12-22-2016, 12:24 PM
(12-22-2016, 08:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The author of the article would certainly say he is providing relevant context. He is quoting assessments from former government professionals, who likely represent a State Department consensus about the party in question. If you remove Serwer's statements, you know less about the FPO.
Hardly, he barely mentions the FPO and then goes into his diatribe about Flynn, Bannon and Trump.
Quote:I don't find it "wholly irrelevant" or distorting that the FPO was founded by a Nazi and currently serves the anti-Muslim anti- foreigner crowd in Austria.
On the contrary, American readers should know that--especially if Trump is receptive to overtures from this party.
I didn't say it was, I said that labeling it an "ex-Nazi" party is false and deliberately misleading. I am starting to think you don't comprehend the English language well as you repeat things that have already been addressed.
Quote:Providing context is not "editorializing" just because you don't like the truth.
Hahaha, did you manage to type that with a straight face?
Quote:And do you think cutting out critical contextual factors is suddenly NOT editorializing?
Nothing in this title--"Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser"--appears to be inaccurate.
Except that's not the title, you fail once again. The fail is strong in this one.
(12-22-2016, 08:13 AM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps you have not read all the posts on the thread yet.
Perhaps I have?
Quote:In any case, if you want others to continue contributing to this thread, it is best not to continually enlist them all willy nilly into your agenda.
I didn't, another reading comprehension fail by you. I said they get the point, not that they agree with it. You can understand an argument and still not be won over by the argument's merits.
Quote:People may be reluctant to contribute if they find themselves suddenly "sided" to a range of issues after one comment.
Let them speak for themselves.
I was providing context.
Quote:I bring up Ryan, in the first place, to explain why calling Trump a racist or bigot or anti-immigrant is not just "editorializing."
In the quote above, I am explaining how to assess and apply definitions. When people can agree on such standards in advance,
there is greater likelihood that labels will be actually descriptive rather than just expressing one party's whims and dislikes.
And, once again, you ignore his statements about others. I could even give you the Trump statement, which I won't, and you still have all your work ahead of you. You cherry pick and then pretend you don't. I merely respond because I enjoy watching you tie yourself into tighter knots.
Quote:That is certainly relative to a disagreement in which you have claimed assessments of Trump's behavior are no more than "blindly hurled insults." They are neither "blindly hurled" nor simply "insults" if they accurately categorize Trump's behavior. That HuffPo writers call him these things does not establish they are "just like" Breitbart--only on "the left" (as people call social liberals in the US).
And, once again, you ignore what he said about others. Regardless of your "opinion" on whether these labels are accurate or earned they are still opinion. Your endless circling of this point is dizzying.
Quote:Assessing the applicability of definitions is also relevant to a discussion in which you claim it is misleading to characterize a party founded by Nazis as a party founded by Nazis. If it is important to call them "ex-Nazis" once they were forcibly de-nazified after the war, then in the interest of greater accuracy I concede the point.
Except they didn't characterize the party as being founded by ex-Nazis. They claimed the party itself was ex-Nazi. Quite different things and one is correct and the other is a deliberate lie.
Quote:And this brings us back to my point about why it is wrong to claim that mainstream and "left" news sites in the US are really no different from Fox, Breitbart, WND and DRudge. There is a qualitative difference created by the latter's greater readiness to undermine standards, to fuzz distinctions they don't like, to circulate false information as news, to present government and mainstream press as co-conspirators, and to claim everyone else is really doing it too rather than to re-affirm standards. To defend Trump, you have to break down standards across a range of domains--journalistic, ethcial, scientific and legal. I refuse to accept this "new normal" and am making a claim here which can be empirically tested, as I have been doing across several threads now.
Here's where you fail even harder. I'm not defending Trump, I'm calling out hypocrisy. You are so blinkered by partisanship you can't even tell the difference. The journalistic standards in the article in OP are utter dog shit. No one but you has even tried to dispute this. Nor is this the only article of its sort on HuffPo nor is this behavior atypical for them. Deal with it.
Quote:And here is an example of why this matters: On Dec. 18, Trump missed his PDB, where he might have learned China was returning the drone it had taken. That afternoon, he tweeted a taunt out to the world that the US should just let China keep the drone. He had no idea. Another: He picked a national security advisor who thinks Mexican drug cartels are creating pathways into the US for ISIS and retweets real fake news--the man who is supposed to be vetting intel for the president of the United States. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227
Journalistic standards matter and none of us need an example to illustrate why. Not to say your example does an especially good job of making your point.
Quote:American voters have placed in power a vulgar, uninformed celebrity whose skills at vetting information are possibly the lowest of any president in history. It affects his judgment in appointing advisors and cabinet members. He is in power because not enough voters thought this deficiency a serious problem during his campaign, and that critical mass of indifferent voters are in large part consumers of the above mentioned right wing media.The party of personal responsibility, which once claimed it stood for principle, suddenly finds itself explaining away their party leader's behavior week to week, from reckless foreign policy behavior complicating the current president's final days to his efforts to retain his international businesses and involve his children in state decisions.
Is that your opinion or are you providing context?
