Trump Documentary on Netflix

[GMDino]

Very eye opening.

What's funny is to how his hubris and lying goes back 40 years...all caught on film.  His "all negative news is fake" narrative too.

Purely from a media standpoint I get why they continued to cover him...he was a buffoon.  That makes for entertaining stories.  

And back then he was only ruining his daddy's business instead of trying to destroy the entire country with his grandiose "ideas".

But how more than 10% of the population bought (and continues to buy) such a bad actor and his lies is still beyond me.

And we're only two episodes in! 

https://www.gq.com/story/netflix-trump-an-american-dream

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-28-2018, 10:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: Very eye opening.

What's funny is to how his hubris and lying goes back 40 years...all caught on film.  His "all negative news is fake" narrative too.

Purely from a media standpoint I get why they continued to cover him...he was a buffoon.  That makes for entertaining stories.  

And back then he was only ruining his daddy's business instead of trying to destroy the entire country with his grandiose "ideas".

But how more than 10% of the population bought (and continues to buy) such a bad actor and his lies is still beyond me.

And we're only two episodes in! 

https://www.gq.com/story/netflix-trump-an-american-dream

I'm sure Netflix, with its extensive ties to Obama, will be very fair and balanced in it's documentary of a Republican.  

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure Netflix, with its extensive ties to Obama, will be very fair and balanced in it's documentary of a Republican.  

Yeah the Obama's will be creating content there too....good conspiracy theory though on your part. 

I didn't expect his supporters to watch so don't worry about it.  Maybe the ones who claim to be open minded will?

Also, from the article:

Quote:Trump: An American Dream, which was originally created by 72 Films for the UK’s Channel 4, is not an investigate expose on Donald’s alleged crimes, nor a shocking look at the chaos of his administration (as much as those might be warranted). Instead, the documentary is a more neutral—well, as neutral as possible—look on Trump’s public persona and career path leading up to his presidential run. It’s composed of well-selected archival footage combined with a series of interviews with friends, business partners, and enemies from Trump’s life: campaign adviser Roger Stone, Apprentice winner Randal Pinkett, family friend Nikki Haskell, and a whole host of journalists and TV personalities who have covered him over the decades. (One interesting trick the documentary pulls is filming these figures watching the archival footage, to expressions of horror and delight.)

[Au165]

(12-28-2018, 11:43 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm sure Netflix, with its extensive ties to Obama, will be very fair and balanced in it's documentary of a Republican.  

Like most of Netflix content it wasn't made for them but rather it was distributed after the fact by them. It is a British documentary that came out over a year ago on British TV as a mini series. It predates any relationship between Obama and Netflix and as I said wasn't even produced by Netflix so not sure what that has to do with anything.

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 11:49 AM)Au165 Wrote: Like most of Netflix content it wasn't made for them but rather it was distributed after the fact by them. It is a British documentary that came out over a year ago on British TV as a mini series. It predates any relationship between Obama and Netflix and as I said wasn't even produced by Netflix so not sure what that has to do with anything.

I don't want to answer for someone else (but I will):  To some if Trump is portrayed in any kind of negative way it must be biased.  And if there is an opportunity to blame democrats or "the left" that must be said.

Anyway, here's another review of the series.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2018/04/12/trump-an-american-dream-plays-like-a-supervillain-origin-story/#61cc06443285

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-28-2018, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yeah the Obama's will be creating content there too....good conspiracy theory though on your part.   

No conspiracy, simply pointing out that the platform has a clear partisan bias.

I didn't expect his supporters to watch so don't worry about it.  Maybe the ones who claim to be open minded will?
[/quote]

Hey Dill, you know that tactic you said you've never seen?  Here's yet another example of it.

(12-28-2018, 11:49 AM)Au165 Wrote: Like most of Netflix content it wasn't made for them but rather it was distributed after the fact by them. It is a British documentary that came out over a year ago on British TV as a mini series. It predates any relationship between Obama and Netflix and as I said wasn't even produced by Netflix so not sure what that has to do with anything.

As I said to GMhyperpartisan it's about the bias of the platform.  As for the series origin, I don't expect anything remotely fair to come from the UK about Trump.  I haven't seen this and won't watch it as I don't view content that I know has an deliberate, partisan, agenda.  It reminds me of Fahrenheit 9-11 and all the people who came out of that movie feeling they had just been given some unvarnished truth instead of a constant stream of lies.

