08-20-2017, 10:59 AM
(08-19-2017, 09:21 AM)hollodero Wrote: Many don't seem to take it that seriously. Ah, didn't change the outcome, or: ah, every country does things like that. Qúite relaxed in the face of a full-scale Russian propaganda attack on many levels. And to many western countries, although he's not that successful here in Europe. It's not for a lack of trying, but - just my guess - people here see things more awarely.
Almost every hearing starts with these words, inncluding Comey's: The important thing is what Russia did, it isn't exaggerated, in fact it gets lost in the Trump debate. First thing Comey said (at least something among these line), first thing almost everyone says. (Except for Sessions of course, who as AG never had any briefing about Russia.)
Well I guess I wouldn't necessarily say it's a lack of awareness on the parts of Americans but more so a lack of care, like you said. However, I don't think it's a lack of care because Americans are ignorant of it, but rather because some of us don't see the Russia story as a huge threat to our democracy in terms of them being involved with swaying the election process. Whether that's a good or bad thing or whether we're wrong in thinking that, honestly I don't know. What I feel personally is that a lot more Americans would be critical of Russia if they had somehow hacked the votes and made Donald Trump president.
I think that's the biggest problem about the whole Russia thing is that it had to do with Russia getting involved with and "influencing" our election. Problem is, no one could prove who was influenced by what and whether that "influence" really effected the outcomes. When you constantly try to tell someone that they voted for Trump because Russian propaganda brainwashed them, that's not something that's going to go over well, and that's basically what the media was doing. It severely undermines other reasons that people might have voted Trump that goes beyond the "fake news" stories because these people get thrown into this "Russian propaganda" bin when it really may have been the policies or promises made by the candidates that ultimately led someone to vote one way or another and really didn't have much to do with personal stories concerning either candidate.
Quote:OK. I don't intend to defend CNN more as I want to. Yes they can be annoying, yepp they have their three subjects they pass on from anchor to anchor as breaking news, now Cooper's take, now Blitzer's take, and so on. I guess it's inbuilt somehow. People that zap in for the news want the biggest news, no matter if it was already talked about in length. That being said. My small country has state-run TV (not recommended) and some private stations, but there's one thing I can say: If our chancellor had ever tweeted a meme like that against any news station, he would get grilled for it too. It isn't actually normal to declare war on the media like that. With Trump, one probably gets used to things like that. There are big things all the time. But I still don't, I can fully understand making a big thing out of tweeting this meme. Because it's amazing. I guess a majority in your country sees it similarly. That's why I say, if coverage is too much or ridiculous always is a subjective call.
I wouldn't say you're wrong in calling it a subjective matter. But I think it's important to discuss whether what's "subjective" has any objective merit. The argument extends to the point of what is it that a news station is supposed to provide to the public. What would you say that is? I would say it's news. Problem is, CNN barely reports news. They report something about Trump and spend hours sharing their opinion about the exact same thing. That's the biggest problem I see in all of it.
The issue isn't that CNN reports on Trump, it's that they spend hours debating about how they feel about what he's said or done. Basically it's less about reporting news and more about reporting their feelings, which is why I call it ridiculous because they call themselves a news station when they're more of an opinion station. If they were to just come out and say that they care less about the news and more about presenting their opinions then I believe I would have less of a problem with it. But instead they like to parade themselves around as a "news station" with the "most up to date news" when their "news" primarily consists of something Trump tweeted and them sharing their opinion about it.
Quote:In all fairness. That is a misrepresentation about what they do. A tweet about his breakfast wouldn't be covered, he tends to tweet way more spectacular things than that. This General pershing tweet alone. What is a news outlet supposed to do with that, ignore it because the Trump news time is already used up? I really don't think so.
And if you're referring to the "he gets two scoops and everyone else just one", then I have to say, I have heard more from people on the right about that than actual coverage.
No, I understand they don't report on what he eats for breakfast, I was just saying that a lot of what they report on concerning his tweets is as important as reporting on what he ate for breakfast. Take again for example the WWE tweet that they spent days talking about. They tried so hard to make this a big story that they spun Trumps tweet as a tweet that was meant to incite violence against CNN and it's employees. What??? All Trump did was tweet a funny WWE video and they spun it into another "Trump is inciting violence" episode.
You mentioned the General Perishing tweet. What do you think was so grand about that? Because honestly I have no idea.
