Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? Bernie Sanders wants to know who owns America?
#20081
Posted 2022-July-04, 19:07
I was putting the emFARsis on the wrong syllARble.
#20083
Posted 2022-July-05, 10:53
Winstonm, on 2022-July-04, 08:03, said:
The media I listen to (NPR) calls it "the Big Lie" all the time.
But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.
Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.
#20084
Posted 2022-July-05, 12:15
barmar, on 2022-July-05, 10:53, said:
But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.
Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.
If one side is NASA and they are reporting about the Mars landing while a small group calls it a hoax, is it newsworthy that someone is saying hoax?
News has an obligation to facts, not bothsideism; it is not judgmental to call hoax claims ludicrous or ridiculous or fantasy. If media owes facts, it is wrong to grant even the slightest legitimacy to nonsense.
Overton’s window for a large, perhaps majority of Republicans now encompasses nonsensical conspiracy theories of all kinds. To give any credibility at all to those views only reenforces the legitimacy of that window, normalizing conspiracy theories of all kinds and the people who peddle them.
#20085
Posted 2022-July-05, 12:16
barmar, on 2022-July-05, 10:53, said:
But I don't think it really matters. The people who believe in Trump simply don't care what the liberal media says, so it doesn't matter how they frame it. If the media calls it a lie, they think the media is lying about that.
Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts. "without evidence" has less of a value judgement attached to it, it's just a statement of fact that was determined by all the court cases.
I wonder if the following would be better. I think everyone agrees that Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol. I think just about everyone agrees that he called on his followers to prevent the certification of the 2020 presidential election. What more is said could depend on whether the news report is about reviewing the results of Jan 6 or it is speaking of something new that happened on the day of the report, something related to Jan 6. In the latter case, just move on to the new report. If, for some reason, the new news requires knowing more details about Jan 6 then give them Not a one-sentence, or half-sentence, summary but a pretty full discussion. I think that you are right: Firstly, Trumpees are not listening to NPR. But if they are tied to chairs and must listen, they consider "The Big Lie" to be a lie. With many of them, they will not be listening no matter what is said, their minds are made up (actually, my mind is made up also, just in the opposite direction). But if the intent is to again present the facts of Jan 6, hoping someone will listen, then do it with substance, not with a slogan.
#20086
Posted 2022-July-05, 14:10
kenberg, on 2022-July-05, 12:16, said:
I can see the signs already: Without Evidence=Evidence Hidden!
#20087
Posted 2022-July-05, 17:01
barmar, on 2022-July-05, 10:53, said:
"without evidence" has an innocuous sound to it. Completely debunked lies made up by ultra right fringe wackos, and without a shred of actual evidence is a much better description.
#20088
Posted 2022-July-05, 17:07
barmar, on 2022-July-05, 10:53, said:
Also, reporters are not supposed to report opinions, just facts.
How many do? The vast majority of all news (of any quality(?) or political leaning) is simply reporting what someone said or wrote
I appreciate those are facts but they are not primary evidence
Also it is very simple to cobble together facts or falsehoods into any narrative you like. Even easier these days
#20089
Posted 2022-July-05, 19:43
#20090
Posted 2022-July-06, 02:29
barmar, on 2022-July-05, 10:53, said:
Firstly, that distinction doesn't work. Journalists always contextualise facts, and make active choices which context to include.
Second, "without evidence" means something very different than "lying", and the way it is often used can be very misleading. If I claim that the global climate isn't warming, I am not making a claim "without evidence", I am making a claim clearly contradicted by the available evidence. (Whether that amounts to "lying" is a different matter, one of intent, and one you might not be able to judge without knowing whether I am dumb enough to believe some of the climate B.S. out there.) If I claim I have enough money in my bank account to buy a car without financing, that's a claim without evidence unless I provide some.
Yet journalists often use "without evidence" when "thoroughly contradicted by all available evidence" would be more accurate.
#20091
Posted 2022-July-06, 14:56
cherdano, on 2022-July-06, 02:29, said:
Second, "without evidence" means something very different than "lying", and the way it is often used can be very misleading. If I claim that the global climate isn't warming, I am not making a claim "without evidence", I am making a claim clearly contradicted by the available evidence. (Whether that amounts to "lying" is a different matter, one of intent, and one you might not be able to judge without knowing whether I am dumb enough to believe some of the climate B.S. out there.) If I claim I have enough money in my bank account to buy a car without financing, that's a claim without evidence unless I provide some.
Yet journalists often use "without evidence" when "thoroughly contradicted by all available evidence" would be more accurate.
If I may add, “without evidence” is a phrase directed at the claimant. not the claim. It suggests that the claimant is simply too lazy to supply evidence, which is not newsworthy, instead of the newsworthy fact that the claimant and the claim itself is disingenuous.
#20092
Posted 2022-July-07, 12:14
That sounds about right.
#20093
Posted 2022-July-08, 08:54
Quote
“We deserve a better class of bastards,” Dunt said on the podcast. We all do. Still, as an American, I have to say: Be thankful for what you’ve got.
