Enemies of the People? Trump's Assault on the Press

[Kyriakos]

This makes about as much sense as comparing a hotdog stand to a Michelin star restaurant.

Poison tastes the same in both.

[Gaidin]

Edit: before some one else chimes in - I think opinion pieces in a newspaper are different from news articles. I find it a bit humorous that the NY Times has a controversy on using unnamed authors of opinion pieces. I found this CNN piece more damage control on 'Fear' than real reporting: https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/med...dao/index.html

I did a bit of digging, and that NYT op-ed is a bit more substantive than you think. Here's what came out in January that WE ALL dismissed out of hand.

"Spicer, Priebus, Cohn, Powell, Bannon, Tillerson, Mattis, Mnuchin, virtually the entire senior staff and cabinet of the Trump presidency had traveled through the stages of adventure, challenge, frustration, battle, self-justification, and doubt, before finally having to confront the very real likelihood that the president they worked for... didn't have the wherewithal to adequately function in his job. The debate, as Bannon put it, was not about whether the president's situation was bad, but whether it was Twenty-Fifth-Amendment bad. <some pages later> a 33.3 percent chance that he would limp to the end of his term, a 33.3 percent chance that the Mueller investigation would lead to the impeachment of the president, and a 33.3 percent chance that Trump would resign, perhaps in the wake of a threat by the cabinet to act on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment(by which the cabinet can remove the President in the event of his incapacitation)."
-Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House
-January 2018

A warning was given in January. A fire alarm was just pulled.

[Aexodus]

If the reporter can find no source willing to be named but has plenty of sources willing to be anonymously quoted what the living hell are you willing to bet they're going to do? The mother of all stories with anonymous sources or nothing? Learn how this crap works now. I don't care if you like it. I care how it works. Or you will be left behind.

Learn how this crap works now?

Maybe you need to learn that when accusing someone of the things he does in that book, having it be 90% anonymous sources reduces the reliability of it.

Or that anonymous sources are less likely to be true in general.

That said, I don’t doubt Trump probably called Sessions retarded some time ago. Nor do I care. You’re dealing with a guy who said ‘grab em by the pussy’, then after that being brought up proceeded to gain the presidency.

Most Americans probably don’t care.

[Gaidin]

Learn how this crap works now?

Maybe you need to learn that when accusing someone of the things he does in that book, having it be 90% anonymous sources reduces the reliability of it.

Stop repeating . You look less smart. I'm not talking about a book. I'm talking about the use of sources in general.

[Kyriakos]

I think i don't need to explain what "more than" means, ie it is about context. Nice one-liner, though.

[Katsumoto]

I think i don't need to explain what "more than" means, ie it is about context. Nice one-liner, though.

Not really sure what you're getting at here. You said BBC isn't seen as trustworthy, I provided evidence to the contrary, proving your opinion is not the prevailing opinion.

[Kyriakos]

Not really sure what you're getting at here. You said BBC isn't seen as trustworthy, I provided evidence to the contrary, proving your opinion is not the prevailing opinion.

I think you over-estimate what you provided. At any rate I have been watching bbc for years, given i lived in England during my uni studies. I had specific cases in mind.

[conon394]

Or, you know, reporter could just have made up the "anonymous" source to make more sensationalist claim. I'm pretty sure that you'd dismiss Infowars article based on anonymous sources about how DNC establishment is full of pedophiles, but you'd eat up same kind of claim made in regards to GOP by CNN or MSNBC and probably ask for seconds.

There is nothing very sensational in the claims, they follow pretty much all reporting on the Trump white house and the public persona of the man and his know history. He is a con man out of his depth, a unintelligent one at that. One who is probably under the Czar's influence. His public speeches are an embarrassment of rambling 3rd grade narcissism. So I really am not surprised by the Op Ed although it looks to me like self justifying butt covering. Whoever wrote the op ed is no Daniel Ellsberg, but again it is only confirmation of what is obvious.

