CNN Commentators' Worst Day Ever—in my opinion of course.
I was watching CNN's Jake Trapper and an on-scene reporter discuss the protests. As the backdrop video, (the location of the on-scene reporter), was showing live footage of fires and looting, they both minimized the police kneeling, (as mentioned by PrettyPanther - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WFqP_Y … e=youtu.be ), as just a token, and in syrupy voices spoke to the anger and frustration of the protesters. (they were not showing the kneeling video). Except, at this time there were no protesters—just rioters and looters playing live on their screen.
I saw the protesters during the daytime protests. There seemed to be almost as many whites as blacks. And there were signs and slogans. And they seemed to present a united, but non-violent confrontation to the police lines they were facing.
That time and backdrop was where Trapper and the reporter's comment might have meant something, but all I saw during their drippy droolings was black faces, (ok. maybe one or two white faces and a few brown faces), scrambling, running, dodging police, setting fires and looting stores.
CNN's Don Lemon did the same thing earlier. With a backdrop of rioters and looters on the screen, he could barely keep himself together as he dripped empathy for the "protesters" he was watching. In all the time I was watching CNN show live footage of looting, vandalism, fire-setting, and violence against the police, I did not hear any condemnation of it from their folks—it was all oozy empathy and sympathy for the "protesters."
In my view, this was CNN's worst performance ever.
You ever see the movie "Hell in the Pacific"? The whole thing reminds me of that.
What was sad to me as a Christian was how quickly CNN made what was a special moment to me into once again a negative story.
I don't know what was in the president's heart when he took that walk and held up that Bible --- What I saw was my bible held high in front of a house of worship that has stood in that very spot for a very long time. A church that just the night before someone made an attempt to burn it to the ground. It seems CNN saw little wrong with a law-breaking thug burning down a church. No there was no condemnation in regards to any of the violence or has there been on the loss of life that has occurred due to these riots. The protesters have done nothing but unknowingly shield violence. History shows that although these protests are meant to be peaceful, and bring about needed change always turn into riots, and end up with multiple damaged property, and yes death.
No, Don Lemon was blinded to the violence and the lawlessness of this past week. He could care less about the harm that has been done to citizens due to the violence. All he does nightly is to push a sick liberal agenda. Just look into this man's eyes, they're dead, they show nothing but hate.
Defense sec Esper just gave a statement in regards to no rubber bullets or tear gas was used to clear protesters for president's walk or was the helicopter a "Blackhawk". It was a National Gaurd Medivac helicopter.
GA, do you think those that reported these lie will retract their untrue reports? Do you think those that want to continue believing those lies will stop believing them, and stop spreading those lies? In my view no, the damage is done, the new bit of hate has been eaten up and digested.
CNN and MSNBC are dangerous, they do nothing but work to divide people, and spread hate.
Magnanimity may just be detrimental at this point in our history. Common sense may just be a better route at this point. This country is in trouble, and we need common sense to prevail.
What does your common sense tell you about Trump's claim that he was only in his bunker for an inspection?
Poor attempted at deflecting. As you see I was posting an opinion. As I said I could have cared less about what the president was doing at the church. And pointing out obvious bias of CNN, not to mention their proclivity to lie and distort the truth.
I shared my opinion of Don Lemon, and his distorted hateful views and the fact that CNN distorted the fact in regards to Monday nights National Guards curfew showdown with protesters.
I did not mention anything about Trump and the bunker statement or might I say "words". I was concentrating on deeds... CNN deeds, Don Lemons nightly deeds... Ect.
Like I said nice deflect, but there is just so much more going on right now that deserves attention than Trump's words... Hopefully, you are able to see all the tragedy through the media rant- TRUMP SAID THIS! People are actually dying. Cities are being looted and burned. I could give a care less about the rediculous statement Trump made. He makes many almost daily.
Sorry, but at this point, it appears to me your concerns are misguided with all the tragedies we are seeing with these protests/riots.
At any rate I could give a sh-- about what Trump said. Your comment is disturbing to me in so many ways. It's like when you see something you find really uncomfortable you just ignore the comment and quickly deflect.
Just not in the mood for your "fluff"... We have real problems due to these protests, and they can't be laid on Trump for a statement about a bunker.
I was not trying to deflect. You seem to care deeply about the truth, and you often refer to your "common sense." I believe it is on topic to determine whether a poster who is expressing an opinion is credible in their use of truth and their self-described common sense. If the truth and common sense are only deployed in some situations and not others, then credibility is a serious issue.
Please keep in mind I was responding to your response to one of my previous comments.
PP --"What does your common sense tell you about Trump's claim that he was only in his bunker for an inspection?"
I went in-depth in my response to your comment
You know come back with this...
PP ---" I believe it is on topic to determine whether a poster who is expressing an opinion is credible in their use of truth and their self-described common sense. "
The initial comment you responded to was clearly on the subject (CNN Commentators Worst Day Ever). I provided a link in regards to the latest CNN report that has been proven to be untrue. Nothing to do with my common sense other than I am opting to believe the Sec OF Defense Esper over CNN.
And yes I certainly dished up an opinion. You don't like it, that is your problem. Likewise when it comes to me not appreciating your opinions. I must ask, why do you find yourself so self-important, to even have the nerve to question anyone's opinion? WE all have them, and I certainly don't question yours or find the need to.---I am pretty much going to say what I please, you have the option to report any of my comments if you find them inappropriate or better yet you can pass them by. Either way, I could care less.
The comment you brought up in regard to Trump's bunker comment seemed ridiculous in light of all that is going on in the past weeks. Sorry for my bluntness. Actually your Trump/bunker may be on the subject. The statement is factual, and CNN has dwelled on the comment for days. It was not fake news he did say that. But consider, perhaps I found it unimportant do to the nightly riots as well as deaths that have occurred due to these riots. Guess one could say my common sense did tell me Trump's bunker statement sort of takes a back seat to the violence that is nightly being perpetrated in our major cities. Call me crazy...
I have mentioned this many times before we totally have conflicting thought processes. I don't understand your logic or most of the Time agree with it. As it is clear you feel the same.Not sure why you waste your time responding to my comments. Your Wellcome too, it's an open forum, but don't feel I will not come back at you with my opinion. Plus, I must remind you, I really don't care what Trump says, I care about his job performance.
Yeah, I thought that would be your reply. I think I made my point. If I didn't it was not from a lack of trying. Sorry, I am so over all the liberal BS. Not willing to placate or respond to it anymore. Plenty here that feed on it, just not one that can abide by it.
You sure use a lot of words in your non-placating non-responses.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/612640/
“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”
Me: Most people understand that what a president says is an important part of his job performance. Most people understand that choosing to spread hate and glorify violence, from a position of power, is an action.
Continuing to support a man who does that while the nation is suffering is also an action.
Please note the word "anymore"... CNN Commentators Worst Day Ever.
Trump Trump Trump... I don't think I have run across someone with such a fixation on all Trump.
We are discussing CNN's worst day. You know fake news.
Perhaps you should start a thread on Mattis's statement.
Lol, you stated you don't care what Trump says, only about his job performance. My reply was to your statement.
