the major difference is that nixon was too clever for his own good, while trump is too stupid for anybody's good. he's dooming himself, tweet by tweet.
The hypocrisy of the Times can be startling. It gets virtually all of the facts wrong on its recent front page article about Trump and Russian intelligence efforts and then complains about loose facts by unprofessional journalists.
From the considerably more pedestrian but apparently more reliable Post:
"Referring specifically to the (NY)Times piece, Comey said: “The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”
“In the main,” Comey continued, the Times story “was not true.”
Okay, there’s a little wiggle room in there when you say “in the main.” But Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made sure there was no misunderstanding when he asked Comey: Would it be fair to characterize the story as “almost entirely wrong”?
Comey answered, “Yes.”"
Did you see any hearline coverage of the retraction and apology by the Times? A mild correction was found buried on page A21 where the rabid Left will never see it nor alter their views as a consequence.
From the considerably more pedestrian but apparently more reliable Post:
"Referring specifically to the (NY)Times piece, Comey said: “The challenge, and I’m not picking on reporters, about writing stories about classified information is the people talking about it often don’t really know what’s going on and those of us who actually know what’s going on are not talking about it.”
“In the main,” Comey continued, the Times story “was not true.”
Okay, there’s a little wiggle room in there when you say “in the main.” But Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made sure there was no misunderstanding when he asked Comey: Would it be fair to characterize the story as “almost entirely wrong”?
Comey answered, “Yes.”"
Did you see any hearline coverage of the retraction and apology by the Times? A mild correction was found buried on page A21 where the rabid Left will never see it nor alter their views as a consequence.
1
This article makes an important point - and then unintentionally illustrates that point. Previously, debates between the two parties proceeded from an agreed-upon set of facts. Those facts were always a given, forming a common baseline from which the parties could make their arguments. But now, each party has its own set of facts, so they're not even speaking the same language when they argue. US politics no longer resemble a football game; it resembles a bizarre amalgam in which one team thinks it's playing football and the other thinks it's playing baseball.
After making this important point, the article then provides a perfect illustration by suggesting (though not outright stating) that the left's facts are correct, and the right's are not. Much as I dislike Trump, I remain skeptical of both parties' narratives until and unless they are proven true. Would that the media shared my skepticism.
Sadly, in today's Washington D.C., Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable observation is no longer true: everyone, it seems, is entitled to his or her own facts. And the NYT is not exempt from that.
After making this important point, the article then provides a perfect illustration by suggesting (though not outright stating) that the left's facts are correct, and the right's are not. Much as I dislike Trump, I remain skeptical of both parties' narratives until and unless they are proven true. Would that the media shared my skepticism.
Sadly, in today's Washington D.C., Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable observation is no longer true: everyone, it seems, is entitled to his or her own facts. And the NYT is not exempt from that.
1
This is a good comparison of the then and now environments from he two periods. However, it misses one essential point. During the NIxon Presidency the charge of obstruction of justice had a chance of sticking because there was an underlying crime, i.e. the Watergate break in. A similar charge against President Trump has zero chance of sticking because there is no underlying crime. In fact, the special investigator himself shouldn't exist, the DOJ's counter intelligence division supervised by the AG should simply do the counterintelligence investigation they are being paid to do.
Russia may or may not have tried to influence our election. And, they probably did; just as we try to influence the election of other democracies in ways that favor our national interest. And, in this case there is no evidence the Russian had any hand in Clinton's defeat--that's something her own felonious behave, exposed by Wikileaks and the Podesta emails made clear, and by her own unfocused weak campaign.
What we are seeing is political theater, designed to slow or prevent the fundamental changes Trump is trying to make in how our nation functions, that would return the nation to a decentralized federalist construct with limited federal power. This is now our Constitution envisioned the country would work and it is a design that progressives, establishment politicians, and the administrative state can not abilde.
Russia may or may not have tried to influence our election. And, they probably did; just as we try to influence the election of other democracies in ways that favor our national interest. And, in this case there is no evidence the Russian had any hand in Clinton's defeat--that's something her own felonious behave, exposed by Wikileaks and the Podesta emails made clear, and by her own unfocused weak campaign.
What we are seeing is political theater, designed to slow or prevent the fundamental changes Trump is trying to make in how our nation functions, that would return the nation to a decentralized federalist construct with limited federal power. This is now our Constitution envisioned the country would work and it is a design that progressives, establishment politicians, and the administrative state can not abilde.
2
Just like the Julius Caesar play on Broadway, Watergate analogy has no basis in facts.
1
The news/entertainment conglomerates (including the NY Times) have spent the better part of the past decade jettisoning whatever credibility they have left, and Mr. Rutenberg wonders why we have no set of "shared facts". If he wants to know why few people believe what the Times tells us is "news", he should take a long look in the mirror. It was his Page 1 story last summer that advocated for so-called journalists to ditch their "journalistic ethics" in order to rise up and defeat Donald Trump.
To whatever varying degrees people trust today's news reporters, Mr. Rutenberg can rest assured that at the very least this 45-year Times consumer does not accept a single word he writes as truth.
To whatever varying degrees people trust today's news reporters, Mr. Rutenberg can rest assured that at the very least this 45-year Times consumer does not accept a single word he writes as truth.
1
I notice that nowhere in this piece is there an acknowledgement by the writer that the blaring headlines the Times put out all last week after tips from "anonymous sources" about what Comey was going to say.. turned out to be not only false,but extremely faulty - when Comey said the exact opposite of what the NY Times wrote he was going to say. That's more than a little tiny "oopsie".
1
The writer answers his own question.
It used to be only three legacy tv networks, PBS and major newspapers..carrying wire service stories.
The perspective was all from a liberal worldview.
The advent of the internet, talk radio, FNC, etc.. is what opened my eyes to the FACT that the last 40 years of 'reporting' had been done by people who were overwhelmingly left of center.
And now i lean right. Progressive media bias is real.. who knows what scandals were buried by these supposed people of integrity.
It used to be only three legacy tv networks, PBS and major newspapers..carrying wire service stories.
The perspective was all from a liberal worldview.
The advent of the internet, talk radio, FNC, etc.. is what opened my eyes to the FACT that the last 40 years of 'reporting' had been done by people who were overwhelmingly left of center.
And now i lean right. Progressive media bias is real.. who knows what scandals were buried by these supposed people of integrity.
1
NYT has no shame. Claiming
"All of it gives the Trump White House something Nixon never had: a loyal media armada ready to attack inconvenient truths and the credibility of potentially damning witnesses and news reports while trumpeting the presidential counternarrative, at times with counterfactual versions of events."
after Comey testified that NYT article on Trump campaign contact with Russia was completely wrong.
"All of it gives the Trump White House something Nixon never had: a loyal media armada ready to attack inconvenient truths and the credibility of potentially damning witnesses and news reports while trumpeting the presidential counternarrative, at times with counterfactual versions of events."
after Comey testified that NYT article on Trump campaign contact with Russia was completely wrong.
2
The election deniers are rapidly running out of lies to justify their coup
1
Please. Comey is the new "Deep Throat", by his own admission. Others are starting to uncover his serial leaks to the Times over the past six months..all of which served to undermine the Trump Administration. Meanwhile, Comey flatly refused to contradict the press when they got it wrong, such as repeated reports that Trump himself was under investigation. Comey's lame excuse? He might have to correct himself later if Trump did become part of the investigation. As if that's not exactly what he did with Ms. Clinton and the shifting truth of that FBI "matter".
3
"In Watergate, One Set of Facts. In Trump Era, Take Your Pick."
And the media is directly responsible for the situation due to their partisan reporting of unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources.
And the media is directly responsible for the situation due to their partisan reporting of unsubstantiated reports from anonymous sources.
8
Yes and no. Plainly, it was a different era. But Watergate broke after four years or so of Nixon and he resigned after six. By contrast Trump's legitimacy was under attack even before he took office. To some degree this was true of Obama as well. Put differently, both sides have changed, and not only the Republican Right: everyone has an exaggerated sense of virtue and there isn't much conversation between them--a rather discouraging situation.
3
There were simply a lot more starting facts in the case of Watergate. Men were arrested in the act of breaking into a locked office they had no business being in. In this case, neither end of the explosive charge that Trump colluded with Russians to influence the 2016 has much disclosed evidence to evaluate. Here who has been arrested? No one. Of the '1000 Russian agents' how many names have been made public? Zero as far as I can tell. Who in the Trump campaign gave material support to this Russian intervention? Silence. How, when and where? More silence. Not that this cannot change, but right now there are nearly no disclosed pieces of evidence that competing narratives are forced to reconcile with.
2
You are cherry-picking your known unknowns and ignoring the known. Russia did this. They aimed to help Trump. Manafort worked for Putin's puppet in Ukraine. Trump hired Manafort, not as an aide but as campaign manager. Trump hasn't said a word about any plan to prevent this from recurring. This wasn't US political operatives in a slam dunk race. It's Russia in a close one. Trump also made his O'Reilly/Brittany Spears (not that innocent) comment (more anti-American than pro-Russia). As a parent, faced with such an accumulation of facts, would you say "just go out and play"?
A good article that highlights a problem that started when President Reagan enabled by Tip O'Niell's and the Democrats indifference removed the requirement that the media must be fair and balanced. Roger E. Ailes exploited this loop hole and the rest is history. The way out this mess is simple, honest reporting will expose Trump for what he is and Fox news along with other partisan news organizations (whether democrat or republican) will once again become irrelevant.
1
We have now had at least two generations worth of supersize comfort food media masquerading as news in order to attract ratings and eyeballs. Unfortunately, it does not energize brains; in fact, it does the opposite.
As a prime example: Why was Anna Nicole Smith newsworthy? Why did every media outlets spend countless hours and ink on this "story"? And why does the media conclude it is blameless in the lack of critical thinking in America today?
Rather than wallow, shape up!
As a prime example: Why was Anna Nicole Smith newsworthy? Why did every media outlets spend countless hours and ink on this "story"? And why does the media conclude it is blameless in the lack of critical thinking in America today?
Rather than wallow, shape up!
4
Trump has spent his entire life immersed in lies and deception. It is all justifiable to an extreme narcissist like Trump. It is a means to an end: more self-entitled wealth and more public recognition. Russiagate, the Birther lies, the Trump U fraud, the Flynn lies, Sessions perjury before Congress, the refusal to divest his business interests before taking the oath of office, the false claims of Obama wiretapping...it is all of a piece, it is all part of the distorted and unethical world that Donald Trump lives in. He has no knowledge or regard for the Constitution, nor the rule of law. Now he is joined in his total disrespect for the American way of life by his cabinet, advisers and the Republican Party leaders.
Our political system is in shambles, That millions of American's could be conned into believing that Trump and the powerful manipulators behind him would look after their welfare is testament to the strength of the entrenched Fox/Breibart propaganda machine, which is the voice of the super-wealthy right wing extremists that have taken over our country. Trump supporters are not interested in facts - only in the glorification of their personal deity, Donald Trump.
Our political system is in shambles, That millions of American's could be conned into believing that Trump and the powerful manipulators behind him would look after their welfare is testament to the strength of the entrenched Fox/Breibart propaganda machine, which is the voice of the super-wealthy right wing extremists that have taken over our country. Trump supporters are not interested in facts - only in the glorification of their personal deity, Donald Trump.
7
Walter Cronkite used to close his broadcasts by saying, "And that's the way it is", and he was telling the truth because he offered news not opinion. There are no more Walter Cronkites because there is so little appetite in this country for real news, that there is no longer any money in it. Decades ago, news divisions used to be expected to operate at a loss. Now, "news" is mostly about making money. And we all know what wonderful things unrestrained capitalism has brought to every other sector of our society.
When opinion is passed off as fact, and people buy it. Well, the battle is already lost isn't it?
We live in a country of "true believers" and they're leading us right into the "New Dark Ages".
The hopes and better prospects for this country were lost, perhaps permanently, on Election Day 2016. All thanks to one man, a broken election system, and 62,979,636 Americans who thought a self-serving racist would make a great leader.
Perhaps they just couldn't tell the difference between "reality television" and "reality itself"? Or maybe they just didn't care?
The darkest days are yet to come.
When opinion is passed off as fact, and people buy it. Well, the battle is already lost isn't it?
We live in a country of "true believers" and they're leading us right into the "New Dark Ages".
The hopes and better prospects for this country were lost, perhaps permanently, on Election Day 2016. All thanks to one man, a broken election system, and 62,979,636 Americans who thought a self-serving racist would make a great leader.
Perhaps they just couldn't tell the difference between "reality television" and "reality itself"? Or maybe they just didn't care?
The darkest days are yet to come.
4
Uh...you don't see Cronkite as the left winger that he was?
That's the problem. All of our news came from people with a liberal worldview. They slanted, omitted.. exaggerated according to that worldview. It's human nature.
Now we actually have more balance, even though the majority of legacy media still leans left (and shows it)
That's the problem. All of our news came from people with a liberal worldview. They slanted, omitted.. exaggerated according to that worldview. It's human nature.
Now we actually have more balance, even though the majority of legacy media still leans left (and shows it)
The nation took a very long time to reach even rough agreement on the facts regarding Watergate. Quite a few congressional Republicans stuck by Nixon until the Watergate tapes were released. We may be in for a very long drag again.
2
the usa has gone from partisanship to foaming at the mouth partisanship.
huge percentages of the 'folks' are more and more easily led to the conclusion their masters want them to reach.
a country of free thinking, rugged individualists indeed.
huge percentages of the 'folks' are more and more easily led to the conclusion their masters want them to reach.
a country of free thinking, rugged individualists indeed.
3
Thank the Lordy for the "Deep State." GOPERS have run AMOK in our nation, and at this point, this "Deep State thing" is all that is standing between us and our government's bulldozing us into the equivalent of starving Russian peasants circa 1918. They want to swell the coffers of their ruling class at the expense of the average working man, but they are forgetting all about the always inevitable rise of a future American Lenin and Trotsky as a counter balance. Since Russians are your thing, I would tell you to look to Russian history, Trump, it often repeats.
4
what is a mediator? Certainly not an objective journalist.
2
It's a play on words. You'll learn about it in high school.
3
Where people can thrive in business by marketing demonstrably provable falsehoods, the nation has lost its way. Tie this to the rise of Fox, whose commentators made money the old fashioned way--the knowledgeable right
printed it with their nonsense that fed the appetites of the listeners who did not know or did not care about accuracy.
printed it with their nonsense that fed the appetites of the listeners who did not know or did not care about accuracy.
6
That problem has been compounded by websites and book publishers that push all sorts of stories that are not particularly accurate. The birther nonsense lasted quite a long time, even though anyone who understands presidential politics or opposition research knew that it was nonsense.
3
I usually appreciate Rutenberg's efforts, and there is a good summary here in the later 'graphs. But to me there is a very strong hint of false equivalency. The angrier people get at Trump, the more they get compared to Trump's supporters. The more bizarre and outre the whole Trump saga gets, well, when that's reported for what it is, the media critics wag their fingers and say, "see, everybody's in their own bubble." Here's a project for earnest media critics: destroy that false equivalency. It's helping drag down the whole country into the mud, and plenty of it is already there. Here's the thing: the left/the liberals/the "sanity caucus" among us all have our biases and prejudices and our impulse to believe what we want to believe. And a few follow those impulses irresponsibly. But most are people who actually do think, who recognize that the truth isn't always what you want to hear, that truth is about careful analysis of evidence, that true evidence has rules by which is is weighed, etc, which is to say: they have a grasp of the rule of law, of the process by which the law is made, executed and judged. This is not what is happening on the far right (I believe many serious Republicans and conservatives agree with me), and that needs to be called out now. Yes, from MSNBC to The Nation, the left spins the story. Spin must be deconstructed, but it's not the same as lies, and if the NYT and its kin can't provide some primers about this, we might just be toast.
4
A recent survey of college students showed that the majority of those who identify as liberal (which I would argue, has no connection to the original meaning of the word) wouldn't be comfortable with a roommate who didn't share their beliefs. No other group had such a strong aversion to different opinions.
The facts in their totality regarding the Trump-Russia conspiracy, unfortunately, favor the right. You just see their arguments as malevolent propaganda because they anger you. Intellectual smugness and rich syntax can become a liability when they are used to express such plain errors in thought; for example, the United States is a global multicultural entity, should not protect its borders, and can exercise prerogative internationally even if the citizens cannot discern the benefits of doing so -- BUT anyone in the administration who talks to Russia is a treasonous unpatriotic criminal. This cannot be reconciled within the current liberal worldview.
Constantly invoking the sins of the U.S. (Watergate, Internment Camps, Jim Crow, etc.) only strips issues of their modern context and scares the most vulnerable minds in our society.
