Going to be a big door swinging in Washington DC

[usmbguest5318]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

 

[Coyote]

That is a classy move Coyote. Don't see that often on the interwebs.

______________

Nor do you often see someone make such a fool of himself. I think you expect that from some ordinary poster, but this is the chief Moderator with obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hurts the board...makes Sane people feel like they aren't going to be treated fairly when they post.

Not in this case. I know her from another board. She put up a point and defended it as best she could until it was obvious it wasn't correct and then said so. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of other's that wouldn't do the same in any circumstance. Let it go man. She deserves some kudos for coming around. As a bonus our point won right? No need to be an asshole about it when she conceded. Show a little class back and just accept the concession.

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

 

[defcon4]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

WTF??? Uprooting children?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Gotta have room to put the Brownshirts in.

Are you drunk?

Lol...I know this wasn't for me, but yeah, I may be...it'll take another Becks or 2 to know for sure!...carry on

Becks?

You should have a Martini Cocktail, must be Tanqueray No. Ten, orange peel or green olives, shaken but not stirred.

Partaker of the finer things [spirits] in life?

Yes of course

AAAHHHHHHHH, I don't feel as lonely anymore Hamilton

 

[SmokeALib]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

Blame the parents decision to work for a muslim traitor.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

"I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that."

And.

 

[Tresha91203]

Ok everyone. Point taken. Maybe NYT took this out of proportion.

Not just the NYT, but the MSM and Google. Run a search and see what your MSM is pushing. THAT is why we "rightards" don't believe them. I hope you keep this in mind instead of automatically believing their propaganda in the future. It is pervasive. Journalism is dead. Welcome to the reality of DNC Pravda.

I don't agree with your analysis of MSM (and that includes Fox)- I find trustworthyness varies according to the agency and the topics they write about. Broadbrushing them is like broad brushing all liberals as libtards or all conservatives as conservatards. (and, frankly, I get sick of being termed "libtard"). The media is only as good as the readers willingness to apply critical thinking - which I didn't in this OP. Mea Culpa. The NYT article wasn't WRONG in the sense that every statement was factual- it wasn't "fake news" - nothing was made up. But it was presented in such a way as to imply this was something new and unprecedented, and that former administrations had acted differently so it was deliberately being deceptive.

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

 

[yiostheoy]

I think Trump has accurately foreseen that nobody who represents BHO can honestly represent Trump.

This makes perfect sense to me.

Bring home the pacifistic communists asap and replace them with patriot republicans instead.

 

[Coyote]

Ok everyone. Point taken. Maybe NYT took this out of proportion.

Not just the NYT, but the MSM and Google. Run a search and see what your MSM is pushing. THAT is why we "rightards" don't believe them. I hope you keep this in mind instead of automatically believing their propaganda in the future. It is pervasive. Journalism is dead. Welcome to the reality of DNC Pravda.

I don't agree with your analysis of MSM (and that includes Fox)- I find trustworthyness varies according to the agency and the topics they write about. Broadbrushing them is like broad brushing all liberals as libtards or all conservatives as conservatards. (and, frankly, I get sick of being termed "libtard"). The media is only as good as the readers willingness to apply critical thinking - which I didn't in this OP. Mea Culpa. The NYT article wasn't WRONG in the sense that every statement was factual- it wasn't "fake news" - nothing was made up. But it was presented in such a way as to imply this was something new and unprecedented, and that former administrations had acted differently so it was deliberately being deceptive.

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

I think there is a difference between fake news and biased news - no matter the side. Fake news is totally fake. Obama did grant grace periods to some ambassadors, UK ambassador Tuttle for example.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

Blame the parents decision to work for a muslim traitor.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

This article was posted in another thread. It deserves it's own thread. What an incredibly petty, callous and vindictive thing to do - upending people's lives just because you can? Seriously?