You seem offended, as though challenging the basis of an opinion, which you yourself said was based on truth and common sense, is not an expected occurrence on a debate forum.
Sorry you don't like talking about Trump but, unfortunately for us all, he the POTUS and his words matter.
And our response to those words matter most, because we are responsible for either tolerating it or ridding ourselves of a selfish man who would act to divide and inflame us.
You are entitled to pretend his words don't matter and that it's appropriate and acceptable to ignore them. I will continue to challenge that destructive mindset.
Your choice. My choice.
You should probably consider adding the remainder of your sentence, just for completeness sake:
"And our response to those words matter most, because we are responsible for either tolerating it or ridding ourselves of a selfish man who would act to divide and inflame us." while pretending that our own words and methods aren't just as dividing as we think that selfish man is.
But, just as you say, it is your choice and it is my choice.
Please point out, specifucally, where I attempted to divide us. Also, please explain how anything I said here could be "just as dividing as we think that selfish man is." Please show how I,, a voice on an internet forum, carry as much weight as the president of the United States.
Disagreement alone is not divisive.
LOL Nearly everything you post here is divisive, PP, from trashing Trump for everything he says (right or wrong) to trashing anyone not on your Trash Trump bandwagon. From the near constant litany of negatively loaded descriptive terms ("selfish" comes to mind, as does "destructive mindset") to condemning anyone that doesn't agree with your personal spin, it is divisive.
You have to know how divisive that is. It might take a thousand Pretty Panthers to cause the harm that you think Trump does, but there are million of similar voices. Trump doesn't supply a tiny portion of the harm that those million social media voices do. Of course, both pale before what the major media does in their quest for the almighty dollar!
Yes, just as I thought, you think my disdain for the mentally ill, incompetent, reality TV star bully is divisive.
I think your continued support of a man who bullies your fellow Americans is divisive.
Again, history will decide and I have little doubt where we each will land.
Edit: I do not converse about politics online anywhere except this forum, because that is its purpose. This is a politics and social issues forum, and one should assume opinions will be at odds. If you read my exchange with Sharlee, you will find a personal insult or two, but not from me. The only social media I use is Facebook and I rarely comment on politics there because I don't consider it an appropriate or effective place to do so. You should see my Facebook feed, though. Full of my right-wing friends and neighbors rallying a call to arms, threatening to kill looters with their guns, warning that a Democrat presidency will mean civil war.
Yeah, people like me who post pictures of their dog, garden, and share peace songs. Yeah, we're the divisive ones on social media.
"Yes, just as I thought, you think my disdain for the mentally ill, incompetent, reality TV star bully is divisive."
Except I did not say that. It is your comment, your continual usage of derogatory terminology (mentally ill, incompetent, reality TV star bully), you methodology in presenting your opinions that is divisive. It is one thing to disagree with a presidential action or speech, it is a whole different kettle to call him offensive names.
Yes, the social media platform known as HubPages Politics Forum is intended for political opinions. But those opinions can remain civil, and calling names is not. Nor is spinning actions into what they were, and neither is grossly exaggerating events.
No, history will not decide who was more divisive; history is written by the winners and in this matter the media is going to be the winner. A media that is most highly biased towards the far left activists.
Here we go again. The only person I refer to as a lying POS, for example, is the POTUS. He is mentally ill, whether you believe it or not.
You worry about divisiveness on a debate forum but continue to support a guy who rose to power on the back of birtherism and continues to divide us while his own people are suffering.
Sorry, I can't take that seriously.
Yep, here we go again. "...a guy who rose to power on the back of birtherism..."
Can you possibly believe that anyone at all voted for Trump because he made a comment about a previous president indicating that he was not native born? What would that have to do with anything at all in the then-current election against a completely different opponent?
Just rant, that's all - an excuse to denigrate the president, and one that is a lie of the face of it as well, for he did not even come close to "rose to power on the back of birtherism". Trump came to power because the people turned against Hillary Clinton and, to a lesser extent, the Democrat platform. My personal prediction is that he will continue in power because of the failings of his new opponent and because of the actions of the Democrat party over the last 5 (to include the Russian and FBI fiasco) years. Just an opinion, though, and it might be wrong.
"Can you possibly believe that anyone at all voted for Trump because he made a comment about a previous president indicating that he was not native born?"
Sure, but mostly I know that many voted for him despite his promotion of that false and demeaning claim.
You elected a guy who falsely demeaned President Obama, yet you think my descriptions of Trump are divisive. Go figure.
If people did not vote for him because of that silly comment, how do you deduce that he "rose to power on the back of birtherism"? That was the comment, after all, but I'm at a loss as to how that conclusion was made. I cannot think of any rational line of thought that would produce such a conclusion.
I have to say that the implication that because I helped elect a guy that believed false stories on the net means that it's OK to divide our country as much as possible escapes me as well. Can you lay out the reasoning there in simpler terms?
It is funny how you try to minimize things. That reminds me of your "a couple of ads in Facebook" every time you mention russians.
I never said it's okay to divide our country as much as possible. Where did you get that? In fact, my entire point is that I am unhappy with a president who routinely uses division as a political tool. If you want to think little ol' me on Hubpages pointing out the divisive behavior of our president is just as bad as the POTUS routinely promoting division, well, there is nothing more I can say.
Stop dishonestly characterizing my position. I have never said or implied it is "OK to divide our country as much as possible." Quite the opposite. You are making things up again to make it easier on yourself.
No, you don't say it's OK to divide the country...you just do it to the limits of your ability while complaining that Trump does it, too.
I don't see that you are but one small voice out of millions vs a huge voice in the WH - either way the result is to polarize our people and divide them as much as possible. Nor do I swallow the concept that "I can do it but the president can't because we expect more of him/her". That is nothing but an excuse for poor behavior while complaining that others (Trump) is doing what you are.
But you didn't answer as to how you rationalize that Trump "rose to power on the back of birtherism" - have you given that one up as being something you said but is false?
The most ridiculous thing out of the conversation I was having was I was simply pointing out a really harmful bit of fake news. which only ended up all over the news and social media in regards to the media report that tear gas and rubber bullets were used to clear a crowd of protester last Monday. This bit of news only acted to further the hate toward law and order officers, and they hate the left have for the president. I was keeping to the subject of this thread.
It has now just turned into once again Trump did this, Trump did that. I hate Trump, he is a POS... Have we not heard that hundreds of times?
When undesirable facts and reality are produced it is the norm to deflect onto "Trump bad man!". It's nothing new in these forums.
Very true, any thread is quickly turned into a Trump did this or said that. It seems to me that some are obsessed with the president. I have never witnessed this kind of hysteria. It does appear to be true some can't even consider facts if they are facts they just don't want to hear or accept.
I haven't either. I thought the furor over Obama's birth certificate was bad, but this hysteria (a good term for it!)...it's beyond my comprehension.
I have family that way - the rest of us can discuss politics without rancor even though we range from strong liberal to strong conservative, but one will instantly divert to hysteria over Trump whenever anything remotely political comes up. No one will discuss things with that one person and the spouse has banned social media because it always became so vitriolic and hateful so quickly. I would never have dreamed that a rational, logical and highly intelligent person could be that way.
