It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump's War on Journalism, and other codswallop

page: 2
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Oh, so it's not about Trump at all?

My mistake. They are simply in the wrong thread.
I didn't see much about the media or Trump now that I look again.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I stated specifically how that was a straw-man in the first paragraph. And just commented how the slander comment was false. Journalists that go against the ethics of the craft of journalism are enemies of the people.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Trump isn't at war with FAKE NEWS. He is at war with news that doesn't suck up to him or news he doesn't like.

The evidence for that is all the FAKE NEWS he repeats and embraces. He loves fake news as long as he can use it.


Attributing motive, and repeating claims. Are the media fair to trump?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

I stated specifically how that was a straw-man in the first paragraph. And just commented how the slander comment was false. Journalists that go against the ethics of the craft of journalism are enemies of the people.

What aren't journalists reporting about Trump that they should be? I get that you think there is a far ranging bias in the media against Trump, and I won't argue with you about that. There's a far ranging bias in society in general about Trump, he isn't liked by most of America, or the world for that matter.

He seems to have that effect on people he personally knows too, which includes a lot of people in the media that knew him before he was president.

So, what do you expect? I'd see it as a violation of journalistic integrity if journalists forced themselves to write positive things about Trump they know are false. What positives are being covered up?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Come on, if trump was really at war with the media he wouldent do any interviews with slow pitch questions, he loves faux news and breitbart, he loves anybody that kisses is orange ars.

Disclaimer: i hate hillary, can't stand cnn and no i never voted liberal.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I expect fairness, plain and simply. It's in the code of ethics for a reason.

There are also people who like Trump. But you would know that if the media was fair.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
What's the big deal, Trump and his tweets has brought all the negativity down upon his own head. He has become a parody of himself and revels in the camera lights glow; Self love run amok....



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Flag for using the word "codswallop".



I almost went with "bosh", but it was less hilarious.


Might I suggest 'Twaddle" for next time?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Flag for using the word "codswallop".



I almost went with "bosh", but it was less hilarious.


Might I suggest 'Twaddle" for next time?


"Piffle" is my favorite, personally.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

I expect fairness, plain and simply. It's in the code of ethics for a reason.

There are also people who like Trump. But you would know that if the media was fair.

I'm quite aware Trump supporters exist, believe it or not.

I'm trying to figure out what positives the media is supposed to report. It's been a rolling dumpster fire, no matter which side you look at it from.

What things that Trump has done should the media be reporting a different way? Or are you just angry about the general dislike the media (and almost everyone) has for Trump?

He kind of brings that on himself.
edit on 6-4-2017 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

They should be reporting both sides of the story, at the very least.

What do you remember most about Trump's meeting with Angella Merkel, for instance?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

They should be reporting both sides of the story, at the very least.

What do you remember most about Trump's meeting with Angella Merkel, for instance?

Trump doubling down on his Obama wiretap claim.

I watched them, curious as to what Trump would say, but I didn't read any media articles about it.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Anything about Merkel's comments on NATO or fair trade? Anything about her comments about radical Islamic terrorism?

What executive orders do you remember?



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

S & F for the use of "codswallop" in a thread title.




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks

Anything about Merkel's comments on NATO or fair trade? Anything about her comments about radical Islamic terrorism?

What executive orders do you remember?


Nope. None of that. Going back and watching it again, now I see why. Trump himself forces all the important issues to take a back seat to HIS accusations and whatever he's a victim of at the moment. In every instance.

If Trump didn't make his accusations center stage in everything he does, they wouldn't be center stage.

At least not as much.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Exactly. I understand the piece you spoke of was an opinion piece. There is always two sides to a story and all the media reports is the negative Trump side that doesn't support the official CIA narative expected of MSM journalist.

Back in the day, it was called yellow journalism


Yellow journalism can be portrayed in a few different ways. It can be a very biased story that only covers one side without pointing out pertinent and even detrimental facts. It can also be a story that has been published strictly for the "shock factor" and have no basis behind it. When the truth isn't there and the facts are missing or twisted, this is when you have yellow journalism.