#20094
Posted 2022-July-09, 10:36
That’s strike two, WaPo. Better choke up and try to make contact with some facts.
#20095
Posted 2022-July-09, 11:34
Winstonm, on 2022-July-09, 10:36, said:
That's strike two, WaPo. Better choke up and try to make contact with some facts.
I looked it up and it now says he is considering waving a claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon.
https://www.washingt...rump-january-6/
I cannot recall with confidence what the wording was when I first read it, but even if"claim" wasn't part of it I understood the meaning to be that Trump was considering withdrawing the legal filing of a claim for executive privilege for Bannon.
#20096
Posted 2022-July-09, 12:07
You don’t even have to put Trump’s name in the story to tell the story. Headline should be, “ Ex-president makes ridiculous claim about non-existent executive privilege “.
Then the story explains that EP is the current president’s to claim or waive, not the past, and it doesn’t apply to Steve Bannon anyway. You tell a factual story and educate your readers without providing free publicity to a grifter trying to take down the American electoral system
.
#20097
Posted 2022-July-10, 06:32
Quote
The letter would reiterate that Trump invoked executive privilege in September 2021, when Bannon was first subpoenaed by the House committee. But it would say that the former president is now willing to give up that claim — the validity of which has been disputed — if Bannon can reach an agreement on the terms of an appearance before the panel. The letter was described by three people familiar with it, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.
As headlines go, I regard the headline, "Trump considers waiving claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon", as reasonably accurate. It's a headline, so of course it doesn't tell the whole story. But as far as news is concerned, the news would appear to be that perhaps Bannon will be appearing before the committee without having to first go through a court battle over executive privilege.
A broader point: I hope the Democratic leadership concentrates on what needs to be done to win elections. Worrying that the phrasing of a headline is not caustic enough is more like preparing explanations for why elections are lost. Dems have some serious work to do, and I am not so sure they are doing it.
#20098
Posted 2022-July-10, 08:26
kenberg, on 2022-July-10, 06:32, said:
[/size][/font][/color]
As headlines go, I regard the headline, "Trump considers waiving claim of executive privilege for Steve Bannon", as reasonably accurate. It's a headline, so of course it doesn't tell the whole story. But as far as news is concerned, the news would appear to be that perhaps Bannon will be appearing before the committee without having to first go through a court battle over executive privilege.
A broader point: I hope the Democratic leadership concentrates on what needs to be done to win elections. Worrying that the phrasing of a headline is not caustic enough is more like preparing explanations for why elections are lost. Dems have some serious work to do, and I am not so sure they are doing it.
[/font]
In the first four years after leaving the presidency, how many times do you recall the names of ex-presidents making headlines? Every time the name Trump is placed in a headline it is a shot-in-the-arm for Republicans. It's free advertising for the grifter and the party he still leads.
I'm a little unclear on what "work" you think the Democrats can and should be doing. Without eliminating the filibuster or having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the big plans cannot happen. All that's left is executive orders and blather. Trump was, and still is, an expert at making blather appear to be concrete action; yes, it is effective; yes, it would be great if the Democrats could find a candidate who could compete or even outcompete that oratory, not with bombast, but with delivery of the message, I am here, I am doing something, even when unable to do something.
One thing I think you miss is the nature of the enemy-I hate to say it, but these people have become the enemy of choice, and I really don't think you appreciate how much influence nationally they are providing. This is why we should not give free advertising to them, or their leader, Trump.
Quote
"Any free people in the house here? Did Jesus set you free?" he asked, revving up the dozens before him on a Saturday afternoon at a Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, roadside hotel.
Mastriano, a state senator, retired Army colonel and prominent figure in former President Donald Trump's futile efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results, was addressing a far-right conference that mixed Christian beliefs with conspiracy theories, called Patriots Arise. Instead of focusing on issues like taxes, gas prices or abortion policy, he wove a story about what he saw as the true Christian identity of the nation, and how it was time, together, for Christians to reclaim political power.
The separation of church and state was a "myth," he said. "In November we are going to take our state back, my God will make it so."
Mastriano's ascension in Pennsylvania is perhaps the most prominent example of right-wing candidates for public office who explicitly aim to promote Christian power in America. The religious right has long supported conservative causes, but this current wave seeks more: a nation that actively prioritizes their particular set of Christian beliefs and far-right views and that more openly embraces Christianity as a bedrock identity.
Maybe you are right and I am wrong. But I remember the "silent majority" and "Democrats for Reagan" too well to think rationality wins elections. Elections are a popularity contest, and framing and exposure have much to do with who gets stuck in the minds of voters.
#20100
Posted 2022-July-10, 10:20
Adam Liptak at NYT said:
Even some scholars who think the independent state legislature doctrine is pernicious nonsense say they would like a definitive resolution of the issue, and preferably not in an election year.
“I think they should take it,” Vikram Amar said of the North Carolina case. “This thing is just brewing and bubbling.”
409 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 409 guests, 0 anonymous users
- Google,