For you and Sharlee, who both care deeply about the facts:
A reverse fact-check from Trump and his supporters about ‘tear gas’ falls apart
And the rubber bullets that he was reported to have ordered as well? Will that lie be set aside and forgotten in the rush to declare "Trump bad man!"
(Can't read the link as I won't pay)
https://www.newsweek.com/us-park-police … ch-1508239
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/backla … rump-visit
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 128855001/
Best as I can determine, the disagreement is addressed in the final link when it says:
"Pepper spray is a natural extract from pepper plants. Tear gas is generally what's used to describe a man-made chemical, and is often known to law enforcement as CS gas.
"Some people do use these terms interchangeably, but they are different products," said Dr. Kelly Johnson-Arbor, co-medical director of the National Capital Poison Center. "
So...no, tear gas was not used. So much for the "reverse fact-check". That some people are sloppy in their terminology, leading to a false-to-fact statement about the use of tear gas, hardly means that it happened. As those making the statement undoubtedly know better (and if they don't they certainly should) it cannot even be termed an "error"; it is a "lie" as it is deliberately trying to convince a reader of something known to be false. Pepper spray, freely available in any sporting goods store, is not tear gas.
Watch for yourself.
I'm sorry - I am not qualified to tell the difference between a smoke bomb and tear gas from a poorly shot video. Or a well shot one, for that matter. Heck, not if I were on site watching it live!
Are you? Can you tell from the color of the white smoke whether it is from tear gas or something else?
(Again, I have to question the intelligence of people standing still, refusing to obey the orders of a line of armed men telling me to leave the scene while advancing toward me and firing gas bombs at me. Just doesn't seem smart to me. Maybe that's because I'm pretty law abiding, though, and find the very concept of "civil disobedience" to be nothing more than criminal activity not-so-cleverly trying to hide behind a faux description.)
The Park Police who deployed the gas acknowledged it was tear gas. There are several types of irritants that produce similar results. This was an organic irritant that falls under the category of tear gas, according to the CDC as well as the Park Police. Of course, they later contradicted themselves on that. I wonder why?
Regardless of what you call it, it was deployed on peaceful protestors exercising their constitutional right to free speech. I know from previous conversations there is no type of protest that meets your approval so there is no need for you to repeat yourself. The Boston Tea Party must have really got your goat.
Didn't our president look brave and sincere as he lovingly waved Melania's bible around?
Make up your mind; either you believe the Post or you believe everyone else, including the Park Police. If the post, then tear gas was used; if anyone else that is a lie. Pretending that anything else, including pepper spray, is tear gas doesn't make the claim true.
"I know from previous conversations there is no type of protest that meets your approval so there is no need for you to repeat yourself."
Then you aren't very discerning, are you? I fully support peaceful protest that do not unduly interfere with other's lives. Closing a freeway or bridge necessary for emergency vehicles, for example, is not reasonable. Utilizing a secondary city street for a gathering of citizens is. Rioting and destruction to gain media attention is not, but chanting in unison is. Destruction of a city park (my area, during the "occupy" criminal activity) is not, walking down the assigned street is.
In other words, anything protesters do that anyone else can do as well is fine by me. It is only when they cross the line into illegal activity that I draw the line. But, just like you, I think you will accept anything short of outright murder and be fine with it. A difference of opinion, that's all.
I think he looked like an idiot. But then I think that of nearly all politicians as they pose so beautifully for their photo ops to show how much they care, usually at times and places they have no business being. And that includes kissing babies, believe it or not!
"In other words, anything protesters do that anyone else can do as well is fine by me. It is only when they cross the line into illegal activity that I draw the line."
Except for taking a knee during the anthem. That's bad. Never mind that others in the stadium are talking, or eating, or in the bathroom.
The Post, the CDC, and other reporters who actually experienced the tearing produced by the gas, all agree. The Park Police first disagree, then agree, then disagree again.
I think I'll go with those who haven't contradicted themselves.
You are welcome to disrespect the flag. You can burn it (safely!), you can smear it with feces, you can do anything you wish to it. All legal and I quite support right to do so.
But don't expect me to approve, don't expect me to applaud and don't expect anything but disgust at your actions. You don't seem to "get" the difference here, or understand just how offensive Kapernicks actions were; how disgusting some people found his intentionally offensive action, designed solely to gain media attention and notoriety, were. Of course, making excuses for poor behavior is de rigueur today, particularly when it's proclaimed to be about race. One has to spend only a few minutes of social media to find dozens of posts indicating that it was OK to riot, burn homes, businesses and cities in the name of "equality". Even the deaths of those in blue that were cold bloodedly murdered is OK to those with strong enough stomachs and hate filled minds.
"... reporters who actually experienced the tearing produced by the gas..."
LOL Atta girl, PP! Spin it hard! Twist it enough and you can convince (yourself, not I) that pepper spray is properly termed "tear gas" - that it is the military weapon designed and used by the military in WWI. Not a hint of truth in it, but it's believable with the right twisting...or at least it is to someone wanting to use it to defame her president.
"Except for taking a knee during the anthem. That's bad. Never mind that others in the stadium are talking, or eating, or in the bathroom."
So odd how my perspective is so different than yours.
I have always found it insuring to see so many stands and put their hand on their heart no matter where they are, even standing outside the stadium late to a game. I guess one could we are a perfect example of " half empty half full" logic.
However, you are correct there is some that head for the john or to buy a refreshment. I would say they are in the minority.
Sec Of Defence Esper provided a statement in regards to the fact no tear gas was used at the Monday protest to clear the protesters. And no you need not be accepted to recognize a smoke bomb from the smoke tear gas would make. But, perhaps you may want to realize that news media perpetrated a lie for days. And that's is the essence of the subject of this thread.
I felt I would remind you of this fact due to your mentioning my name in your comment. And yes, I do prefer facts over propaganda or mere lies.
Tear gas or rubber bullets were not used to clear the Washington protestors. Fact
And in regards to conversing with you. I will point out any mistruth I see from anyone on this chat. I know how uncomfortable it makes some, but that's just what comes when one chats on an open forum.
I do realize how uncomfortable it can be to have one's bubble burst. But I have found it very uncomfortable placating those I don't agree with. So, I guess we both have a bit of a problem.
Did you read the article? I'm not sure, based on your response.
Yes. I did read the article. It seems to me that the media walked it back as "no big deal", it appeared tear gas was used."No big thing"... Well, it would have been a big thing if Esper did not step up with the truth. Once again one more made-up bit of Trump vitreal on the books, a bit more sloppy feed that some would continue to spread about on the internet. As it is even a week later.
This is just one more bit of BS that the media have been caught promoting, there is a long list. Yea, I like facts, I don't stand around waiting for a feed to promote my views. I come to see the truth is just so much more palatable. I don't come out after the fact having to regurgitate some bit of lie to suit my narrative.
The Trump photo op was poorly planned and was a
ridiculous spectacle of poor politicking. To me, this should have been the subject in regard to that Monday night fiasco. The media did not need to spread a lie to compound what went down that evening.
