interesting to me that the station’s mere existence seems to drive many of my colleagues absolutely crazy.
Oh yeah the automatic anti-Fox reaction is to the point of being hilarious, DJ. It’s the same thoughtless response that dismisses any negative report about Hillary. But as for Journalism, “by and large,” or at least significantly, the profession is populated with hacks (you refer to a “common liberal worldview”–that’s the phenomenon I’m referring to). There may not be an entirely deliberate “conspiracy”–and I suppose if it’s not deliberate, it actually isn’t one–but when there is a great number of prominent journalists who advise and collude with a political candidate yet not get called out on it, it’s about as close to a conspiracy as you can get. Or call it crass incompetence. Or sliminess. http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/
There is comedy in the Trump/press relationship. For as long as I can remember most of the press has been describing conservative Republicans as ignorant lunatics for the reasons DJ described above. The press has been like The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Now the Republicans have nominated the most ignorant of lunatics and half the people won’t believe press accounts even when the press is simply quoting the imbecile’s own words.
I fear the “good men” around Trump have sold their souls. After it became obvious that he was a sexual predator, Carson, Huckabee and the rest should have cut ties with Trump, particularly when one of his main defenses is that his victims were too unattractive for him to sexually assault.
Do you ever take a minute to ponder who you might offend by carelessly throwing around the term sexual assault? Like maybe actual victims of sexual assault?
Verbally hitting on someone, or making a crude comment is not sexual assault. Same goes for groping. It may be indecent assault, and still illegal, but it’s not the same thing. You know this. So maybe for the sake of others you should tone down the slanderous hyperbole a bit. Or not, if you think I’m being overly sensitive. Just something for you to consider.
When I first got interested in Christian history I read four books. One from a liberal Catholic perspective, one from a conservative Catholic perspective, one from a secular perspective and one from a conservative protestant perspective. I realized that it wasn’t what they put in and showed their bias, it was what they left out. The news is sometimes the same way.
Agreed Kim. It’s always interesting to see which stories “lead” on CNN vs. Fox vs. other sites. That’s a lot of it, which stories are covered (and given major play) and which aren’t. I give Fox credit for covering many stories that otherwise don’t get covered much.
Solar, my apologies, I misread part of your comment — I’m sorry for snapping, it was uncalled for and, well, impolite. 🙂 oops.
I do think this year that the national media has gone overboard on the anti-Trump train (many truly believe it’s warranted as they see him as genuinely dangerous.
And journalists colluding with politicians and even, in some cases, donating money to them is shocking to me. We have a strict ethics policy where I work that forbids us from even putting a bumper sticker on our cars or signing a petition, let alone in any way officially supporting or volunteering for a candidate.
This definition is not as colorful as Trump’s words but may be useful. It is from the Dept. of Justice.
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.Apr 1, 2016
All good, DJ. No apology necessary. And I would wager that most or all of the outlets whose journalists are in cahoots with politicians have neutrality clauses in their contracts or guidelines or whatever, similar to the ones you mention. But that’s the thing! Rules and laws mean nothing to these folks, let alone ethics.
Isn’t it annoying when an article goes on and on making a point, and then the last paragraph practically invalidates the whole thing?
I don’t really trust the polling data. So, I was reading an article in support of the polling data. In this CNBC piece, an economist for Goldman Sachs doesn’t think we’re going to have a “Brexit” moment or a November surprise that ends with a President Trump. They give all of the polling analysis in favor of Hillary. They explain how the polling in the UK was different than for our election so we shouldn’t expect a Trump victory.
And then it ends with this almost disclaimer:
Wall Street is heavily invested in a Clinton victory.
Securities and investment firms have poured nearly $65 million into her campaign coffers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Goldman Sachs employees have donated $284,816 to Clinton and just $3,641 to Trump, who has received $716,407 from Wall Street.
Wandering Views 
From yesterday: Tychicus, Hillary’s mistakes were those of an extremely corrupt and inept politician. Trump’s mistakes were those of a bombastic imbecile and deranged sexual predator. Given the choice, what is the press going to cover? Which one got more coverage than 16 opponents combined in the primaries with his idiotic antics? Politics is often boring and not appealing to viewers. However, an outrageous ignoramus who is also insane and a sexual predator will draw an audience.
LikeLike
rw: Is that a responsible press? You simply outline yet another reason why the country is going in the tank…
LikeLike
Re: My 6:32 on yesterday’s Daily Thread.
I had not heard that before. It was mentioned in a Clancy Novel and I Googled it. This is what I found. It is serious business. Devastating. It means we don’t have a reliable navy.
What I can’t understand is why we haven’t heard this before. It’s out there. Just that no one has reported it.
The attack on the USS Donald Cook tells us that it is useless.
I have read in other places that most of our daily life is connected to the internet. Like the power grid. We are at the mercy of the bad guys.