In Break With Precedent, Obama Envoys Are Denied Extensions Past Inauguration Day

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

...A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

The directive has nonetheless upended the personal lives of many ambassadors, who are scrambling to secure living arrangements and acquire visas allowing them to remain in their countries so their children can remain in school, the diplomats said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

W. Robert Pearson, a former ambassador to Turkey and a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the rule was “quite extraordinary,” adding that it could undermine American interests and signal a hasty change in direction that exacerbates jitters among allies about their relationships with the new administration.

....Some expressed dismay that Mr. Trump, whose wife, Melania, has chosen to stay in New York to avoid moving the couple’s 10-year-old son, Barron, to a new school midyear, would not ensure that such allowances were made for American ambassadors.

​

They "shouldn't be surprised"? If it breaks with decades of precedent, they of course they would be surprised. No ill will? Really?

Tough shit. Like I should care about a bunch of political elitist assholes.

 

[OKTexas]

This article was posted in another thread. It deserves it's own thread. What an incredibly petty, callous and vindictive thing to do - upending people's lives just because you can? Seriously?

In Break With Precedent, Obama Envoys Are Denied Extensions Past Inauguration Day

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

...A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

The directive has nonetheless upended the personal lives of many ambassadors, who are scrambling to secure living arrangements and acquire visas allowing them to remain in their countries so their children can remain in school, the diplomats said. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly on the matter.

W. Robert Pearson, a former ambassador to Turkey and a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the rule was “quite extraordinary,” adding that it could undermine American interests and signal a hasty change in direction that exacerbates jitters among allies about their relationships with the new administration.

....Some expressed dismay that Mr. Trump, whose wife, Melania, has chosen to stay in New York to avoid moving the couple’s 10-year-old son, Barron, to a new school midyear, would not ensure that such allowances were made for American ambassadors.

​

They "shouldn't be surprised"? If it breaks with decades of precedent, they of course they would be surprised. No ill will? Really?

Tough shit. Like I should care about a bunch of political elitist assholes.

Yep, mostly large donors and patronage positions anyways.

 

[Flopper]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

It's a show of power by Trump. This may be an unusual act for a president but not for Trump. Being president is not about showing you have the power but using it judiciously and wisely.

 

[defcon4]

You're fired, the door can't be big enough, good riddance...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

The New York Times
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS 3 hrs ago

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition staff has issued a blanket edict requiring politically appointed ambassadors to leave their overseas posts by Inauguration Day, according to several American diplomats familiar with the plan, breaking with decades of precedent by declining to provide even the briefest of grace periods.

The mandate — issued “without exceptions,” according to a terse State Department cable sent on Dec. 23, diplomats who saw it said — threatens to leave the United States without Senate-confirmed envoys for months in critical nations like Germany, Canada and Britain. In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

Mr. Trump, by contrast, has taken a hard line against leaving any of President Obama’s political appointees in place as he prepares to take office on Jan. 20 with a mission of dismantling many of his predecessor’s signature foreign and domestic policy achievements. “Political” ambassadors, many of them major donors who are nominated by virtue of close ties with the president, almost always leave at the end of his term; ambassadors who are career diplomats often remain in their posts.

A senior Trump transition official said there was no ill will in the move, describing it as a simple matter of ensuring that Mr. Obama’s overseas appointees leave the government on schedule, just as thousands of political aides at the White House and in federal agencies must do. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity about internal deliberations, said the ambassadors should not be surprised about being held to a hard end date.

...

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

It's a show of power by Trump. This may be an unusual act for a president but not for Trump. Being president is not about showing you have the power but using it judicially and wisely.

...and so he did.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

Blame the parents decision to work for a muslim traitor.

Let's see if you can find something even less intelligent to say. I'm sure you can.

 

[defcon4]

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

In the past, administrations of both parties have often granted extensions on a case-by-case basis to allow a handful of ambassadors, particularly those with school-age children, to remain in place for weeks or months.

I think it astoundingly heartless that Trump is uprooting children like that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, for I know that money doesn't necessarily buy class.

Blame the parents decision to work for a muslim traitor.

Let's see if you can find something even less intelligent to say. I'm sure you can.