So yes I read the article, I found it nothing but a walk back piece, that provided in a lot of other" but Trump did this anyway" BS. All to cover ass for the lie the media chose to perpetuate. Good feed for the weak-minded. You asked that's exactly what I thought about the article.
I am unsure how you reached the conclusion you did after reading the article, but okay.
Like I said some time ago we have very different thought processes. I just don't buy into spinning a lie any other way but a lie. I don't care for apologies or walking something back after ones just been caught. I realize that's the liberal thing to do. I just never have respected that form of thinking.
I didn't see an apology. I didn't see a walking back. I didn't see a lie, except on the part of the administration.
You don't care for apologies from someone who acknowledges they are wrong? I've never heard anyone say that.
I perceive that as odd... No, I was making an attempt to say I don't appreciate an apology after someone has been outed. The initial accusation from the media was our National Guard lobbed tear gas at the protesters. This was the lie I found despicable, and that was the subject of my conversation. It was an out and out lie, the media are now trying to skirt around "no it was park police"... A lie is a lie ... Ridiculous.
Sigh....it was not a lie. I seriously doubt you read and comprehended the article.
You do realize the article was updated? Did stood out like Avery hurt thumb... It certainly put a new spin on the article. Does it not?
"Update: On Friday afternoon, the National Park Service released a statement on behalf of the acting chief of the Park Police addressing Delgado’s interview.
“United States Park Police officers and other assisting law enforcement partners did not use tear gas or OC Skat Shells to close the area at Lafayette Park in response to violent protestors.
It just seems like lots of mistruths being put out there by media. Maybe they should really do research before putting such a lie out there. But, I guess they can just update, yeah that's the ticket.
Let me give you an example of divisive vs non-divisive political comment:
Your incompetent, bullying president last night ordered tear gas and rubber bullets used against a group of peaceful protesters simply wanting to make the objections to an ugly killing known. He had earlier spent the day cowering in an underground bunker in fear and decided he must show the world how brave he was by using military force against an unarmed, peaceful crowd of people. The ugly action was forced onto police so that this bumbling bully could make a photo op in a nearby church in order to bolster his chances of re-election, as if anyone stupid enough to ever vote for the orange haired monstrosity would think better of him for his actions. Only those that care nothing for people that are being killed, and will support this massive mistake of a president that cheated his way into the White House, whatever ugly and destructive actions he takes would ever believe such a travesty.
OR, one might say:
President Trump last night visited the nearby "presidents church" that had been burned by rioters to show his support and solidarity for the ending of such violence. Police were forced into using smoke bombs to clear a crowd of protesters in front of the White House in order to maintain security for the President after the Secret Service had whisked him to safety into the bunker inside the White House in response to the rioting and crowds outside the White House that were attempting to enter the grounds. It is my opinion that the President should have stayed inside, safe from rioters, until the protesters dispersed of their own will instead of being forced to leave - the safety of the President does not take priority over peaceful protesters when it was not necessary to make the walk to the church. It ended up looking more like a simple politically based photo-op than it did an actual caring display and it was offensive to me that the president put that above the rights of the protesters outside.
Which one raises more anger? Which one is more truthful and factual? Which one is more simple rant against Trump and which one presents both facts and opinion without being intentionally offensive to both our President and anyone supporting him? Which one seems more divisive, designed to open the wedge between those generally supporting Trump and those that do not?
Which one is more likely to elicit a positive response from a Trump supporter?
Which one is more likely to come from your keyboard?
Back to Trump. My feelings and words were very clear throughout the conversation I was having with you. And yes it is clear do not respect your opinion, as you don't respect mine. The only time I used the word common sense was a personal comment that I addressed to GA --- Yes, this is an opinion I was offering to GA in regards to the fact magnanimity may not be relevant with the situation that we are experiencing at this point in our history, and common sense may serve us better. You clearly took my comment out of context.
" CNN and MSNBC are dangerous, they do nothing but work to divide people, and spread hate."
Magnanimity may just be detrimental at this point in our history. Common sense may just be a better route at this point. This country is in trouble, and we need common sense to prevail."
I was not offended that you wanted to point out a negative attribute of the president. To be honest I was offended that you were deflecting off subject, once again to something trump said. yes, I have made it very clear I prefer deeds over words when it comes to Trump. It's your right to be concerned about whatever he said.
PP--"Sorry you don't like talking about Trump but, unfortunately for us all, he the POTUS and his words matter.
And our response to those words matter most, because we are responsible for either tolerating it or ridding ourselves of a selfish man who would act to divide and inflame us."
First of all not sure why you use the words "unfortunately for us all" "And our response". Do you speak for all that post here?
" because we are responsible for either tolerating it or ridding ourselves of a selfish man who would act to divide and inflame us." (again we are)
This is clearly your opinion, possibly not the opinion of others that post here on HP. It is also very clear our opinions are very opposite. You use words like us, we, our. I give my opinion, I don't feel the need for any backup --- That's where we differ.
And you asked Wildreness --"Please point out, specifically, where I attempted to divide us."
When you use words - like, we,- us, our... You clearly seek to divide.
* I also would appreciate it if you would provide me any and all statements where I personally insulted you. -- "If you read my exchange with Sharlee, you will find a personal insult or two,"
This very statement seeks to divide...
"I must ask, why do you find yourself so self-important, to even have the nerve to question anyone's opinion?"
I actually chuckled when I read this. You think questioning an opinion of another is an indicator of self-importance? This explains a lot. That is why I reminded you we are on a political forum where, it should be obvious your opinions will get questioned.
If you recall, I replied to the very long response that included that insult with "never mind." That was my attempt to drop it, but you had to reply once again (after saying you'd prefer we don't converse).
So, let's just drop it this time.
"That is why I reminded you we are on a political forum where, it should be obvious your opinions will get questioned."
No, No. No fair. You can't just "drop it" after offering that nugget of wisdom. That is almost the only reason I am here.
More, more, blood and gore, yeh Team!
ps. Don't forget we have a responsibility to point out when someone on the Internet is wrong.
You have the right idea. ;-)
The blood sport of arguing on the internet should never be taken personally. That said, humans are prone to do that.
Oh, I better add "in my opinion." ;-)
No worries about that opinion part. Hannity and Lemon both said it was a fact.
Lol - Well, in my opinion. I wrote a column for a newspaper many years ago focused on right wing activities, and the one thing some of the leaders of the Dems. and the Reps. said: When you begin to take your opinion too seriously in politics, it's time to get out.
One that frequently adds words to a conversation such as we, us, our, truly see themself as self-important. I don't expect others to back me up or do I need crowd approval.
if you were referring to your statement - "Just drop it". As you have stated numerous times this is a forum anyone can use and give an opinion.
Yes, but you seem to be conflicted. You tell me you prefer not to converse but continue to interact. It matters not to me.
When someone tells me to drop it. it tells me two things. they can't back up their point or they want to be left alone to continue to spread a messy mistruth. I guess I am a sucker to follow behind the mess and try to clean it up. You certainly feel free to comment on my comments, I will take the same privilege. Just don't like to be told to drop it... I certainly will be polite, and keep my comment confrontational. Hopefully, you will do the same.
