Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

What really galls me is when a Democrat tells me, "The NYT is not biased, after all they publish David Brooks."  Yes, true.  I imagine that is as convincing as if I told them, "Fox News is not biased, after all they feature Juan Williams and Mara Liasson."

Oh my, he's galled. Fancy that. Oh the horror, I shall cancel my subscription to the Times immediately. But the analogy is not in the least convincing. The Times publishes columnists in print/Internet mode who can present their cases as reasoned arguments, no matter what their sides, and also allows for reader comments. Fox News presents the token liberals as fall guys, patsies simply to be dismissed on air with a contemptuous wave of the hand by the Hannitys or O'Reillys or whichever other "thinker" is on at the moment.

So you're telling me the NYT has a liberal bias? What's next - Beethoven wrote nine symphonies?

[San Antone]

You can't even keep this straight.

Your basic claim was "they're not criticising Clinton!". Karl has accordingly provided you with multiple front page stories. To which your response is "they're not criticising Clinton enough! Not as much as Fox News does!"

Well, duh.

You want to talk about echo chambers? Just think back to what happened in 2012. Which party's supporters were living in a "we're going to win" echo chamber, hmm? One of my strongest memories of 2012 was the sheer OUTRAGE on display over on Fox as the numbers started coming showing that no, Romney was not going to win comfortably as Fox had been telling everybody.

That, my friend, is an echo chamber.

And it seems that this time, the numbers are so bad that Trump is abandoning the "I'm going to win" echo chamber for the "I'm going to lose because it's rigged" echo chamber. Which is actually more frightening.

You misunderstand me, my friend - I don't expect the Times to cover Hillary Clinton any differently than they do.  It would be refreshing though to have a conversation with one of my Liberal friends who recognizes that the Times covers all the news from a left-leaning perspective.

Did you actually read it? Doesn't sound like it. The article is an opinion piece. The main point is that what Trump is doing with respect to his accusers is not materially different from what Clinton and his minions did. The difference, the author claims, is that the times have changed and unsupported charges of sexual abuse are not as readily dismissed today as they were in the 90s. Do you disagree with this position? What is your objection to it exactly?

Yeah, I got it.  That's the cynical part.   

The problem is.. there's conservative media and THEN there's Fox News. Remember death panels? The liberal 'skewage' is nowhere near the Fox sewage.

I guess it was during the 2008 election, I can remember having a conversation with my sister-in-law in which she railed against Fox News as being so biased and wrong to the point of fabricating stories against Democrats.  However, I pointed out that everything she accuses Fox News of but cannot demonstrate had been done by CBS when they relied on a source they did not vet and accepted a fake letter "proving" that George Bush had lied about his service record.  Dan Rather had to resign over the lapse of journalistic integrity.

[Madiel]

You misunderstand me, my friend - I don't expect the Times to cover Hillary Clinton any differently than they do.  It would be refreshing though to have a conversation with one of my Liberal friends who recognizes that the Times covers all the news from a left-leaning perspective.

It depends on what you mean by that. What's your point of reference?

There's no doubt that the Times is to the left of Fox, for example. But then, absolutely everything is to the left of Fox. Sane conservative media is to the left of Fox. Even some slightly loopy media is to the left of Fox.

If you're trying to suggest, on the other hand, that the Times is to the left of some kind of "objective" reference point then that's a more problematic idea, because it assumes what you're trying to prove.

Right now, whatever "objective" reference you use for Clinton vs Trump has to take into the account that even staunchly Republican media is now endorsing Clinton over Trump. If you're wondering why Clinton is not coming in for as much criticism as Trump, one need only look at the list of things that Trump has said which has led certain newspapers and magazines to endorse a Democrat for the first time in their long history.

One often hears about the need for balance in the media, but usually in a way that assumes that 50% on each side of an argument is always appropriate. But it's not. It's not appropriate to give 50% of airtime to climate sceptics when only about 3% of scientists express any kind of climate scepticism. It's not appropriate to give equal airtime to anti-vaxxers when anti-vaxxers are a fringe group relying on a study about autism that is a known forgery. And it's not appropriate to give equal levels of criticism to both Clinton and Trump in a year when one of the two lead party candidates for President has demonstrated an extraordinary lack of qualification for the position, as outlined by Conservative media that hasn't simply swallowed the Kool-Aid that says a Democrat is automatically worse just for being a Democrat.

