Will the media try and "both sides" the Jan 6th committee findings?
Because of some leaks, but mostly because of common sense and information from journalists such as Bob Woodward , Robert Costa and Jonathan Allen, to some extent we already know what conclusions the Jan 6th committee will draw. That is, the Trump inner circle, his election lawyers, and Trump himself tried to overturn the 2020 presidential election and have Trump illegally re-installed as president, either directly by vice president Mike Pence, or more indirectly by fake "alternative electors", Trump puppets planned to be presented by Trump favoring state legislatures as the true electors based on ginned up fantasy voter fraud.
These facts are known and documented. One would think these revelations would seal Trump's fate in the public's opinion, and assure he is out of national politics forever. The political right will kick and scream and whine, but the truth is the truth.
However, there is a serious question of performance hanging over the next few weeks. What will mainstream media do? Over the years the media has shown a painful tendency to "both sides" damning information about Trump. The major news organizations have a problem condemning Trump and his criminal and corrupt ilk without also giving Trump's side of the story as a viable alternative. Or the media will say Trump is teflon and there is nothing anyone can do about it.
We dont need "both sidesing " this time, we need straightforward reporting on the damning information the Jan 6th committee has compiled. Only that can push the American public out of the darkness of Trumpism's constant lies.
If the media does it's job, in a few weeks Trump's name won't be worth mud amongst respectable Americans.
Tags
Who is online
384 visitors
The committee can only present the information, media coverage will decide how it gets processed by the public.
Yes, exactly. That's why the media can't be trusted anymore. The media should present both sides, not decide what we're supposed to believe about something.
What is the other side of someone trying to steal the election? There isnt any "both sides" to this story, and that is my point.
Ummm, the other side (the election was rigged), has been proven as wrong, time and again. The media should not present known false information.
Why not? Because we're too stupid to figure it out for ourselves whether it's false or not? Take the claim that the election in Arizona was rigged. I would prefer to understand what each side says about it, not have it sanitized for a particular point of view.
It's pretty simple, really. Side A presents their claim. Side B presents counter claim. Investigations are pursued. The news should report what the investigations produce. If one side says the conclusion is wrong, report why they say it's wrong and why the other side says it's right. I mean, how hard can that be?
I don't need the media deciding how I will process the information. If I wanted that I should look for places like China to live.
You have to be kidding. We have enough misinformation already, actually way more than enough, without opening the floodgates.
There are people who deliberately lie, and most of them are on the right. You dont seem to be up on that news.
Drakkonis seems to want a report to news reporting days like those of good old reliable Walter Cronkite. But, that would deny the passages of time that everything must advance and move forward (for good or ill). Of course, cable news is partially a problem. To be honest, I can sometimes see Joy Reid's 'playful' side in the 'cat and mouse' game of politics where she is partisan as "h." And Lawrence O'Donnell, successful and well-off does not even hide his passion for partisanship.
On the otherside, Fox News is a monstrosity for propaganda. So much so that it is a recognized 'commodity.'
In case you haven't noticed, but a fairly large number of republicans ARE too stupid to figure it out on their own, since they still believe it.
You cannot process the information if false information is reported on with the same alacrity as truthful information. In this case they can report that Side A has submitted this information with this evidence to support the information, while Side B continued with the same debunked lies as they have since 1/6/2020.
Right, while those on the left are all Mensa members.
Um, no. That would be presenting the news in a partisan fashion, which is what JR seems to want. If a claim about something is made by a side, media shouldn't tell us it's either true or false. It should simply report that an investigation produced result X. We can figure out whether it supports the claim or not without having media dictating what we should believe about it.
Take the tired lie that Trump called White Supremacists some "very fine people" at Charlottesville. That doesn't appear to be the case according to the actual facts. Yet we still get media trying to manipulate the facts in order to push a narrative. That's not news, that's propaganda.
It was a white supremacist rally , on one side. When he said there were fine people on both sides who do you think he was talking about?
Trump's comments on Charlottesville were some of the most irresponsible an American president has ever made.
