President Biden

[Rayvin 5292]

No.

 

I'm saying given the evidence of history (banging the drum for Iraq and WMDs, hiding evidence of warrantless eavesdroipping for a year until Bush was re-elected, colluding with the Clinton campaign to spread lies about Sanders and get questions ahead of debates, re-branding torture to "enhanced interrogation"  without having to look up any more) we should be vigilant about secret meetings between the president elect and the corporate media that did all of those things.

 

It's incredible to me that given the history of mainstream media collusion with leaders that anyone would not have any cynicism about a secret meeting with every major broadcaster where they all agreed to the secrecy and broke it not for any noble reason like any of the above, but because he was nasty to them.

 

 

The cynicism is there for me, it's just that I don't think they'll immediately warm to the seat of power when it's being occupied by someone outside the displaced establishment. I think they'll go right back to pulling him down. I think they revealed what they did because it makes him look bad.

[Happy Face 29]

There you are, they say they aren't going to be faithful lapdogs. 

 

I mocked this emotionally retarded power whore yesterday for that exact sentence.  Colbert mocked the media to their faces at the correspondents dinner back in 2006 because this is exactly what most of them regard as their role...

 

Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

 

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! 

 

 

They like to believe it's not so, but making the claim that you will be an adversarial journalist as you ANONYMOUSLY cry about the SECRET meeting you just had with the president is an irony beyond the pale.

[Happy Face 29]

It was Trump's top team meeting with 24 major news figures in Trump Tower in the centre of Manhattan. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a secret meeting.

 

What was said in the meeting was secret.  The fact we all knew who was at the meeting rendered the secrecy irrelevant as there was clearly no source protection issue.  Journalists are intrepid and have protections that allow them to confront power, not cower under their demands of secrecy.

[Happy Face 29]

 

Making the claim that you will be an adversarial journalist as you ANONYMOUSLY cry about the SECRET meeting you just had with the president is an irony beyond the pale.

 

The Irony is only surpassed by someone defending this craven, self interested, careerist, cowardly act but calling Assange and Snowden coward's for turning their entire lives upside down to reveal the truth of what governments do and refusing to be sent to the country that will not give them a fair hearing for it.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

We first heard details of the drone strikes in NW Pakistan when the Supreme Court of Pakistan said they were war crimes and Imran Khan started briefing the world media.... and then it was picked up the the American media. It was hardly discussed by the MSM till that point (nobody imagined Pakistan was being droned).

 

The more independent liberal media ran with it with greater detail and you had to go to AlJazz, TYT, Democracy Now, New Yorker etc....In the UK The Guardian did a really good job on it. CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc were broadly supportive or neutral. I think anyone would be hard pushed to find any issue with reg to Obama or Bush where there was sustained criticism on any policy....

 

I don't see it will be any different for Trump.

 

edit Fox did go after Obamacare.

 

Fox went after Obama on plenty of stuff, from same sex marriage, to foreign policy, to even adopting Trump's line about him refusing to say "radical islamic terrorism. 

 

he did not get an free pass, but then i don't think any politician does tbh. 

[Park Life 71]

Fox went after Obama on plenty of stuff, from same sex marriage, to foreign policy, to even adopting Trump's line about him refusing to say "radical islamic terrorism. 

 

he did not get an free pass, but then i don't think any politician does tbh. 

Yeah agree forgot about those. Fox was on Obama's case plenty. It is a Conservative/Republican brand tho.

[Happy Face 29]

Criticism of leaders is allowed within the conventional Washington orthodoxy.

 

Wedge issues like gay marriage, weed legalisation, abortion, tax reform... basically the internal squabbles that don't harm the overall national interest.

 

Obama has been congratulated by  the most right wing neocons for his foreign policies by and large.  The NSA's abilities to snoop have complete bipartisan consensus and barely get covered.

 

The whole reason Trump was interesting is that he proposed to blow those orthodoxies out of the water and no-one in mass media knew what they were allowed to say about it.

 

Now he's reigning it in and the MSM are going to revert to type.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

Criticism of leaders is allowed within the conventional Washington orthodoxy.

 

Wedge issues like gay marriage, weed legalisation, abortion, tax reform... basically the internal squabbles that don't harm the overall national interest.

 

Obama has been congratulated by  the most right wing neocons for his foreign policies by and large.  The NSA's abilities to snoop have complete bipartisan consensus and barely get covered.