Let's see if you can tone down your dramatic entry into the conversation and drop your fake outrage.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

In Break With Past, Obama Ambassadors Are Told to Quit Posts by Inauguration Day

Oh geez, see how dang gone prejudice rules are...they always affect the ones who don't follow them far more negatively as opposed to those who do!...It's just not fair

 

[Tresha91203]

______________

Nor do you often see someone make such a fool of himself. I think you expect that from some ordinary poster, but this is the chief Moderator with obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Hurts the board...makes Sane people feel like they aren't going to be treated fairly when they post.

Not in this case. I know her from another board. She put up a point and defended it as best she could until it was obvious it wasn't correct and then said so. I have no problem with that. There are plenty of other's that wouldn't do the same in any circumstance. Let it go man. She deserves some kudos for coming around. As a bonus our point won right? No need to be an asshole about it when she conceded. Show a little class back and just accept the concession.

She's calling the source that was correct a fake news source but will not call the source pushing DNC propaganda fake news. It's because we are rightards to her as she stated.

If you dislike the term "rightard" then don't use the term "libtard". You do understand that don't you?

I called the Breitbart article claiming Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved "fake news". Ok, I'll make a correction here - it's not "fake news" (though I did use quotes when I used to term since I was being sarcastic) - but it's like the NYT article - it's heavily slanted and biased. It's IMPLYING that Obama's ambassadors were horribly behaved and worse than that of other administrations. Just like the NYT article IMPLIED that Trumps firing of ambassadors was worse than that of other administrations.

The other one I referred to as "fake news" was post 138, and I provided a source showing that it was, at the very least a gross exageration.

So which one are you talking about?

Please post where I've used "libtard."

Both of the ones you called fake news are heavily slanted or gross exaggerations in your opinion so you call them fake news. The NYT and every other MSM outlet that ran with this were heavily slanted and gross exaggerations, even an out and out lie with "unprecedented," but not fake news in your expressed opinion.

That is my point. Even when it is proven to you, you minimize the left's fake news and double down that RW sources are fake news.

Ok. Point taken.

Are you any different when it comes to the left? You seem to minimize the right's fake news and slanted stories while attacking the MSM.

I don't think I've ever called you a rightard.

I defend the left and call out the right. Every "family values" conservative who cheated got slammed by me. I dont slam the left for the same because they dont generally run on sanctity of marriage or family values. Ive called Trump a blowhard and a buffoon. Before the "extremely careless with national security" bit, I expressed I could vote for the Clintons. I defended Obama as a solid family man, good husband, good father, and of course his MIL should live in the WH and travel with her family. I've recommended PP for low income women to obtain birth control and papsmears (the only experience I've had with them, and they were positive experiences).

I dont generally agree politically with the left, so dont much defend their politics. I do defend them as human beings though and freely admit most of them are good people. I am harder on the right, politically, because when one of mine turns out to be a turd, I want him gone gone gone so as not to stink up my house.

I've not found much to defend in the MSM for a long time but I point out both LW propaganda and RW propaganda. I prefer CBC and BBC often. They have a LW filter but are much more honest IMO. I'm married to a Canadian and my FIL is a Brit. I would not really call it a bias, though, more ... a culture? filter? worldview? It's not propaganda meant to steer our opinion as far as I can tell. PBS isn't bad here, but I don't know about other regions. LPBS is what I get.

Apologies if rightard was not meant to apply to the right, in general. That is how I perceived it.

 

[Tresha91203]

Not just the NYT, but the MSM and Google. Run a search and see what your MSM is pushing. THAT is why we "rightards" don't believe them. I hope you keep this in mind instead of automatically believing their propaganda in the future. It is pervasive. Journalism is dead. Welcome to the reality of DNC Pravda.

I don't agree with your analysis of MSM (and that includes Fox)- I find trustworthyness varies according to the agency and the topics they write about. Broadbrushing them is like broad brushing all liberals as libtards or all conservatives as conservatards. (and, frankly, I get sick of being termed "libtard"). The media is only as good as the readers willingness to apply critical thinking - which I didn't in this OP. Mea Culpa. The NYT article wasn't WRONG in the sense that every statement was factual- it wasn't "fake news" - nothing was made up. But it was presented in such a way as to imply this was something new and unprecedented, and that former administrations had acted differently so it was deliberately being deceptive.