My thought s on opinions on a political or any chat --
"This is clearly your opinion, possibly not the opinion of others that post here on HP. It is also very clear our opinions are very opposite. You use words like us, we, our. I give my opinion, I don't feel the need for any backup --- That's where we differ.
I asked you to back up this statement ---PP- * I also would appreciate it if "If you read my exchange with Sharlee, you will find a personal insult or two."
No not willing to drop it. Put up or shut up. As I said, I am in no way placating anyone here any longer. You want to enter a conversation, be ready to receive a rebuttal, and when you accuse me of insulting you - I want proof of this. I don't need to laugh, I will leave that to anyone that chooses to read the confrontation.
I might add it so much easier now, I think the new method HP is using to stream comments between those that wish to join a given conversation, and the conversation can now be followed in order, and provide context from to the first post to last. This gives all the opportunity to read comments in a given order as responded to.
Did you miss my reply?
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/348 … ost4141399
". . . confident that we are better than our politics."
I think this was the most ringing thought in his statement. If we don't hold onto that thought our politics will continue to divide us—regardless of who is president.
Agreed, Ga. I read several newspapers daily and watch the TV. We have to stand together, keeping in mind every news source has a spin. But that's how the news channels make money "entertainment."
Trump should not got to inspect the white house underground bunker at such a time. His he afraid? Of what? I read some where else he went in with his wife and son. I think after that he came out strong weavinging the bible in front of a church. Whatever that means, he owns the American nation a special apology.
What was reported is that four protestors had breached the White House lawn and were arrested, and the first family were then taken to the bunker for their own safety Trump later said he went to the bunker to inspect it. I would only be guessing why he said such a thing. But at any rate, he was called a coward for agreeing to go to the bunker at the FBI and secret services request.
IT is well known many actually hate the president. I would think it was a good move on the secrets services part to take them all to the bunker. Lot's of violence was occurring on that Friday night in Washington.
https://www.businessinsider.in/politics … 186585.cms
It is not possible that rational consideration could produce the conclusion that Trump is a coward for allowing the Secret Service to do their job and protect the First Family from approaching violence. Only hate and a complete disregard for truth could produce that kind of conclusion.
"Not possible"? More than possible, true.
I was disgusted when I saw reports where the president was called "a coward" for going to the bunker the evening in question. IT is clear these left-leaning rags cater to the unintelligent and do nothing but fuel hate with their rhetoric. My God, how could anyone buy into this kind of crazy?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … des-again/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opin … trump.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 … hite-house
https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/tough- … 46941.html
I didn't spot any rational though in any of those. Lots of irrational yapping, though. That was the point; no rational person could ever conclude that following the guidance of the Secret Service in matters of safety is being "cowardly".
Just what I expected from left-leaning bias media. They never fail to dish up the feed to keep their follower's heads spinning.
No there was nothing in any of the articles that showed an ounce of rational. Yapping is what some prefer, I like to call it to dribble.
But some just truly need a line of dribble to add to a long list of what Trump said... It really works to keep them from seeing what Trump is accomplishing. So those that choose to can add coward to the long list of Trump's character traits.
Do you find this kind of behavior odd, a form of mental problem?
Oh yes, and hate is putting it mildly., many could care less for truth. The only truth some see is a delusional truth they create in their own minds.
IT's customary to protect the first family if violence is occurring or if there are plausible threats against the first family. I do know the night they were taken to the bunker looting and rioting was going on.
I believe it was a precaution. It is well known President Trump is hated by many, I would think it a good idea to have his family and him in the bunker on that given night.
Yes, some promoted he was a coward for going into the bunker...
Shar, is the cnn video report a dummy or is it real? I've not watch the script. Thanks.
Not sure what tape you refer to. CNN has many on youtube. I don't have any respect for how they report the news, they continually misrepresent facts. I like the full story, not one that has been carefully orchestrated to promote bias. Just my view.
If you are referring to the Monday night tape from the Monday night protest. CNN did not show any of what precipitated the law enforcements need to clear the crowd. Law enforcement was being pelted with all kinds of objects.
I did find this video that indicates all was peaceful until the crowd started throwing projectiles at the law enforcement. It gives a good re[sensation of how the protest progressed into the need to be dispersed.
The protest was not peaceful up to a point and quickly became unruly. To be fair ---I was unable to find any videos that CNN produced that showed the law enforcement being pelted with projectiles.
Please watch from the beginning of video.
Thank you Anderson.
Their lies and sentiments cannot get them anywhere too far.
We shall keep watching their folly.
I have to preface this by saying I haven't watched CNN, not in years, other than the occasional snippet from YouTube.
Still, hard to believe this is the worst ever. ...ever?
Just a SMALL sample of CNN Headlines:
Do Trump's Russia remarks amount to 'treason'?
CNN analyst: 18 reasons why Trump may be a Russian asset
Trump Complete Patsy to Putin
Vinograd: Trump an asset of the Russian government
Anderson Cooper: Disgraceful performance by Trump during Putin meeting
And on these Protests?:
Anderson Cooper calls out Trump: 'Who's the thug here?'
Trump supporter leaves CNN anchor speechless
Don Lemon calls out Hollywood elite: Where are you during protests?
But the recent praise of China I thought was special:
CNN this week published a report copying almost word-for-word a Chinese Communist Party press release praising the People's Liberation Army's Navy
I know you think watching that reason rotting propaganda allows you to get a balanced view of things. But all watching CNN does is warp one's ability to rationalize what is really going on in the world... because everything they put out is fabricated to foment discontent.
There is nothing objective or neutral about anything they say or put out, it is 100% bias, it is 100% opinion projected as fact... and even the most brilliant and aware intellects will be harmed by repeated exposure to such nonsense.
I hadn't thought of my CNN viewing for the purpose of "get[ting] a balanced view of things," I thought of it more as hearing what each side viewed as hot topics or important issues. Maybe that is just semantics, maybe both purposes are the same *shrug
But one thing should be clear, I don't automatically accept either side's views as the facts.
As to the "worst moment," you listed some stiff completion, but it was the visual circumstances of this "moment." They were showing a split-screen of violent rioting and looting in two cities—and Lemon and Cuomo, (or was it Tapper?), were speaking over those images explaining how human compassion demanded that we understand the pain and frustration that was driving that violence.
They were speaking of the looters in the same terms as the daytime peaceful protesters.
Maybe we should just work on a Top Ten list instead of a 'The Worst' winner. ;-)
CNN's Don Lemon is still on a roll.
After a positive Rose Garden speech Pres. Trump walks to the church that was set on fire.
Fox news = it's a positive message to the nation
CNN's Don Lemon = Trump is pretending to be a caring president. And he went on criticizing the president for holding a Bible, etc. etc.
The church Pastor was on saying his visit was a positive and reassuring symbolic act. Maybe he should check-in with CNN before he says such things?
Did you personally find his comments on the whole to be a positive message to the nation? I take it your opinion differs from Don Lemon's opinion?
