No, this isn't the Pentagon Papers Redux.

[SavannahMann]

The media in an effort to give their witch hunt into all things Trump have been scrambling to try and find a justification other than "we hate him". The problem is that their justifications are either shallow, or asinine. Today, we have one of each wrapped in one.

In Battling the Media, Trump Is Harming You | RealClearPolitics

Richard Cohen argues that the media's efforts against Trump are sort of like the Pentagon Papers. He quotes a luminary of the era to say that it is not about the First Amendment, or anything like that. It is about the right of the people to read what is going on.

In a way, he's almost right. The people do have a right to read what is going on. The problem is that the modern media luminaries are the self appointed censors that screw that right up.

First, let's be honest. The media has given passes to all things Democrat for decades. I'm writing this as a Democratic Voter for pretty much my entire life. Trump is the first election where I voted Republican.

Now, what is going on? The media is in a race to see who can bring down Trump and be the next Woodward and Bernstein. They are in such a hurry that they aren't doing what they are supposed to, which is check the stories before they print them. When the stories are inevitably checked, they are false, and somehow that is Trump's fault. I'm not sure how that is Trump's fault. Perhaps it's Trump's fault that the truth came out, or perhaps it's Trump's fault that he didn't really do whatever awful thing they are accusing him of this time.

Now, the media is circling the proverbial wagons. They are now arguing that Trump is awful because he is "attacking" the press that is attacking him. There be a rub to this mentality. That rub is that just because the person is President doesn't mean he has to endure lies from the media any more than anyone else does.

The Media's shield is the phrase "absence of malice". It means that when they print something that is untrue, or harmful, they do so with an absence of malice, they did not look for a story that harmed the subject. This is obviously not true with the plethora of stories about Trump. It is normal and even expected that the tabloids have stories about someone dining on the flesh of babies. It is normal, and even expected to have something like the National Enquirer claim that there is a grand conspiracy, usually concerning Aliens, that the subject is a part of. Yet, these stories have jumped from Tabloids to mainstream.

Now the public does have a right to read, and hear the truth. Yet this dedication to finding the truth is focused in one direction. It rarely sees the political allies of the media similarly targeted.

If you are going to argue that the President is dangerous because he limits the truth that can be told, then one wonders why the previous administration was not similarly targeted? The only truth that is in that statement is that any President is dangerous if the truth is limited.

No, this is not a Pentagon Papers situation Redux. It is a political witch hunt that has a focused target. That is what the people are objecting to, and that is what has essentially destroyed your credibility as a journalist Mr. Cohan. There is always truth to be told, but when your determination to find that truth drives you to these levels of impropriety then it isn't truth you are looking for. When someone says that you are essentially no different than the National Enquirer it is not an attack on the media industry, it is a truthful comment on your own journalistic standards.

Find the truth, check the sources, and then publish the story. But do so within sight of the level of effort you put into the Democratic Party.

 

[Meathead]

The media in an effort to give their witch hunt into all things Trump have been scrambling to try and find a justification other than "we hate him". The problem is that their justifications are either shallow, or asinine. Today, we have one of each wrapped in one.

In Battling the Media, Trump Is Harming You | RealClearPolitics

Richard Cohen argues that the media's efforts against Trump are sort of like the Pentagon Papers. He quotes a luminary of the era to say that it is not about the First Amendment, or anything like that. It is about the right of the people to read what is going on.

In a way, he's almost right. The people do have a right to read what is going on. The problem is that the modern media luminaries are the self appointed censors that screw that right up.

First, let's be honest. The media has given passes to all things Democrat for decades. I'm writing this as a Democratic Voter for pretty much my entire life. Trump is the first election where I voted Republican.

Now, what is going on? The media is in a race to see who can bring down Trump and be the next Woodward and Bernstein. They are in such a hurry that they aren't doing what they are supposed to, which is check the stories before they print them. When the stories are inevitably checked, they are false, and somehow that is Trump's fault. I'm not sure how that is Trump's fault. Perhaps it's Trump's fault that the truth came out, or perhaps it's Trump's fault that he didn't really do whatever awful thing they are accusing him of this time.

