It seems I might need to spend quite some time explaining the difference between spin, and lying. I tried to explicitly make that point in the very post you are replying to.
You are asking what my take is regarding the incident with Jorge Ramos? Well, as you pointed out he was trying to ask a question and he was kicked out. Let’s look at what you didn’t mention.
The clip you show doesn’t show it, but Jorge Ramos had already started shouting out the question before Trump had even taken the podium. He did so uninvited.
Once Trump took to the podium he called on another reporter to ask a question. Jorge Ramos ignored this and continued to shout his question.
Jorge Ramos was told specifically he was not called on and Trump tried again to ask another journalist a question. Jorge Ramos ignored this and continued to shout out his question.
Trump tried made numerous other attempts to tell Jorge Ramos he was not being called on to talk, including “shut up” , “sit down” , “go back to Univision”. Jorge Ramos ignored all these attempts and continued to shout out his question.
Then Jorge Ramos was removed from the room.
Also something you don’t mention is later on Jorge Ramos was let back into the room and allowed to ask his question. In fact he got to ask about 10 questions and had about a 5 minute back and forth of arguing with Trump.
Now those are the facts and with that knowledge if you ask my take it would be this. I don’t think Trump handled the situation well, perhaps in part because he was relatively new to press conferences. Jorge Ramos was also being rude and disruptive, I think he should have waited his turn, I think he should have waited to be called on to ask questions and I think he should have stopped shouting out his question when it was made clear he hadn’t been selected to ask a question. Personally I wouldn’t have done Trump’s route of kicking him out.
I think suggesting “Trump kicked out a reporter because he didn’t like the question” misses so many relevant points in the story that while being strictly true, it amounts to spin.
Who in the world do you think is a dictator? Is this a reference to President Trump?!
And yet you believe that you have managed to stay unbiased, and are still capable of forming an opinion from a dispassionate viewpoint?
Nice chutzpah, believing that Trump is a dictator yet lecturing others about the Lügenpresse if they disagree. I like your style, sir. I suspect there are giant flaws in your thinking, but it can be fun to sit next to the crazy cat lady at a cafe.
And yet another example of Democrats morphing into the very monster they consider Trump to be. You guys have got to do a better job choosing your enemies going forward. Trump is in your head and eating you up from the inside.
eta: @anon96115109, why not share an example of a story you wish we’d all read here? Where do you go for news? How do you factcheck?
Can you share an example of a story favorable to Trump that your factchecking process led you to believe was false?
Now, can you share an example of a story unfavorable to Trump that your factchecking process led you to believe was false?
But that Jorge Ramos episode gives an opportunity to discuss confrontational reporters. As opposed to sycophantic ass kissing reporters that would ask softball questions to Obama like “what was your best moment in your Presidency” and then sit down and giddily stare like star stuck struck teenagers quietly waiting with baited breath for his every word.
The confrontational reporter, is aggressive, is more interested in hearing themselves talk than actually eliciting answers, they are argumentative, they interrupt all of which was on display when Jorge Ramos was let back into the room. This is another form of bias commonly used by the media.
So, no you did not accurately depict the situation by saying Trump kicked out a reporter because he was asked a question he didn’t like. More accurately he was kicked out for causing a disruption, but later allowed back in and was allowed to aggressively question Trump for nearly 5 minutes.
Very good, I assume you have seen it already and then you know what I am saying is accurate.
let’s do another one. Back to spin. A recent event, the House judiciary committee voted to hold Bill Barr in contempt. I know the Guardian loves spin, so not surprising this was the first click after a search.
Now remember, we are discussing spin, I am not alleging anything they printed is a lie. I am alleging they omit so many relevant facts as to make the entire story misleading. They do this every day, day in and day out, lets look at what they left out.
They make no mention to the extent the copy of the Mueller report is unredacted. Which is 99.9% leaving only 7 sentences redacted. When you know that, the fuss they are making seems out of proportion.
They do not say it is illegal for Barr to unredacted what remains redacted because it is grand jury information. They do mention that Nadler narrowed his request to work with the courts to try and get the remaining redacted material unredacted. But as others have noted, even if a court ruled they could unredacted the material, it would still be illegal for them to do so, because it is illegal to do so.
3 The article does not mention that none of the Democrats have chosen to view the 99.9% version of the unredacted version.
Lastly it barely notes that Nadler want’s all the underlying evidence, millions of pages from the White House, all the 302’s, everything. Which is the whole point of what Nadler is doing, he doesn’t care about the Mueller report being unredacted, he cares about getting his hands on all the underlying evidence to use as a means to attack Trump.
The article is garbage, as usual, because they have a huge animus towards Trump and only care in ways to spin stories in a way to negatively report on Trump and his administration.
That’s not to say they are outright lying, they just miss so many relevant facts, that they become boot lickers for Democrat talking points and think about this, the Guardian is supposed to be one of the better outlets, if this garbage is what they are passing for journalism, just imagine how bad other outlets are getting.
In the words of the great Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations”.
You’re right, all news sites have biases. CNN is not gonna give the air time to Bernie that whatever statist the Dems run gets. What they don’t run matters too, and I agree with you there. What makes the news at all, how its presented are choices.
One of my friends used to decide ABC news front page content a while back and I asked him about this expecting some insider hint, and his reply was really straightforward: Whatever gets clicks.
There’s a lot of bias, but at the end of the day corporate media is just part of the paper chase and these sites have their niche audience.
Some sites, like Fox, intentionally deceive readers or distort stories fabrications with enough frequency that they lose credibility. I don’t believe that’s the case with CNN, NYT etc. I agree they’re presenting a picture their audience wants to hear, but Fox crosses the line into outright fabrication far more often. There’s evidence to back this up, I’m a bit lazy too search it at the moment but will if you request.
There was an example today of bias/ spin on the BBC , interviewing Farage.
Example: Questioner used past statements ( nothing to do with the EU elections that are going on ) like " Do you still think someone with HIV should not be allowed in the UK ?".
That was said by Farage years ago ,in the context of the struggling NHS are , in part , having to treat illegal immigrants with serious ailments which is not fair . It was not directed at everyone …but it’s an example of bias.
in spite of the Brexit Party leading the polls , the BBC are notably absent from his rallies. like Farage or not …there is huge bias .
I suspect the Tories and Labour will be soundly defeated soon.
They are not interested in what the person has to say, they have already lined up questions for The hit job. Whatever the person says is ignored and they just move on to the next question which is intended to smear the person being questioned, often using dishonest representation of the facts. I remember seeing a similar one on Andrew Breitbart a while back, I think this is the one you refer to. Absolutely disgusting reporting.
What seems to be a minor obsession of Trump’s supporters lurks behind everything you post here in IP (or seems to). Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Am I wrong?
It’s a shame that no-one will take an opportunity to teach us how to find objective media sources and avoid bias. You’ve claimed several times now that it’s possible to become a cool, dispassionate consumer of news, and to demonstrate to us your own lack of bias you claim to be someone (I think) who would be delighted to vote for a Republican if you could just find a good one.
I think CNN did do a short article on it to be fair. I had to do some digging. Didn’t see it on their front page or being talked about on the news. A billion worth of HIV meds seems like worth while news over the fake Russian theory or his taxes.
