tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post3400252736684000017..comments2024-03-07T19:25:22.346-08:00Comments on Last Men and OverMen: The Real Reason the Media Has Risen Up Against TrumpMike Saxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-47035878109606373312015-12-02T14:17:12.499-08:002015-12-02T14:17:12.499-08:00Well Trump did come as close to Trutherism as anyo...Well Trump did come as close to Trutherism as anyone ever has in mainstream politics. <br /><br />He said something even Democrats have not had the balls to say-that yes, W was President on 9/11 not the day after. He said Jeb shouldn't keep saying his brother kept us safe. <br /><br />If Trump went 9/11 Truther maybe he really would take some votes on the Left. LOL<br />Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-53520825014317992992015-12-02T14:10:59.364-08:002015-12-02T14:10:59.364-08:00Actually, I was thinking a couple of days back, th...Actually, I was thinking a couple of days back, that perhaps the ideal situation would be for W to feel like he needed to call a press conference just to call Trump a liar about the 9/11 "thousand and thousands" of Muslims claim.<br /><br />What would happen? Would it hurt Trump in the primary? Hardly. But it would force his celebrity fans to follow him there (Ann Coulter, etc), which should be fun to watch. Also it might compel him to adopt even more conspiracy theories. My absolute ideal outcome is for Trump to become a 9/11 Truther! (Sorry Mike, I know you have a soft spot for that one). That would be the ideal response to a W attack.<br /><br />In fact, maybe my dream might yet come true:<br />http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2015/12/bush_aide_nixes_trump_claims_about_muslims_celebrating_on_911<br />Not W himself, but one can hope he might follow. W might do it to help his bro, but he can claim "getting the facts out" as cover for that.<br /><br />And then there's this:<br />http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/02/donald-trump-praises-leading-conspiracy-theoris/207181<br /><br />At some point the GOP divergence from reality is going to hurt them bad, and now's as good a time as any... let Trump get the nomination and lose the general in a landslide, or force a brokered convention, or go 3rd party... all those are delicious possibilities.<br /><br />The only potential problem (someone on Hardball brought this one up): A trump nomination might mean the GOP billionaire donors stay out of the presidential race entirely (better they support HRC, but whatever). The only problem with that is they might decide to unleash their billions to try to make sure the Senate stays red instead.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-4855557313808610522015-12-02T13:43:49.775-08:002015-12-02T13:43:49.775-08:00Although I don't know the details that well, m...Although I don't know the details that well, my prior is to agree with you about the Vince Foster thing. That smells like conspiracy theory nonsense. I know my conspiracy theory loving neighbor always brings that up. It is shameful for the media to treat those kind of lies with any respect.<br /><br />Having been a swing voter (leaning right) at the time though, I can tell you that the Vince Foster story and the White Water story (etc) never had much of an effect on me, except maybe to make me distrust the source. And while I was very annoyed (my intelligence was insulted) that Clinton lied about Monika (I wanted to see him have to eat that lie), I thought that it was stupid and disgraceful for the GOP to impeach him for it. They went way too far and ended up belittling the impeachment mechanism.<br /><br />However, maybe I'm not a good "representative agent" in this regard.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-29249798820653495512015-12-02T13:25:05.791-08:002015-12-02T13:25:05.791-08:00In terms of "incremental improvements" i...In terms of "incremental improvements" in the press, I happened on this CNN segment from 2010... and couldn't believe how incredible stupid it was (it's not about politics)... no incremental improvement to be seen there!.. if they were going to do a piece like that, they should have devoted at least 50% of it to skeptics:<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxjdaEvyguY<br /><br />I'd never heard of that before, but I ran across the concept of "indigo children" last night, which led me to that CNN piece.Tom Brownhttp://www.google.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-32571864661251920882015-12-02T12:04:25.559-08:002015-12-02T12:04:25.559-08:00"I guess what I'm saying is that issues l..."I guess what I'm saying is that issues like 4% growth are (by their nature) going to be more murky for any non-economist journalist. Also, didn't one of the other candidates do Jeb one better and promise 6% growth? Am I right? Who was that?"<br /><br />Sure as the media gave Jeb a pass why not go one better?