Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

[CapelDodger]

Mark Cuban would give anyone douche chills. What kind of grown man dyes his hair? But he did have a good Trump take-down, no doubt gifted to him from one of Stephen Colbert's writers: "Donald, the only way you're worth ten billion dollars is if I paid you nine-and-a-half billion to wash. my. balls."

You can't find many customers for a quality line like that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it editorializing to point out that he is, in fact, factually wrong? I mean, the news is supposed to be informational, not promotional.

Exactly.

 

[logger]

That monkey on your back has taken over your brain.

Enjoy

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/w...n-surrogate-pitched-me-birther-story-in-2008/

 

[logger]

Lets see: We have suppression of freedom of speech, suppression of freedom of the Press, and .. wait for it.. commingling of Government and Business! (Using the IRS, Justice Department, and the FBI to attack 'the media')

We have the desire for fascism! It's Conservatopia! One party conservative state at it's greatest desire!

Of course you were complaining about Obama doing this?

Was is fascist then too?

 

[logger]

What kind of coward would turn that opportunity down? Trump, of course. He's got the backbone of a sea-anenome.

Only a fool would accept ground rules from the coward who proposed them.

And you're all for it?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In fact, constant commentary is exactly what we shouldn't want in a straight news program, and I say this whether the presenter is someone who would (either because of personal opinion or network opinion) agree with my views or not.

Let's not confuse editorializing with fact-checking. I think most people are referring to the latter when they express a desire to see the news openly confront statements containing incorrect information.

In my opinion, to do otherwise is to willfully propagate false information, which is also not the BBC's (or any other news organization's) job.

 

[Babbylonian]

We have a POTUS candidate that is spouting outright lies which more than too many people accept as fact. When did it become the media's job to stick microphones in front of dishonest people and broadcast those lies?

What happened to actual reporting instead of just providing microphones?

It's just not what most regular TV news programs are for, and it rarely ever has been. Most such programs cover a ton of topics in a short period of time. Are you actually complaining that there isn't enough news commentary available to you? Because it seems like what you're complaining about is that you don't like a particular TV news format that has been prevalent for at least 50 years, and you're doing so despite the fact that commentary and fact-checking are all over the *********** place. Anyone who gets all of their news from the type of program you're criticizing doesn't want what you're describing, and they will change the channel if that type of program changes to something else.

 

[Shalamar]

Of course you were complaining about Obama doing this?

Was is fascist then too?

You'll have to create a new thread regarding Obama, and his using the IRS, Justice Department, and the FBI to attack and suppress the Media.

It looks like the media is still happily reporting whatever they want.

But then, I'm not a conservative fascist.

 

[Bob001]

Is it editorializing to point out that he is, in fact, factually wrong? I mean, the news is supposed to be informational, not promotional.

This has been the subject of lot of discussion in journalism circles in the Age of Trump. The traditional model of "objective" journalism has been to stand in the middle: "On the one hand, on the other hand..." At the extreme, that would mean reporters would write "Many people believe the sky is blue, but a growing minority says it resembles cherry jellybeans," and a lot of reporters think that's just ridiculous. When a politician expresses an opinion, he's entitled to have his opinion reported accurately. But when he makes statements of fact that are provably false, or when he says something today that conflicts with what he said yesterday, the press has a duty to report that accurately too. And it's certainly not out of line to followup: "How ya gonna pay for that wall?" "You gonna break the laws against torture?" Etc., etc., etc. Trump has won by overwhelming traditional journalists with so many lies that they just can't keep up. If reporters had been doing their jobs a year ago, Trump would be a tiny footnote to this election cycle.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.d719eca5d807
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11841074/trump-cnn-chyron
http://billmoyers.com/story/media-recalculating-covers-trump/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-card-b:homepage/story&utm_term=.62fc91d2d58e

 

[phiwum]

We have a POTUS candidate that is spouting outright lies which more than too many people accept as fact. When did it become the media's job to stick microphones in front of dishonest people and broadcast those lies?

What happened to actual reporting instead of just providing microphones?

I'm with you here.

 

[logger]

You'll have to create a new thread regarding Obama, and his using the IRS, Justice Department, and the FBI to attack and suppress the Media.

It looks like the media is still happily reporting whatever they want.

But then, I'm not a conservative fascist.

Well, you seem to bring up fascists constantly, but can't seem to give the current fascist credit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's just not what most regular TV news programs are for, and it rarely ever has been. Most such programs cover a ton of topics in a short period of time. Are you actually complaining that there isn't enough news commentary available to you? Because it seems like what you're complaining about is that you don't like a particular TV news format that has been prevalent for at least 50 years, and you're doing so despite the fact that commentary and fact-checking are all over the *********** place. Anyone who gets all of their news from the type of program you're criticizing doesn't want what you're describing, and they will change the channel if that type of program changes to something else.

First, it was the BBC, not a TV news show. Second, some of the newscasters here in the US have, in the last few days, begun telling people they are interviewing that they cannot repeat the lie that Clinton started the birther movement.

The rest of your comments are not addressing the issue. It's not about commentary. It is about giving or not giving people a platform to repeat known lies.

 

[Stacko]

Low energy retread of an assassination joke. Sad!

 

[phiwum]

It's just not what most regular TV news programs are for, and it rarely ever has been.

PBS Newshour is the only program I watch, and I'm thrilled they take the time to present a full story.

 

[Andy_Ross]

First, it was the BBC, not a TV news show. Second, some of the newscasters here in the US have, in the last few days, begun telling people they are interviewing that they cannot repeat the lie that Clinton started the birther movement.

The rest of your comments are not addressing the issue. It's not about commentary. It is about giving or not giving people a platform to repeat known lies.

Exactly, the BBC, wfhy is it the British Broadcasting Corporations job to debunk Trump?
Why can't American news do it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly, the BBC, wfhy is it the British Broadcasting Corporations job to debunk Trump?
Why can't American news do it?

Because the BBC put the Trump clip on, giving him a platform to tell a factual lie.

It's not their job to debunk Trump, but it is their job to take some responsibility for broadcasting known lies.

 

[Fudbucker]

Did Clinton ever repudiate any of the Birther nonsense that was swirling around in 07-08?

 

[Babbylonian]

PBS Newshour is the only program I watch, and I'm thrilled they take the time to present a full story.

As you should be. Everyone should look for the fullest information available and encourage others to do the same instead of whining about programs that fail...and if they really want to whine about news programs that fail, starting a separate thread somewhere else (or perhaps contacting the provider of the failing program) would probably be appropriate as well.

 

[Stacko]

Did Clinton ever repudiate any of the Birther nonsense that was swirling around in 07-08?

It picked up steam mostly after she had already suspended her campaign. Some volunteers attempted to spread the secret Muslim theory but they were dismissed and their actions condemned. The PUMAs went for it hardcore and switched from Hillary to McCain for general election.

But this is not the same thing as Clinton or her campaign promoting the theory. There is no evidence that they ever have done so. Clinton has dismissed the allegation when Trump made his accusation last September in an interview with CNN’s Don Lemon.

"That is — no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, it’s totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that," Clinton said. "You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me."

(Another thing to note: Clinton volunteers forwarded emails promoting the myth that Obama is a Muslim. As we have previously reported, both resigned from the campaign after they were found to have spread the rumor. The Clinton campaign condemned their actions and said it was unauthorized.)

 

[pgwenthold]

Low energy retread of an assassination joke. Sad!

As far as I can tell, Trump is suggesting that without protection, someone would try to assassinate Clinton.

Presumably it would not be a Clinton supporter. More likely a Trump supporter, right?

But don't dare call them deplorable....