[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-June-03, 12:32, said:

When the media starts naming their sources then I will give them some credibility. Until then they could just as easily be making up their stories as not.

That's bogus and the worst part is that you know it's bogus.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-03, 12:35, said:

That's bogus and the worst part is that you know it's bogus.

Well, Trump says that news is often made up. I'm not sure whether he really believes it. The important part is that stupid people believe him.

[cherdano]

ldrews, on 2017-June-03, 09:27, said:

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

For ldrews, "historical ties" only consists of written contracts. A true man of the law!

[cherdano]

awm, on 2017-June-03, 10:57, said:

Judging the news media by the percentage of their stories that are "negative" about someone or something is not really the right way to do it.

Yeah, this is like the NBA coach complaining "We got called for twice as many fouls as the opponents!! The game is rigged!!!"

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-03, 07:28, said:

Personally, It think you are too smart to continue to believe the BS you are repeating. You are claiming the media is proactive rather than reactive - but the stories the media covers are after the fact. Their analysis of their stories is opinion. But Trump has created his own negative publicity; the media just reported what he says and does.

Your complaint is about the analysis they offer - you think it is biased.

Harvard is hardly a bastion of right wing thought. So when they say the extreme amount of negative reporting about Trump gives gravitas to a perception of media bias, that's important. Then they follow it up with comments about getting back to objectivity as a means to build rebuild credibility with the public. It's about as gentle a way as possible to say to the mainstream media that their reporting isn't fair and balanced, that is, it's biased.

The problem is that a bias impedes objectivity and can color the reporting of the news. It reminds me of a scene from "All the President's Men" where Woodward and Bernstein were trying to figure why they got a story terribly wrong. They concluded "we heard what we wanted to hear not what he said".

Fortunately, most of the public is smart enough to see through the bias and that's why the media is even lower in trustworthiness than politicians.

[rmnka447]

RedSpawn, on 2017-June-03, 05:31, said:

{Thunderous applause}

Something tells me those "favorable" Trump ratings at Fox News Channel will decline with the ousting and sudden death of Roger Ailes, the subsequent change in upper management, and the coincidental change in the FOX programming line-up sans Bill O'Reilly, Megan Kelly, Gretchen Carlson, and Greta Van Susteren.

The more intriguing question is whether the "negative" Trump ratings will decline at some of the mainstream media outlets who are engaging former Fox personnel.

One of my staunch progressive friends used to say derogatory things about Greta while she was on Fox. Now he's telling how much he likes her show on MSNBC because she asks the tough questions and doesn't let guests off the hook or change the subject.

I'd expect a similar no change approach from Megyn Kelly on NBC. Time will tell if their new venues affect a change in their perspective and approach or not.

As for Fox, I don't expect much change as what Trump does falls into the wheelhouse of the conservative bent of the channel. But Trump won't get a free pass, either. Shepard Smith, who I believe is one of the major news editors, has shown no reluctance to criticize the President when his actions warrant it.

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-03, 13:26, said:

Harvard is hardly a bastion of right wing thought. So when they say the extreme amount of negative reporting about Trump gives gravitas to a perception of media bias, that's important. Then they follow it up with comments about getting back to objectivity as a means to build rebuild credibility with the public. It's about as gentle a way as possible to say to the mainstream media that their reporting isn't fair and balanced, that is, it's biased.

The problem is that a bias impedes objectivity and can color the reporting of the news. It reminds me of a scene from "All the President's Men" where Woodward and Bernstein were trying to figure why they got a story terribly wrong. They concluded "we heard what we wanted to hear not what he said".

Fortunately, most of the public is smart enough to see through the bias and that's why the media is even lower in trustworthiness than politicians.

The Harvard study was a compilation of results - not the actually reporting. The reporting was negative because the actions reported about were negative. It's hard to report a positive about someone who continually lies as Trump does. The fact he lied becomes the story.

[kenberg]

ldrews, on 2017-June-03, 12:27, said:

Angela Merkel doesn't yet qualify for historical. The fact that the current negotiating game taking place upsets Europeans also does not qualify ans breaking historical ties. You are engaging in hyperbole.

Apparently Trump has a different world view and agenda than the liberal/left. So you reach for any meme/excuse to try to explain the difference. I think Trump simply does not agree with you viewpoint or agenda. From what I gather, he thinks the traditional approach to US foreign relationships is not working very well for the US, so he is going in a different direction. You obviously think the traditional approach if fine and that existing relationships should be maintained. But that is what elections are about.

Yes, I do realize this. And I am sure you realize that my designating DT as a Sunni is a little gallows humor. But here is an at least slightly fuller account of my views.

WWII ended when I was 6. I was old enough, or soon old enough, to catch on to the general consensus that helping with the recovery of Europe was not only right in some moral sense but also worth doing in our general self-interest. So my life, largely from my earliest memories, has been of acceptance of The US and the Western Democracies of Europe working together. Yes there have been quarrels. There was the Suez crisis in 1956. There was the Cuban missile crisis. Of course there was Vietnam. The MLF. or, as Tom Lehrer sang, "We've got the missiles, peace to determine, and one of the fingers on the button will be German". Quarrels, but families have quarrels. What Trump is doing seems like a filing for divorce. I can't see this ending well. I like Paris, I like London, I like Madrid, I like Athens. I would like us to all stay on decent terms. We don't have to love each other.