Yes, I did take his message to be a positive one. Both relative to Floyd and the Rule of Law. And very much yes, my opinion is different from Don Lemon's. I didn't like/trust him before, but now I put him in the same class as Hannity.
So, Trump's threat to deploy the U.S. military against the American people sat well with you?
Since I know he can't do that I took it as hyperbole.
It appears we are still looking for perfection. I would be satisfied with just the effort.
Both the Pastor and Bishop were disgusted by Trump.
"The pastor of St. John's also told Fox News on Monday that he was unaware Trump was coming to the establishment, saying: "I feel like I'm in some alternative universe in a way."
https://www.axios.com/st-johns-church-t … 59bbb.html
I did see the pastor on tv following the visit say it was a positive symbolic act. Maybe he was in a corner and couldn't say anything else. *shrug
However, since my original statement, I have now seen the "Bible scene" Don Lemon was referring to, and I was wrong in my view of it. I still think it was intended to be a positive symbolic act, but . . was done so poorly, (Trump's 'glass eye' again?), that it ended up as a political stunt.
Pass the mustard, please.
I saw it live. Trump had peaceful protestors cleared out with tear gas and rubber bullets so he could walk across the street to a church that he doesn't attend to wave a bible he doesn't live by.
It was shameful and embarrassing. A new low. He is a disgusting human being.
Trump had peaceful protesters cleared out? Those would be the ones I saw on TV, setting fires outside the White House lawn, right? It required rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse "peaceful" protesters. And you think Trump ordered the Secret Service to clear him a path?
Pretty sure you know better; the President decides to visit a church and the Secret Service does what it is tasked to do. No orders necessary, wanted or given.
And you saw Trump give orders to clear them out with rubber bullets when pleasantly asking them to move is all it would have taken. Of course you did.
I suppose he had to walk to a church he doesn't belong to and wave around a bible that he couldn't care less about, at that time.
Are you now backing off your statement that "Trump had peaceful protesters cleared out with tear gas and rubber bullets..." as being untrue? You don't have any reason to think he ordered the action?
You were just spinning known facts to produce another bit of "Trash Trump", even though completely false?
(You're on record as complaining that Trump did nothing to help stop the rioting - here he is making a statement and you still complain. Is there anything he could do that would make you happy?)
"Are you now backing off your statement that "Trump had peaceful protesters cleared out with tear gas and rubber bullets..." as being untrue?"
Absolutely not. Did you watch?
"here he is making a statement and you still complain."
Did it help? How many days has there been unrest? Has Trump fanned the flames with his rhetoric?
Geez Loueeze. It is clear you will defend the idiot no matter what.
Joe Biden gave a speech today. Did you watch and listen? That is what Trump should have done three days ago.
I asked for your information that Trump ordered the clearing of protesters, but you didn't give any. Do you still make the claim (without evidence)? Sounds like it.
"Has Trump fanned the flames with his rhetoric?"
Not that I can see. No one else has stopped the riots, either - what do you think Trump should have done? (I asked you that one as well, but you didn't reply to it either).
So Biden waits and waits, then gives a pretty speech (without producing results) and you think Trump should have done the same days ago. It's fine for Biden (and everyone else) to wait but not the President, even though he did comment on the rioting and make speeches.
Would you suggest he should have condemned the murder, as Obama did, and demanded that the cop be hanged on the spot before knowing if there WAS a murder?
"I asked for your information that Trump ordered the clearing of protesters, but you didn't give any. Do you still make the claim (without evidence)? Sounds like it."
Oh, come on. Give me a break. He chose that moment to walk to a church and wave around a bible. And you think he had nothing to do with clearing out protestors. Are you that gullible? Really?
"So Biden waits and waits, then gives a pretty speech (without producing results) and you think Trump should have done the same days ago. It's fine for Biden (and everyone else) to wait but not the President, even though he did comment on the rioting and make speeches."
Oh my gawd. Biden is not the president. Trump is. I know, it's easy to block from your mind if you've been supporting him. Still.
Your last paragraph doesn't even merit a response.
Ah. So he should have stayed in the White House rather than exhibit caring and sorrow. Even given that you will deny he tried to do that, it is still the opposite of what you've said you wanted him to do. Wasn't it you that complained he took refuge in the White House when rioters appeared outside the WH lawn? And now you complain when he comes out. Make up your mind! (Personally I think he should have stayed buttoned up inside, as the best security possible under the circumstances, but presidents have been known forever to take unnecessary risks to "meet the people".)
Yeah - I get that you don't like it when inappropriate comments are made by your hero, but there it is. Mistakes and errors are made by everyone.
Wilderness, with that first kine you managed to bring back my sense of humor. That was so funny I stopped there so as to enjoy my mirth.
Okay, after a pause I continued reading. No, I have never complained about him not coming out of the WH. You have me confused with someone else. I would be happy to never see or hear from him again. You should know that. lol
Thanks for the hearty laugh. I needed it. My humor at the Trump spectacle and the incredible rationalizations of his ardent supporters has returned.
I apologize. Someone complained that the SS "locked him down" in the WH basement when the rioters showed up, and also complained that he was holed up in the WH when he should have been out doing something. Too lazy to find it, and seemed to remember it was you.
Sorry about that.
They should do what they need to to protect him. I'm embarrassed and ashamed of him but he is the president and should be protected.
On this we can agree. I remember the last assassination we had (suspect you do as well) and it was a sad day indeed for America.
But it is not the job of the SS to make policy or play politics. It is not up to them to decide if the president should venture into public or where he should go, although I seem to recall a few instances where their objection was nearly an order to stay put. Sometimes followed, sometimes not, but always with the SS on the job.
And if the SS feels it requires rubber bullets and tear gas (or real bullets) to clear a hostile mob from the path of the president then that's what it takes. I won't second guess their choice, even if I had been there, for I am no expert in security. Their job, one I support regardless of the president in office, is to protect, not ask "Pretty please, don't shoot the president".
Yes, he should have condemned police powers which are abusive. Apparently, there was a murder by an officer, and three charged with aiding and abetting murder. Should those charges disappear? He should have spoken out against the murder and offered support to the community. Yes, placing a knee on the neck of a person who is unarmed is not standard police protocol.
IT seems once again CNN has skewed the truth.
Statement from Chief Gregory Monahan US Park Police ---"
“No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park,”
video of the chaotic scene spread quickly on social media and news outlets, sparking outrage. On Tuesday afternoon, the US Park Police (USPP) responded to the criticisms.
“At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids,” acting Chief Gregory Monahan said in the official statement. “Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats, and metal poles hidden along the street.”
“No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park,” he continued.----To be clear: Monahan is claiming the protesters massed near the White House were “violent,” that they were perhaps plotting some kind of attack of their own, and that no federal officials whatsoever used tear gas to disperse the demonstration.
Defense Sec Esper statement "No tear gas or rubber bullets were used
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/park-p … s-was-used
Yeah, the Bible was upside down. Go Trump! Maybe he should have called those officers that pushed that poor old man down in Buffalo to clear the street in front of that church.
I watched how at the start of the protests in MN, one of CNN's reporters was immediately detained, for no reason, unless you count his name was Omar and he happened to be Black, while another reporter, who happened to be White, was not detained or questioned. The police needs to police itself, really.
