The narratives about Trump thread.


Clever, but are we to believe that the WaPo thinks that two wrongs make a right? That the best way to serve the nation, to counter big, bad Trump, is to use its platform, one that claims to be the final arbiter of truth - that “democracy dies in darkness” - to spread further darkness in service of Democrat partisanship?

Can WaPo credibly claim that Trump is wrong in literally everything he does by becoming Trumpian?

Maybe a better service to the nation is to dial back the venom and present cooler-headed arguments. They claim they write the news this way to avoid ‘normalizing’ Trump, but is it working? Or is WaPo merely parroting the fray on Twitter and thus normalizing an uncivil discourse?

It’s an argument that takes place in comments sections there nearly every day.


Ummm one is a lobbyist and one isn’t? Many news media are partisan one way or the other. What are they all going to be lobbyists now?


I’m not sure registration for lobbyists should even be a thing. It’s a Constitutional right, y’know. In theory, any citizen can do it.


Every ounce of anti-Covfefist partisanship reinforces the narrative that the media are part of the deep state, so in a way they’re on his side. :upside_down_face:


No, the Washington Post is walking a fine line by speculating that President Trump is just this side of being a traitor and, by virtue of its laurels, deeming it known information. They’re mostly crossing that line and, as Trump has pointed out, making the American conversation worse instead of better.

One reason Trump is so frustrated is that Jeff Bezos, world’s richest man, owns WaPo. Bezos could invest in America’s long term future - Amazon relied on long-term investors instead of cash for years - but instead seems happy to tatter the social contract in the name of quarterly profits.

For example, there will be no impeachment of Trump. Even if in 2018 Democrats win majorities in both houses of Congress, no Senate Democrat will vote (the 67th vote) to convict Trump (at least on facts known today) because it would turn Congress back to the GOP in 2020. So what good does WaPo do by speculating daily about an impending impeachment?




That’s a bit like saying how could someone sell mutton as lamb, because lamb and mutton are obviously different.

The Washington Post I don’t read as much as @bojack, but I see the symptoms on news networks like CNN. They have their pet projects which I think are easy to spot.

The synchronization on key words and phrases, is a little more disconcerting.


No it isn’t at all because those two things are the same thing. “Lobbying” (at least in the US) has a specific meaning which is not in any way close to “being a partisan shrill”.

Maybe they think it’s dark. It is dark. That’s putting it mildly. It’s fucking terrifying if you ask me. We should be calling them restrained.


Why would you say they are the same thing? A lamb is defined as being under a year old and specifically not having developed certain teeth. Mutton are female sheep that are over a certain age and have developed these certain teeth.


OK, this is interesting. In the US, we don’t use the word mutton. I wasn’t aware there was a difference. So… they’re different? And why could someone use one word to refer to the other when that’s wrong? Is that your point? Now I’m really confused.


Because selling mutton (tough meat) as lamb (tender) is profitable. Just because I label mutton lamb and sell it in the lamb section of the supermarket, doesn’t make it lamb.

Just as a journalist is a lot more believable and persuasive than a lobbyist, doesn’t mean journalists can’t do the work of lobbyists, with the title of objectivity and claiming to present “just the facts”


But lobbying means contacting government officials directly and attempting to persuade them of a viewpoint. This is why lobbyists have to register. It doesn’t mean holding a partisan viewpoint, presenting viewpoints to the public as a media organization, or being a partisan media organization. You’re trying to sell mutton as radishes here. And really, why are we even discussing this? Because Trump erroneously used this label to maliciously threaten a media organization that is opposed to him, as they have every right to be. Just call them a partisan media organization. Jesus that was even good enough for Nixon.


I’m not sure if you have watched CNN’s coverage of the school shooting? I think anyone who watches regularly knows they are anti gun. Which is ok, stations and newspapers are free to pick issues they want to push, as Roland said its a free world, if that’s their choice, up to them.

CNN has been pushing anti gun legislation long before Trump was on the scene, so I am not commenting just related to Trump.

I also recognize probably all media outlets have their biases. But even CNN has good reporters, personally I have Christiane Amanpour at the top, I did have Fareed Zakaria in number one place before he stupidly proclaimed Trump would never be president.

There are shades, there is good reporting, there is reporting with bias (which it can be argued are valuable view points) and then there is reporting that amounts to little more than sheer propaganda, barely distinguishable from lobbying.


I stopped watching CNN years ago–they’re useless AFAIC. I’m sure there are some exceptions though.

I really don’t think you’re recognizing that lobbying has a specific meaning, especially in the context of having to register as a lobbyist.


Right, which goes back to lamb and mutton, which both have specific meanings. Yet it pays handsomely to claim one is the other.

What do lobbyists do? They try to persuade and push laws through, that they want.

When the MSM chooses to put pressure and push laws through by pushing their political agenda, are you telling me they are so different, because a lobbyist needed to register as a lobbyist.

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but when MSM collectively start pushing an agenda to put pressure on the government to do one policy over another, how is this different from being a lobbyist, except in name?


Yeah I’ve already said how in detail. I guess there’s not much point in going on about it ad finitum. I’ll let you know the next time Trump blathers something indefensible and maybe we can talk about that one for a while :slight_smile:


Well here’s another one. I’m surprised it took so long :slight_smile:

We know what “fake news” is and it’s an actual problem. So why conflate this term with “news networks that are politically opposed to me”? I’ll just say there’s no good reason why. :angel: I will say the fear is starting to show though. It’s palpable.


Sinclair Broadcast, had to look them up. A quick scan didn’t show anything i knew of, but did have about 2 billion in revenue, which seems impressive, until you compare that to CNN’s parent company or NBC’s parent company, or if you compare it to googles parent company that has revenue around 110 billion.

Perhaps when you add up the revenue of the big 5 or 6 MSM parent companies, add Twitter, Facebook, Google you are probably close to 1/2 a trillion dollars of revenue. Trump tweeting out Sinclair Broadcast, with revenue of 2 billion as serious competition seems a bit silly.

Almost like using a pea shooter against a charging rhino. Although I might be less celebratory if the rhino runs right over Trump, which it may.


I believe you missed my point. Now I agree that is a bit silly. He probably heard about them the same way I did in the last few days, because of their fake news policy which they had presenters read on each of their stations. I think I did state my point adequately below the Twitter box in my post, so I’ll stand on that ground.


I addressed a point. The main point is a lot more difficult, i.e. fake news. Perhaps I should have acknowledged what you were saying and noting I wasn’t going to go down that path, perhaps it deserves a thread of its own, I’m not sure how much everyone really wants to explore that one.