The Problem with Trump-LA Times 4 part editorial series

1. 79

   Credence2posted 7 years ago

   This should prove most interesting. I say sorry in advance to Trump supporters, but this is comprehensive and irresistible.
   
   http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-o … president/
   
   For those that have the problems with Trump that I have, lets list how many we share in common?

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Holy Cow Credence2,
      
      At least they, (LATimes), sourced it as from the Editorial Board, properly defining it as an opinion piece.
      
      It is no wonder you are so enthusiastic about it. I can see you now, just the title probably had you excitedly bouncing on the balls of your feet, and clapping your hands as you chorused; "Hercules! ...  Hercules!... Hercules!..."
      
      Come on tell me... by the second paragraph you were almost in a swoon weren't you? Kicked back your chair and fist-pumped a big "Yessss!" after the third one too I bet.
      
      And that second quote they offered to be shared... Saw the face of God and clicked that subscribe button didn't you?
      
      What a negative piece of rubbish. And you have the nerve to criticize Breitbart. Well, I criticize Breitbart too, but I sure would not repeat or copy/paste any of that piece - even in this reply.
      
      And I thought your Salon habit was bad.... Geesh...
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Believe itor not, I read the Breitbart pieces to see what direction the Right is moving into. Everyone was forewarned about the content. The only publications left that can be considered impartial by the Right are Fox, Breitbart and Infowars. According to them anyway, Ninety nine percent of remaining media has a leftist bias, how do you win?

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Certainly not with something like your linked LA Times piece.
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 0

         promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Kudos for knowing the difference between news and opinion in media. Many people do not.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Hi promisem,
            
            But even noted as an opinion piece, look what it has done to my opinion of the LA Times as a credible news source.
            
            Since I don't recall any former look into the LA Times' reporting credibility -biased or non-biased, the vitriol of this one piece has now left me with an unsupported, yet very real, notion that they are a very Liberal publication. Which of course affects my opinion of their credibility.
            
            Do you suppose I am the only relatively non-partisan reader to be similarly affected?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 0

               promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Having worked at one of the most conservative newspapers in America, I can tell you that a single opinion piece represents the opinion of the person who wrote it and not the news content of the entire paper.

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Will a liberally oriented paper hire a conservative opinion writer?  I don't think so, which means that the paper is oriented the same as the opinion.  Vastly more subtly, we hope, but still oriented that way.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     Newspapers are conservative or liberal on their editorial pages. They fight to avoid bias in the news section. I was part of many of those fights.
                     
                     During my time at this extremely conservative newspaper, we got calls all the time claiming the paper was liberal despite its undying support of all things Republican and Libertarian.
                     
                     Some people think that a news story which casts a bad light on a Republican automatically makes the entire newspaper liberal. They don't want the truth. They want what they want to hear, which is why so many people love Fox News and Breitbart.

                     replyreport
                     1. 96

                        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, I seldom see a newspaper anymore so can't truly comment.  My news comes from TV and the web, and I most definitely see a tremendous bias in TV news.  News, not editorial or opinion pieces.
                        
                        This can vary from the wording used to the stories presented vs the ones "forgotten".  Trump "splits families apart", he doesn't "enforce the law according to his oath of office".  He will waste billions building a wall that won't work and will make America the laughing stock of the world", but again doesn't "protect our borders" as he swore to do.  Long stories about a poor woman being deported as per the law, but nothing on the falling numbers crossing the border illegally.  Perhaps if I read the newspaper I would find it different, but I rather doubt it.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                           I agree that TV news in general doesn't have the same objectivity as newspapers. It shows up more often with the shows that have just one person. Newspapers follow much more stringent rules on reporting. In fact, newspaper people look down on TV journalism.
                           
                           To your other points, I don't believe Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are less biased than Wolf Blitzer or Greta Van Susteren.

                           replyreport
                           1. 96

                              wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                              Are you suggesting that a talk show host, Sean Hannity, is similar to a newscaster?  I would very highly disagree - Hannity doesn't even pretend to cover the news, while a newscaster is supposed to do just that without bias.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, I am not. I assumed incorrectly that you were lumping them together. Many people I know don't see the difference.

