Enjoy President Trump, Courtesy of The Kremlin

[Brian Peacock]

I felt that way after Men in Black II.

[Brian Peacock]

Bannon says Trump Tower meeting was 'treasonous' and 'unpatriotic'.

[Tero]

Trump tower meeting did not lead to good dirt
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/politics/ ... index.html
and Watergate break in was unnecessary as Nixon got re-elected anyway.

With Trump, Comey last week announcement of laptop brought ”her emails” and her server back to news.

Probably there was a potential for a Trump big win. But he lost by 3 million.

[Forty Two]

...

I certainly trust what can be provided and verified.

To the publications satisfaction or to yours?

Mine. Of course. All of us only trust what can be proved and verified to our own satisfaction. If the "Most Trusted Name in News" comes out with a story about Chuck Schumer and says he did something wrong, then I'm going to figure they wouldn't report it without evidence of it. Who said what to whom and when? What documents and information support the story? This is basic stuff. News is not just a battle of unnamed sources giving scoops to hungry reporters who then post unsubstantiated articles we are supposed to trust. Generally speaking, the journalist is supposed to journal, and by journalling they speak to witnesses, review evidence, compile papers, corroborate stories. There is usually no reason, when the story is published, to keep the evidence hidden.

There are, of course, exceptions to that rule, where there may be some stories where some people are at significant risk to themselves by disclosing important information. In that case, we've been over the journalistic ethics requirements where the journalist has to vet the source and make sure to the reporter's satisfaction that the source is reputable and honest about what is being reported and that the reporter can corroborate the story. The reporter is supposed to be putting their own credibility on the line - it's not supposed to be this "oh, well, sorry, our source turned out to be a political operative or politician who spun it and left us with egg on our face..." -- no, relying on an unnamed sources is supposed to be serious business and there are consequences if the reporter gets it wrong - the reporter faces consequences, or is supposed to, and the source should suffer sever consequences for being wrong. But what do we see nowadays? When the source who told CNN and ABC and other outlets that Trump was given secret access to Russian wikileaks documents before they were public turned out to be bullshit - did we get to know who that source was????

So, no, in this climate of fast news now - get the story out -- leak it to buzzfeed - all that -- reporters are under too much pressure to move on a story so as not to lose the scoop. They aren't doing the verification. Overall ethics has taken a hit. So, I am not just going to take their word for it. I want a lot, and if they say the story is true, and verified, but needs utmost secrecy for super-important reasons, those reasons need to make sense, and there better be massive consequences to those who get it wrong in those super-important cases.

[Tero]

How long are you planning to support Trump? Till the ”I am not a crook” speech?

[Forty Two]

How long are you planning to support Trump? Till the ”I am not a crook” speech?

LOL - you're so blinded by rage and hate.

I'm more supportive now than I was a year ago, actually. His deregulation was fantastic. His tax reduction. Pulling out of Paris Climate accord, the Pipeline, the conversation underway with the Democrats over immigration (border security as condition precedent to DACA) is great, decision on Jerusalem, success getting China more involved in the North Korea situation, etc., his position on Iran, following through with ISIS, and his proposals for NASA....

The downsides, a sense of sort of a nouvo-riche hard-driving rude, profane, vulgar asshole in the White House - the cringy tweets -- all that -- it's small potatoes.

Your Nixonian comparison is just wishful thinking. There isn't any evidence that I've seen yet that he's done anything the least bit like that, or even improper/unethical. Let me know when you find some. Lots of unsubstantiated chatter from the nattering class doesn't constitute "smoke" from which there must be "fire." I'm too old for that. I'm not from Missouri, but Show Me, anyway.

[pErvinalia]

How long are you planning to support Trump? Till the ”I am not a crook” speech?

LOL - you're so blinded by rage and hate.

I'm more supportive now than I was a year ago, actually.

[Tero]

Nixon was stupid, so was Trump when he allowed contact with Russia. Nixon had no need to sabotage Democrats:

Nixon was ahead in most polls for the entire election cycle, and was reelected on November 7, 1972 in one of the largest landslide election victories in American history. He defeated McGovern with over 60 percent of the popular vote, losing only in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

[Hermit]

...

I certainly trust what can be provided and verified.

To the publications satisfaction or to yours?

Mine. Of course. All of us only trust what can be proved and verified to our own satisfaction.

Going by the sites you like to link to, they are Breitbart, Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit, The Blaze, Political Insider and so forth. Click on each link I just listed again to see how popular the sites are with Coito ergo sum/Forty Two. Then have a look where they are clustered.



I mentioned this before, but 42 knew better than to reply.

Forty Two draws on those sources of misinformation while referring to more balanced and less polemical publications as vendors of fake news. Yes, the main stream media do make mistakes, but at least the latter correct them and apologise, whereas the right wing rags double down on theirs.

[Tero]

I don’t understand the X axis of that.

[Hermit]

I don’t understand the X axis of that.

Which part of candidate-centric partisanship is unclear to you?

The diagram is lifted from a Harvard University study titled Partisanship, Propaganda & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, where it is fully explained.

[pErvinalia]

Don't forget InfoWars. There was at least one from there too.

[Tero]

I don’t understand the X axis of that.

Which part of candidate-centric partisanship is unclear to you?

The diagram is lifted from a Harvard University study titled Partisanship, Propaganda & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, where it is fully explained.

It’s a bit long. Loyalty to the party but not the candidate?

[Hermit]

Don't forget InfoWars. There was at least one from there too.

Six or eight from memory, but I left Infowars off the list because, unlike main stream media, Infowars does not publish fake news like pizzagate as if they were actually true, right?

[Brian Peacock]

Bannon says Trump Tower meeting was 'treasonous' and 'unpatriotic'.

Trump threatens Bannon with legal action over non-disclosure agreement.