The Constitutional Crisis is Here!

[SunsetBengal]

Worth a watch.

[Dill]

(05-22-2018, 06:32 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Pretty much all of it.  It is written from a completely one sided point of view.  Never mind that many Americans feel like the entire Special Counsel's Investigation is a farce, based upon plots and lies by jaded intelligence departments.

Stories like this, are completely why affiliates like Fox News and other Conservative media outlets ever came to be.  I'm not saying that both the traditional and Conservative based outlets aren't guilty of bias.  I'm just pointing out that as a Profession, Journalism is supposed to be Party neutral and unbiased.

Even though it is an opinion piece, for the primary news agency in our Nation's Capitol to print this clearly shows just how biased they really are. 

Could you maybe select a paragraph and explain why it appears biased? Are there factual errors?

Take this one, for example:

Trump claims this is the nation’s “all time biggest political scandal” because, he alleges, Justice Department officials and the FBI used a “spy” to try to “frame” him and his campaign, in an effort to boost his opponent Hillary Clinton’s chance of winning the election. This conspiracy theory has so many holes in it that it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s start with the glaringly obvious: If the aim was to make Trump lose, why wasn’t all the known information about the Trump campaign’s Russia connections leaked before the election, when it might have had some impact?

Has the author misquoted Trump or quoted him out of context? Seems like he poses a good question--why wouldn't info about the Trump campaign's Russia connections be made public before election day if the goal was make Trump lose?

[Dill]

(05-22-2018, 11:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Worth a watch.

Frightening.

FBI informant contacts members of the Trump campaign who are communicating with Russian spies=a deep state spy for Obama?

And now he is outed.

Is it that Trump supporters don't believe that Russians were seeking influence through Page and Papadopoulos? That was made up?
Or the FBI should look the other way when Russian spies seek connections with campaign operatives?

Trying to figure out where you think the "lies" begin. The video provides no clue. No evidence that Halper was more than an informant? That the FBI was not just responding to a spy threat? The informant just IS a spy on Trump?

Can anyone explain?

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 10:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Is this one of those address the source not the content deals?

It's one of those "opinions are opinions and shouldn't be conflated with news" deals.

[Belsnickel]

(05-22-2018, 10:00 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm not making shit up.  Hell, it even lists him as "Journalist"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Robinson_(journalist)

I know. There is a reason Wikipedia isn't a good source in a research paper. 'Sall I'm sayin'.

[hollodero]

(05-22-2018, 11:15 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Worth a watch.

Now I'm confused. What's the deal wit that?
Is the intention to present this clip as good journalsm, in contrast to Eugene Robinson's opinion piece which is bad journalism?

I do not see good journalism in that clip. I see a piece fueled by blatant, pro-Trump partisanship. Insinting there was a "spy", insisting "the Obama administration" sent that spy, insisting it was done for political reasons, insisting that Clapper is a deep state official, insisting all officials and democrats lie about that. In short, insisting on all kinds of stuff that aren't fact, just spin.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 07:07 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's one of those "opinions are opinions and shouldn't be conflated with news" deals.

OK, just making sure we are staying consistent. I know I pointed out someone using Vox as "proof" recently and folks lost their minds that I had the audacity to not take it as fact. 

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 09:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, just making sure we are staying consistent. I know I pointed out someone using Vox as "proof" recently and folks lost their minds that I had the audacity to not take it as fact. 

[SunsetBengal]

(05-23-2018, 08:57 AM)hollodero Wrote: Now I'm confused. What's the deal wit that?
Is the intention to present this clip as good journalsm, in contrast to Eugene Robinson's opinion piece which is bad journalism?

I do not see good journalism in that clip. I see a piece fueled by blatant, pro-Trump partisanship. Insinting there was a "spy", insisting "the Obama administration" sent that spy, insisting it was done for political reasons, insisting that Clapper is a deep state official, insisting all officials and democrats lie about that. In short, insisting on all kinds of stuff that aren't fact, just spin.

I don't know what you're trying to prove with that.

Not trying to "prove" anything, as much as just illustrating that plenty of people don't agree with Mr. Robinson's point of view on the matter.  Both sides are trying to lure the reader or viewer into making an opinion that agrees with theirs, it should not be that way.  A simple telling of the facts is suffice, the reader should be allowed to form their own opinion.

You seem irritated by reading or seeing this version of what's going on.  Is that because your mind is already made up, and don't want to accept the possibility that Mr. Robinson's version could be wrong?

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 09:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, just making sure we are staying consistent. I know I pointed out someone using Vox as "proof" recently and folks lost their minds that I had the audacity to not take it as fact. 

Well, you will note that I was not one of those people that would be incredulous about you pointing out the flaws with Vox. That was at best an analysis piece, more likely an opinion piece, and one I disagreed with as well. So yeah.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 09:15 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not trying to "prove" anything, as much as just illustrating that plenty of people don't agree with Mr. Robinson's point of view on the matter.  Both sides are trying to lure the reader or viewer into making an opinion that agrees with theirs, it should not be that way.  A simple telling of the facts is suffice, the reader should be allowed to form their own opinion.

This isn't a new thing, though. Opinion pieces have been around for a long time. How long have newspapers been endorsing candidates in elections? the RTD in Virginia has been endorsing almost exclusively conservative candidates since its inception. Others endorse liberal candidates. Their opinion pages line up with that usually with the majority of their contributors having a bent in line with the endorsement.