                                 replyreport
               2. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  We have different opinions on this one promisem.
                  
                  The article wasn't under an individual's byline, nor was it a reader's contribution. It was attributed to the Editorial Board. I don't know if that makes a difference, but it sounds like it would. Hence my opinion that the article reflects the perspective of the paper itself.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                     I understand your point. An editorial board opinion piece reflects the stance of the editorial page and only that page. It does not and cannot reflect the stance of the news reporters and editors. They follow completely different rules.

                     replyreport
2. 67

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   Op-ed it is but the following are certainly undeniable facts:
   
   "Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart, foul rivers and pollute the air, intensify the calamitous effects of climate change and profoundly weaken the system of American public education for all. ... lack of respect for those fundamental rules and institutions on which our government is based. .. His contempt for the rule of law and the norms of government."
   

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It is a relief to know that I am not alone in those observations.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Actually its a proven fact that 57 % of liberals actually think Hilary won , good luck with gaining on reality !    I'm Sure you'll find many who side with this nonsense thread!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            promisemposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Here is an even bigger number: 98% of all independents, moderates, liberals and members of the CIA, NSA and FBI believe that Hillary would have won except for the propaganda campaign and collusion by Russian intelligence.

            replyreport
         2. 67

            ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            When a person says "actually" and "proven" before the noun 'fact' it means that person is fcking lying to you-  "Believe me"
            
            People who lie also use convoluted sentence structure, and qualifying language when giving you the details, like “to tell you the truth” or “I can say categorically.” http://hub.me/a69vf
            
            Vincent Coccotti: You know… Sicilians are great liars, the best - in the world, I'm Sicilian, my father was the world's heavy weight champion of Sicilian liars. From growing up with him, I’ve learned the pantomime of liars. There are 17 different things a guy does when he lies - to give himself away. A woman got 20, but guys got 17. But if you know them - like you know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to hell. Now, what we’ve got here is a little game of show and tell - you don't wanna show me nothing but you tell me everything.
            
            

            replyreport
   2. 96

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let's start at the beginning; which actions can be blamed for "ripping families" apart?  We'll worry about ignoring the "rule of law" when that one has been satisfactorily answered.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         That would probably be the steps he's taken to strengthen the economy. More disposable income means more people can afford a divorce lawyer. I suppose liberals will be divorcing their more conservative significant others at a greater rate.

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That might be it, although divorce does seem more of a personal decision than something that can be blamed on Trump.  Much like living in different countries is.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               If it is bad and it happened some from the left here will find a way to blame Trump. No matter how tenuous the connection.

               replyreport
      2. 67

         ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Beware the imperial use of 'we' in any statement.  You have a mouse in your pocket?
         Willful ignorance and demanding proof of something that you already know is an avoidance tactic because since you argue against facts - it will never be answered 'satisfactorily' in your eyes.
         
         The invincible ignorance fallacy[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply pig-headedly refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to either make assertions with no consideration of objections or to simply dismiss objections by calling them excuses, conjecture, etc. or saying that they don't prove anything; all without actually demonstrating how the objection fit these terms (see ad lapidem fallacy).
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 96

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            From which I can only conclude that you don't have any indication Trump is "ripping families apart", just more gross exaggeration and rhetoric without basis in fact.  I assume the rest of the post is more of the same, just blaming the President for the actions of others.
            
            Not a particularly auspicious beginning for a discussion, is it?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               Hell no it ain't when you don't even read the entire post.  - ROTFL

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  In case you've forgotten already, here is the pertinent sentence: "Trump has taken dozens of real-life steps that, if they are not reversed, will rip families apart,...".  See?  I DID read it - did you read your own words?  Perhaps not, as you seem unable to give even a single one of those "dozens of real-life steps".

                  replyreport
3. 57

   benhamileyimposted 7 years ago

   This is really interesting thanks for sharing.

   replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   Wake up man , There is probably never been an election that liberals lost that wasn't the fault of some other entity other than their own blindness to reality ,    Kind of like those times  that "the dog ate your homework "   except  the media this time ate the blank pages you forgot to take home from school .
   
   Get over yourself - you simply blew it .

   replyreport