Media already criticizing Trump's foreign trip.

[iceberg]

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

 

[Iceweasel]

Every day of his administration has been a disaster so now everything is going to change?
His fuckups will now have international ramifications.

But will he give the pope a picture of his inauguration crowd?

Dumb POS.

Everyday has been a disaster for commies. They almost had the election and it slipped through their hands. Read the board, if the left was happy it would be a disaster for the right.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

Bias, opinion, certainly.
.

 

[iceberg]

Every day of his administration has been a disaster so now everything is going to change?
His fuckups will now have international ramifications.

But will he give the pope a picture of his inauguration crowd?

Dumb POS.

Everyday has been a disaster for commies. They almost had the election and it slipped through their hands. Read the board, if the left was happy it would be a disaster for the right.

and when the left is happy the right is miserable. how did ever let ourselves get into a position where 1/2 our collective lives are unhappy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article. The fact that Trump's behavior has not presented any reason to believe the outcome will be different than what is expected from the article is not the author's fault. See #37

 

[iceberg]

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

Bias, opinion, certainly.
.

that's my issue w/CNN. a vast majority of their headlines are TRUMP SUCKS DOO DOO and follow up later paragraphs of "well maybe, if he did". type articles. they take what he does and push it for max negative effect.

if you want me to believe something trump does is evil and needs to be stopped, they need to stop saying that about everything he says and does. and when your headlines are opinions, the article becomes one also - to me anyway.

and CNN has moved to being a buttload of opinion pieces.

 

[Mac1958]

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article. The fact that Trump's behavior has not presented any reason to believe the outcome will be different than what is expected from the article is not the author's fault. See #37

You still didn't answer my question.

Got it, thanks.
.

 

[Mac1958]

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

Bias, opinion, certainly.
.

that's my issue w/CNN. a vast majority of their headlines are TRUMP SUCKS DOO DOO and follow up later paragraphs of "well maybe, if he did". type articles. they take what he does and push it for max negative effect.

if you want me to believe something trump does is evil and needs to be stopped, they need to stop saying that about everything he says and does. and when your headlines are opinions, the article becomes one also - to me anyway.

and CNN has moved to being a buttload of opinion pieces.

The media has simply dropped all pretense, period.

It's not going to change, so Trump and the GOP will have to find a way to deal with it.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering?

Though I cannot speak for Mac, in my own assessment of whether a piece of journalism is news or commentary, unflattering facts must be presented neutrally. For instance, the story's headline could have been presented in a wide variety of ways that are neutral, that is to say without declaring it a disaster, which is a qualitative conclusion rather than a neutral telling of a story. Two easy ways to have done so are the following:

• Trump's first foreign trip encounters setbacks before it has started.
• Scope of Trump's first foreign trip curtailed before commencing

One'll notice that the first alternative is essentially the message of the first sentence in the piece and specific details presented in the piece corroborate the assessment that some of the changes to the initially planned agenda for the trip are indeed setbacks. They may not be the biggest setbacks that could have or may happen, but setbacks they are.

 

[Iceweasel]

Every day of his administration has been a disaster so now everything is going to change?
His fuckups will now have international ramifications.

But will he give the pope a picture of his inauguration crowd?

Dumb POS.

Everyday has been a disaster for commies. They almost had the election and it slipped through their hands. Read the board, if the left was happy it would be a disaster for the right.

and when the left is happy the right is miserable. how did ever let ourselves get into a position where 1/2 our collective lives are unhappy.

It's easy to understand. The left has gone so far they are socialists and claim the right is dividing the country. Any attempt to slow it down is seen as hate, backwards and evil. I have no intention of getting along with totalitarian maggots like that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

i suppose the next question is - do you deny the headline itself is "leading the witness" heavily? or does it accurately reflect the story?

Media already criticizing Trump's foreign trip.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

"Disaster" makes the headline be opinion. The trip cannot be a disaster until it's at least begun.

 

[BULLDOG]

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article. The fact that Trump's behavior has not presented any reason to believe the outcome will be different than what is expected from the article is not the author's fault. See #37

You still didn't answer my question.

Got it, thanks.
.

You might want to reread my response.

I said
"Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article."

was there a different question?

 

[iceberg]

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

Bias, opinion, certainly.
.

that's my issue w/CNN. a vast majority of their headlines are TRUMP SUCKS DOO DOO and follow up later paragraphs of "well maybe, if he did". type articles. they take what he does and push it for max negative effect.

if you want me to believe something trump does is evil and needs to be stopped, they need to stop saying that about everything he says and does. and when your headlines are opinions, the article becomes one also - to me anyway.

and CNN has moved to being a buttload of opinion pieces.