Constantly invoking the sins of the U.S. (Watergate, Internment Camps, Jim Crow, etc.) only strips issues of their modern context and scares the most vulnerable minds in our society.
9
The angst portrayed in this article is in itself an example of the media's problem. Mainstream outlets such as the NYT continue to play up stories or play up their ratings by granting a false equivalence to what is being spewed by Trump and the Republicans in terms of its veracity. Most of the world decided some time ago that Trump is a dangerous, avaricious man who has been shown to speak untruthfully approximately 70 percent of the time. Although their supporters are not becoming less vocal, Trump's and the Congressional majority's favorability ratings are miniscule, and boycott threats of consumer products are affecting advertisers on programming that perpetuate their hateful rhetoric. The market that Fox, Breitbart and Limbaugh are playing to is globally minute, but articles such as this one by the NYT only help to strengthen the myth that there is some sort of evidence- or morality-based foundation to the policies Trump is striving to put in place.
2
this column is pretty silly.
Keep to known facts re Trump collusion with Russian hacking.
1) Comey said under oath Trump was not under investigation.
2) There have been no allegations of crimes re collusion with Russians against any of Trump's campaign team, appointees, family members.
3) The hacking of the DNC was embarrassing to Dems but didn't cost HRC the election. All of her bad character issues were already known.
4) Someone hacked the DNC & Podesta. Maybe it was Russia but we willl never have certainty on that.
5) Comey said it was a sophisticated cyber attack on DNC. That alone makes it surprising these sophisticated hackers would have made it easy for our intelligence agencies to determine Russia hacked.
6) Malware is compiled into machine code, 1's and 0's -- which makes it very difficult to determine what programming language was used or who wrote it -- and data can be bounced all over the world from server ti server which makes it difficult to detect where malware originated.
7) Comey could not determine whether HRC's email server had been hacked. The CIA recently lost intel assets in China, but can't determine if they were hacked or if it was a leak. But they could in a few weeks assert it was Russia that haciked.
8) To impeach there has to be high crimes or misdemeanors. No one -- except for wishful thinkers on the left -- believe Trump has committed an impeachable offense. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Keep to known facts re Trump collusion with Russian hacking.
1) Comey said under oath Trump was not under investigation.
2) There have been no allegations of crimes re collusion with Russians against any of Trump's campaign team, appointees, family members.
3) The hacking of the DNC was embarrassing to Dems but didn't cost HRC the election. All of her bad character issues were already known.
4) Someone hacked the DNC & Podesta. Maybe it was Russia but we willl never have certainty on that.
5) Comey said it was a sophisticated cyber attack on DNC. That alone makes it surprising these sophisticated hackers would have made it easy for our intelligence agencies to determine Russia hacked.
6) Malware is compiled into machine code, 1's and 0's -- which makes it very difficult to determine what programming language was used or who wrote it -- and data can be bounced all over the world from server ti server which makes it difficult to detect where malware originated.
7) Comey could not determine whether HRC's email server had been hacked. The CIA recently lost intel assets in China, but can't determine if they were hacked or if it was a leak. But they could in a few weeks assert it was Russia that haciked.
8) To impeach there has to be high crimes or misdemeanors. No one -- except for wishful thinkers on the left -- believe Trump has committed an impeachable offense. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
4
Ralphie: Your post just proves the point of the column. Moreover, you're jumping to a conclusion: "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE." The investigation is in its early stages. We have a long way to go. If you're old enough, you'll remember that with Watergate, it took two years from break-in to resignation. Chill. Go back to lower case and let the investigation unfold.
5
in Watergate, there was a crime. What crime do we have here? Not only is there no evidence that Trump or his team colluded with Russia, there isn't even an insinuation that a crime occurred -- except from progressives -- and they have no evidence of a crime, just wishful thinking.
The investigation was stirred up by shrill progressives who couldn't believe Hillary lost. I guarantee you, if HRC had won there would be no ongoing investigation.
Possibly Russia hacked the DNC. But what motivation would there be to collude with Trump? Just remember -- here's another indisputable fact -- the DNC was hacked before Trump was a candidate. It is possible that Putin wanted to damage HRC, but again, all the dirt possible on HRC was out there and most had been for years.
I'm not dealing with alternative facts. And the clearest fact of all, for there to be a watergate type event here there has to be evidence of a crime -- by Trump. There is none. Think about it. If any shred of evidence existed -- it would have leaked already.
The investigation was stirred up by shrill progressives who couldn't believe Hillary lost. I guarantee you, if HRC had won there would be no ongoing investigation.
Possibly Russia hacked the DNC. But what motivation would there be to collude with Trump? Just remember -- here's another indisputable fact -- the DNC was hacked before Trump was a candidate. It is possible that Putin wanted to damage HRC, but again, all the dirt possible on HRC was out there and most had been for years.
I'm not dealing with alternative facts. And the clearest fact of all, for there to be a watergate type event here there has to be evidence of a crime -- by Trump. There is none. Think about it. If any shred of evidence existed -- it would have leaked already.
4
As Asd pointed out, there was a break-in at the Watergate hitel, and the burglars were caught. It took several months to follow the chain from burglary to Nixon tapes, hearings in the House, and eventual resignation.
Hacking the DNC was the crime. They didn't get caught on the same day, but the evidence of the hack is undisputed. It remains to be seen whether following the chain will lead to evidence of collusion, and anything else that may follow from that.
I think the operative unspoken words are, "Trump is not under investigation AT THIS TIME," but he may be in the future if the evidence leads there. Denying that possibility on the right is exactly the same as denying the possibility that the evidence proves no collusion, and Trump haa clean hands.
One side will be unhappy no matter which way it falls.
Hacking the DNC was the crime. They didn't get caught on the same day, but the evidence of the hack is undisputed. It remains to be seen whether following the chain will lead to evidence of collusion, and anything else that may follow from that.
I think the operative unspoken words are, "Trump is not under investigation AT THIS TIME," but he may be in the future if the evidence leads there. Denying that possibility on the right is exactly the same as denying the possibility that the evidence proves no collusion, and Trump haa clean hands.
One side will be unhappy no matter which way it falls.
3
Trump's supporters should realize that, when Comey testified that he "told" Trump that he was not under investigation for the Russia interference, he was speaking in the past tense.
That is, Comey testified that there was no investigation of Trump on particular dates in the past. That does not rule out him being the subject of an investigation now, or at some point in the future.
That is, Comey testified that there was no investigation of Trump on particular dates in the past. That does not rule out him being the subject of an investigation now, or at some point in the future.
9
Does Comrade Trump, before his final "Covfefe" of the night think which will be worse getting caught committing Acts of Treason in supporting Putin against the US intelligence Agencies over the Russian interference in 2016 election or committing crimes of obstruction of Justice for firing Comey or Crimes of fraud, racketeering, tax evasion or maybe charged with Incident Act (the salicious bits) contained in the "Steele Dossier". (Isn't it odd that this piece of the dossier keeps coming up?) or is it a combination of some or all these Covfefe's that keep him up at night?
2
No Fox News during Watergate. "Dirty Tricks" and Donald Segretti worked to discredit Muskie with innuendo, false scandal etc. The other difference which is so notable is that the Intelligence department during Watergate was a big messy tool for Nixon. Now I truly think that the FBI is not a weapon of Mr. Trump. Mr. Comey was fired because he was investigating Mr.Flynn and his Russian friends. That is obstruction of justice....no matter what Fox News may say.
5
We will have the facts if the Robert Mueller is allowed to do his job without interference from Trump or his minions in the Republican Party.
However only a blind Trump advocate woud insist there was noithing htere when:
Trump has had major financial ties to the Russian's and Putin via the Bank of Cyprus, Deutsche Bank, Russian investors in his property, and strong links between Russia and Trump's cabinet members and associates including Wilbur Ross, Felix Sater, Roy Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kirchner etc., etc..
Sheer coincidence? Tell me another Big Lie.
However only a blind Trump advocate woud insist there was noithing htere when:
Trump has had major financial ties to the Russian's and Putin via the Bank of Cyprus, Deutsche Bank, Russian investors in his property, and strong links between Russia and Trump's cabinet members and associates including Wilbur Ross, Felix Sater, Roy Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jared Kirchner etc., etc..
Sheer coincidence? Tell me another Big Lie.
7
We could also add that a good many Republican leaders are acting as if they think something is seriously wrong. Several people from the Trump campaign tried to minimize their contacts with the Russians. When Trump fired the FBI director, the White House released something like five different explanations for why the director was fired within the span of a week. House Republicans initially reacted to ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians by frantically ignoring the possibility of ties and acting as if leaks were the only significant aspects of the story. We also had the odd event of a House committee chair going to the White House to examine evidence without the rest of his committee and then later giving up his leadership position on the inquiry because his actions compromised his credibility.
2
Can we please stop calling propaganda 'media'?
Beitbart, Infowars, etc are not news media sites but proaoganda sites.
Beitbart, Infowars, etc are not news media sites but proaoganda sites.
8
The Big Lie Propaganda method perfected by the Nazis to convince the people that the main stream press was corrupt is the model that the Trump administration follows to the letter.
9
While the popularity of the Orwell's fantasy, "1984," is understandable, people also should be reading Shirer's factual account in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." The rise part, in particular, speaks alarmingly to your point.
2
"By allowing partisans to live in their separate informational and misinformational bubbles, and, in some cases, to allow real news to be rendered as false — and false news to be rendered as true — they have all contributed to the calcification of the national divide."
It's funny that an article about the scourge of confirmation bias in the media would include such false equivalence.
We need to stop pretending that there are "parallel" informational universes or discrete bubbles. There aren't. There's reality, where scientists, doctors, police, the military, and virtually all other professional people do their thing.
And then there's the madhouse where people like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and Trump live. These aren't equivalent or parallel.
In the real world, people confront and deal with facts that exist separate from themselves. The doctor observes and treats cancer. The military gathers intelligence, makes plans and responds to facts. Professionals of all stripes deal with the real world in various ways every day.
In the madhouse, stories are all that matter. Merely saying something makes it "true." Believing something makes it "true." It's a fantasy world, a gauzy world of invention and speculation, a world of Pizzagate, Seth Rich, "false flags," chemtrails, and other fictions. Reality doesn't enter it. There are no alt-doctors, alt-military or alt-professionals because the world of alt-facts isn't a world of facts. It's all fiction.
It's funny that an article about the scourge of confirmation bias in the media would include such false equivalence.
We need to stop pretending that there are "parallel" informational universes or discrete bubbles. There aren't. There's reality, where scientists, doctors, police, the military, and virtually all other professional people do their thing.
And then there's the madhouse where people like Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh and Trump live. These aren't equivalent or parallel.
In the real world, people confront and deal with facts that exist separate from themselves. The doctor observes and treats cancer. The military gathers intelligence, makes plans and responds to facts. Professionals of all stripes deal with the real world in various ways every day.
In the madhouse, stories are all that matter. Merely saying something makes it "true." Believing something makes it "true." It's a fantasy world, a gauzy world of invention and speculation, a world of Pizzagate, Seth Rich, "false flags," chemtrails, and other fictions. Reality doesn't enter it. There are no alt-doctors, alt-military or alt-professionals because the world of alt-facts isn't a world of facts. It's all fiction.
6
According to Gallup polls during May, roughly 80-87% of the Republicans support the President. You have to pretty fact-free to support anything conservatives say today, after the facts clearly indicate their entire economic platform is false.
For example, the science is clear that:
1. Tax cuts increase deficits and debt and do not pay for themselves;
2. Climate change is risky and man-influenced;
3. The financial crisis was primarily a private sector phenomenon, with government inaction (failure to regulate) a primary cause;
4. Stimulus works, particularly well in a downturn; and
5. Printing money in a near-Depression is one of the best ways to get out of it.
The Liberals/Democrats won the fact-based argument, so conservatives have turned to another that suits their world-view, making up facts as they go.
For example, the science is clear that:
1. Tax cuts increase deficits and debt and do not pay for themselves;
2. Climate change is risky and man-influenced;
3. The financial crisis was primarily a private sector phenomenon, with government inaction (failure to regulate) a primary cause;
4. Stimulus works, particularly well in a downturn; and
5. Printing money in a near-Depression is one of the best ways to get out of it.
The Liberals/Democrats won the fact-based argument, so conservatives have turned to another that suits their world-view, making up facts as they go.
5
1. Tax increases never collect the revenue that politicians claimed they will.
2. Government attempts to reduce fossil fuel usage, like corn ethanol and corporate solar subsidies, have been disastrous. The US is the only major country to reduce carbon output, and even that was only because fracking led to more natural gas usage.
3. That's a totally subjective and arguable view. The regulatory agencies are tied to the Federal Reserve, which is literally owned by the banks. They literally own their regulators, by government design.
4. Actually, the "liquidity trap" hypothesis was completely disproven in 2009. The Federal Reserve created trillions of dollars, and forced them into the markets, where they found their way back to the Federal Reserve as excess bank reserves. It turns out that in a downturn, you can give the banks money, but you can't make them lend, and you can't make people borrow. Who knew?
5. Trillions of dollars in bank reserves collecting dust (actually, minimal interest) at the Federal Reserve says you're wrong.
What Liberals/Democrats are good at doing is changing the definition of words, including the word "Liberal". Obviously, your definition of "science" comes closer to the dictionary definition of "deception" or "dogma".
2. Government attempts to reduce fossil fuel usage, like corn ethanol and corporate solar subsidies, have been disastrous. The US is the only major country to reduce carbon output, and even that was only because fracking led to more natural gas usage.
3. That's a totally subjective and arguable view. The regulatory agencies are tied to the Federal Reserve, which is literally owned by the banks. They literally own their regulators, by government design.
4. Actually, the "liquidity trap" hypothesis was completely disproven in 2009. The Federal Reserve created trillions of dollars, and forced them into the markets, where they found their way back to the Federal Reserve as excess bank reserves. It turns out that in a downturn, you can give the banks money, but you can't make them lend, and you can't make people borrow. Who knew?
5. Trillions of dollars in bank reserves collecting dust (actually, minimal interest) at the Federal Reserve says you're wrong.
What Liberals/Democrats are good at doing is changing the definition of words, including the word "Liberal". Obviously, your definition of "science" comes closer to the dictionary definition of "deception" or "dogma".
1
The Economist wrote a piece about this very subject during the 2016 campaign last year....see the url below. Basically, they laid out clear and simple. Trump lives in his own universe of a *fabricated* reality constructed by FOX and the so called *conservative* media talking heads. What is so frightening about this are the uncanny parallels between what they are doing and what the Nazi's did in Germany in the early part of the 20th century. It is easy to start global wars in this way in order to draw attention away from your domestic problems. Argentina did this during the Falkland Islands escapades in the 1980's. One sure fire way to stop this is by holding Trump accountable in a court of law.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-noth...
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-noth...
5
You are correct. How many people would believe it?
The 34% who still approve of Trump are die hards. They've drunk the koolaid-aid. And the Republican Congressional members need Trump to pass their insane, cruel, and undemocratic legislation.
Will we have any John Deans this time around? We could only hope.
But who would it be?
Firing didn't work for Trump. Perhaps even hiring Kasowitz may not work for him. But somehow he always manages to slink around and pull things off.
That's how low this country has sunk...into the swamp, which Trump has only nurtured.
The 34% who still approve of Trump are die hards. They've drunk the koolaid-aid. And the Republican Congressional members need Trump to pass their insane, cruel, and undemocratic legislation.
Will we have any John Deans this time around? We could only hope.
But who would it be?
Firing didn't work for Trump. Perhaps even hiring Kasowitz may not work for him. But somehow he always manages to slink around and pull things off.
That's how low this country has sunk...into the swamp, which Trump has only nurtured.
4
Most Americans know the President is a liar and a cheat. But if he can cut taxes, reduce health insurance premiums, provide good school for whites, guarantee jobs and kill Muslims, he is a hero. As for the political media, the challenge is to establish a scenario of spin that sounds logical. Trumps base needs arguments that sound logical, ones that are opinions not proven facts. With these arguments they can continue the charade till they get what they want, to hell with the rest.
5
The only facts are that elite liberals of the Democratic party who dominate the press, media and universities can not accept the election of President Trump. They hysterically oppose all his policies and flood the public discourse with lies, half truths, fake news, innuendo and outright total crap to try to discredit him. The only thing this proves is that elite liberal Democrats are not fit to govern aver again,
4
This is getting quite old. The elite liberals have much much bigger fish to fry here Bill T. The large majority of "them" have left that election far behind. Those who still bring it up, ad nauseam, are those who apparently don't feel it is theirs to keep.