And Trump - well, he didn't offer up a prayer that day, but he calls himself the Savior of Israel. Maybe he should work on America first. But we are sort of revisiting the 1950s. Thanks, Trumpets.
Punks (a very kind term for what I really think of them) tried to burn down the church.
The point of Trump going out there was to show there was still some form of control in America, some amount of order, and that the Church was still there.
I am sure the protesters were told to move on... they didn't... they weren't allowed to keep the anarchy going, the President's arrival forced them to go somewhere else... I am aghast! How terrible!
Because the 'old man' getting in their face and arguing/insulting(?) has every right to think he can do that and have no retaliation.
Its not his responsibility... right?
Its not his fault that he is getting in the face of those police. He has no responsibility for his actions or the repercussions they may bring.
I think we need to do away with all police. The people can maintain order themselves. The people can protect themselves. This is the 21st century we don't need a police force, or borders, or a military.
New York City now has an 8 p.m. curfew to "curb" the protest/riots. Why lockdown the whole city? An intelligent solution was to arrest the rowdy protesters/rioters & put them in JAIL. Yes, the LIEberal Democratic mayor is way too soft on the protesters/rioters. If Giuliani was mayor, he would have CRUSHED the protesters/rioters, he would let the police DO THEIR JOB!!!!
Nope, Ken. I know some very nice police officers. One of them is my uncle. We need the police. They just need to monitor their behavior better. My uncle actually reported a fellow officer for misconduct. Yes, there are better ways to move an old man than nearly cracking his skull.
Surely, you must agree all police officers aren't saints, and all protesters aren't criminals.
Likewise, Trump actually has good days. (You see, I'm not bashing our president.) However, his bad days are in the majority because of his own behavior.
"Trump actually has good days"
OMG! Does the blasphemy never end?
You are going to be excommunicated Tim. But no worries. Us sensible folks always have room for one more. ;-)
True enough. But I have no sympathy for anyone who gets in the face of a police officer and eggs them on, whether verbally or with physical attack.
I would have more sympathy for a 17 year old, because at that age you don't have the experience or wisdom to work with. A 70 year old looking for trouble deserves whatever he gets IMO.
That said, the police that pushed him will pay a heavy price for their actions... loss of job and some jail time likely.
Trump is an annoying SOB an arrogant egotistical blowhard, and this is about the 50th time I've said such.
Unfortunately, there is no JFK or even a Tulsi Gabbard on the other side which we can rally around and support as his replacement.
We are left with a senile corrupt creepy Joe Biden as the alternative, he got elected to the United States Senate at age 29, so for 48 years this relic has been creeping around in DC... he's not the solution to ANY of our problems, he has probably been directly responsible for more of them than anyone else in DC today.
Yes, Trump's bad days are in the majority because of his behavior and lack of couth.
But he is still the President, and unfortunately he is still better than the alternative we've been given.
Regarding the old man getting in the face of the police. Should a police officer have as much restraint as, say, a college student serving lattes at Starbucks or a clerk at the DMV? I've personally witnessed customers getting in the face of workers and they didn't shove them to the ground. If they had, they probably would have been fired.
It’s not just CNN, the chaos and demonstrations in the USA is dominating and overshadowing all other news on ALL News Channels in every country of the world.
It is only natural that the violence would be covered everywhere. My point is about how it is being covered. In my view, CNN is covering the looting as if it were part of the protests and that compassion demands we consider the pain and frustration of reasons for the protests as the reasons for the looting.
I don’t know GA, not being American; I find it difficult to follow ALL the nuances in the current ‘civil unrest’ across the USA.
I can only comment on CNN’s coverage of the ‘civil unrest’ as an outsider; drawing on my own experiences of demonstrations, protests, riots and civil unrest we’ve had in the UK during my lifetime (which have been quite a few) as comparisons to help me empathise with the frustration of the protestors, and be aware that there will be fringe ‘activist’ groups who (are in the minority) and who take advantage of the situation: If that makes sense to you?
Within the above mentioned reference frame; my perception of CNN’s reporting on the current civil unrest across the USA (as an outsider) is a mixed bag e.g. yes CNN has covered the looting as if were part of the protests in some of their reports (especially in the first few days of the demonstrations and riots); but at other times they have gone to great lengths to separate the two (especially in recent days) e.g. pointing out that the majority of protestors are peaceful and have nothing to do with the looters.
Also, I don’t dispute that CNN may at times put a slant on events that’s not strictly correct (unbiased) during their reporting of these events; because I know that sometimes they do the same thing when reporting on current affairs in the UK. Therefore, I don’t rely on just CNN to keep up to date on these events as they develop, I also view the situation as reported by British News Channels, Euronews and Al-Jazeera news; although at the moment the same story is being told across all these New Channels, so there is little difference between any of them on how they are reporting the civil unrest in the USA.
That assessment is about right Nathanville.
Previously, I would stop watching Fox at 6pm when the news anchors were replaced by commentators, and switch to CNN. I haven't seen CNN's recent days' coverage because of how pissed I was with their commentators' early coverage.
Now, for me, CNN and Fox are the same—fairly decent coverage from their daytime news anchors, and very biased and spun presentations from their commentators.
However, it is probably a good thing for me. Now I only watch either channel during their daytime segments. When the commentators come on I switch to the Science or Smithsonian channels. ;-)
Your terminology of “anchors” is one I’ve only ever seen in American films; so my understanding of the distinction between anchors and commentators is rather hazy!
At the moment, I think the USA is about 6 hours behind BST (British Summer Time) so I only ever see CNN between the hours of 6am and 6pm American time (12 noon and 12 midnight BST); therefore I wasn’t aware that there was a change of News format on the American News channels in the evening!
In Britain (unlike newspapers) News on the TV is heavily ‘Regulated’ to ensure balanced and non-biased reporting; which (unlike the American TV News Channels) makes the News Presentation rather dry:-
Below is a good comparison in how typically the USA TV News Channels covers crisis’s vs UK TV News Channels.
• USA TV News Coverage of Coronavirus vs. Ebola: https://youtu.be/B0NhA4oBGuc
• UK Ebola news coverage: https://youtu.be/Ub-R2pM5Ai4
Also, Satire which highlights “The Difference between USA vs UK Ebola TV News Coverage”: https://youtu.be/lAz-F1QnyCk
I’m intrigued to hear how you (and others) mention a change in News format in the evenings on the American New Channels! In the UK the News format on ALL British News Channels is the same 24/7, except for perhaps between 6am and 9am weekdays when it can be a little more informal.
In Britain we don’t have anchors we have a Presenter in the News Studio and Reporters on Location; very formal. And another major difference is that if a Presenter dared give his or her personal opinion then you can be sure the Government Watchdogs will receive numerous complaints from the aggrieved parties (the public) and the TV Channel get chastised for being biased, with possible fines and possibly be made to make a public apology; with a worst case scenario (which is unlikely) of the Government revoking the TV Channel’s franchise licence or Charter (if Government owned) e.g. BBC and C4 being under Charter as Government Corporations; albeit C4 (which is a maverick channel) has been threatened with police prosecution on a couple of occasions in the past.
