Trump and the Press

[RedDenver]

Why should I be expected to prove that he is equally as vigilant when I am not making that claim?

 

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, RedDenver. I have no idea whether you are right or wrong. You're the one making a claim, so I want to know what the claim is based off of. I don't think that's unreasonable? And I don't think it's my responsibility to prove you wrong, when I don't necessarily hold to the belief that you are wrong.

Fair enough, I'm making a claim without evidence. I don't want to go back and watch hours and hours of Tapper just to come back and say I didn't find a case where he asked Dems the hard questions. Again, how do I show evidence he didn't do something? If somebody has a better way, I'll gladly listen.

 

On the other hand, you could go back and watch hours and hours of Tapper to come back and show the times he was vigilant and asked the tough questions of the Dems. I mean, I could do it too and disprove my opinion, but then there's evidence as opposed to not finding evidence.

 

Am I making any sense?

[Moiraine]

In a way you're making sense.

 

But the disconnect here is that it doesn't stand to reason to you that this is happening with Tapper because Trump and his people are an entirely different animal than anything we've seen before.

[RedDenver]

In a way you're making sense.

 

But the disconnect here is that it doesn't stand to reason to you that this is happening with Tapper because Trump and his people are an entirely different animal than anything we've seen before.

Yes. That's sort of my point. You could say that Tapper has risen to the journalist challenge that is Trump. To which I'm essentially saying, "I wish Tapper always played like this."

[Landlord]

 

In a way you're making sense.

 

But the disconnect here is that it doesn't stand to reason to you that this is happening with Tapper because Trump and his people are an entirely different animal than anything we've seen before.

Yes. That's sort of my point. You could say that Tapper has risen to the journalist challenge that is Trump. To which I'm essentially saying, "I wish Tapper always played like this."

 

 

 

But what would the necessity have been for that? If Obama was much more even-keeled, thought out, polite, honest, etc., then why would Tapper have played like this?

 

 

What you're saying sounds like, to me, if you're a parent and you have one kid who's well-behaved but occasionally writes on the walls, and another maniac kid who burnt down the garage, and you want to scold both of them equally

[ColoNoCoHusker]

LOMS - was just typing the same thing about kids but with grades

[AR Husker Fan]

So, not only did the so-called president lie about the press not covering terrorist attacks, the list of allegedly "under-reported" attacks omitted the most common attacks of all - those against Muslims. How convenient...

 

 

[RedDenver]

 

 

In a way you're making sense.

 

But the disconnect here is that it doesn't stand to reason to you that this is happening with Tapper because Trump and his people are an entirely different animal than anything we've seen before.

Yes. That's sort of my point. You could say that Tapper has risen to the journalist challenge that is Trump. To which I'm essentially saying, "I wish Tapper always played like this."

 

 

But what would the necessity have been for that? If Obama was much more even-keeled, thought out, polite, honest, etc., then why would Tapper have played like this?

 

 

What you're saying sounds like, to me, if you're a parent and you have one kid who's well-behaved but occasionally writes on the walls, and another maniac kid who burnt down the garage, and you want to scold both of them equally

 

If you're a parent and you have one kid who's well-behaved but occasionally writes on the walls, and another maniac kid who burnt down the garage, should you only watch the maniac and leave the other kid up to his own devices? I'm saying you need to keep an eye on both of them. Whether and how much they get scolded comes after watching them - you have to actually catch them misbehaving before you scold them.

 

Again, I honestly don't see how expecting journalists to be vigilant regardless of who is lying (or hiding the facts, misrepresenting the facts, etc.) is even remotely controversial. Is anyone saying journalists should NOT be vigilant? Or that it's ok for them to half-ass it?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

In a way you're making sense.

 

But the disconnect here is that it doesn't stand to reason to you that this is happening with Tapper because Trump and his people are an entirely different animal than anything we've seen before.

Yes. That's sort of my point. You could say that Tapper has risen to the journalist challenge that is Trump. To which I'm essentially saying, "I wish Tapper always played like this."

 

 

But what would the necessity have been for that? If Obama was much more even-keeled, thought out, polite, honest, etc., then why would Tapper have played like this?

 

 

What you're saying sounds like, to me, if you're a parent and you have one kid who's well-behaved but occasionally writes on the walls, and another maniac kid who burnt down the garage, and you want to scold both of them equally

 

If you're a parent and you have one kid who's well-behaved but occasionally writes on the walls, and another maniac kid who burnt down the garage, should you only watch the maniac and leave the other kid up to his own devices? I'm saying you need to keep an eye on both of them. Whether and how much they get scolded comes after watching them - you have to actually catch them misbehaving before you scold them.