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

I think there is a difference between fake news and biased news - no matter the side. Fake news is totally fake. Obama did grant grace periods to some ambassadors, UK ambassador Tuttle for example.

The merge screwed up my resoonse. Propaganda is fake news even if there is a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere. It is designed to mislead the public, which is the opposite of what news is. It is dangerous to the country. It is not news if it has an agenda and uses dishonesty to push that agenda. If it is not news and calls itself news, it is fake news. I usually just call it propaganda. Its just that "fake news" was already being used here.

 

[defcon4]

I don't agree with your analysis of MSM (and that includes Fox)- I find trustworthyness varies according to the agency and the topics they write about. Broadbrushing them is like broad brushing all liberals as libtards or all conservatives as conservatards. (and, frankly, I get sick of being termed "libtard"). The media is only as good as the readers willingness to apply critical thinking - which I didn't in this OP. Mea Culpa. The NYT article wasn't WRONG in the sense that every statement was factual- it wasn't "fake news" - nothing was made up. But it was presented in such a way as to imply this was something new and unprecedented, and that former administrations had acted differently so it was deliberately being deceptive.

And the 2 pages of MSM that did the same?

What 2 pages of "MSM"? MSM is a wide variety of different media sources with differing levels of accuracy and differing bias' - so what are you talking about with this nefarious "MSM"?

Propaganda is not fake news?

News can be fake, biased, slanted, inaccurate and those can all mean different things.
Fake news is fake - mostly made up. One example would be the claim that "Trump Made a Victory Tour in Red Square" or "Pizzagate".

Biased and slanted news is just that - it's "accurate" in so far as the facts check out, but it's formated in such a way as to imply something else or it leaves out information and context that provides the whole picture. It's not fake news.

News can also just be wrong - for example the election predictions (and predictions are just that, predictions) - it's not not necessarily deliberate slanting or bias.

Right wing propaganda is fake news and left wing propaganda isn't?

Anything can be fake news.

The story was a lie. It is NOT unprecedented. It is the norm. They made up a story and the MSM pushed it.

The facts presented in the story weren't lies - the conclusions and the implications were dishonest and heavily slanted.

Trump DID say - NO EXCEPTIONS
Precedent of previous administrations was that the incoming administration could be petitioned for exceptions and they might or might not be granted.
The article left out a lot of context - for example, that what Trump did was largely normal and in line with other administrations who had granted exceptions (but not that many). The NYT slanted the story to imply that Trump was being far crueler than preceding administrations.

Many of those same outlets published when Obama did the same but with no negative connotations. The whole story is that Trump is hurting children and families in this unprecedented spiteful move. That is FAKE NEWS and it has been ongoing for a long time. Of course we don't trust them. You shouldn't either, much less show such disdain for people who rightly call the MSM heavily left leaning.

I don't trust your rightwing-leaning MSM outlets either with all the negative, fake and dishonest reporting they've done on Obama. But it's not necessarily "fake news".

did obama grant grace periods to bush ambassadors - Google Search

After 2 pages with no mention of what happened to Bush's ambassadors, I had to abandon Google for another engine. What shows up is Trump's unprescedented (outright lie) action.

NYT, Politico and CNN on page 1 of the search. I call propaganda fake news no matter the side.

I think there is a difference between fake news and biased news - no matter the side. Fake news is totally fake. Obama did grant grace periods to some ambassadors, UK ambassador Tuttle for example.

The merge screwed up my resoonse. Propaganda is fake news even if there is a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere. It is designed to mislead the public, which is the opposite of what news is. It is dangerous to the country. It is not news if it has an agenda and uses dishonesty to push that agenda. If it is not news and calls itself news, it is fake news. I usually just call it propaganda. Its just that "fake news" was already being used here.

Half truths are more misleading than straight lies.