Alternative Facts, Broken Promises & Wolves

[StringJunky]

It is rather telling when the otherwise conservative Cato institute publishes this:

Those are pretty left-wing sentiments even by UK standards. Surprising. It's a truism really and no-brainer but segregation can only perpetuate division in every sense and dischord.

Edited January 28, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

Refusing to attend a briefing where Trump's team is lying about voter fraud and inauguration crowds isn't equal to taking ones eyes off the ball. We don't need lead stories about those lies. Reporting on them only help promote them. FoxNews, Drudge, and many other Conservative outlets will happily promote those lies.

 

Reporting this administration's lies doesn't make them popular, its makes the lies known to the American public and to the world. Regardless of what some may think, reporting isn't promotion; it's an opportunity to expose significant issues to the light of truth. What we do with that truth may not stop the lies but truth is essential to our individual ability to make the right decisions about our country's leadership. Not reporting this administration's alternative facts and moronic efforts will merely create an environment where those lies and efforts will grow unchallenged as truths we might all accept.

Edited January 28, 2017 by DrmDoc

[CharonY]

Those are pretty left-wing sentiments even by UK standards. Surprising. It's a truism really and no-brainer but segregation can only perpetuate division in every sense and dischord.

 

Unfortunately, populism is neither novel nor unique to the USA (see Brexit, various populist parties throughout Europe etc.). It is rather surprising that the think tank is making such a radical turn.

Edited January 28, 2017 by CharonY

[Sensei]

Reporting this administration's lies doesn't make them popular, its makes the lies known to the American public and to the world.

 

Press knowing about what, more or less, will be conference about, should be prepared for the all possible (and even more not possible) scenario, in advance,

and gather all possible data/photos/videos about subject..

Use the all possible way to encode transmission so government scums not being able to know what press is preparing it (by intercepting Internet transmission, smartphones, computers, turning on microphones, computer cameras etc. etc.)

When they're revealing some gibberish or lie, instantly show the real state, and asking on conference "why are you lying? again?"

And showing data that obviously contradict gibberish told by government officer/president/whoever.. in the middle of conference..

Edited January 28, 2017 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

 

Unfortunately, populism is neither novel nor unique to the USA (see Brexit, various populist parties throughout Europe etc.). It is rather surprising that the think tank is making such a radical turn.

Perhaps it's looking at evidence with clearer eyes rather than looking at it through the blinkers of ideology. Also, perhaps, they are becoming more pragmatic.

[CharonY]

My suspicion is that it actually runs counter to their business interest (the institute is heavily funded by the Koch empire). While they heavily pushed agendas such as cutting welfare, they were quite fond of immigration. Still, they were quite significantly involved in promoting, supporting and influencing GOP policy. Now they actually turned directly against the an Republican president.

[DrmDoc]

It seems this administration's immigration policies don't extend to certain Islamic nations--including some with whom Trump has had business interests--that have actually produced terrorists who have reached our shores. Evidence, perhaps, that Trump won't act against his business interests regardless of the threat he perceives to our national security.

Edited January 29, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Sensei]

"According to the text of the order, the restriction applies to countries that have already been excluded from programs allowing people to travel to the United States without a visa because of concerns over terrorism. ".....

 

In USA by itself, there is plentiful weapon-armed attacks on universities, cities, towns and so on per year, multiple times more than in Europe..

The last terrorist acts (unarmed) were in Germany, France, Belgium..

 

It's some crazy gibberish nonsense, if in usa somebody is going with a gun, shotgun, uzi.. start firing.. kills dozen people.. and it's not terrorist attack... and in Europe somebody else stole car.. drive it, and hit people.. and it's called terrorist attack.. In usa there is plentiful more terrorists attacks caused by people with mental problems, than the real terrorists attacks..

Then what for the all security on airplanes and airports.. ?

 

Are there any mental problems examinations for air pilots?

Are there any mental problems examinations for presidents?

They're much more important.. influencing much more people..

Edited January 29, 2017 by Sensei

[Sensei]

It seems this administration's immigration policies don't extend to certain Islamic nations--including some with whom Trump has had business interests--that have actually produced terrorists who have reached our shores.