[Madiel]

I guess it was during the 2008 election, I can remember having a conversation with my sister-in-law in which she railed against Fox News as being so biased and wrong to the point of fabricating stories against Democrats.  However, I pointed out that everything she accuses Fox News of but cannot demonstrate had been done by CBS when they relied on a source they did not vet and accepted a fake letter "proving" that George Bush had lied about his service record.  Dan Rather had to resign over the lapse of journalistic integrity.

And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.

[drogulus]

     Why is the NYTimes assumed to be the deviant? The Repubs have been veering more to the right, they have not stood still. How are the flagship media organizations supposed to represent journalistic norms without appearing to veer to the left? If you ask Dems the Times is seen as culturally liberal and politically and economically centrist.

     In one aspect there is a change, not specifically in liberal media but across the board. Institutions that usually avoid taking partisan positions are opposing Trump. Republican newspapers are endorsing Clinton. Something beyond partisanship motivates this. The duties of citizenship can override any version of "fair and balanced" everywhere outside the Fox bubble.

     

[San Antone]

And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.

If you can provide an example of a lapse on the scale of what CBS News did, and the face of the story that ought to resign, I will look at it.

It depends on what you mean by that. What's your point of reference?

There's no doubt that the Times is to the left of Fox, for example. But then, absolutely everything is to the left of Fox. Sane conservative media is to the left of Fox. Even some slightly loopy media is to the left of Fox.

If you're trying to suggest, on the other hand, that the Times is to the left of some kind of "objective" reference point then that's a more problematic idea, because it assumes what you're trying to prove.

First there is supposed to be a separation between the editiorial page (or webpages) and the news side.  I don't know how much you watch Fox or read their newspapers like the NY Post and others.  The Wall Street Journal is another example of what I consider responsible Conservative coverage.

I think the Times has erased the Chinese Wall between the editorial side and the news side.  Purely my opinion. 

I do not think there is any news outlet that is "objective", they are all biased to a degree.  And it is manifested in where they place a story (front page, above the fold, back pages, news section, Op-Ed page ...), how the headline reads, or do they even cover a story, and finally which "facts" they choose present or leave out, who speaks for the opposing view, and what kind of context do they provide.

So, I read a variety of media and like RealClearPolitics since they offer links to articles from both sides of the spectrum in equal measure. 

Fox News has been vilified by Liberals and largely by Liberals who say they don't watch/read it.  I am not a "fan" of Fox, or any specific news outlet, as I said, I consider them all biased.  But, I do read many from a variety of political POVs, including both the Times and Fox.

[zamyrabyrd]

It's her freaking job! That's so what. She offered no source. Clearly she didn't need to. Maybe the source was the girl's mother. It doesn't matter. It is NOT her job to decide her client is guilty and then conspire with the prosecutor to put him away for years. You sit there and pontificate about how awful she was, when clearly you don't understand the US justice system. I hope for your sake you are never in a position to have to discover the realities of it.

The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.

[drogulus]

   

And who from Fox News resigned over their lapses of journalistic integrity? If you want full equivalence, it's not just a story about "the left media does bad things as well", it's a story about whether or not people face consequences when they have such a lapse.

     In the context of Fox News, what is a "lapse"?

     In the world of real journalism a struggle has been going on. The sheer volume of fabrications from Trump means the media has to treat everything with an elevated skepticism that will no doubt be seen as elevated partisanship by many Trump supporters. This can't be helped.

      Many Repubs who have come out against Trump now find themselves in a position to understand the difference between liberal partisanship and the cultural liberalism of the journalistic profession. Cultural liberalism is based on the idea of objectivity towards facts, not balance between competing political factions. Liberal partisans among journalists have adversarial goals that take them away from objectivity, but not to the extent that they can ignore it. Partisan liberals must always look over their shoulder at the cultural liberals at the NYTimes and WaPo. Fox News is no danger to them, journalists governed by liberal norms are.

[BasilValentine]

The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.

You should listen to the tape more carefully. The "system" wasn't the problem. The problems were incompetence by whoever processed the evidence and, ultimately, lack of evidence. Hillary was clearly saddened by the case, during which she lost all faith in lie detectors. Of course she shouldn't be ashamed of the case. She got the guy a drastically reduced sentence, meaning she did her job well and correctly!

[Parsifal]

The system shouldn't be so porous that a rapist of a young minor slips through so easily. A self-proclaimed defender of women should be ashamed of this case at the outset of her career.

That is a problem with "the system" and with police negligence, not with a public defender who executes her responsibilities efficiently. The rule of law is important. If police and prosecutors can conspire to convict people without evidence because "we all know they're guilty" we are in a very bad place.