Now, the media is circling the proverbial wagons. They are now arguing that Trump is awful because he is "attacking" the press that is attacking him. There be a rub to this mentality. That rub is that just because the person is President doesn't mean he has to endure lies from the media any more than anyone else does.

The Media's shield is the phrase "absence of malice". It means that when they print something that is untrue, or harmful, they do so with an absence of malice, they did not look for a story that harmed the subject. This is obviously not true with the plethora of stories about Trump. It is normal and even expected that the tabloids have stories about someone dining on the flesh of babies. It is normal, and even expected to have something like the National Enquirer claim that there is a grand conspiracy, usually concerning Aliens, that the subject is a part of. Yet, these stories have jumped from Tabloids to mainstream.

Now the public does have a right to read, and hear the truth. Yet this dedication to finding the truth is focused in one direction. It rarely sees the political allies of the media similarly targeted.

If you are going to argue that the President is dangerous because he limits the truth that can be told, then one wonders why the previous administration was not similarly targeted? The only truth that is in that statement is that any President is dangerous if the truth is limited.

No, this is not a Pentagon Papers situation Redux. It is a political witch hunt that has a focused target. That is what the people are objecting to, and that is what has essentially destroyed your credibility as a journalist Mr. Cohan. There is always truth to be told, but when your determination to find that truth drives you to these levels of impropriety then it isn't truth you are looking for. When someone says that you are essentially no different than the National Enquirer it is not an attack on the media industry, it is a truthful comment on your own journalistic standards.

Find the truth, check the sources, and then publish the story. But do so within sight of the level of effort you put into the Democratic Party.

It's more a Dan Rather report on Bush 2's national guard serrvice.

 

[occupied]

Don't blame the media for covering a train wreck, especially when it is a circus train hitting a busload of nuns in grand central station. The president and his cohort of shady characters seem to be working diligently to provide the media with outrageous shit to report. Is it their plan to act guilty on every allegation? Perhaps to bolster their claims that the media is beating up on them? They act all hurt that they are not getting positive treatment after embarking on outrage after outrage while insulting every media outlet that does not kiss Trump's ass. For someone who reveled in the public eye for decades Trump acts like he never had a clue how the media works.

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Alfred Harmsworth

Your man has bitten so many dogs the ASPCA ought to be informed.

 

[SavannahMann]

Don't blame the media for covering a train wreck, especially when it is a circus train hitting a busload of nuns in grand central station. The president and his cohort of shady characters seem to be working diligently to provide the media with outrageous shit to report. Is it their plan to act guilty on every allegation? Perhaps to bolster their claims that the media is beating up on them? They act all hurt that they are not getting positive treatment after embarking on outrage after outrage while insulting every media outlet that does not kiss Trump's ass. For someone who reveled in the public eye for decades Trump acts like he never had a clue how the media works.

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Alfred Harmsworth

Your man has bitten so many dogs the ASPCA ought to be informed.

To use your analogy of biting the dog. You shout the is biting dogs and it one on Monday at this location. It turns out that he was not there on Monday. He could not have bitten the dog at that time.

Then you say sorry and launch into a complaint that he bit other dogs and you know he did. So as each claim is examined they start to fall apart. That is what is happening now. At this point the Russian Collusion claim is so discredited that whatever truth remains is going to be pretty minimal.

The poster above argued it was like Dan Rather. It sort of is like that. When the documents were proven to have been forged Rather drove the final nail in his coffin by arguing that the story was true despite the evidence being false.

I'm not arguing that Trump is a good guy. He isn't. I'd have loved to vote for just about any Democrat. The only one I absolutely couldn't vote for was Hillary. That is who I was given.

This election was odd. Both parties nominated their worst candidates. For a majority of the states Hillary was the worst of the bad choices.

Now if you want to argue Trump is bad you won't get much argument from me. But when you do so use proof that is actually true. Don't pull a Rather and say the story is true even if the proof is false.

When you do the proof that is true is diminished to irrelevance by the asinine desire to destroy Trump.