 

Osama was citizen of Saudi Arabia, so the same as majority of 11.IX. terrorists (15 of them)..

Edited January 29, 2017 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

 

Reporting this administration's lies doesn't make them popular, its makes the lies known to the American public and to the world. Regardless of what some may think, reporting isn't promotion;

The media repeated Trump's lies all the way to the White House. It doesn't work. Rather than journalist waking up at 3am every morning to look for Trump tweets to report on they (media) need to start withholding airtime and print less Trump and his team addresses real matters. Allowing Trump to force them (media) to devote billions worth of headlines to things that are fake only benefits Trump. The evidence of this is obvious. He lied his way through the primary and then the general. All along the media pointed out the lies and fact checked him. It didn't hurt him. All the additional coverage had a normalizing effect which actually made his alternative facts seem more legitimate because they were so often covered and repeated.

"You can fool some people..." Just keep giving him rope.

Trump has been given rope since he announced his bin in June of 2015. He used it to swing all the way into power. Everyone knows he is a lying and no one cares. Just par for the course at this point. The media needs to focus on real issues and force Trump to comment on those real issues to earn headlines rather than them just allowing Trump to create his own.

 

"You can fool some people......", Who is the fool here? As an U.S. Citizen Donald Trump is my President! Is he the fool or am I (the people)?

[DrmDoc]

The media repeated Trump's lies all the way to the White House. It doesn't work. Rather than journalist waking up at 3am every morning to look for Trump tweets to report on they (media) need to start withholding airtime and print less Trump and his team addresses real matters. Allowing Trump to force them (media) to devote billions worth of headlines to things that are fake only benefits Trump. The evidence of this is obvious. He lied his way through the primary and then the general. All along the media pointed out the lies and fact checked him. It didn't hurt him. All the additional coverage had a normalizing effect which actually made his alternative facts seem more legitimate because they were so often covered and repeated.

Trump has been given rope since he announced his bin in June of 2015. He used it to swing all the way into power. Everyone knows he is a lying and no one cares. Just par for the course at this point. The media needs to focus on real issues and force Trump to comment on those real issues to earn headlines rather than them just allowing Trump to create his own.

 

Again, I disagree; continuous reporting of this administration's lies didn't and hasn't turn those lies into truths or made them anymore acceptable to the American people other than his staunchest supporters. Protests have grown here and around the world almost daily. The GOP leadership in both houses and certain senior GOP legislators have publicly denied Trump's false claims as well they should have. Prior to his election, Trump's alternative facts did not have the impact of law as they may do now with him as president, which is why the chorus of media citing Donald's lies should grow and not cease. Lying isn't unusual for any politician, American or otherwise; however, this American politician (Trump) has the force of the presidency behind his lies and all the power that infers. We cannot afford to let his penchant for alternative facts to fade like so much background noise. The media and the American people should continue to publicize and protest his lies until this administration and its political supporters in congress are eventually voted out of office.

Edited January 29, 2017 by DrmDoc

[iNow]

The bigger problem is people will desensitize and burnout with their opposition. It's hard to sustain the passion.

 

We've been flooded in one week with so much to despise that keeping this level of animation through week 2, month 2, year 2, a second administration, etc... becomes that much more challenging. Don't fire all your bullets in the first wave of attack.

 

It's a bit like the old Rocky movies. You let your opponent pound on you during the first several rounds until they finally exhaust themselves. Then, they're too tired to fight any longer and you go out swinging to win. Sure, you've been bruised, but they lost.

 

It's the same way endurance running helped us hunting in the savanah. We ran our prey for hours to exhaustion until they simply collapsed and we ate them. Don't be the antelope. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

[DrmDoc]

And yet more evidence of where this administration's appointments are leading this nation. With his appointment of Steve Bannon to his National Security Counsel, Trump appears to be strengthening his shameful support for extreme-rightist policies.