3
I am baffled why you are presenting Russian interference in your election as a party issue. Why does America not see the threat posed by Russia? Why do you so little value your ethical standards and institution that you are tolerating the potential cover up of this matter and in some way seeing an investigation as a threat to your President, rather than your country? Where has this hatred for America by its own people for all towards its own country, come from?
4
Trump cannot be minimized or underestimated. That remarkable Cabinet meeting yesterday was the most impressive piece of naked power in action I have ever seen. He has a 'gift'.
Please don't misuse the word fact. It is either factual or it's not. There is no such thing as an alternative fact. Instead, use the phrase alternative content to show there's no connection to factual information.
2
"Alternative content"? Whatever happened to fiction?
1
This is why I don't do Twitter, it's USA Today- abbreviated and simplified nuggets of information- in the hands of any yahoo who wants to pontificate. Blah blah blah. And this is why I no longer do cable news, I don't want my proclivities indulged, I want them challenged, but with facts, mind you. MSNBC to me would be like crack cocaine.
"The Trump-Russia scandal is breaking during a time of informational chaos, when rival versions of reality are fighting for narrative supremacy."
"Thank you" Ronbo Raygun for doing away with The Fairness Doctrine.
"Thank you" Ronbo Raygun for doing away with The Fairness Doctrine.
2
Really, you can't blame this on Reagan. The fairness doctrine is based on the scarcity of electromagnetic spectrum and the necessity for government-issued broadcast licenses. There is no such scarcity on the internet. Anyone can be a news outlet.
But not everyone can afford the institutional resources needed to reach a large audience day after day. That is where money becomes awfully important.
1
During the Watergate era we had the Must Carry rules, so propagandists like the Murdochs could not fetter the waters with lies. Let's not call those lies alternative facts. Some people believe in, "Zenu," but their faith does not make Zenu a fact. Truth resides in the confirmation of fact. Our heart muscle need not apply. Faith is a fickle thing. If it isn't, then it's just dogma based on ire.
Comey: “The administration ... chose to defame me ... by saying the organization was poorly led. Those were lies, plain and simple."
Wow! That's brilliant! I will have to use that line of defense on my next Annual Review if I don't like what my boss has to say.
Fact: Comey doesn't agree with his immediate supervisor and gets fired. Then he goes in front of a committee and the whole nation and whines that his boss is a lier. Unbelievable, but true.
Wow! That's brilliant! I will have to use that line of defense on my next Annual Review if I don't like what my boss has to say.
Fact: Comey doesn't agree with his immediate supervisor and gets fired. Then he goes in front of a committee and the whole nation and whines that his boss is a lier. Unbelievable, but true.
2
I dunno... do you have any evidence that the FBI was poorly led?
So far, Trump is the only one whining about the way in which the bureau was led, and he doesn't exactly have a track record for honesty.
So far, Trump is the only one whining about the way in which the bureau was led, and he doesn't exactly have a track record for honesty.
3
And the Deputy Director testified before Congress that the FBI workforce "continues to hold Director Come in the highest esteem," after Comey was fired. The Deputy Director actually worked with Comey for quite some time. I would call that an informed opinion, and those differ sharply from the guy who just arrived on the set. Hm.
1
There is only one set of facts - and those facts are the truth. In the right wing, lathering, foaming, conspiracy-riddled universe, "facts" are malleable and truth has taken a permanent vacation. Please, let us not perpetuate what is already far too prevalent today - that these "alternate facts," as the mendacious spin-mistress Conway spews, are somehow the "equivalent" of the actual truth - you know, that "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" reality. Ultimately, the massive breadth and scope not only of Trump's fraud, lies, heist and greed will be exposed - as will, by their complicit, if not slavering, fawning, and flat out cynical manipulation of him in order to achieve their goals, the entire festering, malignant cancer called the GOTP. These are truly ugly times, and things will degrade much further, but I still have faith in Robert Mueller, and the true fact that the wheels of justice grind exceeding slow but exceeding fine. May they grind this entire wretched Grifter family and his entire party to a pulp. 6/12, 1:08 PM
5
Fox News, Info Wars, Breitbart, Drudge, etc., should be not be allowed to call themselves "news" stations. That has to change. It is a national security issue at this point. When the left gets the house again, quickly do something about it for God's sake! You keep squandering your time in office; make a 'to do' list next time and then do it!
Well Kay, who gets to decide what is a "real" news station and what is a "faux" news station? The Dems? The Reps? The Legislative Branch? The Judical branch? Wall Street? You?
2
I'm sure CNN would love to decide which stations are news. Their latest stunt of organizing a protest so that they could report on it was classic.
One thing is the same though: Deep State Government's connection to communicate is still the generic 'deep throat" and it isn't Linda Lovelace's either. It's a man's world.
The only semblance to Watergate in Comey-gate that I would accept is the same fate for Trump as Nixon suffered, removal from office.
It would be refreshing if we could see the Times engage in an open, honest critical reappraisal of where its journalism has gone since the late summer/fall of 2016, when its leadership decreed that Trump could just be called the Liar and anything he said labeled a Lie, basically at the writer's discretion (facts? who needs silly facts? he's only stupid Trump, after all) This was meant to be a final kick in the head to a candidate too unorthodox and crazy to ever win. After all, until late on election night, the Times still confidently reported its scientific, infallible statistical analysis showed a 90% chance that Clinton would win. The only post-election mea culpa to its readers that the Times could muster basically just said "Hey, that wasn't our fault!" Times, it's time to start healing thyself.
2
My read of national forecasts was that they were all over the place, with some people forecast a solid Clinton victory, some predicting a close race, and some predicting a solid Trump victory. And bear in mind that Clinton won the popular vote, which is what the forecasters were predicting (with one exception). Fact-checking organizations found that candidate Trump was unusually likely to say things that were not true (compared to the other candidates in both parties). The liar label didn't just jump out of thin air.
1
What has happened is that a big chunk of America has lost it's morality. In other words, the end justifies the means. We have a con-Artist as President because he promised to make America great again. What that means to Republicans is that he will give white baby boomers what they feel they have lost, and that is white privilege. To the Democrats, it means nothing as America is already great, but is losing ground daily due to Trump.
1
This investigation has nothing to do with criminal activity. It is really about a change in direction of government that favors the right wing over the left. It's about greed and the right to disrespect those you don't like. Until a critical mass of people agree that this direction is not good for America, we will continue with the games and rhetoric till the next election.
1
There's a method to Trump's madness. He's aligning Russia and Saudi Arabia ( #2 and #1 in oil production) with our own fossil fuel industry, That's why he is so pro Russia and SA. The next big divide in the world will be between the Fossil Fuel countries and the Green energy groups.
Working in Trumps favor is that most energy is fossil based. Working against him is his lying and thieving. The battle rages.
So, it's no longer Freedom vs communism or even Christianity vs Muslims . It's Oil vs wind .
Working in Trumps favor is that most energy is fossil based. Working against him is his lying and thieving. The battle rages.
So, it's no longer Freedom vs communism or even Christianity vs Muslims . It's Oil vs wind .
3
Today's journalists must work harder than ever to separate truth from falsehoods.
Journalists are 'the' driving for for transparency in government.
Thomas Jefferson vehemently held that a free press did lead to an ultimate triumph of truth.
"The only security of all is in a free press".
Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
Journalists are 'the' driving for for transparency in government.
Thomas Jefferson vehemently held that a free press did lead to an ultimate triumph of truth.
"The only security of all is in a free press".
Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823.
Except that they don't. Few people know that Obama got the US involved in at least three new wars, dropping 26,000 bombs on Islamic majority countries last year alone. There is a strongly partisan stripe in the old media outlets, which is partly why they're losing readership. I was hoping they would more closely scrutinize a Republican president, yet the coverage of Trump's bombing campaigns was some of the most, maybe the only, positive coverage they game him.
There's a serious problem when ice cream and fried chicken get more coverage than death and destruction.
There's a serious problem when ice cream and fried chicken get more coverage than death and destruction.
There is no "rival set of facts" -- there are facts and there are lies and the Trumpsters are the ones peddling the lies.
As the special prosecutor and congressional committees are looking for a crime, are they looking in the right place. We've heard about voter suppression, could the Russian hacks have erased Democratic votes? Could Russian banks or front companies have donated to Trump? Seems to me that Trump needed a lot of liquid cash to pay for his own campaign. Where did it come from? Finally, who paid for the robo calls and how was the database acquired? How about Trumps source of info for his lies?
1
Rutenberg is writing about a media war. In this media war, only one query is required to tell the real news from the fake news: 'Where's the attribution?"
I know you yearn for the good old days of the 70s when there were three TV networks, three national newspapers, a "fairness" doctrine that muzzled dissent and you could control the flow of information.
Anything inconvenient to Republicans was heavily covered. Any stories embarrassing to Democrats were covered - with a pillow until they died.
The internet has democratized the media. You aren't in control anymore, and that is a good thing.
Anything inconvenient to Republicans was heavily covered. Any stories embarrassing to Democrats were covered - with a pillow until they died.
The internet has democratized the media. You aren't in control anymore, and that is a good thing.
1
How, then, do you account for the successful Republican candidates during the old days?
You mean "alternative facts?"
Part of being a good citizen is keeping yourself informed via credible sources. That most Americans today don't do that is very sad. We have the tools but choose not to use them. As much as it's tempting to blame Fox news propaganda, we bare most of the responsibility because they only get away with the misinformation because we let them by watching their nonsense.
1
Actually there is only one set of facts. But there is an entire media machine in place to obfuscate and sow doubt about those facts. It starts with Faux News.
2
Obviously one has to distinguish facts that must be understood accurately to achieve success in this life, as opposed to facts that will be true in the promised afterlife if one professes them now.
Bad title for this piece... it isn't so much that Trump has a rival set of facts, it is more just a narrative, created with reality show expertise to be consumed, repeated, and spun by republicans and their faux news outlets.
1
The headline to this article is part of the problem. It's not one set of facts versus the other. This kind of false equivalency really needs to stop. And the Times can make a stand in equating lies with facts and calling them two sets of opposing facts. There is no such thing. There are facts and lies. Please, NY Times. Get it straight and stick to it. The equivocation is maddening.
2
The truth is the truth. It's based on facts. There is only one version of it. The rest is just spin. It's up to us--Americans of all political stripes--to note the difference.
2
Lest we forget, there was in fact a counter informational media cocoon that allowed die hard Nixon supporters to live in their own reality. Henry Luce and the China Lobby saw to that. Tens of millions of Americans thought that traitors in the State Department lost China to the reds; that we were winning in Vietnam; that there was no American war in Laos and Cambodia; and that dissent was anti-American. That counter informational media cocoon – which at first dismissed Watergate as unimportant – lived on for decades, and it led to the deaths of millions of Asians and tens of thousands of Americans. It was only when the counter informational media cocoon began to disintegrate that we saw our first glimpse of a truly independent and crusading media.
3
Mr. Rutenberg,
Your analysis is brilliant in every respect.
I agree with everyone you write.
May I ask a rude question to the media analyst of the NY Times?
How has the NY Times, the single most important newspaper in the US if not the world, contributed to creating "a media culture and a political culture -- and a larger culture -- that is a caldron of outrage?"
The NY Times does not merely report the news. It shapes and creates the news by choosing what stories to report, what not to report; what analyses to write, what not to write; what Op-Eds to publish, what not to publish; etc.
Every word printed in your column, and on every page of every issue of the NY Times, was chosen by at least one human being, if not a whole editorial staff.
It's all human choice.
There is no such thing as news that is determined by a machine at the NY Times.
So, a question for you: what is the NY Times doing to improve the situation that it, among many other actors, helped to create?
Your analysis is brilliant in every respect.
I agree with everyone you write.
May I ask a rude question to the media analyst of the NY Times?
How has the NY Times, the single most important newspaper in the US if not the world, contributed to creating "a media culture and a political culture -- and a larger culture -- that is a caldron of outrage?"
The NY Times does not merely report the news. It shapes and creates the news by choosing what stories to report, what not to report; what analyses to write, what not to write; what Op-Eds to publish, what not to publish; etc.
Every word printed in your column, and on every page of every issue of the NY Times, was chosen by at least one human being, if not a whole editorial staff.
It's all human choice.
There is no such thing as news that is determined by a machine at the NY Times.
So, a question for you: what is the NY Times doing to improve the situation that it, among many other actors, helped to create?
Sorry but no there is only one set of facts and from what I have seen all sides are working with that set. It's the spin that's different.
e.g. with Russians and the Election the following are facts
-The Russians actively interfered with last year's election
-The FBI is conducting a counterintelligence investigation into this
-Trump does business in Russia
-Trump and his people have had conversations with Russian businessmen and officials
-Prior to the former director of the FBI's testimony we only knew about most of this due to anonymous leaks.
-The former director of the FBI has publicly stated under oath that there is no open Criminal Investigation of President Trump or his staff for colluding with the Russians to interfere with the election
-The FBI has publicly stated that the conversations between President Trump's people and the Russians that they have looked into have all been found to be appropriate.
The left wing media (including this paper) narrative: Trump is bad, the Russians are bad, and there's a connection. Therefore Trump likely colluded with the Russians to "hack the election".
NeverTrump conservative media narrative: There's nothing here.
Pro-Trump media narrative: The deep state and media are colluding to bring down our President
e.g. with Russians and the Election the following are facts
-The Russians actively interfered with last year's election
-The FBI is conducting a counterintelligence investigation into this
-Trump does business in Russia
-Trump and his people have had conversations with Russian businessmen and officials
-Prior to the former director of the FBI's testimony we only knew about most of this due to anonymous leaks.
-The former director of the FBI has publicly stated under oath that there is no open Criminal Investigation of President Trump or his staff for colluding with the Russians to interfere with the election
-The FBI has publicly stated that the conversations between President Trump's people and the Russians that they have looked into have all been found to be appropriate.
The left wing media (including this paper) narrative: Trump is bad, the Russians are bad, and there's a connection. Therefore Trump likely colluded with the Russians to "hack the election".
NeverTrump conservative media narrative: There's nothing here.
Pro-Trump media narrative: The deep state and media are colluding to bring down our President
Sorry I Want, and I nearly said "nice try." but only the first, third, and fourth of you bullet points are correct, and your charges are bogus. Your post is the best example of what the article is about. You don't get to have your own facts and, by the way, your "deep state" conspiracy is pure myth, about as substantial as the Easter Bunny or Santa. Pete McGuire, Atlanta
1
The former director of the FBI has never stated under oath that there is no open criminal investigation of President Trump or his staff re: the Russian meddling.
The FBI has never publicly stated that they have found all of the conversations they have investigated to be "appropriate," whatever that means.
Most of the info that has come out regarding Russia's attacks on the U.S. election system did not come from leaks but was published by the intelligence community in its Jan. 6 report.
The FBI has never publicly stated that they have found all of the conversations they have investigated to be "appropriate," whatever that means.
Most of the info that has come out regarding Russia's attacks on the U.S. election system did not come from leaks but was published by the intelligence community in its Jan. 6 report.
1
In the grad courses I used to teach about the use of communications in managing issues and crises for organizations, I always emphasized the importance of telling the truth. The rationale was based on difficulties caused by conflicting media reports of the same event. That principle no longer exists, now that we can will truth to correspond with what we want to believe and find substantiation for it on the internet. As a society, we are falling down the rabbit hole.
1
There is another key difference between "the spirit of the times" during Watergate and now with Russiagate. The leaders of the House and Senate -- the legislative branch of government, which is supposed to check and balance the executive -- are invisible. Speaker Ryan in particular has a Constitutional duty, even if he treats it as merely a partisan job, to assert Congress' role in preventing an autocratic presidency. Instead, he acts more like a spokesman for Trump, adding insult to injury of the Constitution by excusing Trump's mistakes (or worse) as just a regular guy new at the job. But unlike Ryan, House Majority Leader McConnell is not new to his own job and knows when a president is seeking more power by taking it from Congress.
3
there are no multiple set of facts only the spin is different.
5
No there is only the truth and the untruth.
It’s a fact is that several people in the Nixon White House—including Nixon—were suspected of authorizing the Watergate break-in and lying about it to federal agents. The “Smoking Gun” tape caught Nixon concocting a cover-up story blaming the Watergate burglary on Cuban expatriates and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. It’s a fact that no one in the Trump White House—including Trump—is being investigated for colluding with Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. Michael Flynn was investigated for possibly violating the Logan Act, not collusion, but the FBI concluded he had not violated the Logan Act. It’s a fact that no one has yet identified an act that constitutes criminal collusion.