<br /><br />But while I agree policy can be tougher, even still, like Roberts says the media rules is that you let issues of policy which you agree are more important be a matter of he said-she said so as not be be partisan. <br /><br />Then there are all kinds of issues that the media complicit with that have nothing to do with policy knowledge or wonkishness. <br /><br />Like you don't have to have a PHD in economics to know that the Vince Foster stuff was absurd. Yet the media pursued it totally credulously. <br /><br />It''s not just policy lies that the media has given a pass to. Again, it's Trump breaking the rules that matters for them. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-84422196976842007022015-12-02T11:59:07.367-08:002015-12-02T11:59:07.367-08:00"And I certainly don't see Robert's p..."And I certainly don't see Robert's post as any problem either."<br /><br />I agree about that.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-15909494686169804212015-12-02T11:54:57.000-08:002015-12-02T11:54:57.000-08:00It would start by calling out other conservative t...It would start by calling out other conservative truthiness other than just Trump. <br /><br />It might mean not believing the next Hillary Clinton scandal just to show you're fair and balanced. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-76679548174762921332015-12-02T11:54:01.736-08:002015-12-02T11:54:01.736-08:00What I meant is because I say posts like Mllbank&#...What I meant is because I say posts like Mllbank's post aren't that incremental change doesn't mean I know what incremental change would look like. <br /><br />There is no easy solution because of the new media of cable tv and blogs. But again Robert' post is a good place for those interested to start. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-63930005707644368242015-12-02T11:52:27.080-08:002015-12-02T11:52:27.080-08:00Well, just because I say this isn't it doesn&#...Well, just because I say this isn't it doesn't necessarily mean I know. If you saw my comment at the bottom, I argued that incremental change might start by some journalists reading Roberts' post and taking it to heart. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-10010037486175375832015-12-02T11:49:21.324-08:002015-12-02T11:49:21.324-08:00Well, what would an incremental movement towards b...Well, what would an incremental movement towards better journalism look like then? How would it look different from what we see?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-7950335254518874412015-12-02T11:47:55.955-08:002015-12-02T11:47:55.955-08:00Or to put it in your terms, Tom, you say you don&#...Or to put it in your terms, Tom, you say you don't see Milbank's post 'as any kind of problem at all.'<br /><br />I didn't quite use those words. But I don't' laud it as you do. And I certainly don't see Robert's post as any problem either. To the contrary I see his post as a great thing. <br /><br />Milbanks' post is more something for me to laugh at for his mawkish phoniness. <br /><br />I really don't like him personally either with the just vile Hillary Clinton slurs he used in 2008. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-29188768790548816612015-12-02T11:42:35.620-08:002015-12-02T11:42:35.620-08:00Maybe some of the more honest journalists like Eug...Maybe some of the more honest journalists like Eugene Robinson also pick up on it. You ask about incremental change for the press, reading this article would be a great place to start. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-57430497079778607682015-12-02T11:41:35.977-08:002015-12-02T11:41:35.977-08:00" But I don't see Dana Millbank's opi..." But I don't see Dana Millbank's opinions about Trump as any kind of problem at all."<br /><br />First of all, Milbank was an example. I didn't say it was a problem so much as something very interesting to analyze which Roberts has done. <br /><br />I think there ought to be a lot more discussion about this. I see it not such much as 'alarming' as of great consequence. I won't be shocked at all to see Greg Sargent and Krugman pick up on it. <br /><br />I think it will drive a conversation and that liberals should really take it to heart. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-64217875840399307022015-12-02T11:38:21.319-08:002015-12-02T11:38:21.319-08:00"Exposing a trivial but easily verifiable lie..."Exposing a trivial but easily verifiable lie such as "I didn't have sex with that woman!" is a legitimate role for the media. It's low hanging fruit. I agree that a policy lie is far worse, however those lies are *sometimes* more difficult to expose because even experts in the field disagree. I realize that's where the think tanks point you make comes in, but it's not necessarily just the think tanks. John Cochrane backed up Jeb's 4% growth claim. Cochrane has a lot of differences with any of the GOP candidates on many issues (I'd wager). For one, he's enthusiastic about an open borders policy (like all good libertarians). Whatever else you want to say about Cochrane, being an evil moron is probably not a legitimate criticism. I'd trust somebody like Jason Smith to evaluate whether or not Cochrane was an evil moron, and by the look of his posts about John's models, I'd wager that would not be his evaluation. I love Krugman, but I'd be a little less inclined to take either Krugman's or Cochrane's opinions of each other at face value, since they seem to have a real sense of personal animosity towards one another."