The media has simply dropped all pretense, period.

It's not going to change, so Trump and the GOP will have to find a way to deal with it.
.

ok - i think we agree. still learning who's who and trying to read to understand in here so if i misfire - pre-apologies.

when i read emotional statements in "news" articles, i stop anymore. it then moves to an opinion piece and i don't care how many "facts" they lace in there to prop their opinions as "Unbiased" - which they simply are not.

i minored in journalism. i worked my way through college as a small town writer / photographer. at one point i said something to the effect of people not caring about higher insurance premiums cause they love their convertible and i was told that was a no no. i need a quote. i need facts to support my opinion.

that standard is gone. it kills me 90% of the "news" is busy trying to get my approval of how they feel about a story, or busy telling me how to feel. not their job but i can go to CNN now and find 4-5 "news" pieces that will contain emotional links and "leading" all through it.

at that point i simply don't care what *facts* you lob in - its an opinion piece.

 

[Mac1958]

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article. The fact that Trump's behavior has not presented any reason to believe the outcome will be different than what is expected from the article is not the author's fault. See #37

You still didn't answer my question.

Got it, thanks.
.

You might want to reread my response.

I said
"Unless you can point out any inaccuracy or irrelevance in the facts, it's a fact based news article."

was there a different question?

Great. I had already assumed you look at it as a fact-based news article.
.

 

[iceberg]

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

"Disaster" makes the headline be opinion. The trip cannot be a disaster until it's at least begun.

and that is my point. CNN and FOX and most "News" agencies litter their articles with this.

this is how fake news grows. period. maybe never intended to do that but opinions are not news.

 

[Seawytch]

Since when is a Yahoo news feed opinion piece "the media"?

 

[iceberg]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being unbiased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

do you read sharyl attkissons work? i view her as one of the few good ones out there.

 

[Mac1958]

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

is the headline a fact, or opinion?

Bias, opinion, certainly.
.

that's my issue w/CNN. a vast majority of their headlines are TRUMP SUCKS DOO DOO and follow up later paragraphs of "well maybe, if he did". type articles. they take what he does and push it for max negative effect.

if you want me to believe something trump does is evil and needs to be stopped, they need to stop saying that about everything he says and does. and when your headlines are opinions, the article becomes one also - to me anyway.

and CNN has moved to being a buttload of opinion pieces.

The media has simply dropped all pretense, period.

It's not going to change, so Trump and the GOP will have to find a way to deal with it.
.

ok - i think we agree. still learning who's who and trying to read to understand in here so if i misfire - pre-apologies.

when i read emotional statements in "news" articles, i stop anymore. it then moves to an opinion piece and i don't care how many "facts" they lace in there to prop their opinions as "Unbiased" - which they simply are not.

i minored in journalism. i worked my way through college as a small town writer / photographer. at one point i said something to the effect of people not caring about higher insurance premiums cause they love their convertible and i was told that was a no no. i need a quote. i need facts to support my opinion.

that standard is gone. it kills me 90% of the "news" is busy trying to get my approval of how they feel about a story, or busy telling me how to feel. not their job but i can go to CNN now and find 4-5 "news" pieces that will contain emotional links and "leading" all through it.

at that point i simply don't care what *facts* you lob in - its an opinion piece.

Yeah, I was in the business for 18 years, and where it is now just horrifies me. It already leaned Left, but the flood of "news" (cough) outlets spawned by the internet has just completely destroyed the profession. And that's not a good thing in a democratic republic.
.

 

[BULLDOG]

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering?

Though I cannot speak for Mac, in my own assessment of whether a piece of journalism is news or commentary, unflattering facts must be presented neutrally. For instance, the story's headline could have been presented in a wide variety of ways that are neutral, that is to say without declaring it a disaster, which is a qualitative conclusion rather than a neutral telling of a story. Two easy ways to have done so are the following:

• Trump's first foreign trip encounters setbacks before it has started.
• Scope of Trump's first foreign trip curtailed before commencing

One'll notice that the first alternative is essentially the message of the first sentence in the piece and specific details presented in the piece corroborate the assessment that some of the changes to the initially planned agenda for the trip are indeed setbacks. They may not be the biggest setbacks that could have or may happen, but setbacks they are.

Odd that so many competent and objective editors don't always make the exact choices that you would make. Do you think that is odd?