I really don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this happening. My concern with it isn't that there are differing opinions being offered, my concern is that people aren't reading differing points of view. They aren't actively seeking information. They are conflating news with opinion. They don't know when what they are watching is intended to entertain versus inform. Media literacy is up to the consumer to learn more about. Complaining about the opinion pieces out there from these slanted points of view is just lazy.

[Griever]

why do people care more about the fact that the "FBI had an informant" (if they did), instead of focusing on the fact that the FBI saw there was a need to have an informant in the trump campaign because of the shady shit they were doing?

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 09:29 AM)Griever Wrote: why do people care more about the fact that the "FBI had an informant" (if they did), instead of focusing on the fact that the FBI saw there was a need to have an informant in the trump campaign because of the shady shit they were doing?

Because the people complaining about all of this are ignorant. They don't understand that the use of the informant was based on gathering more information on something they had already caught wind of and occurred because the alternative would have had an impact on the election.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 09:28 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This isn't a new thing, though. Opinion pieces have been around for a long time. How long have newspapers been endorsing candidates in elections? the RTD in Virginia has been endorsing almost exclusively conservative candidates since its inception. Others endorse liberal candidates. Their opinion pages line up with that usually with the majority of their contributors having a bent in line with the endorsement.

I really don't understand why anyone is up in arms about this happening. My concern with it isn't that there are differing opinions being offered, my concern is that people aren't reading differing points of view. They aren't actively seeking information. They are conflating news with opinion. They don't know when what they are watching is intended to entertain versus inform. Media literacy is up to the consumer to learn more about. Complaining about the opinion pieces out there from these slanted points of view is just lazy.

25 years ago, when I worked in radio, I would complain about Paul Harvey "News & Comment" because most of the time it was both, together, at the same time.

I started calling it "News & Rumor" until the GM gave me some guff about it.  

But if it is entirely LABELED opinion then you take it with a grain of salt.  

That's always been the right's argument about Hannity, O'Reilly et al....they are "opinion" shows not news show.  Right?

No need to trust their reporting.  Right?

[hollodero]

(05-23-2018, 09:15 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Not trying to "prove" anything, as much as just illustrating that plenty of people don't agree with Mr. Robinson's point of view on the matter.  Both sides are trying to lure the reader or viewer into making an opinion that agrees with theirs, it should not be that way.  A simple telling of the facts is suffice, the reader should be allowed to form their own opinion.

You seem irritated by reading or seeing this version of what's going on.  Is that because your mind is already made up, and don't want to accept the possibility that Mr. Robinson's version could be wrong?

:) Not really, no. I'm not irritated at all, I am well aware of that version, it's Trump's version after all. I just do not trust this version, as it is rooted in speculation and partisanship. Which is hard to deny. Also, there's indeed quite a lengthy history - just like Adam Schiff said - of spins like those that have never been proven true or proven not to be true. (Obama wiretapped me! The debunked Steele dossier started the investigation! FISA abuse! Secret society within the FBI! and so on.)

And of course Mr. Robinson could be wrong, although I feel he lays out his case quite convincingly and I do think it's way closer to actual events than the "Obama sent a political spy" version. But, I don't really know, how could I.

Lastly, again, oinion piece vs. journalism. If FOX news disclaimed that Hannity et al. "don't necessarily represent the network's view"... but ok. They don't do that, they present every Trump-defending theory as fact. Which makes the finger pointing at an opinion piece clearly marked as such a little odd.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: 25 years ago, when I worked in radio, I would complain about Paul Harvey "News & Comment" because most of the time it was both, together, at the same time.

I started calling it "News & Rumor" until the GM gave me some guff about it.  

But if it is entirely LABELED opinion then you take it with a grain of salt.  

That's always been the right's argument about Hannity, O'Reilly et al....they are "opinion" shows not news show.  Right?

No need to trust their reporting.  Right?

Fox News actually refers to them as "entertainment," not even opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2018, 09:29 AM)Griever Wrote: why do people care more about the fact that the "FBI had an informant" (if they did), instead of focusing on the fact that the FBI saw there was a need to have an informant in the trump campaign because of the shady shit they were doing?

Perhaps because there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady; unlike the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Folks view it as a sitting president using his powers in a biased manner to influence the results of a National election. 

If this is shown to have any merit I hope quite a few care about it and it is not because they are ignorant. 

[Griever]

(05-23-2018, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the people complaining about all of this are ignorant. They don't understand that the use of the informant was based on gathering more information on something they had already caught wind of and occurred because the alternative would have had an impact on the election.

so they hate facts

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 09:29 AM)Griever Wrote: why do people care more about the fact that the "FBI had an informant" (if they did), instead of focusing on the fact that the FBI saw there was a need to have an informant in the trump campaign because of the shady shit they were doing?

(05-23-2018, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because the people complaining about all of this are ignorant. They don't understand that the use of the informant was based on gathering more information on something they had already caught wind of and occurred because the alternative would have had an impact on the election.

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps because there is nothing to indicate that the Trump campaign did anything shady; unlike the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Folks view it as a sitting president using his powers in a biased manner to influence the results of a National election. 

If this is shown to have any merit I hope quite a few care about it and it is not because they are ignorant. 

(05-23-2018, 09:39 AM)Griever Wrote: so they hate facts

There is a lot of smoke.  Don't know if that means there is a fire or not.

But to say there is "nothing" to indicate they did anything shady is just ignoring what has been shown so far.

[GMDino]

(05-23-2018, 09:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fox News actually refers to them as "entertainment," not even opinion.

I didn't even know that.

That's actually worse.