<br /><br />I disagree. They do this to avoid looking at issues that matter. It's these rules that gave us George W. Bush. They cared more about trivial Gore lies-many of them weren't even lies but not real policy differences. <br /><br />I care about policy. If trivial lies and personal stuff matters, this is the GOP''s stock and trade. They can't win on policy and always stick to gong personal. <br /><br />So when the media focuses on the trivial they help the GOP. <br /><br />Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-87673623686803361032015-12-02T11:35:09.469-08:002015-12-02T11:35:09.469-08:00" Them finally feeling like they have to call..." Them finally feeling like they have to call a lie a lie is perhaps just what they need to start the long long process of incrementally, in baby steps, moving away from a "he said she said" kind of journalism. If you disagree, I'm curious to hear your description of what those incremental baby steps would look like.... how, exactly, would they look different than what we see?"<br /><br />They aren't doing this to go beyond He said, She said, they're doing this to protect He said, She said. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-26688568905848243482015-12-02T11:33:16.185-08:002015-12-02T11:33:16.185-08:00" the media's alarm: there may well be an..." the media's alarm: there may well be an element of feeling panicked at being exposed as irrelevant in the face of Trump's lies. However, I don't think that's necessarily the only or (depending on the person) even the primary motivation in all cases."<br /><br />I disagree. At the individual level there are different motivations. Obviously when I speak of the Beltway media it's necessarily a simplification but necessary one. <br /><br />One that is legitimate regarding the prejudices and articles of faith of the pundit class that resides in or near Washingon DC,<br /><br />I believe the underlying reason that the pundit class as a class opposes Trump is for the reasons Roberts gives-he breaks the rules. <br /><br />Again, otherwise you'd have to argue that somehow the lies about Vince Foster or Whitewater were reasonable. <br /><br />Recall, the mainstream press took that stuff totally seriously. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-51258408172561270682015-12-02T11:29:12.841-08:002015-12-02T11:29:12.841-08:00"What would incremental movement towards a be..."What would incremental movement towards a better media look like to you Mike?"<br /><br />I don't think there's a simple answer. The idea of being purely a neutral arbiter of truth was probably always something of an illusion anyway. As Roberts documents-you yourself have mentioned-we've gone past the era where there were more homegneous sources for news which we all relied on. <br /><br />Now depending on what cable channel or website you like you can relegate yourself only to what you want to hear and know about. <br /><br />I do think though incrementally Trump has been a very good development as a reality check. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-51354596289382551252015-12-02T11:25:33.212-08:002015-12-02T11:25:33.212-08:00"I'm glad Trump has done and I hope we do..."I'm glad Trump has done and I hope we don't return to the old ones"<br /><br />I mean 'Glad for what Trump has done and have no desire to return to the old rules' which are biased against Democrats. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-36406710889727722232015-12-02T11:24:15.302-08:002015-12-02T11:24:15.302-08:00I agree with Roberts that it's not that Trump ...I agree with Roberts that it's not that Trump lies which bothers them but that it breaks the rules. <br /><br />I'm glad Trump has done and I hope we don't return to the old ones where bush's lies about his tax plan and budget don't matter but whether or not Al Gore went to a Buddhist temple do. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-90807747780791331762015-12-02T11:22:46.389-08:002015-12-02T11:22:46.389-08:00This post wasn't really about the effect of th...This post wasn't really about the effect of the media's criticism on Trump's campaign. It was more that Robers has a great piece that, yep, I agree with. <br /><br />The motivations are hypocritical in the main. As the examples that Roberts and I have shown plenty of lies as big and absurd as Trump's have been told since the Whitewater years and the media has been fine with it and even fomented it. Mike Saxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01360689916550576484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-71867328730463173242015-12-02T11:18:46.516-08:002015-12-02T11:18:46.516-08:00You bring up a lot of other good examples (Trump&#...You bring up a lot of other good examples (Trump's birtherism, and birtherism in general, etc), FEMA camps, Jade Helm, etc. Personally I think journalists should be in Trump's face about what his the private investigators he bragged about hiring managed to dig up in Hawaii about Obama's birth certificate. He promised us that they were on the case and that they would be bringing forward exciting news on that front straight away! (back in 2012). I agree the media should ALSO call out those lies, because that's exactly what they are. But it's always been the case that the "thinking conservative" interviewed by mainstream media, will say those lies are false, but will also downplay their significance. Brush them off as harmless. And unfortunately that has satisfied the media in the past.