monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

I suppose what upsets me the most was reading of what the deep throat thinks of the positives in the administration. It is for those reasons, republicans in congress don't come out against him. Those reasons are not positives and I am afraid that narrative may resonate with voters in the mid-terms.

yup

they're the good conservatives/republicans Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

@blatham,

Quote:

I hope at least some of you folks are following Beutler's work. He's a very smart fellow.

But you are not at all a smart fellow, Bernie. You have shown yourself to be anti-science, anti-truth and patently dishonest.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

If there hadn't been some mushiness about conservatives brought on by John McCain's death, I don't think they would have been taken in like this.

I don't agree with that. There is definitely something to the notion or observation that McCain's death/funeral service (and as you mentioned earlier the coincidental timing of Woodward's book) which has underlined the long-known discord in the administration and in conservative circles re Trump but this defensive PR move would have arisen sooner or later and it would simply be impossible for the Times or other such entities to avoid covering such moves. I get the he said/she said failing of much modern political coverage but I don't think this is such a case.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I so rarely see anything from either that I don't even have a clear notion of their ideologies.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

this defensive PR move

a PR move by the conservatives should not be given the cover/gravitas of an anonymous NYT op-ed

report on it - sure - say anonymous source/s in the WH tell our reporters blah blah blah - the NYT messed this up for themselves with a crowd of us (you are presenting some of them yourself - and referring to them as smart people)

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

the NYT messed this up for themselves with a crowd of us (you are presenting some of them yourself - and referring to them as smart people)

Not sure what you mean or who you refer to. Could you flesh that out?

PS... it is not just a "PR move". Even if it is that, there is no precedent in US history that I know of for such a submission to a major paper from a senior admin official. That makes it critically necessary to publish.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

stoopid NYT

Where were you, Beth, when the "stoopid" NYTs buried their story on the molten/vaporized steel found at WTC right after WTC7 fell at free fall speed?

All that has resulted in this world since then can be traced back to these US liars of different sorts who falsely accused Muslims and Muslim countries, creating a hatred for them among Americans ... which led directly to the election of Trump, who fed off this hatred of Muslims, ... .

They discussed it a great deal, in numerous articles calling it “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation," and then they buried it.

There was no follow up by the NYTs to find out the reason for this total impossibility. Why? Because the implications of the molten/vaporized steel became evident to not only them but to many people.

"deepest mystery" indeed. They, along with many other people realized that this deepest mystery was a total impossibility which made the US government story of 9/11 a total impossibility.

It proves that there were no hijackers as alleged by the US government because they could not melt or vaporize WTC structural steel with what was available to them in the USGOS, jet fuel and office furnishings,

Those fuels in open air burn 1000 degrees F colder than the temperature needed to melt steel, 3,400 degrees F colder than the temperature needed to vaporize steel.

Molten and vaporized WTC structural steel means, unequivocally, no hijackers.

You, Beth, can fully understand this and grasp what it all means. As can any thinking person.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Even if it is that, there is no precedent in US history that I know of for such a submission

we have absolutely no idea if that is the case. none

we know that the NYT was not taken in before - we do not know what was offered to them .... I'll give you this if you don't publish my name. I'd suggest this offer has been made to the NYT before - at quite high levels of government.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote ehBeth:

Quote:

a PR move by the conservatives should not be given the cover/gravitas of an anonymous NYT op-ed

I think it's more than that. Yes, there is an element of "cover your ass" in the piece, but the overwhelming reaction to it has been to bring up the subject of impeachment to a more immediate level. The combo of McCain's death and the picture of a president so caught up in his own neuroses and greedy machinations that his underlings have to run the country behind his back makes the Republicans look worse for November, not better.

Maybe the writer is what they make themselves out to be-someone who is conservative but sees the country as being in great danger with this current president.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

we have absolutely no idea if that is the case. none

Given the political leanings of the media, you can guarantee that they would only publish such things based on who sits in the WH, they protect some Presidents and go after others.

2 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

it is not just a "PR move".

i quoted you directly

__

look - we disagree on this - I agree with the people you've quoted who have id'd this as a protective move by pre (and hoping to be post) #45 conservatives/republicans. I do not think positively of the NYT's action - that is unlikely to change.

I feel very strongly that the op-ed did not deserve to be given the gravitas once provided by the NYT. It has devalued the NYT for me.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

The question was if similar pieces had been offered to the NYT in the past - to be published only on the promise of anonymity.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

we have absolutely no idea if that is the case. none

I don't think that's a reasonable hypothesis. We can't say for certain but the probabilities seems very high that if it had happened before, we'd have heard about it. This is not pedestrian.

My go-to people on media criticism are Jay Rosen and Margaret Sullivan. Rosen has so far just linked to the op/ed but Sullivan has a column up on it now. She deals with the weirdness of this thing (and some legal questions) but here's her address to the question you and I are debating...

Quote:

Given that — and the tricky issues for its reporting staff — should the Times have walked away from the opportunity to publish it? There are those who clearly think so, such as Dan Gillmor of Arizona State University, who called its writing and publication not an act of courage but “an act of trolling.”

For me, it comes down to newsworthiness — and that the piece has, in spades. Its revelations may not break entirely new ground, but certainly add to our understanding of an administration in dangerous turmoil.

WP

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

I'd suggest this offer has been made to the NYT before - at quite high levels of government.

High levels of the "would be" government under Killary made plenty of offers. And the NYT has printed exactly what they were told to, and have for quite some time now.

The NYT has gone from the "Gray Lady" to the old gray whore. And deserves as much respect as any old whore does.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

The question was if similar pieces had been offered to the NYT in the past - to be published only on the promise of anonymity.

You don't think the offer of anonymity would depend on which President was being reported on?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

you buy into anything that your president says eh?? You have no "Bullshit filter" apparently

4 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

i quoted you directly

As I've been arguing since the beginning here, I think (along with the others I've quoted) that this is the fundamental motivation/strategy behind the submission of the piece. But in terms of journalistic duties, there is more to it than that factor. Anyway, Sullivan makes my case on that aspect.

And yeah, we disagree. That's fine. I love ya.

0 Replies

Quote:

It’s been a slow week. Let’s talk about the size of Donald Trump’s inauguration crowd for a minute.

Donald Trump personally sought to edit photos to make his inauguration crowd appear bigger.

TP

Original piece by the Guardian is below which fills in the specifics:

Here

I just thought title funny from Think Progress.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I think the NYT made the right call in making this an editorial instead of a news article. By publishing it as an editorial, it is clearly opinion, not substantiated fact. The NYT prints opinions from top political figures all the time and they say they know who this person is. I'm mostly with the people who say it should not have been anonymous. If someone really has fitness for office concerns, they need to be on the record. (This article doesn't lend any credence to impeachment but you could make a 25th amendment argument.)

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote Baldimo:

Quote:

Given the political leanings of the media, you can guarantee that they would only publish such things based on who sits in the WH, they protect some Presidents and go after others.

But that's your answer to everything.

1 Reply

monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know