Nothing is being done. They know that disaster is coming, just “Not on my watch”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tychicus, Yes. Trump brings a level of public ignorance, crudity and debauchery that we have never seen before. When he throws this behavior in our face, it is the job of the press to report it.
LikeLike
Trump gets more negative press coverage because those stories take 30 seconds to digest. The guy says, “I grope women,” and there’s not much to analyze. The myriad Clinton corruptions–speaking strictly politically and pragmatically–are of far greater consequence, but *take a few minutes* time to process. One must *READ* and *STUDY* for a few minutes to begin to grasp just how far reaching her corruption is. But that doesn’t sell papers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
rw: I’m referring, of course, to the extreme imbalance of the coverage. Do you really think that the salacious stuff (and a lot of it unproven) is somehow more worthy of coverage than Hillary’s (proven) crimes?
LikeLiked by 3 people
It may be the job of the press to report Trump’s bombast, and it may not even be “the press’s” fault for over-reporting Trump’s faults compared to Hillary’s, but as many of us may have seen from the Drudge link the other day (can’t recall the site), much of the press is unabashedly in Hillary’s camp, and is not called out on it. That’s a failure to do your job. Journalism has been a slimy profession for a few decades. Journalists are slimy, by and large.
LikeLike
Trump turns everything he touches into The Jerry Springer Show: his marriages, his businesses, the Republican primaries and the General election.
You can argue that his insane antics have cased the press to underreport Hillary’s faults. Other issues have been underreported. The most obvious one is Trump’s monumental ignorance which is separate and apart from his insanity and terrible behavior. He knows nothing about Obamacare, the Constitution, the nuclear triad, Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, the actual powers of the President, that judges don’t “write bills”, etc.
He is by far the most ignorant man ever to run for President. All he knows is that beauty queens must be thin and women must be attractive before he will sexually assault them.
LikeLike
Sure, there is more (or less?) to Trump than just his philandering, but it still remains that negative press about him far outweighs that on Hillary, despite the newsworthyness of Hillary’s profound corruption. How much of that has to do with numbers of journalists essentially being ‘inside’ her camp, I don’t know, but the media is failing. I suppose part of the argument could be that Hillary supporters simply are not moved by and/or interested in her background, so the media realizes they don’t have much of an audience there.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Remember the good old days when laws mattered? Good Times….
Now we have lawbreaking illegals working for a political campaign. What’s wrong with this picture?
To tip the balance in elections was always the endgame of pro-amnesty/lawbreakers politicians, so I guess the end game is afoot.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/10/25/theyre-illegal-immigrants-go-door-door-behalf-hillary/
“In 2012 the Obama Administration granted temporary legal status to close to 750,000 illegal immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.Now they are going door-to-door campaigning on behalf of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.”
“The Washington Post followed the campaign activities in Norther Virginia, a crucial purple region that could very well determine the outcome in Virginia and, possibly the national electoral college results:”
———————-
“The Post story features anecdotes of the CASA activists working in tandem with the SEIU, the government employees union and long-time Democratic Party community organizing arm. CASA and the SEIU are using their resources to knock on doors in Virginia and Pennsylvania and plan to expand their operations into Arizona and other battleground states.
They are also focusing well beyond the presidential campaign. The illegal immigrant activists featured in the Post article were also working on behalf of Democrat LuAnn Bennett, who is locked in a tight race against incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock.”
“As Democrats scream at the top of their lungs about Russia trying to interfere with the American election it’s ironic to see them actively working with non-citizens to alter the results of that very same election.”
LikeLike
Trump has some good men around him. He may/may not listen to them.
Hillary has all evil people around her. She listens to them.
I have known Hillary for 25 years. Everything I know about her is bad.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a good point, Chas. I’m not voting for Trump, but ignorance can be surmounted in various ways, including by good advisers. Hillary cannot NOT be corrupt (without some divine intervention).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well! I am not slimy. Just sayin’ … 🙂
Journalism isn’t a monolith and I know far more dedicated, hard-working and honest reporters than not.
But that said, a fairly strong majority of journalists are personally (socially and politically) liberal. There have been countless studies backing that up and I can attest to it based on any newsroom I’ve ever been in (though there are, also, always some conservatives sprinkled in).
Simply by the nature of their common liberal world view, reporters (many times unintentionally, it’s not a “conspiracy” or plot) slant left. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had this discussion with liberal colleagues who seem really not to “see” it, they insist there’s no natural leftward bias. I’m left feeling exasperated with the inability to see and acknowledge something that’s so obvious, but there you have it.
It’s not intentional or created that way by design & there’s no easy fix to it. It’s just not going to really change any time soon and there’s no way TO change it. — other than with more media diversity (and media diversity has grown in recent years by leaps and bounds, thanks in large part to the Internet).
Fox isn’t perfect and I personally can’t bear to watch or listen to a number of its commentators, as you all know. It needs an overhaul, in my opinion, and I’d love to see a stronger emphasis on hard news as opposed to predictable, knee-jerk, overly partisan commentary. More light, less heat, please.