I think the main point I'm making is to not seek out content that you know will only reinforce your current perceptions and opinions.  

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No conspiracy, simply pointing out that the platform has a clear partisan bias.

Your "point" with no proof is a conspiracy.

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hey Dill, you know that tactic you said you've never seen?  Here's yet another example of it.

Being honest that Trump supporters wouldn't watch it but hoping that people who claim to be open minded will?  Okay.

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said to GMhyperpartisan it's about the bias of the platform.  As for the series origin, I don't expect anything remotely fair to come from the UK about Trump.  I haven't seen this and won't watch it as I don't view content that I know has an deliberate, partisan, agenda.  It reminds me of Fahrenheit 9-11 and all the people who came out of that movie feeling they had just been given some unvarnished truth instead of a constant stream of lies.

"hyperpartisan"

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the main point I'm making is to not seek out content that you know will only reinforce your current perceptions and opinions.  

Indeed which is why DJT supporters should watch it (even if it's not all of those things you accused it of without watching but that you "know" it is_...but I know they won't.

That was fun.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-28-2018, 12:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: Your "point" with no proof is a conspiracy.

So, the fact that they signed a content producing deal with Obama is not proof of a partisan leaning?  Wait, maybe you're right.  Obama is well known for his creation of entertainment, both movies and television.

Quote:Being honest that Trump supporters wouldn't watch it but hoping that people who claim to be open minded will?  Okay.

Hey Dill, that thing you said you never see, here's another example of it.

Quote:"hyperpartisan"  

Was it too descriptive?

Quote:Indeed which is why DJT supporters should watch it (even if it's not all of those things you accused it of without watching but that you "know" it is_...but I know they won't.

I don't need to watch a Michael Moore "film" to know what I'll get out of it.  You seek out medium that will reinforce your opinions.  I avoid such content.  Like I said, you're the guy who came out of Fahrenheit 9-11 thinking you just received epic revelations.

Quote:That was fun.  

This is the kind of thing you enjoy?  To each his own I guess.

[GMDino]

(12-28-2018, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, the fact that they signed a content producing deal with Obama is not proof of a partisan leaning?  Wait, maybe you're right.  Obama is well known for his creation of entertainment, both movies and television.




Hey Dill, that thing you said you never see, here's another example of it.




Was it too descriptive?




I don't need to watch a Michael Moore "film" to know what I'll get out of it.  You seek out medium that will reinforce your opinions.  I avoid such content.  Like I said, you're the guy who came out of Fahrenheit 9-11 thinking you just received epic revelations.


This is the kind of thing you enjoy?  To each his own I guess.

I guess you can't see how you are passing judgement based on what you "know" rather than watching and seeing if you are right.  It says more about your own partisanship than it does about any accusations you want to make about others.

That's sad.

That you keep comparing it to Michael Moore and bringing up the Obama's is just more red herrings.  This is a UK produced documentary with interviews and archived footage.  Perhaps there is one that you consider more "honest" and less "partisan" that you would like to share?  One you watched?  Rather than just offhandedly criticizing one that you will never watch because you "know" all about it.

[hollodero]

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the main point I'm making is to not seek out content that you know will only reinforce your current perceptions and opinions.  

Well, that's a good rule up to a point, isn't it? E.g. I believe climate change to be real, that doesn't mean I shouldn't watch anything that "reinforces" that belief, like any documentary about CC. More facts and more knowledge aren't automatically a bad thing just because they are not made to change my initial stance.

Your ad hoc assumption documentaries like these can not be worth watching because of the circumstances, however, seems a bit thin (like Netlix and/or the UK coundn't possibly be fair and couldn't possibly make points worth consideration).

I widely agree with your stance on Michael Moore (even though that Fahrenheit film was actually made to reinforce my initial beliefs at the time). I find his methods and standards to be quite dubious too. That neither means every point made in these films was a valueless one, nor does it mean that every film made from every "biased" person is just another Michael Moore piece.

[Au165]

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said to GMhyperpartisan it's about the bias of the platform.  As for the series origin, I don't expect anything remotely fair to come from the UK about Trump.  I haven't seen this and won't watch it as I don't view content that I know has an deliberate, partisan, agenda.  It reminds me of Fahrenheit 9-11 and all the people who came out of that movie feeling they had just been given some unvarnished truth instead of a constant stream of lies.


I think the main point I'm making is to not seek out content that you know will only reinforce your current perceptions and opinions.  