Quote:Oh Jeez, where to start. The Mika [Brz... whatever, just Mika] attack. It's really disgusting, at least that's what I feel, too disgusting to just let slide as the new normal. Attacking senators, calling them "Flake" and whatnot. Attacking Sessions. Attacking crooked Hillary (even way after the election, he can't let go)... and it goes on and on, I really don't want to make a list. These all are newsworthy. Crooked Hillary statements are presidential statements, team Trump itself says as much. So of course they need coverage. It can't be the course of action to just get used to these and finally let them slide as Trump just being a cyber bully.
Maybe some, crroked Hillary doesn't get reported any more. But you have to talk about the Mika tweet.
Should Tump be personally attacking people? No. But I don't see how that amounts to "We should report all of his personal attacks for hours because it's wrong". Of course it's wrong, but reporting that Trump tweeted someone is ugly or whatever and then spending hours talking about how it's wrong is neither news nor informing of anything about Trump's character. People know who Trump is, They know who they voted for. If everyone cared about what trump was saying they wouldn't have voted for him.
People want to know what it is that Trump is doing as president to effect the American people. All of this "Trumps said something nasty about someone" is an opportunity to indulge in laughing at the president. The news anchors even say it themselves. They literally sit there and laugh about what they're talking about and say it's "so much fun to talk about his tweets". I'm not making that up, it's what they've actually said and done multiple times. That doesn't sound like outrage to me, it sounds like mockery. mockery is not news or outrage. Sure if they want to sit there and make fun of the president go ahead, but they're not doing the American public any service in terms of reporting news that's actually important.
And people who have voted for Trump have shared their opinions on it multiple times when they've come on CNN. They say "I don't like the things that Trump says about other people, but thats's not why I voted for him. I voted for him because of the things he promised and because of how he said he'd get things done". So then, if that's the case why can't CNN spend more time talking about the things that Trump is trying to get done. I know why, because they don't want to. It's not as fun to talk about the laws Trump is passing or trying to pass. It's more fun to sit their and laugh at his ridiculous tweets and act like they actually matter to anyone other than Trump and CNN.
Quote:lol...
I guess everybody has his take.
Here's the thing, I don't blame CNN for being annoying with their Trump coverage. I blame Trump for being Trump.
As said, the alternative would be to declare having a misinforming bully president is the new normal. I for one am not there yet and never want to be there. And therefore I'm all for calling out every misinformation and every personal attack coming from the president, even if he just aims for that, even if it's getting all Trump in the news.
I only want to take out one specific take, because I really spend too much time defending CNN...
See but that's the thing. My intention is not to turn this into a "Is it CNN's fault or it iTrumps fault?" discussion. My point here is that I believe both Trump and CNN are having a pissing contest and CNN is falling for Trump's tactics of keeping himself in the news as much as possible and further alienating the public. As I said earlier, even CNN's own news anchors were saying that they were getting tired of talking about Trumps tweets and wanted to talk more about policy and other things that should be in the news.
I will admit that CNN has started to report on Trumps tweets and Russia a little less over the last month or so, which is great, but I don't think it's because Trump has gotten less ridiculous, but its instead because CNN is actually starting to concede that they were reporting on Trump just a lot too much. The interesting thing is that the coverage of Trump started to dwindle after CNN realized they screwed up and reported an actual fake news story about Trump's former advisor Scaramucci which said he had ties to Russia which led to CNN having to issue a public apology and three of its employees resigning.
Quote:...I get that. But maybe that guy watches too much news. I said it, it's a one-hout show per anchor, going through the biggest news. Blitzer can't say, oh that is important, but it was already covered by another anchor, let's report something else then. That's not how it works. I'm the first to say the whole CNN format isn't ideal.
But again they're not really reporting anything. They report Trump's tweets and then spend the majority of the air time debating it. That's CNN's fault. You said you don't think their format is ideal, and I agree for the very fact that their format is less about reporting news and more about sharing their feelings about Trump.
Quote:Then again, many people in the US definitely don't seem to get that he is a "low life d-bag". Over 30% still believe he's a heck of a president and a fine person, deep down in his heart or whatever. I don't blame CNN for that either. If any, I blame FOX for that. When you see CNN as agenda-driven, you have to see FOX (at least parts of FOX) as a Trump propaganda outlet.
Then again, I still can't grasp that your country voted for that guy. I am biased.
People voted for him because it came down to what Trump made them believe and what he promised the American people. It wasn't about Rosie O'dennel, it wasn't about groping women, it wasn't about saying criminals were coming from Mexico. If it was, Mexican's and women wouldn't have voted for him. They voted for him because they felt that he would make their life better than Hillary or anyone else would.
Quote:--- didn't this thread start with you complaining CNN didn't cover the Trump assassination tweet?
Yes.