But it’s interesting to me that the station’s mere existence seems to drive many of my colleagues absolutely crazy.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oh yeah the automatic anti-Fox reaction is to the point of being hilarious, DJ. It’s the same thoughtless response that dismisses any negative report about Hillary. But as for Journalism, “by and large,” or at least significantly, the profession is populated with hacks (you refer to a “common liberal worldview”–that’s the phenomenon I’m referring to). There may not be an entirely deliberate “conspiracy”–and I suppose if it’s not deliberate, it actually isn’t one–but when there is a great number of prominent journalists who advise and collude with a political candidate yet not get called out on it, it’s about as close to a conspiracy as you can get. Or call it crass incompetence. Or sliminess. http://observer.com/2016/10/no-consequences-from-media-peers-for-reporters-caught-colluding-with-hillary/
LikeLike
There is comedy in the Trump/press relationship. For as long as I can remember most of the press has been describing conservative Republicans as ignorant lunatics for the reasons DJ described above. The press has been like The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Now the Republicans have nominated the most ignorant of lunatics and half the people won’t believe press accounts even when the press is simply quoting the imbecile’s own words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I fear the “good men” around Trump have sold their souls. After it became obvious that he was a sexual predator, Carson, Huckabee and the rest should have cut ties with Trump, particularly when one of his main defenses is that his victims were too unattractive for him to sexually assault.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tychicus, Great win last night. This is for you.
LikeLike
Ricky,
Do you ever take a minute to ponder who you might offend by carelessly throwing around the term sexual assault? Like maybe actual victims of sexual assault?
Verbally hitting on someone, or making a crude comment is not sexual assault. Same goes for groping. It may be indecent assault, and still illegal, but it’s not the same thing. You know this. So maybe for the sake of others you should tone down the slanderous hyperbole a bit. Or not, if you think I’m being overly sensitive. Just something for you to consider.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates.
~Jay Leno~
LikeLiked by 5 people
AJ, I could have used the exact words that Trump used to describe his actions, but I thought we try to keep things clean around here.
LikeLike
When I first got interested in Christian history I read four books. One from a liberal Catholic perspective, one from a conservative Catholic perspective, one from a secular perspective and one from a conservative protestant perspective. I realized that it wasn’t what they put in and showed their bias, it was what they left out. The news is sometimes the same way.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Agreed Kim. It’s always interesting to see which stories “lead” on CNN vs. Fox vs. other sites. That’s a lot of it, which stories are covered (and given major play) and which aren’t. I give Fox credit for covering many stories that otherwise don’t get covered much.
LikeLike
Solar — What??
LikeLike
Try being polite maybe
LikeLike
rw, thanks for that Adams treat… may the Thunder give the same Spurs treatment to the Warriors.
Btw, I just came across the lady who will set you straight about Trump… 🙂
http://blakpac.com/blog/2016/10/7/black-female-trump-supporter-leaves-news-anchors-speechless
LikeLiked by 1 person
Solar, my apologies, I misread part of your comment — I’m sorry for snapping, it was uncalled for and, well, impolite. 🙂 oops.
I do think this year that the national media has gone overboard on the anti-Trump train (many truly believe it’s warranted as they see him as genuinely dangerous.
And journalists colluding with politicians and even, in some cases, donating money to them is shocking to me. We have a strict ethics policy where I work that forbids us from even putting a bumper sticker on our cars or signing a petition, let alone in any way officially supporting or volunteering for a candidate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This definition is not as colorful as Trump’s words but may be useful. It is from the Dept. of Justice.
Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.Apr 1, 2016
LikeLike
All good, DJ. No apology necessary. And I would wager that most or all of the outlets whose journalists are in cahoots with politicians have neutrality clauses in their contracts or guidelines or whatever, similar to the ones you mention. But that’s the thing! Rules and laws mean nothing to these folks, let alone ethics.
LikeLike
Thanks Solar.
LikeLike
Tychicus, Westbrook wore a kilt to the game tonight.
LikeLike
Isn’t it annoying when an article goes on and on making a point, and then the last paragraph practically invalidates the whole thing?
I don’t really trust the polling data. So, I was reading an article in support of the polling data. In this CNBC piece, an economist for Goldman Sachs doesn’t think we’re going to have a “Brexit” moment or a November surprise that ends with a President Trump. They give all of the polling analysis in favor of Hillary. They explain how the polling in the UK was different than for our election so we shouldn’t expect a Trump victory.
And then it ends with this almost disclaimer:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/26/goldman-sachs-dont-expect-brexit-type-surprise-in-presidential-race.html
Another one in the bag for Clinton. (Not a big surprise though.) :–)
LikeLike
And yet…
http://yournewswire.com/florida-trump-win-election/
LikeLiked by 1 person