[drogulus]

Heh. Did you just make that up? I'm now surprised I haven't seen it before.

     I made up Agent Orange. He's an agent, he's orange. Orange is the new "red" hehe heh he.

[Mirror Image]

Pretty funny...

https://www.youtube.com/v/qVMW_1aZXRk

I thought Baldwin's Trump was 'okay,' but the part where he's 'stalking' Clinton was hilarious.

[Madiel]

Sanantonio, Rupert Murdoch is all yours now, but he came from Australia and Australians have plenty of familiarity with his work.

Also, I really wish you would stop categorising the entire world. This is in fact something of an American trait, wanting everything to have its own box. But one doesn't have to be a "liberal" to have a problem with Fox, a news source that you nominated. Politics is a spectrum, not two teams.

[drogulus]

     Trumps revised tax plan would lead to a hugely inflationary increase in net government spending. It's hard to imagine that Congress, which won't enact far smaller tax/spend adjustments to get more growth and rebuild the country would suddenly decide to send the fiscal balance into the stratosphere for..... what? Has he no understanding that you don't spend way more or way less into the private sector than it can use? Will no one explain it to him? Will no one explain it to whoever is supposed to explain it to him?

     The myth that familiarity with business practice endows one with economic wisdom is pervasive. The truth is many exceptionally talented capitalists are entirely impervious to the difference between money for users and the money system itself. Trump can run out of money, and so can I, or Apple, or Missouri, or any other money user. It does not follow though that the system that creates money can run out of money. It can't (it fakes it with debt limits and other stratagems because it can't). I don't know why this is so hard to understand, and why its significance is so elusive. I'll just say this, any business titan that thinks that a money system can (or should!) run out of money just like a user, like his own business or personal bank account is an economic dunce. I'm not talking about the way the system should work, I'm talking about the way it does work. There no way on earth that Trump has the kind of systemic overview necessary to understand the irrationality of his plan.

[Spineur]

A picture is worth a thousand words....



"Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc"

[PerfectWagnerite]

A picture is worth a thousand words....



"Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc"

yes it is...

Look is there really that much of a difference between Grandma and El Groper? Trump just talks it but he grew up in NY, if you count real policy he is not all that different than most democrats.

[drogulus]

     Trump's Fans Have More to Lose Than Trump Himself

      If anything, Trumpism has, in part, made the rest of the nation all the more eager to ignore the millions of white voters living on the edges of the economy. Many may now be written off without guilt, because they have shown themselves to be not just unfortunates but undesirables—irredeemable hate-mongers itching to reassert their cultural dominance. Of course, the political establishment will first need to spend a couple of months piously lecturing Trump fans. But once the finger wagging is done, non-Trump America will return to their regular lives, leaving disappointed Trump devotees to stew in the resentments and anxieties he, among others, has nurtured.

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, this is a tragic outcome. It leaves Americans that much more segregated and alienated from one another. It's exactly this kind of cross-cultural suspicion and mistrust that has enabled Trump to come within spitting distance of the presidency. And it's what threatens to keep his supporters isolated and fuming on the sidelines, long after their champion has forgotten them.

     I try not to let my gloating get in the way of recognizing just how sad it will be when the Trumpists realize that now they are not only ignored and excluded, they are hated as much as they hate everyone on their long hate list. But though I understand what a tragedy this is for them, if I ever learn a Trumpist has bought the house next door I will gently but firmly burn it down.

     Ohhh, not really, I won't really burn their house down, I'll just burn it down kind of in my mind.

[Pat B]

If you can provide an example of a lapse on the scale of what CBS News did, and the face of the story that ought to resign, I will look at it.

There are several straight-up lies in the links of post #5439 along with many less black-and-white issues.

Here is an especially ridiculous one:

https://www.youtube.com/v/-_zF7nbEvwY

This could almost be considered satire since the part about Birmingham is not even believable.

[Karl Henning]

Gosh, he is just so . . . presidential!

Trump didn't provide any evidence for the claim that people representing Clinton were behind what Republican officials in North Carolina are calling "an act of political terrorism." (Trump did say the attack occurred "because we are winning," though most polls show Clinton leading in the state by several points.)

[Brian]

yes it is...

Look is there really that much of a difference between Grandma and El Groper? Trump just talks it but he grew up in NY, if you count real policy he is not all that different than most democrats.

Well, my understanding is that most (though not all) of Bill's deviancies have been with the woman's consent.