 

[occupied]

Don't blame the media for covering a train wreck, especially when it is a circus train hitting a busload of nuns in grand central station. The president and his cohort of shady characters seem to be working diligently to provide the media with outrageous shit to report. Is it their plan to act guilty on every allegation? Perhaps to bolster their claims that the media is beating up on them? They act all hurt that they are not getting positive treatment after embarking on outrage after outrage while insulting every media outlet that does not kiss Trump's ass. For someone who reveled in the public eye for decades Trump acts like he never had a clue how the media works.

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Alfred Harmsworth

Your man has bitten so many dogs the ASPCA ought to be informed.

To use your analogy of biting the dog. You shout the is biting dogs and it one on Monday at this location. It turns out that he was not there on Monday. He could not have bitten the dog at that time.

Then you say sorry and launch into a complaint that he bit other dogs and you know he did. So as each claim is examined they start to fall apart. That is what is happening now. At this point the Russian Collusion claim is so discredited that whatever truth remains is going to be pretty minimal.

The poster above argued it was like Dan Rather. It sort of is like that. When the documents were proven to have been forged Rather drove the final nail in his coffin by arguing that the story was true despite the evidence being false.

I'm not arguing that Trump is a good guy. He isn't. I'd have loved to vote for just about any Democrat. The only one I absolutely couldn't vote for was Hillary. That is who I was given.

This election was odd. Both parties nominated their worst candidates. For a majority of the states Hillary was the worst of the bad choices.

Now if you want to argue Trump is bad you won't get much argument from me. But when you do so use proof that is actually true. Don't pull a Rather and say the story is true even if the proof is false.

When you do the proof that is true is diminished to irrelevance by the asinine desire to destroy Trump.

Nixon was into his second term before that bad old media finally found enough dirt to to sink his corrupt presidency. The Nixon administration also claimed he was being unfairly targeted by malicious slander all the way up to the time he had to resign in shame. On every political scandal ever uncovered by the media you seem to forget that long before there was fire some reporter smelled smoke. You want absolute proof of every allegation before it hits the media? That's not how it has ever worked. It starts with a tip or a leak that is often unsubstatiated and then the story develops from there. Things that are true are eventually borne out while bullshit ends up in the trash. Too many of these stories seem to have enough continuing supporting evidence to keep going and growing, that is not the media's fault.

 

[SavannahMann]

Don't blame the media for covering a train wreck, especially when it is a circus train hitting a busload of nuns in grand central station. The president and his cohort of shady characters seem to be working diligently to provide the media with outrageous shit to report. Is it their plan to act guilty on every allegation? Perhaps to bolster their claims that the media is beating up on them? They act all hurt that they are not getting positive treatment after embarking on outrage after outrage while insulting every media outlet that does not kiss Trump's ass. For someone who reveled in the public eye for decades Trump acts like he never had a clue how the media works.

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Alfred Harmsworth

Your man has bitten so many dogs the ASPCA ought to be informed.

To use your analogy of biting the dog. You shout the is biting dogs and it one on Monday at this location. It turns out that he was not there on Monday. He could not have bitten the dog at that time.

Then you say sorry and launch into a complaint that he bit other dogs and you know he did. So as each claim is examined they start to fall apart. That is what is happening now. At this point the Russian Collusion claim is so discredited that whatever truth remains is going to be pretty minimal.

The poster above argued it was like Dan Rather. It sort of is like that. When the documents were proven to have been forged Rather drove the final nail in his coffin by arguing that the story was true despite the evidence being false.

I'm not arguing that Trump is a good guy. He isn't. I'd have loved to vote for just about any Democrat. The only one I absolutely couldn't vote for was Hillary. That is who I was given.

This election was odd. Both parties nominated their worst candidates. For a majority of the states Hillary was the worst of the bad choices.

Now if you want to argue Trump is bad you won't get much argument from me. But when you do so use proof that is actually true. Don't pull a Rather and say the story is true even if the proof is false.

When you do the proof that is true is diminished to irrelevance by the asinine desire to destroy Trump.

Nixon was into his second term before that bad old media finally found enough dirt to to sink his corrupt presidency. The Nixon administration also claimed he was being unfairly targeted by malicious slander all the way up to the time he had to resign in shame. On every political scandal ever uncovered by the media you seem to forget that long before there was fire some reporter smelled smoke. You want absolute proof of every allegation before it hits the media? That's not how it has ever worked. It starts with a tip or a leak that is often unsubstatiated and then the story develops from there. Things that are true are eventually borne out while bullshit ends up in the trash. Too many of these stories seem to have enough continuing supporting evidence to keep going and growing, that is not the media's fault.