5
These are not facts they are only half truths at best and outright lies at worse! The FBI investigation is not complete and therefore any judgement that no one in White house has colluded with Russian agents in a misinformation campaign is premature. You say a bold faced lie as it if were gospel truth. This is exactly the very thing this article is railing against.
1
Those of us old enough to remember shouldn't forget that Watergate occurred in a country fractured by the long Vietnam War and a president already deeply tarnished in many eyes for, not only brutally prolonging that conflict, but harshly suppressing protest. For over half the country, Watergate was akin to nailing Al Capone for tax avoidance. They were glad to see it, but petty burglary seemed the least of the president's crimes.
10
I find the headlines problematic in that they support a debased definition of the word "facts," and we need to do all we can to preserve the definition of "facts."
"Rival sets of facts" are in fact "cherry picked" facts. The phrase "rival sets" implies that there are two, equally valid sets. While there may be two equally valid interpretations there should be a single set of facts.
"Rival sets of facts" are in fact "cherry picked" facts. The phrase "rival sets" implies that there are two, equally valid sets. While there may be two equally valid interpretations there should be a single set of facts.
36
Excellent way to put it. Each narrative uses a subset of the total set of facts to support the narrative. The use of subsets is intended to deceive.
9
Rather than "rival sets of facts," it's more accurate to speak of rival claims of fact, or rival claims, and even to call them rival hypotheses. It is quite usual for there to be competing hypotheses, and so there are criteria for choosing among them - such as relevance, compatibility with background knowledge, fruitfulness, and simplicity. This is to say, in the language of science, that "facts" are corroborated hypotheses. But remember that it used to be a fact that the earth is flat.
Although they're always fun and entertaining parlor games, especially for the outsiders, e.g., NYT-WP, generally, in fact, almost always, historical analogies have little to do with the quantum physics of any given political reality, but if you're looking for something more accurate, I'd put my money on CIA-Kennedy, rather than Nixon-Watergate.
3
No one wins Pulitzer Prizes for reporting allegations, innuendo and the possibility that crimes may or may not have been committed. The collusion conspiracy theory so far has produced only three stories of real substance. (1) The Washington Post reported on Jan. 23 that “the FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn — national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump — but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government.” (2) CNN reported on Feb. 17 that “the FBI interviewers believed Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers. Although Flynn didn't remember all of what he talked about, they don't believe he was intentionally misleading them.” But journalists completely missed the most important story. (3) Last week former FBI Director James Comey testified in a nationally televised congressional hearing that President Trump has never been under investigation for collusion. Now, if a reporter uncovers proof that Trump secretly wrote the computer code that enabled Russians operatives to hack Democratic National Committee headquarters, he might win a Pulitzer.
11
Why do you presume to know what the FBI will conclude before it has completed the investigation. You intentionally leave out the fact that the FBI investigation is *NOT* complete but you present testimony from a former FBI director about events that are almost 6 months old as proof Trump is innocent. Just because he wasn't a target of the investigation back then does not mean he is not one now. In fact (doing the same as you now) given Mueller's interested in the Comey memos it seems likely that Trump is now a target of the investigation even if he wasn't one back then. And by the way....Muellers investigation is a criminal one. The FBI counterintelligence (spy hunt) investigation is a parallel inquiry that is far from complete. Who knows what dirt they may dig up on Trump. Lord knows Trump has plenty of bones in his closet.
2
Let's not be ridiculous here. What Comey did say is that the Trump campaign was under investigation. I don't know about you, but I think Donald J. Trump could be considered a member of the Trump campaign.
And another thing Comey said was that he had told Trump that he was -- at the time, now several weeks or months ago -- not a target. That is not the same as Comey the private citizen saying in his hearing that Trump is not now a target. How would Comey know, anyway?
More broadly, you often suggest that the information available to the investigators is no greater or more damning than that available to the newspapers. This is a ridiculous suggestion. If prosecutors were limited to what they read in the paper, the jails would be empty. The FBI has been gathering piles of evidence for a year now. It might not show any wrongdoing in the end, but you certainly can't know that now, and it's foolish to pass judgment on the basis of the tiny amount of information that has emerged so far.
And another thing Comey said was that he had told Trump that he was -- at the time, now several weeks or months ago -- not a target. That is not the same as Comey the private citizen saying in his hearing that Trump is not now a target. How would Comey know, anyway?
More broadly, you often suggest that the information available to the investigators is no greater or more damning than that available to the newspapers. This is a ridiculous suggestion. If prosecutors were limited to what they read in the paper, the jails would be empty. The FBI has been gathering piles of evidence for a year now. It might not show any wrongdoing in the end, but you certainly can't know that now, and it's foolish to pass judgment on the basis of the tiny amount of information that has emerged so far.
1
No, there are not 2 sets of facts. There are 1) facts and there is 2) manipulation, spin and lies. You sound like K. Connaway
12
It is transparently obvious that no newspaper wants to ever again be scooped by the Washington Post, and that they are eager to find any suggestion at all of "Watergate, the Sequel." Unfortunately, this self-made bias is blinding you to objective coverage of the President of the United States who was actually elected.
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she never could have won it – not because operatives of "the one nation that is ALWAYS the United States' favorite bogeyman" somehow tampered with the outcome from thousands of miles away.
There should, however, be one important take-away from this experience: that, "we must never again count votes like this, anywhere." The votes in the districts which used paperless pure-election machines, today, cannot be(!) audited. There is no(!) "paper trail." Setting all talk of 'pesky Russians" aside for the moment, we should remind ourselves of Tammany Hall, and of the many dead people who cast votes in Chicago in years past. This is history. This is the danger that a "trust the electronics" system brings, with results that cannot be independently audited – if need be, by had-counting millions of pieces of paper one at a time.
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she never could have won it – not because operatives of "the one nation that is ALWAYS the United States' favorite bogeyman" somehow tampered with the outcome from thousands of miles away.
There should, however, be one important take-away from this experience: that, "we must never again count votes like this, anywhere." The votes in the districts which used paperless pure-election machines, today, cannot be(!) audited. There is no(!) "paper trail." Setting all talk of 'pesky Russians" aside for the moment, we should remind ourselves of Tammany Hall, and of the many dead people who cast votes in Chicago in years past. This is history. This is the danger that a "trust the electronics" system brings, with results that cannot be independently audited – if need be, by had-counting millions of pieces of paper one at a time.
6
I live near Mobile, Alabama and I remember very well when a certain local radio station decided to start going with Fox News. Two of the radio personalities were discussing the upcoming change.
One of the guys stated it would be good to hear the news from a Conservative viewpoint. The other said the news shouldn't have a viewpoint. Whether it was Liberal or Conservative. He told the guy he had been in radio for many years and knew many reporters and journalists. He said he could count on one hand those who he felt tried to push a certain narrative.
The other guy was convinced they were all just flaming Liberals who were trying to brainwash everyone.
That was at least twenty years ago and these two guys could not have been farther apart in their beliefs. It has only gotten much worse and the brainwashing of the older, more conservative crowd has only grown worse.
One of the guys stated it would be good to hear the news from a Conservative viewpoint. The other said the news shouldn't have a viewpoint. Whether it was Liberal or Conservative. He told the guy he had been in radio for many years and knew many reporters and journalists. He said he could count on one hand those who he felt tried to push a certain narrative.
The other guy was convinced they were all just flaming Liberals who were trying to brainwash everyone.
That was at least twenty years ago and these two guys could not have been farther apart in their beliefs. It has only gotten much worse and the brainwashing of the older, more conservative crowd has only grown worse.
14
The younger crowd is no different for its lack of thoughtfulness and radical adherence to action without thought.
If you cannot coexist (sit and listen like an adult) with someone whose stating something you do not agree with out loud you are the problem.
If you cannot coexist (sit and listen like an adult) with someone whose stating something you do not agree with out loud you are the problem.
Equating the Nixon scandal and Trump scandal is more objective.........at both events Americans naturally sought backup information on the FACTS from all sources in the media.
The only difference today is that opinions are openly and more frequently disguised as facts...........the loudest and most frequently repeated partisan media opinions are being used as factual evidence to sway voters.The media has become more the message than the messenger..........the critical facts are being covered up and manipulated by in house media policy....................the last election was a tragic example..........if the media had focused on the truth of proposed policy facts and addressed the genuine issues critical to the well being of Americans and the country...........the voters would have been inspired to THINK and vote................instead the media duped public elected an Orwellian doublespeak con-man as POTUS!
The only difference today is that opinions are openly and more frequently disguised as facts...........the loudest and most frequently repeated partisan media opinions are being used as factual evidence to sway voters.The media has become more the message than the messenger..........the critical facts are being covered up and manipulated by in house media policy....................the last election was a tragic example..........if the media had focused on the truth of proposed policy facts and addressed the genuine issues critical to the well being of Americans and the country...........the voters would have been inspired to THINK and vote................instead the media duped public elected an Orwellian doublespeak con-man as POTUS!
1
fact/fakt/ noun : a thing that is indisputably the case.
To even entertain the idea that there is anything other than the facts to be considered is to abdicate your credibility and trustworthiness.
To honestly quibble you have to start from a real place with facts and then assert the alternate thing you claim are the right facts and provide the proofs that convinced you of it. Otherwise you are just lying, whether or not you are aware of lying is immaterial to teh topic here.
To even entertain the idea that there is anything other than the facts to be considered is to abdicate your credibility and trustworthiness.
To honestly quibble you have to start from a real place with facts and then assert the alternate thing you claim are the right facts and provide the proofs that convinced you of it. Otherwise you are just lying, whether or not you are aware of lying is immaterial to teh topic here.
6
Yes, there is one set of facts produced by WaPo, CNN and MSNBC, there is another by Fox and Breitbart. Are they facts or just power play?
4
The silver lining is, thanks to Twitter, we will be rid of Trump much sooner than we would otherwise...
4
Deep Throat was an unnamed, off the record source, Though the Washington Post survived this journalistic dance with the devil, the currentday disregard for the importance of using only named, on the record sources for "news" stories has to factor in the birth of the "fake news" era.
2
The facts: A scam artist has taken over as president after a campaign of lies, abuse, and black propaganda, helped by Putin's Russia. His supporters, about 40% of American voters, will stick by him because he projects their resentments. Fox News, Breitbart, talk show hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh, and Twitter and Facebook help mobilize them. Trump is a master of lies and Twitter attacks, which he uses preemptively to trash potential critics, opposition, or law-abiding discourse (Judge Curiel, the courts on his Muslim ban, Comey) and spread false allegations (wiretapping by Obama). Republicans in Congress and the Senate provide him cover so they can cut taxes for the rich and gut social programs. Even if Robert Mueller's investigation is not derailed by Trump (e.g. by firing Mueller), and his findings incriminate the president, he will not accept meekly or resign. But the outside world of economic reality will hit hard, and mistaken policies will hurt Trump's supporters and plausibly by end-2018 bring a major down-turn and crisis of joblessness with the stock market on the ropes. Trump is also likely to involve the U.S. in a foreign conflict, perhaps with North Korea, in an effort to rally the country around him. The consequences of his actions will be disastrous. In a quite credible scenario, Trump will be removed from office in 2019, since he will not leave of his own accord.
6
These assertions would only be considered "facts" in a science fiction about Russian zombies colluding with republicans vampires.
A whole lot of American history wouldn't have happened in today's media environment. For one thing, the civil rights movement would not have had its successes. Southern racists would have used Fox News, Breitbart, and the right-wing radio apparatus to successfully present a counter-narrative that Martin Luther King and his entire movement were all Communists, and that those being brutalized in the streets had brought it on themselves by actions they took secretly off-camera. The southern racists put all that stuff out there, but the major networks and newspapers refused to buy it. Fox, Breitbart, et al, would have eaten it up and spread it everywhere, and we'd still have all of Jim Crow.
8
The problem with the Trump- Russia scandal is that there is no evidence. Two weeks ago Diane Feinstein told Wolf Blitzer twice there is no evidence only rumors and stories. Last week the senate intelligence said that no one asked them to curb their investigation. How can the NYT, CNN and all of the MSM dedicate thousands of hours of reporting, print media, opinion pieces on something that is made up? Since Trump won the media has gone totally hysterical.
A lot of people seem to be forgetting something here.
What forced Nixon's resignation was the tapes, and he would have been forced to resign today just as he was back then based on those tapes. It was irrefutable evidence that the president had participated in the cover-up and engaged in obstruction of justice.
So much of the media, including NYT, has gotten ahead of itself on this story. Unless and until we have tapes showing that Trump broke the law, then any kind of parallel is somewhat silly. Even back then, Nixon had enough R's on his side to survive. Until the tapes came along.
I'm going to resist the urge to compare this with Watergate, because they are entirely different cases with entirely different actors with entirely different facts. Anyone who does otherwise is engaging in nonsensical speculation.
What forced Nixon's resignation was the tapes, and he would have been forced to resign today just as he was back then based on those tapes. It was irrefutable evidence that the president had participated in the cover-up and engaged in obstruction of justice.
So much of the media, including NYT, has gotten ahead of itself on this story. Unless and until we have tapes showing that Trump broke the law, then any kind of parallel is somewhat silly. Even back then, Nixon had enough R's on his side to survive. Until the tapes came along.
I'm going to resist the urge to compare this with Watergate, because they are entirely different cases with entirely different actors with entirely different facts. Anyone who does otherwise is engaging in nonsensical speculation.
8
NY Times. Do not call "lies" "facts". A "fact" is objectively true. A "lie" is objectively false. When a comment or charge is not yet strongly established, qualify it appropriately. Never use "he said" "he said" unless it also includes additional qualification (like some measure of the previous trustworthiness of the source.
"Alt facts" are lies. "Two sets of facts" are possible--but that is not what we have here. We have a set of facts with a set of fact-driven conjectures, versus a set of lies with a set of outcome driven wish-fulfillment conjectures. These are not the same or similar. They are nearly polar opposites.
When one group spends most of its time looking to spin, including outright falsehood, false positioning..., the time to call "foul" is every single time. Of course, absolutely nobody tells the full, objective truth all of the time, nor does anyone lie every single time, so an assessment of trustworthiness is necessarily a judgement call. A newspaper's judgement should be made based only on the objective truth of previous comments, not the subjective opinion of how nice the comments sound to some set of people.
This article could have been framed as a contest between those who are careful to hew to objective truth, bolstered by logic and carefully described inference versus those who establish emotion charged lies to deliberately mislead most of the republic, and the growth of the power of the liars since Nixon's time.
NY Times, please do your job.
"Alt facts" are lies. "Two sets of facts" are possible--but that is not what we have here. We have a set of facts with a set of fact-driven conjectures, versus a set of lies with a set of outcome driven wish-fulfillment conjectures. These are not the same or similar. They are nearly polar opposites.
When one group spends most of its time looking to spin, including outright falsehood, false positioning..., the time to call "foul" is every single time. Of course, absolutely nobody tells the full, objective truth all of the time, nor does anyone lie every single time, so an assessment of trustworthiness is necessarily a judgement call. A newspaper's judgement should be made based only on the objective truth of previous comments, not the subjective opinion of how nice the comments sound to some set of people.
This article could have been framed as a contest between those who are careful to hew to objective truth, bolstered by logic and carefully described inference versus those who establish emotion charged lies to deliberately mislead most of the republic, and the growth of the power of the liars since Nixon's time.
NY Times, please do your job.
11
No matter the real facts, Trump has already been indicted and convicted in the Democrat, liberal and progressive court of opinion. He cannot receive a fair hearing, no matter the lack of any proof linking him to Russian influence over the election. Due process and the rule of law do not matter to Democrats. They lost the election, but they are bound and determined to bring Trump down be any means necessary. It's the way they roll, and it's the way they have always rolled.
4
Paul: This matter is very easily remedied:
1) Trump testifies under oath about the issues Comey brought up.
2) Trump provides his tax releases for the past 20 years as well as comprehensive audits of his finances.
3) Trump stops using the office as a money making opportunity by actually putting his holdings into a blind trust.
Simple solution.
1) Trump testifies under oath about the issues Comey brought up.
2) Trump provides his tax releases for the past 20 years as well as comprehensive audits of his finances.
3) Trump stops using the office as a money making opportunity by actually putting his holdings into a blind trust.
Simple solution.
The headline should have had "Facts" in quotes. They're not facts; balderdash is closer to the truth.
5
Fox is Trump's state-run media, just as Tass is Putin's.
People should get their news from trusted sources that have been around for decades, and in the case of the New York Times, since 1851 ( but which our president calls "the failing New York Times", because he knows they're the world's most respected newspaper, and what he fears the most is truth.)