Edited January 29, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

Again, I disagree; continuous reporting of this administration's lies didn't and hasn't turn those lies into truths or made them anymore acceptable to the American people other than his staunchest supporters. Protests have grown here and around the world almost daily. The GOP leadership in both houses and certain senior GOP legislators have publicly denied Trump's false claims as well they should have. Prior to his election, Trump's alternative facts did not have the impact of law as they may do now with him as president, which is why the chorus of media citing Donald's lies should grow and not cease. Lying isn't unusual for any politician, American or otherwise; however, this American politician (Trump) has the force of the presidency behind his lies and all the power that infers. We cannot afford to let his penchant for alternative facts to fade like so much background noise. The media and the American people should continue to publicize and protest his lies until this administration and its political supporters in congress are eventually voted out of office.

63 million people voted for Trump. He won. Take more than a politicians most staunch supporters to winan election. Trump is a liar and it has become acceptable. His lies now share equal time with the truth.

 

Lets use Climate Change as an example; Climate denial though empircally disproven is still as believed by the general U.S. public as actual climate sceince.

 

 

Sadly millions of people never get beyond headlines. People tend to error towards the center of debates. If Trump says crime in at all time levels and living our black communities is like lving in hell and then the media fact checks that with real numbers the error moves away from the real numbers towards the hell Trump describes. Splitting the difference between a dry fact and a sensational lie doesn't leave one with the truth. That is society though. We hear the arguments made constantly where people imply both sides lie, all media tilts, the science isn't perfect, and etc. People rationalize the center as the most honest place to be. Sadly the center territory between a lie and the truth is still a lie.

 

I am not advocating the the media don't report on actually news. Rather I am saying that is exactly what they should do. Report that people are detained at the airport. Report of the executive action that created. Report on real matters and invite Trump and his people to comment on those real matters. Stop chasing the tweets. Trump said lied about his crowd size, so what? Why give that front page status for 3 days. and drown out coverage that could have gone to the March on washington?

[DrmDoc]

63 million people voted for Trump. He won. Take more than a politicians most staunch supporters to winan election. Trump is a liar and it has become acceptable. His lies now share equal time with the truth.

 

Lets use Climate Change as an example; Climate denial though empircally disproven is still as believed by the general U.S. public as actual climate sceince.

 

 

Sadly millions of people never get beyond headlines. People tend to error towards the center of debates. If Trump says crime in at all time levels and living our black communities is like lving in hell and then the media fact checks that with real numbers the error moves away from the real numbers towards the hell Trump describes. Splitting the difference between a dry fact and a sensational lie doesn't leave one with the truth. That is society though. We hear the arguments made constantly where people imply both sides lie, all media tilts, the science isn't perfect, and etc. People rationalize the center as the most honest place to be. Sadly the center territory between a lie and the truth is still a lie.

 

I am not advocating the the media don't report on actually news. Rather I am saying that is exactly what they should do. Report that people are detained at the airport. Report of the executive action that created. Report on real matters and invite Trump and his people to comment on those real matters. Stop chasing the tweets. Trump said lied about his crowd size, so what? Why give that front page status for 3 days. and drown out coverage that could have gone to the March on washington?

 

I am not aware of any occasion where Trump's alternative facts have silenced, supplanted, or distracted public attention or opinion away from coverage of other efforts some consider legitimate news or more news worthy. It's important that the media continues as it has because it does influence public opinion, which could have an affect on future policies and elections. Furthermore, the idea that the president of the United States tweets aren't news or news worthy is absolutely ludicrous; he is the supposed leader of the free world, isn't he? If not for any other reason, markets, economies, and social policies around the world sway on his every utterance and we should all shout that "the emperor has no clothes" whenever he speaks--or tweets.

[Ten oz]

 

I am not aware of any occasion where Trump's alternative facts have silenced, supplanted, or distracted public attention or opinion away from coverage of other efforts some consider legitimate news or more news worthy. It's important that the media continues as it has because it does influence public opinion, which could have an affect on future policies and elections. Furthermore, the idea that the president of the United States tweets aren't news or news worthy is absolutely ludicrous; he is the supposed leader of the free world, isn't he? If not for any other reason, markets, economies, and social policies around the world sway on his every utterance and we should all shout that "the emperor has no clothes" whenever he speaks--or tweets.