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

[Al_U_Card]

diana_eva, on 2017-June-03, 10:29, said:

Yes, it would be correct to say it's historic, not historical.

Maybe hysterical?

[diana_eva]

kenberg, on 2017-June-03, 15:32, said:

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

Trump doesn't understand why US is necessary in international relations, he thinks this is about America or about him. I'd really like to see less pieces about why Trump sucks and more about how the balance of power shifts on the international plan.

When he failed to say with his own mouth that US commits to protect any NATO ally if they are attacked, he gave free hand to expansionist countries to become more aggressive. And since Trump has no f clue what happens elsewhere he won;'t care that Putin builds up his rockets, or that North Korea tests missiles until a bomb drops on the white house.

[ldrews]

kenberg, on 2017-June-03, 15:32, said:

Yes, I do realize this. And I am sure you realize that my designating DT as a Sunni is a little gallows humor. But here is an at least slightly fuller account of my views.

WWII ended when I was 6. I was old enough, or soon old enough, to catch on to the general consensus that helping with the recovery of Europe was not only right in some moral sense but also worth doing in our general self-interest. So my life, largely from my earliest memories, has been of acceptance of The US and the Western Democracies of Europe working together. Yes there have been quarrels. There was the Suez crisis in 1956. There was the Cuban missile crisis. Of course there was Vietnam. The MLF. or, as Tom Lehrer sang, "We've got the missiles, peace to determine, and one of the fingers on the button will be German". Quarrels, but families have quarrels. What Trump is doing seems like a filing for divorce. I can't see this ending well. I like Paris, I like London, I like Madrid, I like Athens. I would like us to all stay on decent terms. We don't have to love each other.

Trump whines, and he lashes out. After a while, others walk away. Of course this is true personally, but it can also be true in international relations. I think that this is happening. I regard it as a very bad development.

I understand. One of the base assumptions of many people seems to be that since the US has been the major power in the world since WW2, and has been instrumental in helping Europe regain its feet afterwards, that this is obligatory role for the US now and in the future. That the US is like a daddy that is responsible for taking care of the family, even disciplining it at times.

But times have changed. The US is suffering its own problems, Europe is now robust with an economy approaching the US. As a result of the above mindset, the US has entered into a number of agreements that disadvantage the US.

If one takes the attitude that the US is simply one nation among many, and is no more or no less responsible for the world condition than any other country, then to me it makes sense to get our own house in order before trying to project our values and processes onto other nations. And it seems the US has plenty to get in order: health care, education, immigration, infrastructure just to name a few.

[RedSpawn]

nige1, on 2017-May-30, 13:11, said:

Updated proverb: Be sceptical of ascribing to unlikely coincidence what you can, instead, attribute to stupidity, ignorance, deadly sin, or (usually) all of these. .

AMEN!

[RedSpawn]

jogs, on 2017-June-03, 07:52, said:

http://www.politico....dd-frank-000197

Dodd-Frank hurts small community banks. They can't afford to devote 3 floors
of lawyers for compliance. Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining
loans.

Small businesses are having difficulties obtaining loans because our central bank has been promoting an "easy" monetary policy since late 2008. For example, our central bank is lending money to commercial banks at a low APR of 1.5%. It is more profitable for retail banks to park their money short term at the Federal Reserve Bank than to make small business loans to customers since the default risk on said loans is high and difficult to mitigate.

The central bank must increase the discount rate significantly and thereby make the cost of short term borrowing more expensive for commercial banks. Then banks will have a profit motive to park their money elsewhere and/or offer small business loans to customers who qualify.

[RedSpawn]

cherdano, on 2017-May-26, 17:14, said:

Ken, I admire your spirit, but I think you should open your eyes a little more to reality.

The large majority of non-violent drug offenders serving prison time are black. That's despite the fact that recreational drug use is pretty much equally common among all races. This means that the USA's drug enforcement system is racist (in the sense of having racist results). But it doesn't make any single human being racist, even if they are part of this system.

Now consider Jeff Sessions. There is a broad consensus (among conservatives and liberals) that in the US, most prison terms for non-violent offenders are too long. Here comes Jeff Sessions, and specifically asks his prosecutors to seek the maximal possible sentences. Combined with the reality described in the previous paragraph, that request will have racially disparate results.

Does that make Jeff Sessions a racist? No, he could just be cranky 71-year old law and order guy.

But now consider who Jeff Sessions is. He grew up in post-war Alabama, and lived there most of his life. He is literally named after a Confederate general. He has said plenty of racist things in the past - racist enough that his nomination for district court in 1986 didn't make it through the Senate.

Jeff Session was 56 when his home state struck language from the constitution that would prohibit interracial marriage. He was 60 and 68 when voters in his home state voted to keep school segregation language in the constitution. (*)

Sometimes, you have to allow for the possibility that the simplest possible explanation is the correct one.