Trump is dangerous, and paired with the amount of garbage posing as legitimate news on the internet, he has created an environment of chaos and misinformation which needs to be addressed along with his disastrous presidency.
People should get their news from trusted sources that have been around for decades, and in the case of the New York Times, since 1851 ( but which our president calls "the failing New York Times", because he knows they're the world's most respected newspaper, and what he fears the most is truth.)
Trump is dangerous, and paired with the amount of garbage posing as legitimate news on the internet, he has created an environment of chaos and misinformation which needs to be addressed along with his disastrous presidency.
10
Because at the time of Watergate NEWS wasn't ratings and entertainment with a splattering of actual facts thrown into the mix- in case anyone with 1/2 a brain is watching. To remind the news media outlets out there- your responsibility is to report unbiased FACTS- not sound-bites. Get back to reporting the news as it was meant to be reported and articles like this don't be necessary.
6
Paul Ryan would be saying "We have to give President Nixon a chance." Because Paul Ryan would be getting something out of it that leaves him morally blind.
7
While there were facts in the Watergate investigations, I am not really sure there are facts in the current investigations. Other than listening to jokes from friends, I pay little attention.
3
If it weren't for four people: two reporters, Ben Bradlee and Deep Throat, we would have never known the truth about Nixon.
And as much as the GOP would love to have their own set of facts, reality will not oblige them.
In fact, the GOP is now in a war with reality.
I wonder who's going to win that one?
And as much as the GOP would love to have their own set of facts, reality will not oblige them.
In fact, the GOP is now in a war with reality.
I wonder who's going to win that one?
7
Everybody is saying there is only one set of facts, but Comey called out the Times over a story he said was incorrect. The Times has since looked at its reporting and said it stands by the story. So are Comey and the Times operating with different sets of facts?
This is a much more complex issue than a yes/no black/white kind of thing.
This is a much more complex issue than a yes/no black/white kind of thing.
7
Interesting how quickly the alternative facts crew (tellingly, never with full names either) - jumps in to the NYT comments section.
4
Nmp, what I wrote was simple, straightforward, and true. And you're trying to twist it to sound like the "alternative facts crew." Where is your respect for the truth?
3
This only confirms what we have long known to be true. The facts have a liberal bias.
3
On the other hand "progressives" confuse opinion with fact.
2
Perhaps toward the John Locke, classical liberal sense of values and reason, but certainly not toward what passes for liberalism today.
1
I rue the day that the Fairness Doctrine was abandoned. Media has since been free to abandon serious, principled journalism for pursuit of maximum profits through infotainment that panders to the least common denominator and reaps best ratings. False equivalencies proliferate because clash of vigorous debate gets higher ratings than dispassionate, disinterested reporting of established facts. The true Fourth Estate, crucial to a healthy democracy, is on life support while biased sources of propaganda proliferate and thrive. The results of the 2016 campaign season are the most destructive consequences to date of this sorry state of public discourse.
In the political history of this nation, we have never seen such overwhelming advantage handed to one candidate by our media. Totally irresponsible media embraced a B list celebrity real estate tycoon with zero experience in government as a legitimate candidate for the highest office in the land. Even sources that endorsed Clinton, like this paper, blessed Trump's candidacy with an insane imbalance in attention because coverage of Trump-- positive, neutral, or negative-- was inherently more interesting and generated more profits than fair and balanced editorial policy. Media CEO's shamelessly admitted this. Every day, here and elsewhere, we were fed pointless puff pieces on Trump, Trump, Trump.
"Fake news and lame stream media," indeed. The American people desperately need revival and robust recovery of the true Fourth Estate.
In the political history of this nation, we have never seen such overwhelming advantage handed to one candidate by our media. Totally irresponsible media embraced a B list celebrity real estate tycoon with zero experience in government as a legitimate candidate for the highest office in the land. Even sources that endorsed Clinton, like this paper, blessed Trump's candidacy with an insane imbalance in attention because coverage of Trump-- positive, neutral, or negative-- was inherently more interesting and generated more profits than fair and balanced editorial policy. Media CEO's shamelessly admitted this. Every day, here and elsewhere, we were fed pointless puff pieces on Trump, Trump, Trump.
"Fake news and lame stream media," indeed. The American people desperately need revival and robust recovery of the true Fourth Estate.
13
The sky is blue. But the GOP will argue that that is a Democratic construct which isn't based on facts. They will tell you that the Democrats and or the liberals have some sort of ray that makes the sky look blue. The sky is really green or yellow or orange. Ask them why the sky is blue in another country as well as in America. They will say that liberals are changing things everywhere and that they are working to make the sky turn back to its original color. However, before they can do that they need to have a Republican in the White House and control of the Senate and the House.
Oh, but they have that now. So why is the sky still blue? They'll tell you it's still the Democrats fault. Why, you ask. Well, see, um, stop asking such difficult questions. We have a news conference scheduled this week when we will tell you everything. In the meantime the sky is still blue.
Oh, but they have that now. So why is the sky still blue? They'll tell you it's still the Democrats fault. Why, you ask. Well, see, um, stop asking such difficult questions. We have a news conference scheduled this week when we will tell you everything. In the meantime the sky is still blue.
19
The sky is not actually blue; the sky is nearly transparent. If the sky were blue, then the stars at night would all be blue. There are facts, and then there are misconceptions.
4
Brilliant (as usual)!
who pays for the legal fees? the white house or trump? ummmmm.....
8
If the simple era of honest facts and journalism was so perfect, then why didn't it stop J. Edgar Hoover from keeping the office in the 60es? Why is he often accused of essentially trying to blackmail politicians with targeted leaks to the press?
Seriously, I'd rather have competing media than the situation when people like Rhodes play the media - and there are no way of getting the story out, because all the outlets play the game.
Seriously, I'd rather have competing media than the situation when people like Rhodes play the media - and there are no way of getting the story out, because all the outlets play the game.
3
Competing media is good. Fact-free infotainment is the opiate of the masses.
There will be a special place n hell reserved for Rupert Murdoch who has debased journalism and soiled every media outlet he has bought or started from scratch.
44
"This whole story is a hoax." Yes, this is the inanity we live with now. Don't like something? Label it a hoax. Oh, and don't forget to call everyone a liar while you're at it. Boosts ratings every time.
Anybody who saw James Comey testify was watching an honest man. I thank him for that, as I thank all our honest government officials, career civil servants who believe in this country, who are certainly not in it for the money, for everything they do. I'm sure you're all finding it difficult in this environment to carry on with the good work you do, but keep doing it for this simple reason: if you don't, we're lost for sure.
Just wanted to say that before we are finally sucked into that fact-free alternative reality vortex we're headed for that we can't ever come back from.
Anybody who saw James Comey testify was watching an honest man. I thank him for that, as I thank all our honest government officials, career civil servants who believe in this country, who are certainly not in it for the money, for everything they do. I'm sure you're all finding it difficult in this environment to carry on with the good work you do, but keep doing it for this simple reason: if you don't, we're lost for sure.
Just wanted to say that before we are finally sucked into that fact-free alternative reality vortex we're headed for that we can't ever come back from.
22
It has been obvious that many in the GOP learned a perverted lesson from what happened to Nixon. Instead of pledging to behave in a more honorable and honest way they decided to subvert reality to their own ends. Roger Ailes perfected the propaganda arm, Newt Gingrich perfected scorched earth opposition tactics without shame, and Pat Buchanan rallied racially divisive anger. By attacking institutions that thwart you for decades you arrive in our present post-truth partisan state with a major party as out of touch with reality as the president they helped elect. Not because they like or respect him but because they think he's a means to their ends and ethics, civility, credibility, and competence be damned.
30
The alternative to a fact is a lie or a fiction. Let's not dignify the term with repetition. The 50:50 approach to reality has done real damage to the truth. In an uneven contest, the lies get half and the truth gets half. That is plain wrong.
The following is a non-sequitur, borrowed with gratitude from commenter Frederick earlier this month:
from Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus: “Insolence breeds the tyrant, violent insolence, gorging, crammed to bursting with all that is overripe and rich with ruin—clawing up to the heights, headlong insolence crashes down the abyss—sheer doom!”
The following is a non-sequitur, borrowed with gratitude from commenter Frederick earlier this month:
from Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus: “Insolence breeds the tyrant, violent insolence, gorging, crammed to bursting with all that is overripe and rich with ruin—clawing up to the heights, headlong insolence crashes down the abyss—sheer doom!”
14
Epidemiology provides a good model for one phenomenon that you and your colleague Jeremy Peters describe. It takes a single "Patient Zero" to plant false information in the media -- and then the "hyper-driven, hyper-divided media" spread the contagion.
If Robert Mueller finds wrongdoing, you ask in your conclusion, "...how much of the country will believe it?" Indeed, that is the question: a large minority of our citizens place their trust in a President who is a known liar. What if there is no set of "facts," no self-evident "truths," which people will hew to, even at the expense of their cherished beliefs?
If Robert Mueller finds wrongdoing, you ask in your conclusion, "...how much of the country will believe it?" Indeed, that is the question: a large minority of our citizens place their trust in a President who is a known liar. What if there is no set of "facts," no self-evident "truths," which people will hew to, even at the expense of their cherished beliefs?
36
Watergate had to do with acts that happened before the 1972 election. There is a parallel with Trump. While there is speculation about his campaigns relation with Russia, we don't know his own relation before he ran for president. I don't know what Mueller will look into but he needs to go far back. And I don't know if he can look at those tax returns too.
4
I get uneasy when journalists begin to offer "meta analysis" of unfolding news, an approach that demands a critical distance of retrospection. We haven't even established the facts of the Trump-Russia imbroglio, and Jim Rutenberg is already examining the story as an "intense debate" around the fight for "narrative supremacy." I get uneasy because this approach inches us incrementally away from the compelling and important issues.
Let's focus on the facts for now--and of equal importance, communicate those facts as clearly and stridently as possible. Be a leader on this story, and leave the retrospective theorizations up to the grad students in communications studies.
Let's focus on the facts for now--and of equal importance, communicate those facts as clearly and stridently as possible. Be a leader on this story, and leave the retrospective theorizations up to the grad students in communications studies.
6
Please be very clear, NYT, there is no alternate set of facts. There are the existing facts and the context in which they have occurred. The facts surrounding the Russian hacking into our elections process are well-validated. We now need to determine if any Americans were involved. Further, since the Russian hacking occur and since there are so very many intersections between Trump and Russia, his connections to Russian banks and to Mr. Putin need to be thoroughly investigated. When Trump surrogates or Trump voters are interviewed by the press, the press needs to get out the facts and the context of the facts. Misrepresentations must not be allowed to stand.
17
Perhaps your comment could be clarified if you defined "hacking" - how exactly did Russia "hack" the election? The term is very ambiguous.
3
You say there is only one set of facts, and then say Russia hacked the election. In fact, there is no evidence of that Russia had any effect on vote counts, by hacking election machinery etc.
Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee, and John Podesta. Not the election.
So there you are...very easy how "alternative facts" can occur.
Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee, and John Podesta. Not the election.
So there you are...very easy how "alternative facts" can occur.
4
Jim, this Russiagate scandal as it is evolving could've lot of teeth only if the Democrats controlled the entire Congress, just like what they did at the time of Nixon's possible impeachment in 1973.
Actually these same Republicans would've nailed the president if the same president was of dark skin color like Obama was.
Trump with the same name but with African-American heritage would be siting in the Senate Chambers or giving depositions in the White House explaining how much and how early he knew about the Russian hacking and their subsequent interference in our electoral process.
That is exactly the reason why we see this dragging of the proceedings in the Senate as well as the earlier delays in the House by totally partial David Nunes,the ex-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who had to recuse himself after a very bizarre late night visit to the White House lawn to read the classified information regarding the leaks of the investigation but not the actual hacking of Hillary's computers by the Russians.
It also must be noted here that although Mr. Nunes has recused himself from Trump-Russia Collusion inquiry, but he's still illegally firing up subpoena to the F.B.I. employees for possible leaking materials. Some nerves.
So if we really compare Nixon's scandal which ultimately deposed him through his own resignation before the impeachment proceedings could begin, Trump will never face the grilling as long as the Republicans remain his partners in his crime.
Actually these same Republicans would've nailed the president if the same president was of dark skin color like Obama was.
Trump with the same name but with African-American heritage would be siting in the Senate Chambers or giving depositions in the White House explaining how much and how early he knew about the Russian hacking and their subsequent interference in our electoral process.
That is exactly the reason why we see this dragging of the proceedings in the Senate as well as the earlier delays in the House by totally partial David Nunes,the ex-chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who had to recuse himself after a very bizarre late night visit to the White House lawn to read the classified information regarding the leaks of the investigation but not the actual hacking of Hillary's computers by the Russians.
It also must be noted here that although Mr. Nunes has recused himself from Trump-Russia Collusion inquiry, but he's still illegally firing up subpoena to the F.B.I. employees for possible leaking materials. Some nerves.
So if we really compare Nixon's scandal which ultimately deposed him through his own resignation before the impeachment proceedings could begin, Trump will never face the grilling as long as the Republicans remain his partners in his crime.
4
Abraham Lincoln on the collapse of the Whig Party and the birth of the Republican Party, said in reaction to the predominant Know-Nothing Party with it's strong anti-immigrant sentiment, "Well... I know I'm not a Know-Nothing'". Could any modern day Republicans honestly say the same? Another weird connection to our era with it's differing sets of facts. Abraham Lincoln wrote under an ALIAS about William O. Douglas, his arch rival, and dispersed the disparaging articles widely amongst rival newspapers. Where would Lincoln have planted them if he were around today? Who can say. But Republicans might want to give these correlations consideration if they are to have any hope of curtailing the party's current fatal turn under the short reign of our "Know Nothing"... President.
3
It took 27 months for a third-rate burglary to turn into Nixon's resignation. Think about that a bit. Yes, the media landscape was different and the news cycle was an order of magnitude slower than it is today. You can make the argument that Nixon's coverup was shrewd and fairly comprehensive -- his whole team bought into it except for Dean, who realized early on that he was being set up. What ultimately brought him down was the smoking gun of the Oval Office tapes. And recall, too, how that revelation occurred. It was from Alexander Butterfield's testimony, and he mentioned it in an off-handed kind of way from a fairly innocent question. He gave the answer as if he was saying, "Doesn't everybody know this?" One more thing: Butterfield was a low-level (i.e. unimportant) deputy aide to Nixon, and the FAA administrator. My guess is that this won't take two years, but rather a year. Trump doesn't have anywhere near Nixon's cunning. So he'll either do himself in, or some deputy commissioner or low-level aide will make a revelation that ultimately causes his demise.
6
JFK made huge mistakes - Bay of Pigs, the closest the world has been to nuclear WWIII with the brinksmanship of the Cuban Missle Crisis, the start of the Vietnam War, the nepotism of appointing his brother Bobby as AG, sleeping with more women than either Clinton or Trump - to the point of risking blackmail and national security. JFK used all types of dirty tricks to win 1960 Presidential election - Chicago's Mayor Daley's political machine, using the Mafia, big money money from his father Joe, smear campaigns with aid from liberal columnists, a Watergate-type break-in to get Nixon's financial records - all to win one of the closest Presidential elections in our history. But JFK was young, brilliant, a great orator with a beautiful, young family. He gave us the moonshot, the foundations for Civil Rights and Voting Rights (delivered by LBJ), he was tragically assassinated (many still believe by the Deep State) - forever young. The new media of the day, TV, loved him (and hated Nixon). The liberal, mainstream media looked the other way at JFK's mistakes and dirty tricks, but they targeted and attacked Nixon culminating in Watergate. Nixon created the Constitutional crisis with the Watergate cover up, but JFK got a pass on crimes similar to Watergate. That double standard gave us Roger Ailes and Fox News. Fox News is indeed cancerous and the media environment today is nothing like the '60s as '70s, but the blatant pro-JFK and anti-Nixon media bias was fake news of that era.
6
Facts are NOT what one BELIEVES. Talk to a Holocaust or climate change denier, if you doubt this.
But one political fact will prevail: If Trump starts to implode the GOP, then suddenly there will be "facts" galore, as clear as the rising sun, without ambiguity.
But one political fact will prevail: If Trump starts to implode the GOP, then suddenly there will be "facts" galore, as clear as the rising sun, without ambiguity.
5
Fox 24/7 lying spin machine, spreading false garbage to their loyal viewers. Being a loyal viewer of Fox means that you are less informed then if you watched no news at all. Some family members report that they have blocked Fox from their parents cable lineup because of the problems it has caused. Roger Ailes is responsible for dividing this nation for the last 20 years spreading hate and mis-information. "Fair & Balanced" I think not.
8
Watergate was real news.