What, facts and actual quotes? You trying to get your post deleted for trolling.
There are two sides to every story.
Let's compare some possibly 'false claims'.
Trump says that the accusation from a woman that says he raped her when she was 13 is false. The woman was unable to produce any physical evidence to back up her claim and thus the court threw the lawsuit out for lack of evidence.
The vast majority of Americans and anyone with more than half a brain say that the claim from Trump that the election was stolen/rigged is false. Trump is unable to produce any physical evidence to back up his claim and the courts threw out the dozens of spurious lawsuits for lack of evidence.
So it wasn't that "the other side (the election was rigged), has been proven as wrong", they had the burden of proof and came up with nothing. But just like there are many who likely believe Donald to be guilty of raping that 13 year old girl regardless of the evidence because they know his rotted moral character, for the Trump sycophants, they do not need evidence of election fraud because they are too invested in Trumps lies.
The sunk cost prevents them from freeing themselves from the cesspool of Trumpism, they can only double down or they risk having to admit they were wrong. It would be easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a right wing conservative to admit they were wrong since that would require humility which is apparently more rare than diamonds or gold among right wing conservatives.
Actually, there are usually three sides to every story, your side, their side and the truth.
And the truth is there were wannabe Nazi's flying their swastika flags along side right wing conservatives flying their confederate flags, together defending confederate monuments while marching and shouting "Jews will not replace us!". One of those 'fine people" on the right wing conservatives side rammed his car into the crowd of peaceful protestors supporting the removal of the confederate monument killing one and injuring dozens. Those are irrefutable facts.
Unite the Right rally - Wikipedia
It was well known in Charlottesville, before the rally happened , that this was a white supremacist rally.
Is Trump an idiot? Only an idiot would say there were good people on both sides of a white supremacist rally.
[✘]
Pretty good example of you doing exactly the same thing those you call Trumpists do. There were and are people who have no connection to either white supremacists or confederate flag flying conservatives who have reason to believe it is, or may be, a mistake to take down statues. Some of them are good people. But no matter how much evidence is shoved in your face, you still believe Trump was talking about Nazis being fine people, even though the "evidence" you use to make your accusation discredits your accusation.
And because of that that I oppose people like you who think you have some sort of justification for spoon feeding your version of what you want people to believe about some issue. I oppose people who claim that person X did a thing that there's no evidence for simply because you don't like the guy. People who do such things have no business presenting news to anyone. Unfortunately, that seems to be the only kind we have these days, for the most part.
What I don't really understand is why I'm even bothering with saying this to you. I must like wasting my own time.
What you choose to ignore is that nobody was talking about the "pretty good" people anyway. The duty of the president in part is to be present in the moment. The issue was a young woman was ran-down and others injured during an incident involving white supremacists-bystanders and 'hanger ons' need not be mentioned. It is a constant issue with Donald that he couches his statements in a great amount of minutia. Thus, it is "ponderous" for the listeners to determine what is the gist of his meaning. After four years in office of Donald's extreme verboseness where he says a great many important things while wrapping his statements in 'tons' of profane, provocative rhetoric, your coming here repeatedly to chastise us that we should learn to digest Trump 'speak' - as if it is some new and valuable commodity is ridiculous on its face!
Why? Because you don't bother to hear anybody else 'speak' even when it is the familiar language we are all "privy" to engage in from childhood.
Let me be crystal clear: You don't get to chastise or stand in judgement of us about what Trump 'did' with his poor choice of words.
Thankfully, I'm not sitting in judgement of anyone based on what Trump did with his "poor choice of words." I'm sitting in judgment of what they do with the words he speaks. In this case, claiming Trump called Nazis "good people." That is pushing the same sort of lies it is claimed the other side speaks. Can't be more crystal clear than that.
You're splitting hairs a little there.
Trump said that there were good people on both sides. One of the two sides did in fact have nazis on their team. And also white supremacists, anti-semites, far right extremists, weirdos, freaks and cranks.
The other side lacked those components.