That is exactly what is going on and Trump, being my age and likely familiar with real journalism knows it.



posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
These two vids are of value imo, and offer another side of things, and yes I'm sure Ted will be labeled liberal and therefore his message lost in preconceived denial, but iI think he hits the nail on the head with both media today in general and President trump's relation with media. Yes he takes a swing at both Hannity and OReilly but I think he has a point. Aside from his accusations, and more importantly, he discusses the dismantling of the Fairness Doctrine ,
which required questions from both sides evenly and utilizing facts. This movement is what brought commentary into the spot light and eventually overtook journalism. Ideology, sensationalized both with condescending and attacking opinion, coupled with dazzling graphics wooed the American audience and summoned the value and desire for opinions over facts. Fox started it all, and yes, the liberal or MSM media followed suit to keep up and now we have this sh#t show.

The doctrine was abolished because it restricted free speech in reporting. I have mixed feelings about this and must respect free speech. Free speech is obviously very important, a cornerstone of our constitution, but I think journalism should be a separate institution, and it kind of was until thoroughly lambasted and generalized as all liberal media. So now commentary is actually what more people(not me) want and thus we have what we have today…
Reporters were originally encouraged to be 'watchdogs' of the government, but they seem lost in the fanfare of ratings.

Please listen to both vids in their entirety before forming opinion. I think both styles should be allowed but in the pursuit of ratings, I think commentary has taken things too far and it's seductive success by people really good at what they do,has reshaped public opinion and desire for the worse because now there are less facts and louder voices.





And imo again, journalism didn't get any better than Kopple's Nightline or Mike Wallace's work.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: waftist

Very good points, I never knew about the fairness doctrine. Thank you for sharing that.

I think they made the right choice to eliminate it—even nonsense is free speech—and also because it puts the onus on the viewer to protect himself.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: waftist

Very good points, I never knew about the fairness doctrine. Thank you for sharing that.

I think they made the right choice to eliminate it—even nonsense is free speech—and also because it puts the onus on the viewer to protect himself.


Thank you Les. Yea I veered a bit off topic, but I just saw these vids the other day, and the elucidation resonated with me refreshingly well. I too was unaware of The Fairnness Doctrine. I admit my bias to the older style news with Koppel, Wallace,and Cronkite because I grew up watching them. I was uninterested in politics then, but like so many, after 911 we wanted to get involved, pursuit truth and seek answers. This was the transitive time for ideology to star spreading, and it, while somewhat actually fair and balanced initially, quickly(d)evolved into attack modes, with rude and bullyish tactics, then began the labeling and compartmentalizing, topped off with fear mongering.

The comparison in reporting just saddens me, because not only would I rather see series, factual and balanced reporting, but I would like to see a reduction in animosity between our citizens, family members, coworkers and friends. It did not used to be this away. Politics and religion were not discussed an dinner table.

Now as I am older, and this is the info age where more truth can be pursued, I appreciate the value now of keeping up with events in our world and discussing them, but the futility caused by emotionally charged polarization chocked full of half-truths, exaggerations and blatant propaganda elevates the discussions to hostility. Damn the codswallop!

It is arguably fair to have news this way now, and we the audience are as responsible as the pundits I suppose, eating this stuff up and feeling validated in various ways. I do wonder which is more though, our demand or their(corporate news) supply.

As far as onus upon the viewer, true and the educated and aware fare much better for themselves and others, which imo includes finding balance and not restricting oneself to such exclusive perspectives. That weight sure becomes a burden the more we actually care too.

It is just the sign o the times I suppose, and perhaps it is just societal growing pains, adjusting to this information access overload era. I do grow tired of it, guess I am getting old. Inclined am I to become a misanthrope. ha



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Remember when he was illegally spying on journalists who were critical to him .. oh wait that was Obama, nevermind.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join