Nixon was targeted for a lot of things that he didn't do before he did so something. No one seems to remember that Nixon's great crime was riding the cover up. He didn't order the break in. He'd have finished out his term without any real problems if upon learning of the break in he had turned the entire mess over to the Attorney General. Thus proving one of my truths, that lies always make it worse.

So far the allegations against Trump are not smelling smoke other than the smoke curling up from the ears of the people who hate him above all else. That is always a bad place to start. When you hate something, you inevitably become that which you hate.

Trump is a blowhard, a bit more shallow on the issues than I think is good. He is a bully, but he hasn't colluded with Russia. All the evidence of that is at best a stretch of the imagination. Yet we are going to investigate it, and run more stories on it, despite the fact, not allegation, fact that there is no proof what so ever. In fact, all the evidence says he didn't do anything.

You can claim some possibly improper contacts by his subordinates, but that isn't going anywhere either. The argument that he gave classified information to the Russians during the meeting was just asinine. The classified information in question had been published in the newspaper a couple weeks before and was the subject of a Homeland Security order which required all laptop computers to be carried in the cargo compartment of planes traveling from Europe to the United States. Not only was it published in the newspapers, but the Department of Homeland Insecurity had put out an order requiring that planes traveling do something, and giving the reason why.

But that isn't stopping those from screaming that Trump gave up classified information. Pfui. All you are doing is screaming at the man, and the worst part is that much like the story of the boy who cried wolf, you are diminishing the actual complaints with some grounds to them.

I wrote a long time ago that I hoped the Democratic Party figured out what is really important, and began to run on issues, getting those core beliefs back so I could again support them. I'm not the only one who hopes this is in the future, but so far I've seen no sign of this hope bearing fruit. The Democratic Party seems to insist on being the bizarro version of the Republicans. Whatever the Republicans are for, the Democrats are against. If the Republicans are against it, the Democrats are in favor just to be consistently opposed to the Republicans.

Fight Trump on the issues, ignore the bluster and attack him with facts. You'll win that way. Getting Trump impeached, and even making that a goal of the midterms is asinine. First, all you'll do is get another Republican sworn in as President. Then what? Go after Pence, Ryan, and the rest of the Republicans on down? While you are screaming wolf wolf every time a Republican comes up, people will get bored, and then start to roll their eyes about it.

Think Rose Law Firm Billing records. The smoke that was heralded by the Right when Hillary was First Lady was nothing after the truth finally came out. There are a lot of examples, and when the facts don't match the hype, it goes the way of the dodo, and takes future arguements against the person with it.

Every failed effort to pin the smoke on Trump decreases the chances of pinning something real on him.

 

[occupied]

Don't blame the media for covering a train wreck, especially when it is a circus train hitting a busload of nuns in grand central station. The president and his cohort of shady characters seem to be working diligently to provide the media with outrageous shit to report. Is it their plan to act guilty on every allegation? Perhaps to bolster their claims that the media is beating up on them? They act all hurt that they are not getting positive treatment after embarking on outrage after outrage while insulting every media outlet that does not kiss Trump's ass. For someone who reveled in the public eye for decades Trump acts like he never had a clue how the media works.

"When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news."

Alfred Harmsworth

Your man has bitten so many dogs the ASPCA ought to be informed.

To use your analogy of biting the dog. You shout the is biting dogs and it one on Monday at this location. It turns out that he was not there on Monday. He could not have bitten the dog at that time.

Then you say sorry and launch into a complaint that he bit other dogs and you know he did. So as each claim is examined they start to fall apart. That is what is happening now. At this point the Russian Collusion claim is so discredited that whatever truth remains is going to be pretty minimal.

The poster above argued it was like Dan Rather. It sort of is like that. When the documents were proven to have been forged Rather drove the final nail in his coffin by arguing that the story was true despite the evidence being false.