Yet you think it is appropriate that Trump went out of his way to compliment "both sides". Unbelievable.
Who were complaining about the "pretty good" people? Answer, please. Did any "pretty good" people on either side deliberately crash a car into Heather Heyer that day? So, in the first place, why would the president of the United States be addressing the "pretty good" people in the crowd. That is what confounded and mucked up his communication.
And since you are willing to clean up and clarify "Trump speak' why won't you do the same for others? It would be the Christian thing to do.
As I have tried to tell you, no one in Charlottesville that day failed to see that was a white supremacist rally. I assume that also applies to Trump watching on television. The event was promoted as a white supremacist rally. The permit for the rally was applied for and granted to a white supremacist.
The nicest thing one could say about Trump regarding this as that he is too damn stupid to understand what he was looking at. It doesnt matter if "some" of the white folks thought they were only there to protest a statue ( although no one could be that oblivious). It was a white racist rally and it was very well known that it was a white racist rally.
I think chanting "Jews will not replace us" was a clue...
Super. That's great. Unfortunately for your case, that isn't what Trump was commenting on. When he said there were fine people on both sides, he was speaking on the issue concerning whether we should remove statues or not and not on the rally itself. Anyone who's progressed beyond construction paper and crayons understands the context but some still insist on making a connection that isn't there. This would be because they don't actually think critically, they think emotionally.
It's the same as the logical fallacy where someone says you're a chicken if you don't do X. Never mind that X has nothing to do with being a chicken. What you are doing is saying that anyone who sees Trump's comment concerning this is a racist or a supporter of white supremacism or some other retarded thing. Simply because you say so.
So, I'm tired of trying to tell you water is wet. You just don't want to hear it because you prefer your narrative. So, have a nice narrative.
OH! Almost forgot. This is a perfect example why I don't support your view of what the media should do. That is, not present both sides. The last thing we need is people with your views lying to us about this sort of thing.
I am not lying to you, I am trying to acquaint you with reality. Just prior to Trump concluding that there were good people on both sides there had been numerous images on national television of racists marching down Charlottesville streets waving confederate and nazi flags.
Do you seriously believe it was then acceptable , in any way whatsoever, for the president of the United States to emphasize "good people on both sides"?
It is ridiculous, and a fair testament to your own extremism that you think what he said was acceptable.
I just watched entire press conference and one of the questions asked by the press was this: 'Do you think there is moral equivalence between the Alt-Right (White Supremacist) and what you call the, "Alt-left"? Paraphrased. (At 7:25 in the video.)
Trump’s Full, Heated Press Conference on Race and Violence in Charlottesville (Full) | NBC News
That question, from the reporter reminds me of the one where Donald was asked by Bill O'Reilly about Russia's Putin being a killer and Donald replied: 'You think, we, the U.S are so innocent'? (Paraphrased.)
The point being that Donald at the time saw-sees no difference or nothing better about the Alt-Left than he sees about the Alt-Right! Same for Russia versus The U.S.A.
That is what 'drove' the shock and analysis of the media that day: The amoral president.
A sitting president who would not stand up for good. All the while, demanding people be loyal and never straddle the fence for the issues and policies he for which he stands.
In addition, the irony in the Charlottesville video above and in the commentary on this thread in support of a "both sides" attitude to the Alt-Right and the so-called, "Alt-Left" is that Donald and those commenters on NT have a decided BIAS against the so-called, "LEFT." Where the Left is correct in any of its policies or activities.
There is something a lot of people dont understand or dont remember.
The Unite The Right rally took place on a Saturday morning. In the afternoon Trump came on tv and made some comments that were widely criticized.
It wasnt for two more days, on Monday that Trump appeared at Trump Tower in NYC and made the famous "fine people on both sides" comment.
www.politifact.com /article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/
PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
By Angie Drobnic Holan April 26, 2019 14-18 minutes 4/26/2019
On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump’s initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden declared his 2020 candidacy for the Democratic nomination and the presidency by recalling the events in Charlottesville and Trump’s comments. "With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said.
