Quote (thundercock @ Jun 12 2021 08:14pm)

I suppose we're going to have to continue waiting for the other agencies to make their reports then since we don't have all the facts. We'll need minutes from WH staff meetings, a Secret Service report, etc. We know that Trump was planning on walking to the church well before the protestors were removed so I suppose the question is, "would Trump have made the trip regardless?" I don't think that level of scrutiny warrants the charge of "fake news" and I certainly don't fault media organizations for reporting on it in real time. We all saw what happened and we already have both DOJ and DOI admitting fault and coming up with recommendations to improve safety for both police and the protestors. I don't disagree with your standards on media coverage as they are quite admirable. However, you can't pretend that you're arguing in good faith here because your side is orders of magnitude worse. You need to be consistent with your principles.

I agree with you that the Trump presidency ushered in a new era of distrust in virtually every institution in America. We are significantly weaker because of it.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jun 12 2021 07:36pm)

I'm curious if you'd be willing to expand on this thought, tbh. From my perspective, there's always been a media bias, and narrative-driven reporting. Why was Romney accused of being racist and sexist and blah blah blah ad nauseum when he's shown nothing of the sort? Why were Obama's socialist proclivities not reported on in 2008?

To my view, to a very large degree, I cannot recall the last time the media was friendly towards any but Democrats. The media was touting the 1994 crime bill when it was a Democrat passing it. The media always seems to fall in line. Oddly, the only time the media in general has stood in favor of Republicans is when war was involved, or when there's a republican standing against another republican. So for instance, the media was nothing but applause when it came to the invasions of both Afghanistan AND Iraq. Likewise, they were very supportive of Syrian intervention, Libyan intervention, etc. When Trump fired the missiles after the hoax "saran gas attack" at Syria, the media was once again gushing. The same media that was also calling McCain a racist sexist homophobe trotted him out as some great hero the moment he was at odds with Trump. The same media that attacked Romney ad nauseum is now touting him as the model republican (globalist warmonger RINO).

The pattern is that the media will favor republicans who start wars, escalate wars, or engage in interventionism, and those who stand against whichever republican is "holding the torch". They will not, however, stand for any real Republican policy, or republicans in general. The majority of media coverage for republicans is terrible (outside of Fox News), and has been since before 1996 when Fox News was founded. So I guess my question would be, is the narrative-driven reporting really a side effect of the Trump Presidency, or did the Trump Presidency highlight what had already existed for longer than most of us have been alive?

Final thought:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVHlHR5RcSg

Quote (bogie160 @ Jun 13 2021 12:45pm)

I watched CNN's coverage of Romney during the 2012 campaign, there were limits to how overt they were willing to be. They would infer that Romney was a sexist, but they wouldn't come out and say it. He was "probably" a racist, but they wouldn't accuse him directly. So long as Romney kept himself within the bounds the media had set, there would be at least a pretense on impartiality.

Trump shattered that veneer. He was so egregiously offensive to the media that they considered it their moral duty to abandon any pretense and oppose him directly and absolutely. It has completely shattered the credibility of the media establishment, and it has opened a lot of eyes as to how compromised some of these institutions are.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jun 13 2021 01:56pm)

I love how you take a situation in which the media should oppose somebody, and then paint that as the media losing credibility.

The media's job is not to be impartial. The media's job is to be objective. Trump was a garbage president, and a garbage person. As such, the media should portray him that way. You seem to want want the media to call it 50/50 even when the facts don't support that.

Quote (bogie160 @ Jun 13 2021 01:42pm)

The media has lost credibility because they accused Trump of clearing protesters when he apparently didn't.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ 13 Jun 2021 19:56)

I love how you take a situation in which the media should oppose somebody, and then paint that as the media losing credibility.

The media's job is not to be impartial. The media's job is to be objective. Trump was a garbage president, and a garbage person. As such, the media should portray him that way. You seem to want want the media to call it 50/50 even when the facts don't support that.

Quote

"A new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jun 13 2021 02:45pm)

Not even going to read the rest of the post because you started off with a bold-face lie. It's already been explained directly to you why this report does not exonerate Trump.

Telling that you have to be so blatantly dishonest to try to paint the media as losing credibility.

Quote (EndlessSky @ Jun 13 2021 04:12pm)

Doubling down on your lies because being honest would destroy your entire worldview.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Jun 13 2021 05:30pm)

Says the virgin