You are saying the media should continue as it has been, staus qou. Trump won the primary and general via the status qou. It doesn't work. His success, the success of climate change denial, and etc is proof that the status qou does not help identify B.S. but rather it merely helps perpetuate it. Edited January 30, 2017 by Ten oz

[DrmDoc]

You are saying the media should continue as it has been, staus qou. Trump won the primary and general via the status qou. It doesn't work. His success, the success of climate change denial, and etc is proof that the status qou does not help identify B.S. but rather it merely helps perpetuate it.

 

Essentially, you are blaming the media for Donald's election, which simply isn't true because his election wasn't that simple. There were more compelling factors such as apathy among young and minority voters, as well as, votes against Hillary because, simply, those people disliked her more than Donald. Before Donald's election, his lies and promises were merely words and, admittedly, some people are not always swayed to action by words as this past election seems to clearly illustrate. What I am say is now Trump's words have real physical/material impact and are becoming reprehensible acts of law, which the previously apathetic voter may now better perceive and comprehend. Those American voters who ignored Trump's lies, didn't believe they were lies, or who stood on the sideline and let him be elected to the presidency, may now understand the costs of their error. Continual reporting on Trump's false claims isn't just about what's happening now, it's about the future of our country and future elections. Although citing Trump as a liar may not have had the impact many of us felt it should, that doesn't mean doing so didn't have impact and won't on future elections--particularly as the negative effects of Donald's edicts accumulate under his administration.

Edited January 30, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

Essentially, you are blaming the media for Donald's election, which simply isn't true because his election wasn't that simple. There were more compelling factors such as apathy among young and minority voters, as well as, votes against Hillary because, simply, those people disliked her more than Donald. Before Donald's election, his lies and promises were merely words and, admittedly, some people are not always swayed to action by words as this past election seems to clearly illustrate. What I am say is now Trump's words have real physical/material impact and are becoming reprehensible acts of law, which the previously apathetic voter may now better perceive and comprehend. Those American voters who ignored Trump's lies, didn't believe they were lies, or who stood on the sideline and let him be elected to the presidency, may now understand the costs of their error. Continual reporting on Trump's false claims isn't just about what's happening now, it's about the future of our country and future elections. Although citing Trump as a liar may not have had the impact many of us felt it should, that doesn't mean doing so didn't have impact and won't on future elections--particularly as the negative effects of Donald's edicts accumulate under his administration.

I don't believe that. The billions of dollars in free media Donald Trump received, in my opinion, absolutely played a role in both the primary and the general election. As for the apathy amongst young voters and minorities you reference, I believe changes to voter registration laws that trageted minorities and college students supressed their votes.

[DrmDoc]

Some might argue that Hillary received just as much media attention and bad press as Trump, particularly during the latter days of the election when the FBI chief clearly sought to influence the election in Donald's favor--yet, she didn't win. Bad press may be good for entertainers but in politics, it's just not that simple--IMO.

 

NOTE: What sort of nonsense is this, "eliminate two regulations for every one regulation proposed"? Shouldn't government regulations be proposed or eliminated based on need rather than some seemingly arbitrary 1-for-2 metered trade? Absolutely moronic!

Edited January 30, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

Some might argue that Hillary received just as much media attention and bad press as Trump

 

 

Which would be another "alt-fact"

 

The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.53fba5eafa59

 

The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/13/trump-benefited-from-overwhelmingly-negative-tone-of-election-news-coverage-study-finds/#6d7076a46093

 

 

Hillary received less media attention, but it was more negative in tone.

[DrmDoc]

 

 

Which would be another "alt-fact"

 

The first thing that jumped out at us when we started examining our data was the sheer number of headlines in which Donald Trump’s name appeared. Across the eight outlets, we found Trump’s name mentioned in a total of 14,924 article headlines from July 1, 2015, to Aug. 31, 2016. Clinton has been mentioned in less than half that amount.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/?utm_term=.53fba5eafa59

 

The study found that 62% of the coverage of Clinton and 56% of the coverage of Trump was negative in tone.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brettedkins/2016/12/13/trump-benefited-from-overwhelmingly-negative-tone-of-election-news-coverage-study-finds/#6d7076a46093

 

 

Hillary received less media attention, but it was more negative in tone.