This is all fascinating. What makes the platform "bias"? Why can't something fair about Trump from the UK? Is the UK now "bias"? This is interesting, so you never watch Fox News? If you don't want to watch content that will re enforce your current position shouldn't you be viewing content that is "biased" against your position to get balance? I know you'll say you seek out "unbiased" media, what are some good examples of that for me to better understand?

[fredtoast]

(12-28-2018, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the main point I'm making is to not seek out content that you know will only reinforce your current perceptions and opinions

So you don't watch anything that reinforces your own opinion and you also don't watch anything that supports the opinion of the other side?  So what is your source for political information?

I think almost every source has some bias.  So I watch it all.  I watch both Fox News and the liberal "mainstream media".  But I am smart enough to process information on my own.  I can see where people lacking in analytical skills would avoid any source of information thy believe to be biased in any way.

For example.  I know that anemia is not commonly considered "physical injuries" that prove domestic violence.  How 'bout you SSF?

[*bfine32*]

I may give it a look for entertainment value.

Catfight between Ivanna and Marla huh?

[ballsofsteel]

So a documentary is made about Trump and his father based on facts that are clearly documented as being true about what low life con artist they are/were and the show is biased and clear partisan leanin? Not to mention bringing Obama into it. This sounds like something Stink Eye Sanders would belch out.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 11:49 AM)Au165 Wrote: Like most of Netflix content it wasn't made for them but rather it was distributed after the fact by them. It is a British documentary that came out over a year ago on British TV as a mini series. It predates any relationship between Obama and Netflix and as I said wasn't even produced by Netflix so not sure what that has to do with anything.

Nothing says liberal bias like appeal to facts and critical contextualization of the documentary's origin!

Trump defenders know enough to avoid any "documentary" based upon extensive video of Trump's own words and behavior.  Netflix is part of the liberal media and the liberal media love Obama, so it doesn't matter who actually made the documentary; they can't be "fair" to the guy who mimics handicapped reporters, wants to pull all our troops out of Korea, agrees with Putin over his own CIA/FBI, and finds "good people" on both sides of a racist rally.

[Dill]

(12-28-2018, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Being honest that Trump supporters wouldn't watch it but hoping that people who claim to be open minded will?  Okay.

Hey Dill, that thing you said you never see, here's another example of it.

That thing you can never seem to define, only point at?

I'm not much needed on this thread. Five posters have already unpacked the errors in both your initial and follow up statements about the Trump documentary, and followed up some of the implications of your rules for reading.  If there is something called "confirmation bias" then what you are demonstrating here could be called "pre-confirmation bias," in which your beliefs about sources already determine what you will or will not read, what they can or cannot say to you--in short, what you already know and will ever know about those sources.  

One feature of the current conjuncture seems to be this widespread and underdeveloped conception of "bias" as automatically disqualifying books, film, arguments etc. beforehand, without need to actually read or watch them.   It has evolved with the right wing critique of "liberal media" which began in the Nixon era, and consists in privileging assessments of source over logical analysis of the content and form of arguments. It is a type of self-censorship which actually appears, to the self censor, as critical, independent thinking.   He's not being fooled or manipulated if he recognizes 'bias' everywhere.

LOL yes he is.

[BmorePat87]

(12-28-2018, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, the fact that they signed a content producing deal with Obama is not proof of a partisan leaning?  Wait, maybe you're right.  Obama is well known for his creation of entertainment, both movies and television.

Would you say the same about publishers when politicians release books? Crown published books from George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Michelle Obama. Their parent company also published Bill Clinton's memoirs.

I don't think the simple act of giving a contract for content established a bias in the way you tried to imply that it did in your dismissal of a documentary being streamed on Netflix.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-03-2019, 10:04 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Would you say the same about publishers when politicians release books? Crown published books from George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Michelle Obama. Their parent company also published Bill Clinton's memoirs.

I don't think the simple act of giving a contract for content established a bias in the way you tried to imply that it did in your dismissal of a documentary being streamed on Netflix.

That they aren't biased?
I have no idea about Netflix, but you can certainly say one outlet is biased without claiming that means all other outlets are biased.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-03-2019, 10:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That they aren't biased?
I have no idea about Netflix, but you can certainly say one outlet is biased without claiming that means all other outlets are biased.  

His reasoning for them being biased was giving Obama a contract for content, so I used the example of a publisher doing the same to ask if that would make them biased. 

[Vas Deferens]

"The meek may inherit the earth, but they'll never expand market share." - Bill McGowan