[Heathen Hammer]

Because CNN, MSNBC, BBC etc have established themselves as trustworthy.

Infowars is full of .

Thats because you think that their bias corresponding to your bias makes them trustworthy. Objectively, there is no difference. Well, at least IW is somewhat entertaining trippy cartoon BS, while CNN/BBC/MSNBC is boring neoliberal boomer BS.

There is nothing very sensational in the claims, they follow pretty much all reporting on the Trump white house and the public persona of the man and his know history. He is a con man out of his depth, a unintelligent one at that. One who is probably under the Czar's influence. His public speeches are an embarrassment of rambling 3rd grade narcissism. So I really am not surprised by the Op Ed although it looks to me like self justifying butt covering. Whoever wrote the op ed is no Daniel Ellsberg, but again it is only confirmation of what is obvious.

None of the things you said have any relevance in reality, so I guess thanks for proving my point. He is clearly not an "unintelligent conman" being a billionaire with huge net worth and occupying most powerful political office in the world, his relationship to Putin is clearly just part of a mass media propaganda smear campaign, to which the claims in question clearly belong since they are based on.... nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, without that no wonder majority of population doesn't trust mass media.

[Katsumoto]

What the blazes does the BBC putting out job postings for minorities have to do with their trustworthiness? Think you're missing a shoehorn.

[Aexodus]

What the blazes does the BBC putting out job postings for minorities have to do with their trustworthiness? Think you're missing a shoehorn.

Not a lot, I was talking about their bias

[Cyclops]

The New York times publishing an anonymous Op Ed is a disgrace. I agree with all the arguments about quoting anonymous sources and so on but this is just not on. Editorials are literally the voice of the newspaper and to not attribute one is an extreme step and very reprehensible. I'd go so far as to say the newspaper has laid down any authority they have to editorialise on politics. What;s next? "An Op Ed We Found Under a Park Bench About Our Legal System By a Judge (Maybe)"?

I think Trump is unfit for office, but this sort of opposition to him is immoral and unacceptable. It sets a very low standard for journalistic behaviour, and presages worse conduct toward future presidents.

Trumps response is clear evidence he's not up to the job. "Treason?", really he needs to ask Twitter? However he's right when he says the piece is gutless. If it was by one of his administration they should resign now.

Trump was elected legally. If you have a problem with him, you have a problem with the system. There's a lot of people who want to get Trump out without breaking the system. I think there's too many people with comfy spots in the system who want this irritant out because he's just a bit too disgusting, but they were quite happy with the level of disgusting that saw him elected.

Trumps not the cause of this broken administration, he's a symptom. If the US sack him through anonymous newspaper campaigns they're making the system and everything worse, not better.

[Katsumoto]

The New York times publishing an anonymous Op Ed is a disgrace. I agree with all the arguments about quoting anonymous sources and so on but this is just not on. Editorials are literally the voice of the newspaper and to not attribute one is an extreme step and very reprehensible. I'd go so far as to say the newspaper has laid down any authority they have to editorialise on politics. What;s next? "An Op Ed We Found Under a Park Bench About Our Legal System By a Judge (Maybe)"?

I think Trump is unfit for office, but this sort of opposition to him is immoral and unacceptable. It sets a very low standard for journalistic behaviour, and presages worse conduct toward future presidents.

This wasn't an Editorial, it was an Opinion piece, an op-ed (i.e "opposite the editorial page"). You can argue against the individual writing the piece but it seems unfair to criticise the NYT for publishing it. As the BBC put it:

"But nobody should conflate the journalistic motivation of the New York Times with either the personal morality of the individual or the political duty of White House officials. A newspaper's job isn't to deny cowards a platform, or make sure a department of government functions well. It is to find things out, analyse them, and inform the citizenry, the better to conduct a democracy."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45433116

[Cyclops]

This wasn't an Editorial, it was an Opinion piece, an op-ed (i.e "opposite the editorial page"). You can argue against the individual writing the piece but it seems unfair to criticise the NYT for publishing it. As the BBC put it:

"But nobody should conflate the journalistic motivation of the New York Times with either the personal morality of the individual or the political duty of White House officials. A newspaper's job isn't to deny cowards a platform, or make sure a department of government functions well. It is to find things out, analyse them, and inform the citizenry, the better to conduct a democracy."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45433116

Thanks for the correction, you are quite right and that is not so reprehensible as I had thought by the NYT. I still have a very low opinion of journalists, and I still maintain Trump is being treated differently to other presidents by most media and by his political opponents. They are focusing on the individual and not the real problem.

The official involved has thoroughly disgraced themselves, and remains indefensible.

Apposite Meme

It feels like some rat on Trump's ship is positioning themselves next to a life boat.

[Katsumoto]

I still maintain Trump is being treated differently to other presidents by most media and by his political opponents.

I would argue that's because Trump behaves very differently to other presidents.

It feels like some rat on Trump's ship is positioning themselves next to a life boat.

There's speculation it could be Pence due to some of the language and style of writing, but I think that's unlikely. I have a feeling the seniority of this mystery person has been embellished somewhat. Ten quid says it's the janitor sneaking in and stealing papers off Trump's desk at night.

[Kyriakos]

The New York times publishing an anonymous Op Ed is a disgrace. I agree with all the arguments about quoting anonymous sources and so on but this is just not on. Editorials are literally the voice of the newspaper and to not attribute one is an extreme step and very reprehensible. I'd go so far as to say the newspaper has laid down any authority they have to editorialise on politics. What;s next? "An Op Ed We Found Under a Park Bench About Our Legal System By a Judge (Maybe)"?

I think Trump is unfit for office, but this sort of opposition to him is immoral and unacceptable. It sets a very low standard for journalistic behaviour, and presages worse conduct toward future presidents.

Trumps response is clear evidence he's not up to the job. "Treason?", really he needs to ask Twitter? However he's right when he says the piece is gutless. If it was by one of his administration they should resign now.

Trump was elected legally. If you have a problem with him, you have a problem with the system. There's a lot of people who want to get Trump out without breaking the system. I think there's too many people with comfy spots in the system who want this irritant out because he's just a bit too disgusting, but they were quite happy with the level of disgusting that saw him elected.

Trumps not the cause of this broken administration, he's a symptom. If the US sack him through anonymous newspaper campaigns they're making the system and everything worse, not better.

Well said. +1

Also, the actual Op Ed (which is major news, so it is a bit ridiculous to try to downplay it or NYT's handing of printing it, as Katsumoto did by focusing on a technicality literally no one cares about) is rather of poor level, and presents nothing other than usual points (which may be true, but they still are basic points), OTHER THAN persisting on the supposed (?) russian poisoning of the ex-russian agents in Britain.
It is heartwarming that it tries to glorify McCain, though; whose hero was war criminal Kissinger



Either way, this is not how the political system will become better. This will only make things more chaotic, and - i fear - less democratic as well. The NYT should name the writer of the op, cause this isn't some cheap novel but the status of politics in the US.

[Gaidin]

The New York times publishing an anonymous Op Ed is a disgrace. I agree with all the arguments about quoting anonymous sources and so on but this is just not on. Editorials are literally the voice of the newspaper and to not attribute one is an extreme step and very reprehensible. I'd go so far as to say the newspaper has laid down any authority they have to editorialise on politics. What;s next? "An Op Ed We Found Under a Park Bench About Our Legal System By a Judge (Maybe)"?

It makes not a damn difference in the world. The truth is it's worth knowing and that's why they published it. Posters on this forum will do this dance and so we will get a lot of bull. But here's the thing about the people in the cabinet that really truly sign on to this guy's thing. Do your job or do your job. Either vote the 25th or do your job. Because voting the 25th is doing your job. But hiding from the President isn't doing your job. That's just the point you resign.