The "Trump-Russia scandal," according to Comey's testimony, was fake news.
The "Trump-Russia scandal," according to Comey's testimony, was fake news.
6
Huh?? Here's a recommendation: actually listen to, or read the transcript of, Comey's testimony.
7
I just worry so much that Trump is going to get away with hoodwinking our institutions in today's world where there are multiple versions of the truths. Bob Muller, you are the last man standing!
In this informational chaotic world, the idea of "False Equivalence" is used heavily by the Fox News and others. Anybody can say anything about anything. Nowadays we even have to worry about what robots (Twitter bots) are saying. More than the meddling the Russians did in our 2016 election, there are Americans hell bent on spreading the fake news using the technologically sophisticated tools. How did we get here?
So the key question I think is how do you fight false equivalence?
I also think that NYTimes needs to adapt and figure out how to tell the truth to non-believers when "more and more people are looking for information in the media and elsewhere that will reinforce what they already believe."
In this informational chaotic world, the idea of "False Equivalence" is used heavily by the Fox News and others. Anybody can say anything about anything. Nowadays we even have to worry about what robots (Twitter bots) are saying. More than the meddling the Russians did in our 2016 election, there are Americans hell bent on spreading the fake news using the technologically sophisticated tools. How did we get here?
So the key question I think is how do you fight false equivalence?
I also think that NYTimes needs to adapt and figure out how to tell the truth to non-believers when "more and more people are looking for information in the media and elsewhere that will reinforce what they already believe."
5
Yes Benedict Donald is a bigger liar than Nixon was, but then again Nixon didn't commit treason.
3
Watergate: A break-in at DNC headquarters and effort by the President of the US and his staff to cover up the fact that White House staff were behind the break-in.
Trumpgate: Some vague mumbles that somehow the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in getting hacked DNC material to Wikileaks for publications.
Yes, it is possible that information will come out eventually to make the two more similar, but drawing close parallels now is still just wishful thinking.
Trumpgate: Some vague mumbles that somehow the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in getting hacked DNC material to Wikileaks for publications.
Yes, it is possible that information will come out eventually to make the two more similar, but drawing close parallels now is still just wishful thinking.
3
Vague mumblings - you mean the findings of 17 elements of the intelligence community? The Russia intereference is a cyber space 2016 version of the watergate breaking. May not be sponsored by the Teuno campaign but can't deny it happened.
Therefore, what is the issue with getting to the bottom of it? Why is Trump so resistant to the concept? Invalidates his victory and his ego can't cope? Doesn't want attention drawn to the Russians who have invested in his businesses and who he has partnered in the past?
This could all be cleared up - once and for all. Release your tax returns, testify in front of congress and Director Mueller. Do what you goaded President Obama to needlessly have to do when he released his birth certificate and prove everyone wrong
Therefore, what is the issue with getting to the bottom of it? Why is Trump so resistant to the concept? Invalidates his victory and his ego can't cope? Doesn't want attention drawn to the Russians who have invested in his businesses and who he has partnered in the past?
This could all be cleared up - once and for all. Release your tax returns, testify in front of congress and Director Mueller. Do what you goaded President Obama to needlessly have to do when he released his birth certificate and prove everyone wrong
1
Was there ever a boss that said "I hope you'll be able to get to this project today" and meant it not as a directive, but as mere aspiration? Was there ever a subordinate who took it as other than a mandate "get it done, and get it done today?"
Certainly no boss I've ever worked for.
Certainly no boss I've ever worked for.
12
If Comey understood it as a directive, as he's claimed, then he should either have acted on it or resigned in protest. He did neither. Obviously he is lying.
1
So should all of the people out there in the workforce register their objection in no uncertain terms with their boss, on the spot? And if he or she doesn't reconsider, then resign and look for work elsewhere?
This would also be the "obvious" tact that all employees should take, according to your reasoning Victor. But few do, instead they silently retreat and try to carry out the impossible. Are these people likewise being deceitful Victor? To their companies? To their bosses?
At least Comey did not try to carry out Trump's inappropriate if not illegal directive.
This would also be the "obvious" tact that all employees should take, according to your reasoning Victor. But few do, instead they silently retreat and try to carry out the impossible. Are these people likewise being deceitful Victor? To their companies? To their bosses?
At least Comey did not try to carry out Trump's inappropriate if not illegal directive.
4
There aren't rival sets of facts. There are rival sets of claims. And just as Richard Nixon said, "I am not a crook," the deputy press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, announced her boss is not a liar. That's almost as disgusting as the thought that she, like her father, believes in the Ten Commandments until it isn't convenient.
37
There is only ONE set of facts.
Not quite.
It's the observation that determines the "fact".
Same event can have several different interpretations.
The film Rashomon shows it in black and white.
Same event (a rape) but 4 different interpretations of what happened. Each of them equally correct from the observer's point of view.
Not quite.
It's the observation that determines the "fact".
Same event can have several different interpretations.
The film Rashomon shows it in black and white.
Same event (a rape) but 4 different interpretations of what happened. Each of them equally correct from the observer's point of view.
3
Once the Demoncrats are back in control, they should pass a law prohibiting a President or any member of his/her Administration from interviewing with only one media "news" organization. The President's interviews should be open to all press meeting a minimum market threshold, such as top five TV media and top 5 print media by market share. No call-ins by a President to his favorite supporter's or family friend's shows. That way a "news" service is not enabled to become or act as the propaganda arm of the government.
8
To be clear: the post-fact world that we live in is not the result of just Trump; in truth, it's the result of republicans in general.
Prior to Trump, republicans by and large still lived in their own little world, with their own alternate reality, and their own "alternative facts."
Pre-Trump, if you asked a republican about climate change or trickle down economics or any number of issues, you'd hear a bunch of lies and propaganda, trying to fool you into believing whatever nonsense they could come up with that would have the most benefits for their rich benefactors.
Trump gets a brunt of the blame now, but people shouldn't forget that without republicans, a Trump presidency wouldn't even have been possible.
Remember that there's plenty of blame to go around...
Prior to Trump, republicans by and large still lived in their own little world, with their own alternate reality, and their own "alternative facts."
Pre-Trump, if you asked a republican about climate change or trickle down economics or any number of issues, you'd hear a bunch of lies and propaganda, trying to fool you into believing whatever nonsense they could come up with that would have the most benefits for their rich benefactors.
Trump gets a brunt of the blame now, but people shouldn't forget that without republicans, a Trump presidency wouldn't even have been possible.
Remember that there's plenty of blame to go around...
14
It is time for the NYT and other mainstream media sources to quit using the term "alternative facts." There are facts and then there are lies. The far right President. Republican Party and "Conservative News" are simply lying. Have the integrity and courage to call it what is is "LIES."
48
One inconvenient truth exposed by none other than Comey himself is that the NYT printed inaccurate (fake?) news. The NYT does not try and hide the fact that they are opposed to Trump's presidency in every way, each day there are opinion columnists here viciously attacking Trump. During the campaign a NYT news reporter admitted that normal journalism standards don't apply with respect to Trump.
9
The NY Times is probably the most respected English-language paper on earth, for good reason. They're part of the reason we know so much about this administration's misdeeds.
And Comey never claimed that the NY Times publishes fake news. He said he disagreed with the narrative in a specific article; a narrative confirmed by competing, and conservative publications, like WSJ.
And Comey never claimed that the NY Times publishes fake news. He said he disagreed with the narrative in a specific article; a narrative confirmed by competing, and conservative publications, like WSJ.
14
Perhaps looking at what was actually said would clarify the matter for you:
"That report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?" Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, asked.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey replied. "The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters, about writing on classified information is: The people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
"That report by the New York Times was not true. Is that a fair statement?" Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, asked.
"In the main, it was not true," Comey replied. "The challenge, and I'm not picking on reporters, about writing on classified information is: The people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it."
5
I'm sure it eats away at both the Times and the Post that their hysterical reporting this time around is unlikely to bring down another Republican president. For that alone we can be thankful for the more diverse media environment in which we have to draw our news.
6
Why do you see it as a party matter? If Hillary of any other Democratic candidate or President acted like atrumo, would you condone it?
Oh John from Thailand, it is Trump's blunders and bullheadedness, duly reported by the NYT and WaPo, that have stalled his agenda, if he in fact ever had one. Instead of pointing fingers, which is a skill he honed as a reality TV celebrity, he and his supporters should man up and take responsibility for their situation.
1
The only reality is that there is not one piece of evidence for a Russian conspiracy to interfere with the election or the Trump campaign collusion with the Russians. THat hasn't stopped the press from reporting the allegations as fact and of course waiting for the investigation to be completed.
6
Except the findings of 17 intelligence organisations. What's the film say - "the truth, you can't handle the truth!"
1
People should read newspapers like the N.Y. Times and Washington Post, since these papers have fact checkers. The facts and timeline of events in the Russian Collusion/Obstruction of Justice story will support the evidence. In my opinion, the special counsel, Robert Mueller will be able to connect the dots demonstrating collusion with Russia as well as obstruction of justice. As many people have said, it took Watergate Hearings and judicial proceedings over two years to build a substantial case against Nixon. It has only been a few months since the Trump Administration has been in power.
5
People should read newspapers like the N.Y. Times and Washington Post, since these papers have fact checkers.
===================
According to Comey, that didn't stop them from falsely claiming Trump was under investigation
===================
According to Comey, that didn't stop them from falsely claiming Trump was under investigation
3
I heard a piece on NPR this weekend on the lack of trust and respect for experts. Everyone thinks they know more than their doctor, who spent years studying and practicing medicine, because they read something on the internet. Everyone thinks they can become an instant expert.
The same idea is happening with news and information. It seems like the public cannot discern between quality and junk and equal weight is given to anything that is written. When major parts of the public think that Drudge and online 'journalist' Louise Mensch is of the same quality for telling the truth as the Times and Reuters, that's a sad commentary.
How did we get here and what can we do about it? Somewhere our population lost the ability to think critically. We need to start teaching our children critical thinking skills and that just because you see something written down by a self-proclaimed expert does not make it true.
There is only one set of facts on Trump/Russia. Regardless of how popular or unpopular that truth is, it needs to come out. Our leaders in Congress and the executive need to be held accountable for bringing it to the surface. And the quality media have an important role in this. Isn't that what the free-media part of the First Amendment is all about?
The same idea is happening with news and information. It seems like the public cannot discern between quality and junk and equal weight is given to anything that is written. When major parts of the public think that Drudge and online 'journalist' Louise Mensch is of the same quality for telling the truth as the Times and Reuters, that's a sad commentary.
How did we get here and what can we do about it? Somewhere our population lost the ability to think critically. We need to start teaching our children critical thinking skills and that just because you see something written down by a self-proclaimed expert does not make it true.
There is only one set of facts on Trump/Russia. Regardless of how popular or unpopular that truth is, it needs to come out. Our leaders in Congress and the executive need to be held accountable for bringing it to the surface. And the quality media have an important role in this. Isn't that what the free-media part of the First Amendment is all about?
27
Amazing.
Saying this after Comey said that the NYT lied about Trump being under investigation.
Saying this after Comey said that the NYT lied about Trump being under investigation.
3
No one said that the best quality news outlets are perfect. The Times addressed what Comey said in his testimony about the article. Did you read it?
3
I agree with almost your entire post. Except on the source of this lack of trust and respect -- I think the problem is that we've been taught to be TOO critical.
Everyone loves to be critical of the experts, and the bigger and more established the "expert" (the main stream media, the government, your family doctor, the research community, teachers), the more rebellious/edgy/smart it feels to take a contrarian position.
This is the core problem with our culture today, as you say in your first paragraph. The solution is not to encourage kids to become more critical.
Everyone loves to be critical of the experts, and the bigger and more established the "expert" (the main stream media, the government, your family doctor, the research community, teachers), the more rebellious/edgy/smart it feels to take a contrarian position.
This is the core problem with our culture today, as you say in your first paragraph. The solution is not to encourage kids to become more critical.
1
There is something else, the players in Watergate. Sam Ervin and James Baker along with the other Watergate Senate Committee members were instrumental in Nixon resigning from office. As a viewer of those hearings in 1973 I never once felt these individuals on the committee were anything but honest citizens. And they were only seeking the truth. Country first.
I’m not so sure it’s that way today, not just the partisanship of the country, but the men and women who represent us. If ever we place party above country, we’re doomed. I do hope that at the end of the day Congress with still place our Democracy at the head of the column. But last week’s hearings shed some doubt on that, followed by comments from Speaker Ryan and others. Time will tell though.
I’m not so sure it’s that way today, not just the partisanship of the country, but the men and women who represent us. If ever we place party above country, we’re doomed. I do hope that at the end of the day Congress with still place our Democracy at the head of the column. But last week’s hearings shed some doubt on that, followed by comments from Speaker Ryan and others. Time will tell though.
5
In those days there was only the Liberal Media.
Ervin and Baker and all the others loved being written about and lauded in the press.
In a way, the media egged on the impeachment.
Ervin and Baker and all the others loved being written about and lauded in the press.
In a way, the media egged on the impeachment.
1
I've been reading Real Clear Politics for some months on the advice of a very liberal friend. It's similar to the new Times feature that presents stories from scross the political spectrum.
It's been illuminating, to read different takes on the same sets of facts. And the liberal media is not immunt to hyperbole. One story described how many people in the House and Senate Comey told that Trump was not under investigation--and how many of those people went on to talk about investigation possible collusion between Trump and the Russians.
I'll continue to rely on thr Times, WP, and MSNBC as my main news sources. But the people who are skeptical about what they read and hear are not all low-information conspiracy theorists.
It's been illuminating, to read different takes on the same sets of facts. And the liberal media is not immunt to hyperbole. One story described how many people in the House and Senate Comey told that Trump was not under investigation--and how many of those people went on to talk about investigation possible collusion between Trump and the Russians.
I'll continue to rely on thr Times, WP, and MSNBC as my main news sources. But the people who are skeptical about what they read and hear are not all low-information conspiracy theorists.
4
Forget Watergate. Imagine what the coverage would be for issues like slavery? I cannot see civil rights legislation getting passed today in Congress.
10
And the Supremes have already struck down vital parts of the Voting Rights Act. Nah, there's no disenfranchisement going on in the Old Confederacy, so no need for those cumbersome rules....
3
Yes, unlike Nixon, Trump does have a "loyal media armada." And, yes, what sells news papers and what attracts TV viewers is what people want to read and hear, what fits into their own prejudices. But I would like to think that even if Nixon had a Limbaugh or FOX news, he would have been brought down by an honest justice system.
To flip this a bit, the same holds true for Trump. We are bombarded on all sides every time we turn on our TV and computer devices or pick up a news paper. Our star-struck President is getting the top billing Nixon could only dream of.
But the media and we the public have exploited and diminished the fundamental truth for our own personal agenda - that is the reality and proven facts that a hostile nation directly interfered with our constitutional rights as a democracy. That is the focus. That is what needs to be high-lighted and emphasized by honest politicians, ethical and professional news outlets, and a justice system that is, indeed, just and unbiased. I would like to think that the above still exists. More to the point...I hope and pray that it does because Trump is not worthy nor honest nor stable enough to be a leader of the free world.
To flip this a bit, the same holds true for Trump. We are bombarded on all sides every time we turn on our TV and computer devices or pick up a news paper. Our star-struck President is getting the top billing Nixon could only dream of.
But the media and we the public have exploited and diminished the fundamental truth for our own personal agenda - that is the reality and proven facts that a hostile nation directly interfered with our constitutional rights as a democracy. That is the focus. That is what needs to be high-lighted and emphasized by honest politicians, ethical and professional news outlets, and a justice system that is, indeed, just and unbiased. I would like to think that the above still exists. More to the point...I hope and pray that it does because Trump is not worthy nor honest nor stable enough to be a leader of the free world.
8
that a hostile nation directly interfered with our constitutional rights
Oh, please.
Change the hostile nation to hostile DNC.
If anything, the Russians were whistle blowers.
Oh, please.
Change the hostile nation to hostile DNC.
If anything, the Russians were whistle blowers.
5
On the bright side, Godwin's Law will get an update.
5
At the time of Watergate the GOP battle cry, honed during the Vietnam War protests, was "My Country, right or wrong!"
For the past eight Obama years, and now inclusive of the Trump era, the GOP's unwavering rallying cry: "My Party, right or wrong!"
For the past eight Obama years, and now inclusive of the Trump era, the GOP's unwavering rallying cry: "My Party, right or wrong!"
27
There are no such things as alternative facts. You have the facts and you have propaganda. Take your pick it's either one or the other it can't be both.