I'm not arguing that Trump is a good guy. He isn't. I'd have loved to vote for just about any Democrat. The only one I absolutely couldn't vote for was Hillary. That is who I was given.

This election was odd. Both parties nominated their worst candidates. For a majority of the states Hillary was the worst of the bad choices.

Now if you want to argue Trump is bad you won't get much argument from me. But when you do so use proof that is actually true. Don't pull a Rather and say the story is true even if the proof is false.

When you do the proof that is true is diminished to irrelevance by the asinine desire to destroy Trump.

Nixon was into his second term before that bad old media finally found enough dirt to to sink his corrupt presidency. The Nixon administration also claimed he was being unfairly targeted by malicious slander all the way up to the time he had to resign in shame. On every political scandal ever uncovered by the media you seem to forget that long before there was fire some reporter smelled smoke. You want absolute proof of every allegation before it hits the media? That's not how it has ever worked. It starts with a tip or a leak that is often unsubstatiated and then the story develops from there. Things that are true are eventually borne out while bullshit ends up in the trash. Too many of these stories seem to have enough continuing supporting evidence to keep going and growing, that is not the media's fault.

Nixon was targeted for a lot of things that he didn't do before he did so something. No one seems to remember that Nixon's great crime was riding the cover up. He didn't order the break in. He'd have finished out his term without any real problems if upon learning of the break in he had turned the entire mess over to the Attorney General. Thus proving one of my truths, that lies always make it worse.

So far the allegations against Trump are not smelling smoke other than the smoke curling up from the ears of the people who hate him above all else. That is always a bad place to start. When you hate something, you inevitably become that which you hate.

Trump is a blowhard, a bit more shallow on the issues than I think is good. He is a bully, but he hasn't colluded with Russia. All the evidence of that is at best a stretch of the imagination. Yet we are going to investigate it, and run more stories on it, despite the fact, not allegation, fact that there is no proof what so ever. In fact, all the evidence says he didn't do anything.

You can claim some possibly improper contacts by his subordinates, but that isn't going anywhere either. The argument that he gave classified information to the Russians during the meeting was just asinine. The classified information in question had been published in the newspaper a couple weeks before and was the subject of a Homeland Security order which required all laptop computers to be carried in the cargo compartment of planes traveling from Europe to the United States. Not only was it published in the newspapers, but the Department of Homeland Insecurity had put out an order requiring that planes traveling do something, and giving the reason why.

But that isn't stopping those from screaming that Trump gave up classified information. Pfui. All you are doing is screaming at the man, and the worst part is that much like the story of the boy who cried wolf, you are diminishing the actual complaints with some grounds to them.

I wrote a long time ago that I hoped the Democratic Party figured out what is really important, and began to run on issues, getting those core beliefs back so I could again support them. I'm not the only one who hopes this is in the future, but so far I've seen no sign of this hope bearing fruit. The Democratic Party seems to insist on being the bizarro version of the Republicans. Whatever the Republicans are for, the Democrats are against. If the Republicans are against it, the Democrats are in favor just to be consistently opposed to the Republicans.

Fight Trump on the issues, ignore the bluster and attack him with facts. You'll win that way. Getting Trump impeached, and even making that a goal of the midterms is asinine. First, all you'll do is get another Republican sworn in as President. Then what? Go after Pence, Ryan, and the rest of the Republicans on down? While you are screaming wolf wolf every time a Republican comes up, people will get bored, and then start to roll their eyes about it.

Think Rose Law Firm Billing records. The smoke that was heralded by the Right when Hillary was First Lady was nothing after the truth finally came out. There are a lot of examples, and when the facts don't match the hype, it goes the way of the dodo, and takes future arguements against the person with it.

Every failed effort to pin the smoke on Trump decreases the chances of pinning something real on him.

Every time they turn over a rock they find a Russian. The republicans who are controlling most of these investigations would really love to just drop it and forget it but damned if nearly all the Trump inner circle has Russian connections, many of which went undisclosed in confirmation. Smoke was what we had in November, way beyond that now.

 

[HenryBHough]

It's more a Dan Rather report on Bush 2's national guard service.

"Dan Rather"?

Wasn't he a shortstop for the (once) Boston Braves?