Donald Trump

"

Xavderion wrote:

The west (namely NATO) wants war with Russia, of course there will be anti-western hysteria.

You really believe that, don´t you ? If Russia would invade the Baltic states tomorrow, the NATO would not be able to defend them, that has to be changed (RAND study: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1253.html. Russia is a (nuclear) superpower, only idiots would want a war with Russia or believe what you wrote.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Oh, and Russia is on the 148th place in the 2016 World press freedom index, that´s behind Pakistan and South Sudan.

I trust the media's assertion of press freedom about as much as I trust the media.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

(https://rsf.org/en/ranking)

I wonder what we would have to expect with Trump.

Well, that would be easier to gauge if the media didn't feel "free" enough to alter people's words when they quoted them:

DJT's actual tweet:

"I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary and myself, should release detailed medical records. I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2016"

Ye Old Clinton News Network -
CNN

altered what he said to this (note that they deleted the "Crooked":



What happens when when the media decides to start ADDING a few words here and there to make a candidate look better or worse?

"

Xavderion wrote:

The west (namely NATO) wants war with Russia, of course there will be anti-western hysteria.

They don't want war with Russia. If they did, any of these flybys (the last one at 10ft distance) could be turned into an incident and off they would go.

NATO is ill equipped (logistically) for war at the moment. The readiness levels have been intentionally eroded since Rumsfeld began dismantling the old 3 theater + defense stance. Ostensibly, this force degradation was for budgetary reasons and a "mobility + response" upgrade. "This is a buff"

The people responsible for that should be ashamed at their lack of foresight.

What NATO doesn't want is for Russia to become more powerful and look at western Europe like the territory is some kind of buffet where they can pick and choose items they want.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

Oh, and Russia is on the 148th place in the 2016 World press freedom index, that´s behind Pakistan and South Sudan.

I trust the media's assertion of press freedom about as much as I trust the media.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

(https://rsf.org/en/ranking)

I wonder what we would have to expect with Trump.

Well, that would be easier to gauge if the media didn't feel "free" enough to alter people's words when they quoted them:

DJT's actual tweet:

"I think that both candidates, Crooked Hillary and myself, should release detailed medical records. I have no problem in doing so! Hillary?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2016"

Ye Old Clinton News Network -
CNN

altered what he said to this (note that they deleted the "Crooked":



What happens when when the media decides to start ADDING a few words here and there to make a candidate look better or worse?

So you think they wanted to be friendly with Trump ? Either a mistake or he changed that tweet later and they quoted on that.

I trust quality media (serious journalism) more than some random idiots and their assertions on the internet, who have no idea about journalism. And I never use any "social media". Donald Trump uses Twitter to have an easy access to the "undereducated" he likes so much and to manipulate them.

If you think they simply did not want to show the two words together - possible. U.S. media ranks fourty something, because e.g. Fox "news" is pure propaganda. When I want to watch news in English language it´s either the BBC or their former project AlJazeera(sure, I would not want to live in Qatar...).

"[...] The survival of independent news coverage is becoming increasingly precarious in both the state and privately-owned media because of the threat from ideologies, especially religious ideologies, that are hostile to media freedom, and from large-scale propaganda machines. Throughout the world, “oligarchs” are buying up media outlets and are exercising pressure that compounds the pressure already coming from governments. [...]"

(https://rsf.org/en/deep-and-disturbing-decline-media-freedom)

reporters without borders is not "the media"...

"[...]Published by Reporters Without Borders annually since 2002, the World Press Freedom Index measures the level of freedom available to journalists in 180 countries using the following criteria – pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative environment, transparency, infrastructure, and abuses.[...]"

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

The west (namely NATO) wants war with Russia, of course there will be anti-western hysteria.

They don't want war with Russia. If they did, any of these flybys (the last one at 10ft distance) could be turned into an incident and off they would go.

NATO is ill equipped (logistically) for war at the moment. The readiness levels have been intentionally eroded since Rumsfeld began dismantling the old 3 theater + defense stance. Ostensibly, this force degradation was for budgetary reasons and a "mobility + response" upgrade. "This is a buff"

The people responsible for that should be ashamed at their lack of foresight.

What NATO doesn't want is for Russia to become more powerful and look at western Europe like the territory is some kind of buffet where they can pick and choose items they want.

but it turned out so well last time that happened, except of course east Germany and conditions therein are just western propaganda and everybody was really having a lovely time.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

So you think they wanted to be friendly with Trump ? Either a mistake or he changed that tweet later and they quoted on that.

What they want is all the publicity, attention, and clicks/views that Trump brings without it damaging their preferred candidate. And no, Trump didn't change the tweet, it was widely reported that CNN modified it.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I trust the media's assertion of press freedom about as much as I trust the media.

It seems like you do; you certainly cite them plenty. If you don't, there's a certain hypocrisy in your link-heavy walls of text.

"

Schmodderhengst wrote:

reporters without borders is not "the media"...

That's like saying if Don Lemon, Brian Williams and Scott Pelley got together and formed an "independent" organization they would no longer be "the media".

RWB isn't comprised of scientists, professors, or analysts without extensive media backgrounds.

"[...]Published by Reporters Without Borders annually since 2002, the World Press Freedom Index measures the level of freedom available to journalists in 180 countries using the following criteria – pluralism, media independence, media environment and self-censorship, legislative environment, transparency, infrastructure, and abuses.[...]"[/quote]

Since 2002? Freedom of the Press they say? Let's take a peek under the claims.