 

The whole reason Trump was interesting is that he proposed to blow those orthodoxies out of the water and no-one in mass media knew what they were allowed to say about it.

 

Now he's reigning it in and the MSM are going to revert to type.

 

NSA snooping has barely been covered by the mainstream media????

 

do you really need me to go back and post links? it was the guardian that broke the snowden story. what are they if not part of the corrupt establishment media, right? 

[Park Life 71]

Megan Kelly says he's gonna get hit and he's gonna get hit often.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA5_a_dKk1c

Edited November 23, 2016 by Park Life

[ewerk 31193]

I mocked this emotionally retarded power whore yesterday for that exact sentence.  Colbert mocked the media to their faces at the correspondents dinner back in 2006 because this is exactly what most of them regard as their role...

 

That line was attributed to 'one source'. It doesn't necessarily mean it was the same source that was pissing his/her pants earlier in the article.

[ewerk 31193]

What was said in the meeting was secret.  The fact we all knew who was at the meeting rendered the secrecy irrelevant as there was clearly no source protection issue.  Journalists are intrepid and have protections that allow them to confront power, not cower under their demands of secrecy.

 

It was off the record. It isn't unusual and not unexpected to agree to an OTR meeting for what should have been a glad-handing get to know you with the incoming president. I can't imagine that the majority were expecting any secretive revelations to come from it and the idea should have been that it was informal with no need for Trump to worry overly about his exact language. All major politicians, both good and bad, have used OTR meetings from time to time.

[Rayvin 5292]

NSA snooping has barely been covered by the mainstream media????

 

do you really need me to go back and post links? it was the guardian that broke the snowden story. what are they if not part of the corrupt establishment media, right? 

 

The Guardian aren't corrupt IMO, just misguided.

[Park Life 71]

I'm torn here. I find myself sympathizing with all three of you on various specifics.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

The Guardian aren't corrupt IMO, just misguided.

 

it was misguided to reveal Snowden's NSA snooping story? it was one of the scoops of the decade

[ewerk 31193]

Let's all chill the fuck out and revisit the subject in 18 months when we can all agree that I was correct.

[Rayvin 5292]

it was misguided to reveal Snowden's NSA snooping story? it was one of the scoops of the decade

 

No sorry - they were right on that. They're misguided about their incorrectly conceived 'left' agendas.

[Rayvin 5292]

Let's all chill the fuck out and revisit the subject in 18 months when we can all agree that I was correct.

 

 

I'd be surprised if Trump hasn't come under sustained and obvious criticism in that time.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

No sorry - they were right on that. They're misguided about their incorrectly conceived 'left' agendas.

 

incorrect, in your opinion.

 

which exactly what their editorial line is - an opinion. beyond the general news reporting pages, all newspapers have them  

[Dr Gloom 22134]

 

I'd be surprised if Trump hasn't come under sustained and obvious criticism in that time.

 

nah, he'll get a free pass from all the corrupt establishment journalists who only do what their corporate puppet editors tell them to do.

 

or something

[Rayvin 5292]

incorrect, in your opinion.

 

which exactly what their editorial line is - an opinion. beyond the general news reporting pages, all newspapers have them  

 

Of course in my opinion - which is why I think they're misguided rather than corrupt. And yes, all newspapers have them - what frustrates me about the Guardian is that its as close as we can get to a mainstream newspaper of the 'left', and it sidelines itself with nonsense at the altar of a failing political agenda.

 

But they do carry out extremely important work despite this.

[Rayvin 5292]

nah, he'll get a free pass from all the corrupt establishment journalists who only do what their corporate puppet editors tell them to do.

 

or something

 

At least this is one of those things that, as ewerk says, we'll know the answer to in 18 months time.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

i already know the answer now - it's bollocks. 

[Happy Face 29]

NSA snooping has barely been covered by the mainstream media????

 

I'm struggling to find the stats on what topics came up at the debates.  Think the NSA (like global warming) didn't get a single question from the TV personalities hosting.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

I'm struggling to find the stats on what topics came up at the debates.  Think the NSA (like global warming) didn't get a single question from the TV personalities hosting.

 

the debates were farcical. it became all about which candidate was the least likeable, with far more time devoted to pussy grabbing and email server scandals than meaningful policies like the environment, which you're right, didn't get a mention. but you're talking about the the entire MSM generally. all it takes there is a quick search of the NYT or wherever to see how much they've covered the snooping story. 

[ewerk 31193]