The next day, Trump responded, saying "If you look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals." Trump also said he would defeat Biden "very easily."
We wanted to look at Trump’s comments in their original context. Here is a transcript of the questions Trump answered that addressed the Charlottesville controversy in the days after it happened. (His specific remarks about "very fine people, on both sides" come in the final third of the transcript.)
• • •
www.dailywire.com /news/heres-complete-timeline-trumps-statements-michael-qazvini
Here’s The Complete Timeline Of Trump’s Statements on Charlottesville
Michael Qazvini 4-5 minutes 8/14/2017
This was Trump's initial public statement (in person) about Charlottesville
Emphatically.
I don't see why it wouldn't be. For anyone who's not a reactionary, anyway.
In my opinion, what the left does is take one fact and isolate the whole issue down to just that one and then create a narrative about it for the purpose of herding the sheep into the view they want them to have. Just like you're attempting here. White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis at the rally? Perfect! Anyone who doesn't fall into line with our narrative will be branded as White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis or supporters of such.
Evidence. Trump denounced White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis and hate in general and made it clear they weren't in the group he called fine people. That doesn't fit the narrative so the left simply pretends it isn't there and continues with the demonstrably false narrative that Trump was calling those groups "fine people" (or was it good people? Whatever.) We can't have people thinking about whether or not we should remove statues because that might cause people to actually think about the issue. No! We've got to use this opportunity to stampede the masses into the reaction we want them to have.
So, the only way we can satisfy people with your kind of view is to simply chuck rational thought and just go with absolutism. That is, the only relevant fact allowed is that White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis were there and that is the only thing we can allow people to think about. More, we have to steer them into how they should think about them and what needs to be done.
This is actually right out of the Communist playbook. You invent an enemy (who doesn't hate Nazis?) Then, you make them as scary and threating as you can possibly manage. Make them think they're hiding in your closet and under your bed. Use phrases like "Democracy is on the brink of extinction" and similar ideas. Get everyone so worked up about it that, when the drivers of this monstrosity bring forth "the solution", people will be less likely to object because of the threat.
It all goes back to the reason behind this article. The news has to be managed for this sort of thing to work. You literally complain about people getting both sides of the story. Can't have that, can we? Can't have people thinking for themselves. We've got to tell them the correct thing to think because they're too stupid to do it for themselves. They have to be managed like cattle.
No thank you.
Youre almost as bad as Trump. You seem to think this was an innocent protest of the statue removal that a few stray Nazis wandered into.
This protest was organized and run by white supremacists (who also held the city permit for the rally).
"These facts are known and documented. One would think these revelations would seal Trump's fate in the public's opinion, and assure he is out of national politics forever."
These supposed facts never seem to make it to the public view and in fact are in dispute. Most mentally healthy and rational people reserve judgement until allegations are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Trump deserves due process like anyone else
Will it present all the information? I want to know how much security President Trump requested?
Will it be presented?
Why is everything about Pelosi off limits?
Trump's name is already not worth mud amongst respectable Americans. The problem is that there are a lot of Americans who aren't respectable. Anybody who will totally disregard the will of the American people and overturn a fair election just to get 'their guy' into office for a few more years will almost certainly try to remove the Constitution to keep him there afterward.
Isn’t someone gaslit the victim?
Are you advocating for a dictator, near as you can tell?
Use the web, you don’t need victim families for child snuff porn.
Are you seriously suggesting that CB is supporting child snuff porn ? C'mon now.
Like always, I’m confused on what CB supports. What specifics do you think he is after?
If you're so confused that you suggest he supports or condones child snuff porn, you're fully lost.
What does he support?
(deleted)
What I gather from reading part of the thread is that CB supports the idea that Emmitt Till's mother had an open casket in order to show what had been done to her son. And I think you already know that.
'Perhaps it is time a family allow the public to see what AR-15's do to the flesh of child. Open-casket funeral, please.'
That was not about till
You are right down the center of some other planet.
Have a good night.
Emmett Till's open-casket funeral attended by thousands.