The difference between news anchors and commentators is a simple one from an American perspective..
The 'Daytime' news "anchors" are typically former reporters or active journalists, and they present the facts of the news. Of course, depending on the station's, (channel's), viewer demographics, some bias does enter their presentation, but not really enough to alter the facts.
An example; Fox news Daytime folks might speak of the 'Great' May jobs report, and give it 3 minutes air time, and CNN daytime folks might say 'The' May jobs report and give it 1 minute air time. The facts are essentially the same and the bias is usually minimal—depending on their viewer base.
But, come evening, when the commentators start, it is a different thing. Commentators may or may not be former reporters or journalists, but they are usually just personalities with ideological leanings that match the station's viewers.
They are on to tell us what the reported "facts" really mean, as in 'you can't believe what you heard with your own ears', so I am here to tell you the truth.
Using the same example as above; Fox commentators will practically drool over how very great news the May job report is because; Trump's greatness did it, the Democrats fought against it and still lost, etc. etc.
CNN's commentators will, while displaying visible disdain for the report and with the appearance of sagacious wisdom, tell us what that same jobs report really means when you look at the "facts." It could have been better, or never should have been bad in the first place, because; Trump is an idiot, the Democrats tried to offer solutions but the Republicans just wouldn't listen, etc. etc.
The worst and most damaging aspects of the "commentators" is that they are presented on "News" stations and many folks listen to them as if they were listening to straight-up actual news—because they are on a news channel.
Unfortunately, I think these commentators are very influential with their general viewership because, generally, their views just confirm the bias of the listener. The listener isn't getting news, they are just hearing confirming opinions.
If you don't get these evening "news" hours, you aren't missing anything important.
Most enlightening and very informative: Your detailed ‘factual’ explanation GA is greatly appreciated; and it does explain a lot.
The commentators reporting in the evenings wouldn’t be allowed on British News Channels because it wouldn’t be impartial reporting, and thus break the strict Broadcasting ‘Regulations’. However the main ‘non News’ British TV Channels, BBC (BBC1, BBC2, BBC3), ITV (ITV1, ITV2, ITV3), C4 (C4, E4, All-4, More4 etc.) and C5 (C5, 5-Star, 5-Select, My5 etc.) can present ‘Current Affairs’ as Documentaries; and in those Documentaries express an angle (view point) which may be considered bias by some. Albeit, if they stray from the ‘facts’ too far, and don’t present credible evidence that can be independently verified (fact checked), then they become unbelievable to the British audience and thus lose their impact.
Fortunately for nerds like me a reliable source for fact-checking claims in Documentaries on British Current Affairs is the ONS (Office of National Statistics). Although the ONS is a Government Department, it’s one of the Departments classified as ‘Independent’ e.g. it’s not answerable to the Government, its only answerable to Parliament; and thus prevents unscrupulous Governments from tampering with the data, or trying to hide the data. The ONS publishes all its data in the ‘Public Domain’ on its website; for all to see. It’s thanks to the ONS that the Official published Covid-19 deaths in the UK are 25% higher than the Government was originally reporting, until the ONS published its own data.
All the above mentioned British Channels can from time to time make controversial documentaries, although the two Government owned Channels (BBC & C4) are particularly good at riling the Government when they want to.
The differences between BBC & C4 include:-
• The BBC gets its Revenue from the tax payer (TV Licence), whereas C4 gets its Revenue from Adverts.
• The Government Charter for the BBC is to give a specific mix of genre (for all tastes), that is almost identical to the ITV’s Franchise Agreement with the Government e.g. to create direct completion between BBC & ITV.
• The Government Charter for C4 is that C4 is prohibited from making its own programmes, and must commission the Arts world (the sector in society that is normally underfunded) to make documentaries and films etc. on behalf of C4. In accordance with its Charter with the Government C4 commission more than 200 hours of documentaries every year.
C4 is a maverick channel that gained notoriety in 1991 by broadcasting over three weeks’ programmes that were banned in the UK. The Government did try to get injunctions against several of the programmes in the Courts, but failed; and afterwards tried to get the ‘Crown Prosecution Service’ to prosecute C4; but the CPS, after some consideration, didn’t proceed with the prosecution. Alternatively, the Government could have revoked C4’s Charter, but it didn’t. One of the banned programmes (that was quite explicit, graphically) was entitled “All About Organisms”, but was really about another subject with a similar sounding name! C4 pulled the same stunt (for a week) in 2004.
A couple of BBC documentaries with major impact in recent years include “War on Waste” (2017) and “War on Plastic” (2019). The “War on Waste” was a short Documentary Series by the BBC “Naming and Shaming” British Supermarkets for causing over 30% of food to go to waste. The criticism aimed at the Supermarkets was:-
• Their policy at the time of only buying British grown vegetables with a specific size range, that were perfect in shape; thus, leaving the farmers with a third of their crop that they couldn’t sale, and
• Dumping unsold food once it reached its Sale by Date.
The fallout of the documentary series was to create ‘public awareness’, which in turn put pressure on the Supermarkets to reduce food waste. And within months all the supermarkets had changed their policies; so that now:-
• The Supermarkets now include a range of vegetables in their stores which they ‘label’ “Wonky Vegetables”, at a reduced price e.g. the vegetables which previously they would have rejected from the farmer, and
• Now, instead of dumping unsold food when it reaches its ‘Sale by Date”, the Supermarkets now give it to charity e.g. to feed the poor and homeless etc.
Below: Short extract from one of the episodes in the BBC's "War on Waste" Documentary Series that had such a big positive impact on getting British Supermarkets to change their ways due to 'Public Awareness' and 'Public Opinion' in the UK:-
Morrisons' Food Waste Destroys Farming Family: https://youtu.be/hhWj_qNkBLw
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
What do Trump protesters think they'll gain now - the election is over and Trump won?Post-election riots, violence, and demonstrations are occurring in Liberal cities across the nation. Illegal immigrants waving Mexican flags are demanding unearned American rights. The media is ginning...
by Catherine Mostly 6 years ago
Is anyone else really really proud of our protesting country?Pride is not an emotion I thought would have been very prevelant for me after Trump took office; but I find myself impressed with protestors coming out every time Trump does something silly - which happens often, LoL! United we stand,...
by Sharlee 2 years ago
"THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. It’s beautiful out here this time of year. In the past nine months, my administration has initiated the single greatest mobilization in U.S. history — pioneering, developing, and manufacturing therapies and vaccines in...
by promisem 5 years ago
So says famed conservative columnist George F. Will.https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions … story.html
by Scott Belford 24 months ago
Why? I suggest because Donald Trump has. He started his administration surrounding himself by what he characterized as very strong men. Sooner or later he started realizing these generals cared more about America that they did about him. And what did Trump do? He went...
by Mike Russo 8 days ago
More than 1,100 people have been arrested on charges related to the Capitol assault. Of those, more than 630 have pleaded guilty and at least 110 have been convicted at trial.Five people including a police officer died during or shortly after the riot and more than 140 police officers were injured....
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|