57
"But whether Mr. Comey is bravely blowing the whistle on wrongdoing at the highest levels of government, a la Mr. Felt, or showboating on a nonstory is under intense debate in certain robust media corners."
Let's get at least one thing straight. Felt was passed over for the top job at the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover died, and so he had an ax to grind. He wasn't "bravely blowing the whistle," he was exacting revenge--if he was "bravely blowing the whistle," he would have met with reporters somewhere other than a parking garage in dead of night and actually led them to information instead of only corroborating information they'd already gotten elsewhere--in the end, Felt provided very few, if any, tips. His value, mainly, was in confirming stuff. The guy who broke Watergate wide open was Butterfield, and did it during a public hearing when he said that Nixon had taped himself.
It is unforgivable, really, that NYT would treat history--journalistic history, no less--in such a slipshod fashion. There is, very much, a parallel between Felt and Comey, and it is not one that either man would cherish.
Let's get at least one thing straight. Felt was passed over for the top job at the FBI when J. Edgar Hoover died, and so he had an ax to grind. He wasn't "bravely blowing the whistle," he was exacting revenge--if he was "bravely blowing the whistle," he would have met with reporters somewhere other than a parking garage in dead of night and actually led them to information instead of only corroborating information they'd already gotten elsewhere--in the end, Felt provided very few, if any, tips. His value, mainly, was in confirming stuff. The guy who broke Watergate wide open was Butterfield, and did it during a public hearing when he said that Nixon had taped himself.
It is unforgivable, really, that NYT would treat history--journalistic history, no less--in such a slipshod fashion. There is, very much, a parallel between Felt and Comey, and it is not one that either man would cherish.
4
You are only speculating on the motives of Felt.
Butterfield's revelation about the White House taping system was an answer to a question. No one at the time, including Butterfield, knew the implications.
Moreover, Comey started making notes about the Trump meetings BEFORE he was fired.
Do Trump apologists always jump to conclusions?
Butterfield's revelation about the White House taping system was an answer to a question. No one at the time, including Butterfield, knew the implications.
Moreover, Comey started making notes about the Trump meetings BEFORE he was fired.
Do Trump apologists always jump to conclusions?
5
In each side's mind they are good and the other side is evil. Individual actions or events are inconsequential and irrelevant, it's the general principles that are at odds with one another here these days. It's worse than sectarian war because that's at least on a specific topic.
2
There is no hope. Republicans are in control. The only thing important to them is money, power, and control, not necessarily in that order. Laws, the Constitution, tradition, truth, integrity, compassion, decency, are all for naive and stupid people. They are honestly proud of themselves for being realists and knowing that the law of the jungle is what rules and if you think otherwise you're a fool. It's a story thousands of years old and so long as some human beings operate on the principles of greed and ambition and total disregard of those who are not part of their select group it will always be so.
It must be said though that this behavior works, and those that practice it succeed even to the point where their most shining example of the philosophy is now president of this unfortunate country. I would say God help us except I believe that if there were a God he or she would not let this abomination continue.
It must be said though that this behavior works, and those that practice it succeed even to the point where their most shining example of the philosophy is now president of this unfortunate country. I would say God help us except I believe that if there were a God he or she would not let this abomination continue.
39
Please, please, stop calling unfounded assertions "facts". This change in meaning of the word "facts" is going to be harmful to public discourse which has enough problems these days. Once the word "facts" no longer refers to reality, how are we going to denote real events?
20
Precisely. And for the current state of affairs, we have the rise of conspiracy-driven, wingnut-attracting media outlets -- many of them right-wing (yes, Fox News and Breitbart, we're thinking of you...) but not exclusively. I remember Watergate well. There was no internet; no social media bleating and twittering. If one wanted information, one read the newspaper(s) or watched the (mostly responsible) television newscasts and coverage. Nowadays? Pick and choose as you will; you'll find some website, some podcast, some screaming meemie that'll exactly match your political outlook. You may be comforted, but you'll not be informed.
6
The United States cannot be repaired - it is dead. It is time to get ready for what comes next. #calexit
With your kind of declarations and failures to elaborate why, maybe you are right.
This brings to mind a quote from Mark Twain: "reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
The nation is sick, yes, but it is not close to death.
The nation is sick, yes, but it is not close to death.
3
Alternative Facts, for alternative " people ". And NOT in a good way.
2
This is indeed a different world. Pick any topic and you can find a multitude of contradictory "facts" to describe it. Moreover, some of the most blatantly obvious incorrect explanations will be found repeated from web site to web site or Tweet to Tweet with the various authors making no attempt to research the point and cerainly not caring.
In 1897 there was a bill in the Indiana legislature to redefine the value of pi from 3.14159... to 3.2 or several other simpler values. It almost passed until a scientist happened to notice what was going on and explained the error, which killed the bill.
In 1917 the bill would have passed or failed depending on the number of Tweets on which side. It would certainly pass if the true value were claimed to be a conspiracy of the deep state. Conscientious legislators might hold a hearing to see what their constituents wanted to believe. Scientific input would be ignored as fake news. Anything can become true if there is enough internet coverage, and virtually no one takes the trouble to check. Thank God for the NYT and a handful of publications for trying to hold the line, although way too few people actually read.
In 1897 there was a bill in the Indiana legislature to redefine the value of pi from 3.14159... to 3.2 or several other simpler values. It almost passed until a scientist happened to notice what was going on and explained the error, which killed the bill.
In 1917 the bill would have passed or failed depending on the number of Tweets on which side. It would certainly pass if the true value were claimed to be a conspiracy of the deep state. Conscientious legislators might hold a hearing to see what their constituents wanted to believe. Scientific input would be ignored as fake news. Anything can become true if there is enough internet coverage, and virtually no one takes the trouble to check. Thank God for the NYT and a handful of publications for trying to hold the line, although way too few people actually read.
6
"to redefine the value of pi from 3.14159... to 3.2"
"In 1917 the bill would have passed or failed depending on the number of Tweets on which side. "
You redefined 2017 to be 1917, when all tweets came from birds.
"In 1917 the bill would have passed or failed depending on the number of Tweets on which side. "
You redefined 2017 to be 1917, when all tweets came from birds.
1
What kind of a headline is that? Who wrote it? Kellyanne Conway? Why would the paper adopt that language?
Millions of Americans have marched and made phone calls to try to keep in check the most dangerous administration our country has ever known. We strongly support our free press, and the Times' use of the language of totalitarians is not helping.
Millions of Americans have marched and made phone calls to try to keep in check the most dangerous administration our country has ever known. We strongly support our free press, and the Times' use of the language of totalitarians is not helping.
9
"But whether Mr. Comey is bravely blowing the whistle on wrongdoing at the highest levels of government, à la Mr. Felt, or showboating on a nonstory is under intense debate in certain robust media quarters." Get your act together Mr. Rutenberg.
Such a missleading statement, "Robust media quarters"? Not! It is only being debated in corrupt media quarters and, or, places where low info combined with low intelligence combine.
A big part of the problem is the MSM's cowardice when it comes to how it present information. The false equivilency, the weasil words, the ambiguity where there is none. The authors of the information that creates in large part the conciousness of our country walk a tightrope. On one side meaning held up by truth. On the other side dishonor and sociatal destruction and decay. This is not a game.
This is a call to arms to the establishment press. Those who want to stand on the right side of history are required to protect heir honor by being rigorous in the reporting of only fact.
And in addition call out the alternative reality mosh pit that is right wing America where anger is fueled by lies. When a bright light is trained on the slime that is The Drudge Report, Breitbart, or Limbaugh they curl up and die. At least for a day, anyway. The rights alternative reality must be continuously exposed for the indefensible filth that it is. I can think of nothing less patriotic than the current American right wing propaganda effort.
Such a missleading statement, "Robust media quarters"? Not! It is only being debated in corrupt media quarters and, or, places where low info combined with low intelligence combine.
A big part of the problem is the MSM's cowardice when it comes to how it present information. The false equivilency, the weasil words, the ambiguity where there is none. The authors of the information that creates in large part the conciousness of our country walk a tightrope. On one side meaning held up by truth. On the other side dishonor and sociatal destruction and decay. This is not a game.
This is a call to arms to the establishment press. Those who want to stand on the right side of history are required to protect heir honor by being rigorous in the reporting of only fact.
And in addition call out the alternative reality mosh pit that is right wing America where anger is fueled by lies. When a bright light is trained on the slime that is The Drudge Report, Breitbart, or Limbaugh they curl up and die. At least for a day, anyway. The rights alternative reality must be continuously exposed for the indefensible filth that it is. I can think of nothing less patriotic than the current American right wing propaganda effort.
5
Exactly. Perhaps we wouldn't be in this mess if the "real" press would not have given the likes of Trump a free pass and indulged in false equivalencies etc as a way to appear unbiased and garner more eyeballs. Journalists have a duty to be biased--biased for facts!
I hope it's not too late for the media to course correct and learn from mistakes.
I hope it's not too late for the media to course correct and learn from mistakes.
13
Thank God for the New York Times and Washington Post.
We need a capable free press more than ever in these trying times when a mad man ascended to the White House aided and abetted by Russia, and the Republican Party that should have known better.
We need a capable free press more than ever in these trying times when a mad man ascended to the White House aided and abetted by Russia, and the Republican Party that should have known better.
18
That question of what if Watergate happened now is, absolutely nothing would have happened it would have died on page 185.
5
Watergate happened in an era when the American People still had a sense of shame. Nixon could never have shot someone in Times Square and be applauded for it, Trump can.
8
What's with these headlines? "Take your pick"? What does that mean? There is still just "one set of facts" with the Trump-Russia scandal. Facts are facts - they are not media spin, political propaganda, disinformation, misdirection, and lies. They are just facts, whether people wish to acknowledge those facts or not.
11
There is a major difference between Watergate and the present situation. Watergate started with a crime. Five operatives paid by he Nixon reelection campaign were caught red-handed breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. At their trial, the burglars implicated members of Nixon staff. The present situation started with the hack of DNC email, but the U.S. intelligence community's assessment was that only Vladimir Putin could haven ordered the cyberattack. The heads of the intelligence agencies have testified they have found no evidence of collusion by any members of the Trump campaign. The objective of the present investigations is to discover a crime--any crime--that can be attributed to the Trump campaign or Trump White House.
3
In Watergate, the Republican President's handlers more or less hacked DNC files and got rightfully impeached for.
In Russiagate, the Russians - who were very friendly with Trump's handlers -
hacked the DNC and used it to aid and abet the Republican President's election.
The fact that today's Russian Republicans can't see the parallels is prima facie evidence of Pachyderm Spongiform Encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated exposure to fake news, hate radio, conservative religion and a poor education.
Republicans have always dreamed of turning the United States into a Russian oligarchy...and now they have.
Republistan....where 'free-dumb', poverty and nationally-assisted suicide are thriving.
Sedition is the Republican Party platform.
In Russiagate, the Russians - who were very friendly with Trump's handlers -
hacked the DNC and used it to aid and abet the Republican President's election.
The fact that today's Russian Republicans can't see the parallels is prima facie evidence of Pachyderm Spongiform Encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease caused by repeated exposure to fake news, hate radio, conservative religion and a poor education.
Republicans have always dreamed of turning the United States into a Russian oligarchy...and now they have.
Republistan....where 'free-dumb', poverty and nationally-assisted suicide are thriving.
Sedition is the Republican Party platform.
65
"who were very friendly with Trump's handlers"
That part is entirely made up, and so is then your whole post based on it.
It's all in your and your friends' minds.
That part is entirely made up, and so is then your whole post based on it.
It's all in your and your friends' minds.
2
Brilliant post and, sadly, spot-on true.
6
No DNC files were "hacked" during Watergate, so your credibility is gone.
Another difference: does anyone believe that if Trump were faced with imminent impeachment he would resign as Nixon did? Nixon showed an appreciation for the best outcome for our country, but we all know Trump would go down swinging, lying the whole time, and dragging the whole fiasco out as long as possible despite the harm to our country.
13
In this context a fact is "a piece of information presented as having objective reality". If there are two sets of mutually exclusive facts. Then by definition at least one set is not a fact, possibly both.
3
Instead of provoking Trump's supporters to a defensive posture with questions of what and why they "believe", ask them the following:
- what is Trump doing for you an your family y in terms of healthcare, jobs, income? .
- how are tax cuts for very rich going to help you and your family?
- how does the evisceration of the Consumer Protection Bureau help you and your family?
- do you feel like you are "winning" ?
It is hard to give alternative fact answers to such questions.
- what is Trump doing for you an your family y in terms of healthcare, jobs, income? .
- how are tax cuts for very rich going to help you and your family?
- how does the evisceration of the Consumer Protection Bureau help you and your family?
- do you feel like you are "winning" ?
It is hard to give alternative fact answers to such questions.
25
Watergate was an example as to how this country could clean itself, rid itself of corruption and collusion in the highest govt. position. The system worked. It worked well, but was tainted when Gerald Ford exonerated Nixon and allowed the shamed ex-President to just go off in ignominy to live out the rest of his life outside of jail.
Will this current scandal, of even more critical proportions since it involves an adversarial foreign government and the collusion and corruption and cover-up which may have ensued so very early in the presidency of Trump, ever produce the test and prove that we can clean up ourselves within the constraints of the Rule of Law? Let us hope for as much. For without the occasional tests to our system and Rule of Law, we will be lulled into a sense of complacency and before we know it, our democracy is gone, replaced by something more akin to what we see in Russia and China (autocracies, oligarchies).
History is full of facts. Will those supporters of Trump deny history and correspondingly deny our adherence to a Rule of Law which should never falter? Our country is better than we now see in the White House. Can we now act in a peaceful and concerted fashion to oppose those who wish to ignore our history and Rule of Law? I hope so... we must.
"O, let America be America again-
The land that never has been yet-
And yet must be-" - Langston Hughes
Will this current scandal, of even more critical proportions since it involves an adversarial foreign government and the collusion and corruption and cover-up which may have ensued so very early in the presidency of Trump, ever produce the test and prove that we can clean up ourselves within the constraints of the Rule of Law? Let us hope for as much. For without the occasional tests to our system and Rule of Law, we will be lulled into a sense of complacency and before we know it, our democracy is gone, replaced by something more akin to what we see in Russia and China (autocracies, oligarchies).
History is full of facts. Will those supporters of Trump deny history and correspondingly deny our adherence to a Rule of Law which should never falter? Our country is better than we now see in the White House. Can we now act in a peaceful and concerted fashion to oppose those who wish to ignore our history and Rule of Law? I hope so... we must.
"O, let America be America again-
The land that never has been yet-
And yet must be-" - Langston Hughes
7
Nick, I agree with most of your thoughts, but I disagree that it would've been good for the nation to see Nixon in jail.
The president greatly admires Putin for the"control he has over his people" according to an interview with the president prior to the election. Putin got control of those people via Managed Democracy. I encourage people to look that up. Some of the steps of that ( alternatively called 'oligarchy') are:
1. Divide the People
2. Tell the people that the NEWS IS FAKE.
3. Confuse the People until they withdraw from the fight.
I ask that all look into and understand this philosophy. It is happening now, here in our country and we need to tell people and bond together. They cannot do it to us if we are ONE.
1. Divide the People
2. Tell the people that the NEWS IS FAKE.
3. Confuse the People until they withdraw from the fight.
I ask that all look into and understand this philosophy. It is happening now, here in our country and we need to tell people and bond together. They cannot do it to us if we are ONE.
41
Excellent points to bring up. I would only add that a Managed Democracy is not on the horizon in the U.S. because, in fact, it has already happened here. Trump just makes it official and obvious.
So the question is: What next? How do the people regain control in a Managed Democracy/Guided Democracy/Oligarchy (all basically the same thing, right?)
So the question is: What next? How do the people regain control in a Managed Democracy/Guided Democracy/Oligarchy (all basically the same thing, right?)
There is only ONE set of facts.
People can think what they want - they can either accept those facts or make up their own 'alternative' facts.
But there IS only one set of FACTS.
People can think what they want - they can either accept those facts or make up their own 'alternative' facts.
But there IS only one set of FACTS.
22
And you won't find all of them in one place. So many things every news outlet obscures, blurs, plays down or outright omits. That erodes trust even more than fake news.
1
"There is only ONE set of facts."
Not according to the right wing, and there's no convincing them otherwise.
Not according to the right wing, and there's no convincing them otherwise.