(*) I should admit that this shorthand is a bit unfair to Alabama with regards to the 2012 referendum - there was quite a bit of opposition to that amendment that seemed to have good reasons.

Also, consider the letter Coretta Scott King wrote to the Senate opposing Jeff Session's nomination to become a federal judge.

Hopefully, AG Sessions has evolved since the 1980's.

http://www.nytimes.c...f-sessions.html

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-June-03, 16:57, said:

But times have changed. The US is suffering its own problems, Europe is now robust with an economy approaching the US. As a result of the above mindset, the US has entered into a number of agreements that disadvantage the US.

We're all having problems -- the economic crisis affected all Western democracies, Islamic extremists are a threat to all of us, and global warming is "global". Working together we have a much better chance to solve these problems.

Trump likes to say that these agreements put us at a disadvantage, but he's just wrong or lying. The Paris Accord didn't make us pay for other countries' work, it provided economic opportunities for everyone. No one was laughing because they'd pulled a fast one on us. Now they're laughing because he's so misguided. Luckily, state and city leaders are planning on continuing environmental projects that conform with Paris, they don't depend on the US being officially in the Accord (and we won't actually be out of it until after the next election).

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2017-June-03, 14:13, said:

The Harvard study was a compilation of results - not the actually reporting. The reporting was negative because the actions reported about were negative. It's hard to report a positive about someone who continually lies as Trump does. The fact he lied becomes the story.

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity.

On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective.

It's no secret that most of the "mainstream" media espouse a liberal/progressive view of the world. But if they are to be a credible watchdog for our republic, they have to try to be as impartial as possible in reporting the news. Unfortunately, in large part, the media has not chosen to take the high road and do that. So, it's no surprise that they are viewed as biased.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-June-04, 11:54, said:

We're all having problems -- the economic crisis affected all Western democracies, Islamic extremists are a threat to all of us, and global warming is "global". Working together we have a much better chance to solve these problems.

Trump likes to say that these agreements put us at a disadvantage, but he's just wrong or lying. The Paris Accord didn't make us pay for other countries' work, it provided economic opportunities for everyone. No one was laughing because they'd pulled a fast one on us. Now they're laughing because he's so misguided. Luckily, state and city leaders are planning on continuing environmental projects that conform with Paris, they don't depend on the US being officially in the Accord (and we won't actually be out of it until after the next election).

Interesting political history of the US involvement in the Paris Accord: http://dailycaller.c...us-experts-say/

[rmnka447]

diana_eva, on 2017-June-03, 15:59, said:

Trump doesn't understand why US is necessary in international relations, he thinks this is about America or about him. I'd really like to see less pieces about why Trump sucks and more about how the balance of power shifts on the international plan.

When he failed to say with his own mouth that US commits to protect any NATO ally if they are attacked, he gave free hand to expansionist countries to become more aggressive. And since Trump has no f clue what happens elsewhere he won;'t care that Putin builds up his rockets, or that North Korea tests missiles until a bomb drops on the white house.

OTOH, President Obama voiced that US commitment, but his actions belied that he'd ever act if circumstances demanded it. As a result, he unwittingly became the best agent Putin and some of the other bad actors in this world could have asked for. His reluctance to take any strong action in support of the Ukraine allowed Russian to seize the Crimea. His lip service to going after ISIS resulted in their global expansion.

President Trump, so far, has shown the ability to respond to difficult situations. By launching missiles against Syria after they used chemical weapons and letting his military use the MOAB in Afghanistan, he sent a message that he was unafraid to act. That message wasn't just to the targets of those attacks, it was to all the potential bad actors. It told them they couldn't count on US passivity anymore. It certainly seemed to get China's attention, so that they couldn't disregard Trump saying "If you don't help us with North Korea, we'll take care of them ourselves."

[cherdano]

What does Ukraine have to do with NATO?

[Winstonm]

rmnka447, on 2017-June-04, 12:19, said:

There's no doubt President Trump has done enough to warrant plenty of negative coverage, but when the reporting reaches the point where it's virtually all negative you have to seriously question its objectivity.

On the lighter side, I liked the quip by Gov. Mike Huckabee during the campaign. He said, "If Donald Trump was out in a boat, got out, and walked on water, the New York Times would report 'Donald Trump can't swim'." Cute remark, but illustrative that one's prejudices can color one's perspective.

It's no secret that most of the "mainstream" media espouse a liberal/progressive view of the world. But if they are to be a credible watchdog for our republic, they have to try to be as impartial as possible in reporting the news. Unfortunately, in large part, the media has not chosen to take the high road and do that. So, it's no surprise that they are viewed as biased.

It's only true of mainstream media from a right-wing pov. A less simplistic answer is that newsprint slant left or right, but in cable news reporting there are so many hours in a day to fill that most of the content is opinion - and that does display bias.

It's disturbingly funny to me to watch these programs try to offer balance by inviting guests from both points of view instead of determining and presenting facts.