 

Again, I honestly don't see how expecting journalists to be vigilant regardless of who is lying (or hiding the facts, misrepresenting the facts, etc.) is even remotely controversial. Is anyone saying journalists should NOT be vigilant? Or that it's ok for them to half-ass it?

 

 

 

No one is saying he shouldn't be vigilant. We're saying you, who brought this up, have no evidence that he's not being vigilant.

 

To use your analogy - you have no idea whether or not Tapper scolded the Democrats for writing on the walls, or whether they used a permanent marker or a pencil. But since Tapper is scolding Trump's associates for burning down the garage, you assume he isn't paying any attention at all to the Democrats.

[Landlord]

Again, I honestly don't see how expecting journalists to be vigilant regardless of who is lying (or hiding the facts, misrepresenting the facts, etc.) is even remotely controversial. Is anyone saying journalists should NOT be vigilant? Or that it's ok for them to half-ass it?

 

 

You changed the argument from being a matter of degree to being a yes/no proposition. Of course, be vigilant. Nobody has argued against that.

[RedDenver]

No one is saying he shouldn't be vigilant. We're saying you, who brought this up, have no evidence that he's not being vigilant.

 

To use your analogy - you have no idea whether or not Tapper scolded the Democrats for writing on the walls, or whether they used a permanent marker or a pencil. But since Tapper is scolding Trump's associates for burning down the garage, you assume he isn't paying any attention at all to the Democrats.

I didn't think anyone really thought Tapper shouldn't be vigilant. Which is why I don't understand the previous kids analogy.

 

Again, how am I to provide evidence? I've already explained why I can't prove the negative. Yes, I brought this up, but you are claiming I'm wrong. Show some evidence I'm wrong. I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong. Otherwise it's my opinion Tapper hasn't been vigilant against the Dems, and your opinion that he was, with no evidence for either opinion.

 

Now that's not to say I formed my opinion in a vacuum. It's based on occasionally watching Tapper over the last few years, so I do have an idea you Tapper scolded. But it's difficult to provide that to you.

[RedDenver]

You changed the argument from being a matter of degree to being a yes/no proposition. Of course, be vigilant. Nobody has argued against that.

I've ended up arguing both. I think this is where the yes/no came from:

 

Your post implies that there was a reason for him to be at least close to as vigilante on the Democrats. What is that reason?

I disagreed with what is being implied here, that journalists don't have to be as vigilant on the Dems.

[Moiraine]

 

You changed the argument from being a matter of degree to being a yes/no proposition. Of course, be vigilant. Nobody has argued against that.

I've ended up arguing both. I think this is where the yes/no came from:

 

Your post implies that there was a reason for him to be at least close to as vigilante on the Democrats. What is that reason?

I disagreed with what is being implied here, that journalists don't have to be as vigilant on the Dems.

 

I already posted that my wording was bad and told you what I was asking you.

[Landlord]

The real question is why you have that opinion after admitting you can't back it up? Not attacking you here - we all have opinions that are little more than speculative hunches. That's not new to anyone. I think we were just trying to figure out if there was a demonstrable reason, or if it was just a gut feeling kind of thing. I personally don't know about Tapper or CNN nearly enough to have an opinion, so I try not to. If you have one, even without being able to provide actual evidence, that's fine, just be upfront about it I guess?

 

I do agree, though, as I hope most everyone would, that the press needs to have a fairly non-partisan standard for fact-checking and accountability regardless of who it's towards. I think, for the most part, they do a good job of that.

[RedDenver]

 

 

You changed the argument from being a matter of degree to being a yes/no proposition. Of course, be vigilant. Nobody has argued against that.

I've ended up arguing both. I think this is where the yes/no came from:

 

Your post implies that there was a reason for him to be at least close to as vigilante on the Democrats. What is that reason?

I disagreed with what is being implied here, that journalists don't have to be as vigilant on the Dems.

 

 

I already posted that my wording was bad and told you what I was asking you.

 

Not an attack or critique of you or your position, just trying to clarify where that argument came from.

[RedDenver]

The real question is why you have that opinion after admitting you can't back it up? Not attacking you here - we all have opinions that are little more than speculative hunches. That's not new to anyone. I think we were just trying to figure out if there was a demonstrable reason, or if it was just a gut feeling kind of thing. I personally don't know about Tapper or CNN nearly enough to have an opinion, so I try not to. If you have one, even without being able to provide actual evidence, that's fine, just be upfront about it I guess?

 

I do agree, though, as I hope most everyone would, that the press needs to have a fairly non-partisan standard for fact-checking and accountability regardless of who it's towards. I think, for the most part, they do a good job of that.

As I mentioned before, my opinion is based on what I've seen, but it's not easily shown without asking you to go back and rewatch what Tapper has done.

 

I agree that's how the press should be, but I disagree that they've done a good job of that. But I'm done derailing this thread. We can continue this elsewhere if you want.