[Cyclops]

I would argue that's because Trump behaves very differently to other presidents.

Well I disagree. He seems unqualified but so was Bush II who was a bonehead stuffed suit with Cheney's hand up his arse. What Trump is is he's the President of the US, legally elected. Snow jobs and leaks erode democracy. Sack him legally or stop the .

There's speculation it could be Pence due to some of the language and style of writing, but I think that's unlikely. I have a feeling the seniority of this mystery person has been embellished somewhat. Ten quid says it's the janitor sneaking in and stealing papers off Trump's desk at night.

Its a bit sad because you're probably right.

It makes not a damn difference in the world. The truth is it's worth knowing and that's why they published it. Posters on this forum will do this dance and so we will get a lot of bull. But here's the thing about the people in the cabinet that really truly sign on to this guy's thing. Do your job or do your job. Either vote the 25th or do your job. Because voting the 25th is doing your job. But hiding from the President isn't doing your job. That's just the point you resign.

I am not sure what point of mine you're responding to, but I agree with your post to the extent I understand it. Whoever wrote the piece should not be in Trump's cabinet for one of two reasons, because they have resigned, or Trump has been sacked.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm picking the argument of a left-leaning, generally reasonable media to exemplify the point. On the ''Russia collusion'' coverage, liberal media have reported the following fake news:

• Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
• An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
• WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
• A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
• RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
• Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
• Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
• Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/...what-happened/

Now, everyone makes mistakes, it's part of human nature. As Greenwald points out however, every single one of them, is skewed toward pushing for the Russia/Trump narrative. If they were honest mistakes, you'd expect some sort of normal distribution with some errors for and some against it. It is not the case, thus the ''mistakes'' are intentional.

Now let's look at the Whole picture. Liberal media picked a side during the 2016 electoral campaign. At no point they tried some sort of honest reporting.They didn't just claim moral supremacy, they claimed victory and then lost. So what did they do? Learn from their mistake and go back to their job? No. Since they were exposed as frauds they quadrupled the lies in an attempt to overthrow a democratically elected president and make reality match their lies. They went from propagandists to subversive organization.

Even worse, the hiring of Sarah Jeong at the NYT, who was hired because of her views, not despite, is definitive evidence that liberal media have embraced an anti-white narrative aimed at genocide.

Is this the behaviour of rational, moderate, democratic people? No. The title ''enemy of the people'' is wholeheartedly deserved. Liberal media are enemies of free and honest information, enemies of truth, enemies of the people, enemies of the US Constitution, enemies of the USA, and given their attempt to push for what might as well end up in a nuclear war, enemies of mankind.

May the God-Emperor bless his supporters into vanquishing such garbage. The liberal media? Piss be upon them.

[conon394]

He is clearly not an "unintelligent conman" being a billionaire with huge net worth and occupying most powerful political office in the world

Is he a billionaire, I dunno he is rather tight with his personal data. But seeing the sting of failed business ventures he has, and the well know fact that simply investing in a S&P basket would have made him as rich as he claims to be now based on his initial endowment of money from his father. I see nothing in his portfolio to say he is particularly intelligent. He got his transfer into Fordham on a favor and was an undisguised student who just finished his BS.His continued desire to lie about his academic record is emblematic of this personality. His business life is full of failure and now attacked to Russian money since he can't get an honest loan. Trump university and Trump Foundation are sufficient to prove a con man. As for winning the the Presidency, the US has a fair history of electing crooks (Nixon), non entities (Chester A Arthur), Disastrously bad presidents (Jackson) so getting into office is not as I see some great indicator of intelligence. The fact he can't even lie as effectively as my daughter is no great help in that regard.

his relationship to Putin is clearly just part of a mass media propaganda smear campaign, to which the claims in question clearly belong since they are based on.... nothing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, without that no wonder majority of population doesn't trust mass media.

You need only have watched his little love fest with Putin. Seemed embarrassingly obvious but whatever there is really no point in talking to you about it.