Trump and the Press

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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?

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

 

And I'm trying to figure out how he's not being as vigilante now.

 

When was this type of commentary warranted before?

[Landlord]

I am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems.

 

 

You're saying he isn't being as vigilant. We're asking for whatever is leading you to that conclusion.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

 

And I'm trying to figure out how he's not being as vigilante now.

 

When was this type of commentary warranted before?

 

It was ALWAYS warranted.

 

Thought experiment: should we be less vigilant towards Putin because Stalin was way worse?

[QMany]

I agree, if Democrats are fabricating massacres and other facts, I hope he is equally viligant.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

And I'm trying to figure out how he's not being as vigilante now.

 

When was this type of commentary warranted before?

It was ALWAYS warranted.

 

Thought experiment: should we be less vigilant towards Putin because Stalin was way worse?

 

I worded a couple replies badly but I think you understand what I'm saying and are choosing to ignore it. What I'd like is evidence that he's being more vigilant with Trump. The fact he's doing all this with Trump isn't evidence. It could easily be that with Trump there are far more things to scrutinize.

[RedDenver]

 

I am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems.

 

 

You're saying he isn't being as vigilant. We're asking for whatever is leading you to that conclusion.

 

It's hard to prove the negation. I'm not sure how to show that Tapper didn't talk about issues critical of the Dems. So I ask, show me where Tapper was hard on the Dems. Only time that comes to mind was when Donna Brazille leaked the CNN townhall question.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

I am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems.

 

You're saying he isn't being as vigilant. We're asking for whatever is leading you to that conclusion.

It's hard to prove the negation. I'm not sure how to show that Tapper didn't talk about issues critical of the Dems. So I ask, show me where Tapper was hard on the Dems. Only time that comes to mind was when Donna Brazille leaked the CNN townhall question.

This is going to be pretty circular conversation.

 

So I will just say that you initiated it. You said he's not as vigilant with Democrats.

 

It seems clear as day to me that no politician we have ever had before this year deserved the criticism Trump and his people have received. There is no comparison. If it seems Tapper is being hyper vigilant it's because the things Trump is saying and doing are far more concerning.

 

He could easily have been as vigilant with Obama. The problem is Obama didn't say or do similar sh#t to what Trump is saying and doing.

[RedDenver]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

And I'm trying to figure out how he's not being as vigilante now.

 

When was this type of commentary warranted before?

It was ALWAYS warranted.

 

Thought experiment: should we be less vigilant towards Putin because Stalin was way worse?

 

I worded a couple replies badly but I think you understand what I'm saying and are choosing to ignore it. What I'd like is evidence that he's being more vigilant with Trump. The fact he's doing all this with Trump isn't evidence. It could easily be that with Trump there are far more things to scrutinize.

 

I'm not choosing to ignore anything. 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. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm not sure how to convince you of Tapper being less vigilant other than to say, prove me wrong. Show me his previous vigilance. And yes, Trump is doing far more crazy stuff in a short time frame, so Tapper may just have more things to scrutinize.

[ColoNoCoHusker]

One of the things that is so dangerous right now is normalizing any of what Trump/WH/GOP are doing and how they are doing it. If Tapper wasn't as hard Dem's, it may have been that the Dem's weren't outright lying, intentionally spreading falsehoods, alienating the press, and actively working to rollback the previous 8 years (or more) of government. I can make the argument that GW was to conservatives as Obama was to liberals. There is no corollary with Trump in modern history.

 

Tapper is a typical political journalist. He asks the questions that need to be asked and will typically settle for the typical political answer. In that interview, the answers are anything but forthcoming and accurate and far from typical politi-speak. Tapper didn't have a choice to push for answers if he takes himself seriously.

 

A better thought experiment analogous to the current situation is are you more likely to burn your skin by getting into a bath of lukewarm water or by running into a burning building covered in jet fuel? Wouldn't one need to be more vigilant for the higher risk scenario if the goal is to avoid being burned?

 

EDIT: Moiraine answered while I was typing. Leaving this here for reasons.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tapper is doing a decent job right now, but he's been far less vigilant on the Dems.

Point out when and where Democrats did anything even approaching what Trump and his ilk are doing now.

Strawman. I made no such claim.

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 am saying he should be as vigilant on the Dems. I think as a journalist he should be equally vigilante regardless of party affiliation. Be a journalist and speak truth to power, no matter who/what that power is.

And I'm trying to figure out how he's not being as vigilante now.

 

When was this type of commentary warranted before?

It was ALWAYS warranted.

 

Thought experiment: should we be less vigilant towards Putin because Stalin was way worse?

I worded a couple replies badly but I think you understand what I'm saying and are choosing to ignore it. What I'd like is evidence that he's being more vigilant with Trump. The fact he's doing all this with Trump isn't evidence. It could easily be that with Trump there are far more things to scrutinize.

I'm not choosing to ignore anything. 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. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm not sure how to convince you of Tapper being less vigilant other than to say, prove me wrong. Show me his previous vigilance. And yes, Trump is doing far more crazy stuff in a short time frame, so Tapper may just have more things to scrutinize.

 

I mean, when I bring something up like that I usually have evidence with it. I don't toss something out there and tell other people to prove it wrong.

 

You have no proof he's being more vigilant with Trump but you say he's being more vigilant with Trump. Despite the evidence that Trump is far and away more deserving of criticism. Putting 2 and 2 together, I'm guessing he's being pretty damn fair with his vigilance but what he dug up on Democrats wasn't as newsworthy because what they did didn't approach this.

 

There's literally no way to prove he's less vigilant with the Democrats unless we see them doing something similar to Trump and Tapper lets it go.

[RedDenver]

He could easily have been as vigilant with Obama. The problem is Obama didn't say or do similar sh#t to what Trump is saying and doing.

I wish he had been just as vigilant. I agree, there's far more stuff to uncover about Trump than Obama.

[Landlord]

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.

[RedDenver]

Tapper is a typical political journalist. He asks the questions that need to be asked and will typically settle for the typical political answer. In that interview, the answers are anything but forthcoming and accurate and far from typical politi-speak. Tapper didn't have a choice to push for answers if he takes himself seriously.

I think this explains it perfectly.