<br /><br />So, don't get me wrong: I see the point of your post, and you and Roberts have a lot of good examples and make excellent points. But I don't see Dana Millbank's opinions about Trump as any kind of problem at all. I see it as fortuitous, even for a Trump Democrat. In fact, if this blog was still named "Diary of a Republican Hater" and you wanted to do all you could to bolster Trump's chances in the primary, you'd be wise to echo Millbanks' Trump criticisms... that is if your goal was to incrementally help HRC into the Whitehouse. Why? Because any Republican stumbling onto your blog is sure to feel that the exact opposite of your opinion is yet again validated. ;^)<br /><br />But fortunately you don't seem to worry about that, and you tell us what you really think! My point here is to express that there's also good reason to feel good about Millbanks' criticism of Trump from a strategic point of view, and from an incrementalists' point of view as well. So Millbanks may well be a "hypocrite," but it doesn't make me upset in the least. In fact, quite the opposite!Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6480818427597300387.post-19019578757446441442015-12-02T11:18:38.768-08:002015-12-02T11:18:38.768-08:00"Milbank thinks that he stating of the obviou..."Milbank thinks that he stating of the obvious will sink Trump's campaign."<br /><br />Maybe so, but regardless of the purity (or lack thereof) of his motivations, his criticism of Trump probably only helps Trump and thus is probably a good thing. Something we should be glad to have more of.<br /><br />Re: the media's alarm: there may well be an element of feeling panicked at being exposed as irrelevant in the face of Trump's lies. However, I don't think that's necessarily the only or (depending on the person) even the primary motivation in all cases. Take the case of Rachael Maddow and her guest, Reverend Welton Gaddy: both expressed a higher level of alarm at Trump's recent spat of lies, including his lies about "thousand and thousands of" Muslims, and I don't think it has necessarily to do (primarily) with them feeling ineffectual in the face of Trump's popularity. I don't think Maddow ever had any illusion that anything she expressed would be echoed by any Republicans... except maybe that the opposite of her opinion would be championed by them. I think those two feel real alarm at not just a political lie, but a "baby parts" type lie that could result in actual violence against a religious minority. For anybody with any knowledge of history, we all know what blaming religious minorities for "stabbing us in the back" hearkens back to. This same factor may to some extend be motivating (to lesser or greater degrees) other media personalities as well.<br /><br />I'd like to live in a world in which the media did have more of a legitimate "watchdog" role. And since I'm an incrementalist, incremental movement in that direction can only be a good thing in my book.<br /><br />What would incremental movement towards a better media look like to you Mike?<br /><br />I don't think there's anything to be alarmed at here in the media's response:<br /><br />1. Their disapproval helps Trump win the nomination. So I'll be happy to see more and more of it.<br /><br />2. Them finally feeling like they have to call a lie a lie is perhaps just what they need to start the long long process of incrementally, in baby steps, moving away from a "he said she said" kind of journalism. If you disagree, I'm curious to hear your description of what those incremental baby steps would look like.... how, exactly, would they look different than what we see?<br /><br />Exposing a trivial but easily verifiable lie such as "I didn't have sex with that woman!" is a legitimate role for the media. It's low hanging fruit. I agree that a policy lie is far worse, however those lies are *sometimes* more difficult to expose because even experts in the field disagree. I realize that's where the think tanks point you make comes in, but it's not necessarily just the think tanks. John Cochrane backed up Jeb's 4% growth claim. Cochrane has a lot of differences with any of the GOP candidates on many issues (I'd wager). For one, he's enthusiastic about an open borders policy (like all good libertarians). Whatever else you want to say about Cochrane, being an evil moron is probably not a legitimate criticism. I'd trust somebody like Jason Smith to evaluate whether or not Cochrane was an evil moron, and by the look of his posts about John's models, I'd wager that would not be his evaluation. I love Krugman, but I'd be a little less inclined to take either Krugman's or Cochrane's opinions of each other at face value, since they seem to have a real sense of personal animosity towards one another.<br /><br />I guess what I'm saying is that issues like 4% growth are (by their nature) going to be more murky for any non-economist journalist. Also, didn't one of the other candidates do Jeb one better and promise 6% growth? Am I right? Who was that?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com