NY Times editorial bombshell

[BrooklynBaby]

What media outlets do you consider legitimate and not fakenews?

Sorry, I went right by this while popping in and out of here last night attending to my wife who just had some minor surgery. Missed my fantasy draft, too. In any case, there are a lot of conservative news sources, which are predictably biased in the other direction, so figuring out who to believe is sometimes more of an art than a science. (Most fake news is accomplished by omitting facts rather than outright lying, which gives the provider plausible deniability, but nonetheless achieves the goal of misinforming the reader/viewer.) Sometimes, like with Benghazi, the international press was actually reporting on what really happened while American fake news was lying about it. In the Zimmerman case you didn't even need fake news because all of the evidence was in the public domain, so that was a great opportunity to see who was telling the truth on this case (The Conservative Treehouse) and who was lying (all of fake news, especially the creator of the "White Hispanic").

As for today, just look around and see who was reporting the recent Cory Booker nonsense as a huge, earth-shattering event and who just game him a raspberry and reported the truth. One chose to go with fake news, the other didn't.

So, my answer would be there are no news outlets that can always be trusted, so it's usually necessary to look around to fill in the gaps of their coverage. Oh, the reason I call the "mainstream media" fake news is because it is a better fit. I consider myself to be a mainstream American, as would everyone who knows me. It's the lefties who have wandered off the reservation, so to speak, not that they haven't had their moments in the past, just none recently.

 

[LSSBB]

Wasn't Huntsman in the running for VP candidacy with someone? Romney?

He was a Presidential candidate in the Republican primaries, 2012.

 

[d4m10n]

What is being described in the article is that Trump officials are actively sabotaging the President.

This is exactly wrong.

Preventing Trump from unthinkingly making irreversible and terrible decisions on the spur of the moment is actively facilitating his presidency by making him seem more like a normal chief executive, more in line with the usual norms governing those who govern. Without people around him doing this, the whole thing may well've spiraled out of control some time ago.

 

[trustbutverify]

Load indeed

That's President Load to you. Respect the office.

 

[BobTheCoward]

This is exactly wrong.

Preventing Trump from unthinkingly making irreversible and terrible decisions on the spur of the moment is actively facilitating his presidency by making him seem more like a normal chief executive, more in line with the usual norms governing those who govern. Without people around him doing this, the whole thing may well've spiraled out of control some time ago.

I don't think their role is to prevent spiral. If anything, they are supposed to follow orders and carry out the president's spiral.

 

[pgwenthold]

This is exactly wrong.

Preventing Trump from unthinkingly making irreversible and terrible decisions on the spur of the moment is actively facilitating his presidency by making him seem more like a normal chief executive, more in line with the usual norms governing those who govern.

Who has decided that he decisions are irreversible and terrible? Who gets to decide that he needs to look like e "normal" chief executive?

In both cases, the answer is the same: only the President is authorized to make those decisions.

What you are talking about here is not a President, but a figurehead.

For good or bad, Trump was elected President. HE makes the decisions. He is allowed to have advisers who can try to influence his decisions, but in the end, they work at his behest.

With0out people around him doing this, the whole thing may well've spiraled out of control some time ago.

If that is what the President wants, then it should have been done.

As soon as you open the door of "they are just doing it to prevent terrible decisions" you have entered the area of the coup.

If you think he is making a bad decision, you talk him out of it. That's your job. If you can't do that, then you will follow his decisions.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't think their role is to prevent spiral. If anything, they are supposed to follow orders and carry out the president's spiral.

Their role is to uphold the constitution and federal law. When the president subverts these (e.g. by pressuring DOJ not to investigate wrongdoing) they should do everything to "undermine" him.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Their role is to uphold the constitution and federal law. When the president subverts these (e.g. by pressuring DOJ not to investigate wrongdoing) they should do everything to "undermine" him.

No, they should resign. Coordinate construction. Each branch has independent constitutional review.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Probably doesn't like the guy because his first name is Hispanic.

"I like sons of God who don't get crucified."

 

[kellyb]

So, my answer would be there are no news outlets that can always be trusted, so it's usually necessary to look around to fill in the gaps of their coverage. Oh, the reason I call the "mainstream media" fake news is because it is a better fit. I consider myself to be a mainstream American, as would everyone who knows me. It's the lefties who have wandered off the reservation, so to speak, not that they haven't had their moments in the past, just none recently.

Interesting, and thanks for your comprehensive response.

I consider "fake news" to be outlets which go beyond just lying by omission, but actually create totally fabricated "facts" - the sort of thing described here. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltec...f-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

It's not just the right that does it, but some leftwing websites, "Occupy Democrats" being one of the worst and best known.

I'm curious to know what you see as the most reliable media outlets, specifically?

Personally, I tend to put "trust" in specific journalists over outlets. The only news outlet I fully trust is TRNN, and in that case, I guess it's the editor who I trust.

 

[kellyb]

Their role is to uphold the constitution and federal law. When the president subverts these (e.g. by pressuring DOJ not to investigate wrongdoing) they should do everything to "undermine" him.

But what about stealing the paper about the South Korea trade agreement off the president's desk? I wouldn't call that upholding the constitution and federal law, personally. In fact, it seems in diametric opposition to it.

 

[Sherkeu]

Evidence about a possible author:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/new-york-times-op-ed-anonymous-writer-trump.html

Huntsman denied it early on, through embassy tweet:

"Come to find, when you’re serving as the U.S. envoy in Moscow, you’re an easy target on all sides. Anything sent out by me would have carried my name. An early political lesson I learned: Never send an anonymous op-ed," Huntsman said.

That's a strange lesson to say you learned though.

I guess if it's really top level though, it's going to have to be someone who has denied it. They have all denied now, right?

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think their role is to prevent spiral. If anything, they are supposed to follow orders and carry out the president's spiral.

Really?

Do you know if this person's position required them to take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the US against all enemies both foreign and domestic? Doesn't that take precedence?

 

[Elagabalus]

Really?

Do you know if this person's position required them to take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the US against all enemies both foreign and domestic? Doesn't that take precedence?

Careful. I think this is the first evidence we have of BtheC making a joke.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Their role is to uphold the constitution and federal law. When the president subverts these (e.g. by pressuring DOJ not to investigate wrongdoing) they should do everything to "undermine" him.

...by invoking the 25th Amendment, or resigning in protest.* Not by stealing papers off his desk and pretending that that makes everything okay.

*Assuming he won't listen to reason.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Really?

Do you know if this person's position required them to take the oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the US against all enemies both foreign and domestic? Doesn't that take precedence?

And they accomplish that by resignation.

 

[Elagabalus]

Yeah, and it was quite obviously a really pressing matter in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and 70s.

I didn't realize that the Ol' Schnozzola was so disliked (sniff).

 

[BobTheCoward]

Careful. I think this is the first evidence we have of BtheC making a joke.

No.im a long advocate of departmentalism.

 

[kellyb]

...by invoking the 25th Amendment, or resigning in protest.* Not by stealing papers off his desk and pretending that that makes everything okay.

*Assuming he won't listen to reason.

That's what I'm thinking.

What they're doing is anti-democratic and anti-"rule of law" by any measure. If they think he's too loony to hold office, they have a duty to resign and go public, not participate in one half of the government working in secret to sabotage the other half.

 

[Elagabalus]

Compartmentalism is more like it! I'll get me coat...