President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Northwestcoug]

A lot of things are in the eye of the beholder. So you watched the panel with Jake, Carl B, and some others discuss this at length Tuesday night and you didn't think Trump was going to be up the creek. Surely it at least gave you a glimmer of hope.

I didn't watch the panel; I don't watch cable news. But I think Tapper is a pretty good journalist.

Since I can't stand Trump and I believe he is a national embarrassment, yes, I will cheer any substantive scandal that will make him a one-term president. I certainly laughed at the alleged golden shower, but if it's part of a larger story where a government is able to blackmail a president, I am concerned foremost for the country. That is the main story here.

Not everyone views the press as jaded as you, '71. Liberal (and conservative) journalists do not always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

[byu71]

I didn't watch the panel; I don't watch cable news. But I think Tapper is a pretty good journalist.

Since I can't stand Trump and I believe he is a national embarrassment, yes, I will cheer any substantive scandal that will make him a one-term president. I certainly laughed at the alleged golden shower, but if it's part of a larger story where a government is able to blackmail a president, I am concerned foremost for the country. That is the main story here.

Not everyone views the press as jaded as you, '71. Liberal (and conservative) journalists do not always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

I plead guilty. I say most aren't as jaded as I am. Give me some slack. Most haven't listened to their slanted crap mostly in opposition to how I feel as many years as I have. Those to the left as old as I am probably have great feelings toward the press.

I believe everyone on this board has demonstrated above average intelligence. Maybe not good judgement all the time, but above average intelligence.

Those than lean left tend to feel the MSM is just fine. Those that lean right tend to feel the MSM slants to the lib side. Can anything be gained from that observation?

[SCcoug]

I wasn't expecting this until the 20th.

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

[Uncle Ted]

I wasn't expecting this until the 20th.

LOL... (10 minutes!) I am surprised that someone actually noticed. Who watches C-SPAN anyway?

[Topper]

Not everyone views the press as jaded as you, '71.

That is too bad, if most are not as skeptical and cynical. We need more cynicism on all aspects of public life. Journalists have strayed from the best they can deliver, because most now seem to promote their own biases, and do not even strive for impartiality. If I had a campaign slogan, "More Public Cynicism Please."

Liberal (and conservative) journalists do not always have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Wow. You really believe that? The WSJ is the one publication mostly like to be less partial, but even it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is nobody trustworthy enough to be believed without significant comparison to multiple diverse sources. You must be fairly young to be so trusting.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Is there anything more boring than media bias discussions?

All news outlets have some form of bias. Get over it.

[creekster]

Is there anything more boring than media bias discussions?

Maxine Waters on C-SPAN?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Maxine Waters on C-SPAN?

But you never know. There could be a Russian takeover of the video feed!

[Topper]

Is there anything more boring than media bias discussions?

All news outlets have some form of bias. Get over it.

It is boring and Creekster makes a great point. The media bias appears to be worsening, not lessening.

Remembering broadcasts of Walter Cronkite and earlier versions of the NYT and WaPo, there was at least the appearance of an effort to some measure of impartiality.

Today with foxnews, msnbc, and buzzfeed or buzzkill, the appearance is out the window. This golden shower episode reveals media to be the prevaricators that they are. The bias is now rampant and renders their reporting completely in doubt. That doesn't mean they always prevaricate, but it does mean they are always suspect without assiduous verification.

[Northwestcoug]

That is too bad, if most are not as skeptical and cynical. We need more cynicism on all aspects of public life. Journalists have strayed from the best they can deliver, because most now seem to promote their own biases, and do not even strive for impartiality. If I had a campaign slogan, "More Public Cynicism Please."



Wow. You really believe that? The WSJ is the one publication mostly like to be less partial, but even it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. There is nobody trustworthy enough to be believed without significant comparison to multiple diverse sources. You must be fairly young to be so trusting.

Oh OK. WSJ is the least partial news source, says the guy who has devoted pages of posts to the evils of Clinton. I'm going to be a little cynical here and suggest you don't trust 'multiple sources' that are more diverse than Fox News.

[Topper]

Oh OK. WSJ is the least partial news source, says the guy who has devoted pages of posts to the evils of Clinton. I'm going to be a little cynical here and suggest you don't trust 'multiple sources' that are more diverse than Fox News.

Distrust as you like, and I appreciate your distrust. I am gaining one convert at a time. We can overcome, we can prevail. No more trust, no more trust. Cynicism is the new moral philosophy!

Nonetheless, I rarely if ever read or trust Fox. My interests in declining preference are WSJ, Reuters, BBC, NYT, WaPo, Realclearpolitics, fivethirtyeigh.com (Nate Silver), Drudge (being careful for which sources he links), and Slate. I also appreciate a few foreign sources which you probably wouldn't like. I am not advocating trusting these sources, but upon reading them, one will know what others believe are the issues.

I dislike Clinton and am glad we finally got rid of the Clintons and quite possibly the Bushes. No more legacy families please. Trump is not somebody I would like except I do like his hatred of the media. Other than that, I can't stand to listen to him or read his articulations. I have no intention of watching his inauguration. He is really unwatchable, but Obama and Clinton are really very boring and unwatchable for different reasons. They only utter pablum devoid of substance. The beauty of print media is that one does not need to watch anybody.

[imanihonjin]

New senator in California asking the nominee to head the CIA questions about global warming. What an idiot she is.

[myboynoah]

New senator in California asking the nominee to head the CIA questions about global warming. What an idiot she is.

The next line of questioning covered abortion rights.

[creekster]

New senator in California asking the nominee to head the CIA questions about global warming. What an idiot she is.

The scary thing is that despite the fact that she is a dopey political hack, she was the clear, best choice in the election here. The rest of you think that you had a crappy choice for president, you should see what we in California were presented with for that senate seat.

[Topper]

Why is the head of the CIA's opinion on climate change relevant? I have not followed the proceedings so there may be relevance, but it doesn't at first glance appear relevant to his job functions.