 

Therefore, the division here wasn't necessarily the attention she received but that she received more negative press than Donald. So what may have factored most in this past election's media coverage wasn't that a multitude of negative press on Trump propelled his election, it was a multitude of bad press for Hillary that contributed to her loss. This appears to support my position that a continual preponderance of bad headlines for Donald will ultimately result in unfavorable future voter turn-outs for his administration and political supporters.

[Ten oz]

 

Therefore, the division here wasn't necessarily the attention she received but that she received more negative press than Donald. So what may have factored most in this past election's media coverage wasn't that a multitude of negative press on Trump propelled his election, it was a multitude of bad press for Hillary that contributed to her loss. This appears to support my position that a continual preponderance of bad headlines for Donald will ultimately result in unfavorable future voter turn-outs for his administration and political supporters.

The first link in Swansont's post shows that Trump got over twice as many headlines. Ultimately in isolation both positive Trump headlines and negative Trump headlines were greater than all Clinton's headlines in total. The second link showed that Clinton's were negagtive at a higher percentage. Fewer by over half but more negative. His exposure eclipsed Clinton's in total. Your comments from post #44 "Some might argue that Hillary received just as much media attention and bad press as Trump", was disproven.

[DrmDoc]

The first link in Swansont's post shows that Trump got over twice as many headlines. Ultimately in isolation both positive Trump headlines and negative Trump headlines were greater than all Clinton's headlines in total. The second link showed that Clinton's were negagtive at a higher percentage. Fewer by over half but more negative. His exposure eclipsed Clinton's in total. Your comments from post #44 "Some might argue that Hillary received just as much media attention and bad press as Trump", was disproven.

 

What's proven is how media coverage reflects voter sentiment. Trump's election wasn't presaged by his sizable number of headlines over Clinton's because the election was far closer than that percentage; however, Clinton's measure of unfavorable reports relative to Trump's do indeed seem to be more reflective of the voters sentiment levels that led to Trump's election. As I said and still believe, Trump did not win because the media gave his alt-facts continuous coverage or because the media covered him more than Hillary, he won because of more complex factors that include what his and Hillary's relative negative headlines suggest--simply stated, the electorate disliked him less than they disliked Clinton.

Edited January 30, 2017 by DrmDoc

[Ten oz]

 

What's proven is how media coverage reflects voter sentiment. Trump's election wasn't presaged by his sizable number of headlines over Clinton's because the election was far closer than that percentage; however, Clinton's measure of unfavorable reports relative to Trump's do indeed seem to be more reflective of the voters sentiment levels that led to Trump's election. As I said and still believe, Trump did not win because the media gave his alt-facts continuous coverage or because the media covered him more than Hillary, he won because of more complex factors that include what his and Hillary's relative negative headlines suggest--simply stated, the electorate disliked him less than they disliked Clinton.

I believe the massive coverage Trump receive did play a roll in legitimizing Trump as a candidate. Seeing him all day everyday for over a year normalized his lies and erratic behavior. Exposure is a big deal. Getting into every house hold is a big deal. In terms of alternate facts, the ability to make an alternate fact well known as actual facts is a huge win for alternate facts. Positive vs negative is an individual view point. Just because a headline is negative doesn't mean everyone exposed to that headline adapts a negative view.

 

As for voter sentiment, if we are generalizing the way voters felt, voters wanted Hillary Clinton to be President. She received 3 million more individual votes than Trump. The electoral college delivered the win to Trump and popular voter sentiment. You are literally arguing that the candidate who received 3 million more votes was the less popular candidate. That makes absolutely no sense. Hillary Had more individual suporters and was the more popular choice for President empirically proven by the popular vote she won.

[Phi for All]

"It's all bullshit, folks, and it's bad for you." -- George Carlin