Unless my math is off, 2014 was after 2002 and before 2016.

Something major that would have affected the freedom of the press that happened during that time frame should have been worth their attention.

Yet .... their site is blank when you try to find any Reporter's Without Borders mention of the US Government's 2014 "Critical Information Needs Study".

It wasn't a little thing - even without looking for it, I heard and saw news on it a few years ago. It was a very disturbing plan to have the Federal government involved in newsrooms - to determine if the news they were producing met what the government would define as the "needs" of the American people.

Chinese style news freedom.

The plan was to embed government agents into media organizations around the U.S. to make sure they are doing their job "correctly".

One of the FCC commissioners, Ajit Pai, wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal warning about it about it (most of it is behind a pay wall):

.............

"News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

"With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring"

"The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

"How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover."

...............

The opposition had a fit and when the dust settled, the Obama administration back pedaled and canceled the plan.

Not a blip from RWB on how this would serious imperil freedom of the press in the US. Nothing on their site about CIN or Mignon Clyburn the FCC chief pushing the program.

Some of the questions the federal agents working in the newsrooms would ask:



"Station Owners, Managers or HR
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who is your target audience?
• How do you define critical information that the community needs?
• How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?
• How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
• What are the demographics of the news management staff (HR)?
• What are the demographics of the on air staff (HR)?
• What are the demographics of the news production staff (HR)?

Corporate, General Managers, News Directors, Editors, etc
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• Who else in your market provides news?
• Who are your main competitors?
• How much news does your station (stations) air every day?
• Is the news produced in-house or is it provided by an outside source?
• Do you employ news people?
• How many reporters and editors do you employ?
• Do you have any reporters or editors assigned to topic “beats”? If so how many and what are the beats?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do reporters and anchors have in deciding which stories to cover?
• How much does community input influence news coverage decisions?
• How do you define critical information that the community needs?
• How do you ensure the community gets this critical information?

On-Air Staff (Reporters, Anchors)
• What is the news philosophy of the station?
• How much news does your station air every day?
• Who decides which stories are covered?
• How much influence do you have in deciding which stories to cover?
• Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information
for your customers (viewers, listeners, readers) that was rejected by management?
o If so, can you give an example?
o What was the reason given for the decision?
o Why do you disagree? "


Here's the backpedal boilerplate from the FCC:

"I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of
Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong. The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms."

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0221/DOC-325727A1.pdf


Here's a link to the original CIN rollout:

http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/ocbo/FCC_Final_Research_Design_6_markets.pdf

So if this horrific attempt at government coercion of news rooms wasn't worth of RWB and their "freedom" of journalists, then they are a failure. Yeah, like the class clown, they might have gotten 50% right, but they certainly aren't on their game, and they are the media. They might not be current members of major networks, but they have drank the journalistic squishy ethics kool-aid and their integrity isn't automatically iron clad.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

I trust the media's assertion of press freedom about as much as I trust the media.

It seems like you do; you certainly cite them plenty. If you don't, there's a certain hypocrisy in your link-heavy walls of text.

For the most part I do. They aren't bad people, they are just in jobs where the socio-political mind think obedience is almost mandatory if someone wants to stay employed, much less advance.




The information on reporters/sources being kidnapped, journalists being targeted jailed, etc is verifiable and usually widely reported. Much of what they claim is backed up by such reports.

There's also some political wrangling. It is interesting to watch "independent" groups when they try to cover up and hide it later on.

This isn't to say they are intentionally doing ingenious things. They may even believe their reasons for putting a spin on things is a noble one - and in a few cases it might be.

It isn't that the bulk of what goes through the media is dishonest, it's the little shadings and details put on things that the public needs to be wary of.

The links are so people can read details of the information and check on those details through another source if they want. The sources I link (and they are only a small portion of what I look at for a topic) might be completely wrong. I'd hope that if the source was way off the mark, someone would say so, and I can check on that and include that in my future evaluations of how reliable that source is.

They summarized it this way -

"Freedom ends where national security begins

US media freedom, enshrined in the First Amendment to the 1787 constitution, has encountered a major obstacle – the government’s war on whistleblowers who leak information about its surveillance activities, spying and foreign operations, especially those linked to counter-terrorism. Furthermore, US journalists are still not protected by a federal “shield law” guaranteeing their right not to reveal their sources and other confidential work-related information."

without going into the details.

This is what you read about Germany, if you just click on the country:

"In the far-right’s sights

The law bans hate speech, Holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda but far-right groups target the media regardless. Since 2014, there has been growing harassment, threats and violence against journalists covering radical right-wing groups, especially the Islamophobic and xenophobic group Pegida. The other source of concern for journalists is the 2009 anti-terrorism law, which allows the police to conduct clandestine surveillance operations (including searches of homes, inspection of computer hard disks, and phone taps) and threatens the confidentiality of their sources."

France:

"Though journalists in France are generally free and their work protected by the law, the media landscape is basically made of groups whose owners – industrialists in particular – may have other objectives in mind than defending editorial independence. Political and financial pressures are more and more frequent. Reporters have sometimes been attacked when they covered political meetings or other events. France also fell victim of the globalization of terrorism, as illustrated by the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, the worst violence against reporters committed on European soil."