1
The difference between Watergate and the Russian collusion investigation is that one started out with evidence of an actual crime, whereas the other did not. After months of unrelenting attacks on the Trump administration by the news media, we have only the bizarre testimony of the fired head of the FBI claiming that Trump may or may not have ordered him to drop an investigation, which may or may not qualify as obstruction of justice. But the lack of any real evidence has not stopped the hyperventilating on the left and the daily news analysis of the "deeply troubling" implications of ambiguous leaked information. Don't be surprised if the tide begins to turn and the American public start to believe that where there is this much smoke there must be something blowing smoke up their...
2
No, Raul. There is no such difference. The hacking of DNC is the crime. The fact (not allegation, but fact as per FBI, CIA, NSA) that Russia did it (and other cybersabotage) multiplies the importance of the crime. The fact that this was a closely contested election as opposed to the Nixon/McGovern slaughter multiplies its significance. So, really, why exactly was Paul Manafort hired by Trump as campaign chair after he learned Manafort had made millions working for Putin's puppet?
51
I didn't realize there was a Fantasyland here in San Francisco.
The election process here in the US was manipulated by Russian Intelligence Services. Fact. Even today, Trump and his supporters won't admit that it happened. Why would that be? The denial of that reality is why this issue continues to simmer, and why Trump will never be viewed as legitimate by a majority of the country.
The election process here in the US was manipulated by Russian Intelligence Services. Fact. Even today, Trump and his supporters won't admit that it happened. Why would that be? The denial of that reality is why this issue continues to simmer, and why Trump will never be viewed as legitimate by a majority of the country.
9
Let's go down the "alt-fact" rabbit hole, shall we?
Paul Manafort was hired not by Yanukovich, but by the party headed by Yanukovich in 2005 (I stress "the party headed by", since at the time Yanukovich was more of a political figurehead, and the decisions were made by the moneyed oligarchs of Donietsk). The reason why he was hired was, in large part, to improve relationships with the West after 2004 contested elections, and, in part, not to rely on Moscow. He was paid probably by the same people who donated to the Clinton's Foundation (Pincuk), and probably for the same reasons.
One big aspect of this whole thing that often gets lost is that since 2009 there was an implicit conflict between Yanukovich, who got his presidency and wanted to rob his way to his own billions, and his party, who got unhappy with all the robbing (Yanokovich was impeached by his own party). In this conflict, Manafort worked for the party until 2014.
You can build what you want out of these facts, but it can be the same conjecture that can be built out of Assange's denial of Russia's role (fact), Seth Rich's death (fact), and the fact that FBI relied on third party analysis for the hack investigation (fact confirmed by Comey). That's how alt-facts work.
Paul Manafort was hired not by Yanukovich, but by the party headed by Yanukovich in 2005 (I stress "the party headed by", since at the time Yanukovich was more of a political figurehead, and the decisions were made by the moneyed oligarchs of Donietsk). The reason why he was hired was, in large part, to improve relationships with the West after 2004 contested elections, and, in part, not to rely on Moscow. He was paid probably by the same people who donated to the Clinton's Foundation (Pincuk), and probably for the same reasons.
One big aspect of this whole thing that often gets lost is that since 2009 there was an implicit conflict between Yanukovich, who got his presidency and wanted to rob his way to his own billions, and his party, who got unhappy with all the robbing (Yanokovich was impeached by his own party). In this conflict, Manafort worked for the party until 2014.
You can build what you want out of these facts, but it can be the same conjecture that can be built out of Assange's denial of Russia's role (fact), Seth Rich's death (fact), and the fact that FBI relied on third party analysis for the hack investigation (fact confirmed by Comey). That's how alt-facts work.
2
Truth has become subjective. Trump says something. It's recorded. He denies saying it even after the statements are played back with him saying what he denies saying. Every other political figure in America does the same thing. Is it any wonder that people believe there is fake news? How are we supposed to decide where we stand on an issue when there appear to be no hard facts? Every statement is treated as true until it's proven to be a lie and even that's not enough. The NY Times has mixed editorials and opinion pieces in with its news. Every paper and news channel has a reporter or three who attempts to use clever phrases, some of which ought to be edited out because of the impression they give readers/listeners.
Watergate, seen through a lens that is roughly 45 years old, marked the beginning of an era in American politics. We elected several people to be president who wouldn't have ever been considered: Carter, Reagan, and now Trump. If this is the GOPs revenge for Watergate it's been a good one.
Watergate, seen through a lens that is roughly 45 years old, marked the beginning of an era in American politics. We elected several people to be president who wouldn't have ever been considered: Carter, Reagan, and now Trump. If this is the GOPs revenge for Watergate it's been a good one.
4
You forgot to mention W. sitting on Cheney's lap with his hand in the dummy's back working the levers. Worse than a dud, a demonic backfire.
3
To say that Jimmy Carter would never have been elected President if it hadn't been for Watergate is a bit of a stretch. It's true he soon became strongly disliked after his election. But that had more to do with his attempt to address the energy crisis. 'Me first' Americans were appalled when he sat in front of a White House fireplace wearing a sweater saying we need to begin cutting back on energy consumption by turning down the thermostat, bundling up, and adopting alternative energy. Many still don't want to hear that message. That doesn't mean highly intelligent President Carter belongs on a list of "Know Nothings" like Trump and Reagan.
4
911 Operator: "911. What's your emergency?"
Caller: " I'd like to report a fire! Hurry, I think people might be in danger."
911 Operator:"Where is the location of the fire?"
Caller:"1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I'm standing right in front of it now"
911 Operator:"Tell me what you can see, from your location."
Caller:"I see a massive amount of smoke pouring out of every window of the White House!. People are running for cover with scared looks on their faces. Please hurry!"
911 Operator:"Do you see any actual fire?"
Caller:"Well there's a tremendous amount of smoke, but I can't see any actual flames. Can't you send the Fire Dept ".
911 Operator: "They call it the FIRE dept for a reason! Are you some kind of nutjob? I need to inform you that filing a false police report is a crime. You better hope that we don't have 'tapes' of this conversation!"
Caller: "Could put me through to the SMOKE dept?"
911 Operator: "There is no smoke Dept.
It is estimated that 50–80% of fire deaths are the result of smoke inhalation injuries. The hot smoke injures or kills by a combination of thermal damage, poisoning and pulmonary irritation.
Caller: " I'd like to report a fire! Hurry, I think people might be in danger."
911 Operator:"Where is the location of the fire?"
Caller:"1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I'm standing right in front of it now"
911 Operator:"Tell me what you can see, from your location."
Caller:"I see a massive amount of smoke pouring out of every window of the White House!. People are running for cover with scared looks on their faces. Please hurry!"
911 Operator:"Do you see any actual fire?"
Caller:"Well there's a tremendous amount of smoke, but I can't see any actual flames. Can't you send the Fire Dept ".
911 Operator: "They call it the FIRE dept for a reason! Are you some kind of nutjob? I need to inform you that filing a false police report is a crime. You better hope that we don't have 'tapes' of this conversation!"
Caller: "Could put me through to the SMOKE dept?"
911 Operator: "There is no smoke Dept.
It is estimated that 50–80% of fire deaths are the result of smoke inhalation injuries. The hot smoke injures or kills by a combination of thermal damage, poisoning and pulmonary irritation.
80
Dear Glenn from FL, thank you-- a brilliant comment.
Watergate was an obsession in Washington, DC, long before it had much impact on the nation. The stories that the Washington Post published for a year or more were not picked up by newspapers around the country. That made the courage and determination of the Post all the more important.
When CBS and Cronkite finally did a couple of nights with extended segments reviewing the whole matter, it was rather late in the game. Additionally, the follow-up segment on the second (and/or third) night was cut short from its intended running length, which lessened the importance of the whole attempt.
While Woodward and Bernstein get massive credit as journalists for their reporting, it was federal judge John Sirica who "blew the lid" off the scandal by insisting that the Watergate burglars reveal who in higher authority was behind their break-in. Without Sirica's forceful actions, the whole case might have blown away.
PBS was not a factor at all in Watergate coverage because it had no nightly newscast until 1975. A notable exception was PBS' broadcast the Watergate Senate hearings live, gavel to gavel, which meant that most of the entire nation could watch and witness for themselves what was happening. The three commercial network newscasts were, in the main, very timid, not really touching the story until there were public, on the record developments, like the demand for the presidential tapes and the courtroom disclosure of the "18 minute gap" in on of those tapes.
When CBS and Cronkite finally did a couple of nights with extended segments reviewing the whole matter, it was rather late in the game. Additionally, the follow-up segment on the second (and/or third) night was cut short from its intended running length, which lessened the importance of the whole attempt.
While Woodward and Bernstein get massive credit as journalists for their reporting, it was federal judge John Sirica who "blew the lid" off the scandal by insisting that the Watergate burglars reveal who in higher authority was behind their break-in. Without Sirica's forceful actions, the whole case might have blown away.
PBS was not a factor at all in Watergate coverage because it had no nightly newscast until 1975. A notable exception was PBS' broadcast the Watergate Senate hearings live, gavel to gavel, which meant that most of the entire nation could watch and witness for themselves what was happening. The three commercial network newscasts were, in the main, very timid, not really touching the story until there were public, on the record developments, like the demand for the presidential tapes and the courtroom disclosure of the "18 minute gap" in on of those tapes.
33
Yes, and remember it wasn't until extensive parts of the very damaging tapes were released under the Supreme Court's orders that any real momentum grew for impeachment. I am sure if similar tapes of Trump directing collusion with the Russians or organizing a cover-up of same emerged, a scandal of Watergate proportions would emerge, probably leading to impeachment. Alternative facts or not, I would like to think that even stalwart Republican representatives would baulk at an American President subverting the electoral process with Russia as it emerged Nixon did under the name of "national security".
4
Excellent points, although I would argue that Butterfield was the one who blew the lid off when he revealed the Oval Office taping system.
Thanks for reminding folks what really happened. The columnist here seems to have mythologized Watergate to the point of, well, myth. Felt was important, no doubt, but he wasn't the one who brought down a president. Not by a long shot.
Thanks for reminding folks what really happened. The columnist here seems to have mythologized Watergate to the point of, well, myth. Felt was important, no doubt, but he wasn't the one who brought down a president. Not by a long shot.
2
I think Mr. Terry's comments are important. The article appears to equate "now" with the consensus that had occurred by August of 1974. If we were to look at June of 1973, I think the "consensus" would have been non-existent. As a young pup in a conservative area that had largely gone with Nixon, what I remember initially was the "adults" thought the poor President was being needlessly hounded by reporters with an ax to grind. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
1
Thank you Fox News, Infowars, and the Druge Report. The creation of alt facts is laid at your door. We can understand Putin wanting to create doubt in our democratic institutions, but what's your excuse?
Oh that's right, I forgot. 30 pieces of silver.
Oh that's right, I forgot. 30 pieces of silver.
102
Back in Watergate days, news channels were a rare commodity that could only be controlled by the wealthy. You needed either a broadcast channel, or to own a newspaper, but the FCC was there to rein in anyone who got too far off the rails. Now, anyone with the gumption can start an internet channel and join the fray, and there is no effective regulation.
Against this new reality, the right wing has engaged in a multi-decades long effort to change the terms of the discussion to favor themselves and discredit anyone who represents a point of view that places limits on wealth and the ability to wield it to manipulate government outcomes. It's no wonder we've gotten to this state.
Against this new reality, the right wing has engaged in a multi-decades long effort to change the terms of the discussion to favor themselves and discredit anyone who represents a point of view that places limits on wealth and the ability to wield it to manipulate government outcomes. It's no wonder we've gotten to this state.
20
The fcc has the mandate to maintain responsible "airwaves." They should consider whether some of these broad and consistent conspiracy outlets are appropriate. What a mess.
13
What I recall, and we must hold dear, is that the truth won in the end. Nixon's denials were contradicted by the tapes. I hold fast to the supremacy of truth. It's my - our - only hope.
35
ElseTudor: "I hold fast the supremacy of truth. It's my-our- only hope".
I second that emotion, totally agree. I still believe it is the truth that sets us free, nothing else. Reason based in fact, brings justice, fair equality and therefore peace between us.
But I do not believe that truth is superior to lies concerning usefulness. I see more 'winning' with lies than truth, it's everywhere you look. And in reality, our society runs on perception as truth regardless of facts. It's an American thing now. And they love it when Faux spews... and no one ever calls them out. The Kenyan birth lie was mainstream for eight years as only one blatant example.
Truth doesn't automatically prevail on its own. Lies have a power. The reason for the first amendment, and really, separation of church and state. An intent to counter the power of flawed belief deception and lies, and we're failing that intent. And paid a fortune to mislead. Simply put, lies often work, and pay better. They'll win if we let them.
I second that emotion, totally agree. I still believe it is the truth that sets us free, nothing else. Reason based in fact, brings justice, fair equality and therefore peace between us.
But I do not believe that truth is superior to lies concerning usefulness. I see more 'winning' with lies than truth, it's everywhere you look. And in reality, our society runs on perception as truth regardless of facts. It's an American thing now. And they love it when Faux spews... and no one ever calls them out. The Kenyan birth lie was mainstream for eight years as only one blatant example.
Truth doesn't automatically prevail on its own. Lies have a power. The reason for the first amendment, and really, separation of church and state. An intent to counter the power of flawed belief deception and lies, and we're failing that intent. And paid a fortune to mislead. Simply put, lies often work, and pay better. They'll win if we let them.
There is now a multi-media 24/7 right wing propaganda machine backed by billions of dollars whose only purpose is to destroy our nation's confidence in the very existence of objective truth. I'm afraid this time we're doomed.
1
There have been extremely partisan times like this in the past -- and many of them with a sharply divided press holding highly partisan views. Often such times saw rival camps split along education and class lines.
(1) 1801-1810 (Jefferson v. Adams). Allegedly "elite" and usually better educated Federalists backed Adams while predominantly poor and largely uneducated farmers supported Jefferson.
(2) 1828-1837 (Andrew Jackson admin). The deliberate formation of a highly partisan and sometimes violent political party by Jackson's campaign manager, NY Governor Martin Van Buren, made it nearly impossible for most citizens in the South and West to oppose the administration. In public discourse they often pretended to be Jacksonians, but were accused of being insincere "milk-and-cider" supporters, not "hard cider" supporters.
3. 1851-1861 (Runaway slave laws tightened by Southern legislators, leading to heightened public violence from Boston to New Orleans).
4. 1932-40 (Great Depression). From Father Coughlin to Chas. Lindbergh popular support for fascism grew, aided by Eastern industrialists who opposed labor unions, health regulations, Social Security, etc.
Unfortunately, each period of escalating partisan stand-offs seems to have come to end only because a war more or less changed the public conversation. (War of 1812, Mexican War of 1846), Civil War, and WW II).
(1) 1801-1810 (Jefferson v. Adams). Allegedly "elite" and usually better educated Federalists backed Adams while predominantly poor and largely uneducated farmers supported Jefferson.
(2) 1828-1837 (Andrew Jackson admin). The deliberate formation of a highly partisan and sometimes violent political party by Jackson's campaign manager, NY Governor Martin Van Buren, made it nearly impossible for most citizens in the South and West to oppose the administration. In public discourse they often pretended to be Jacksonians, but were accused of being insincere "milk-and-cider" supporters, not "hard cider" supporters.
3. 1851-1861 (Runaway slave laws tightened by Southern legislators, leading to heightened public violence from Boston to New Orleans).
4. 1932-40 (Great Depression). From Father Coughlin to Chas. Lindbergh popular support for fascism grew, aided by Eastern industrialists who opposed labor unions, health regulations, Social Security, etc.
Unfortunately, each period of escalating partisan stand-offs seems to have come to end only because a war more or less changed the public conversation. (War of 1812, Mexican War of 1846), Civil War, and WW II).
7
No what we are witnessing today is something different. The far right has had a complete break with reality. That is meaningfully different than arguing about nuanced interpretation. I mean the white house staff will say one thing on Monday and Tuesday evening Trump is on the airwaves contradicting their statements and effectively calling them liars. Trump and the GOP are both becoming more and more detached from reality. They feel that they have no obligation to the truth. These clowns think that there is no objective reality. That they can somehow bend the universe to their will if only they repeat the lies to themselves and the public enough times. If this becomes the new paradigm for political discourse in America then the threat to this Republic is very dire and immediate. The very first casualty in the emergence of fascist dictatorial regimes is the truth. We may be witnessing the seed of something exceedingly terrible for the future of America.
What facts? Every top democrat has said there is no smoking gun, no evidence, only smoke and news paper articles. Now the dems are looking into obstruction of justice even though Comey said nobody tried to get him to stop the investigation by the FBI even though Trump was not being investigated.
2
"What facts? Every top democrat has said there is no smoking gun,"....No reasonable person would deny what you have said. But all of the security agencies have concluded that Russia hacked the DNC and dumped the information to WiKi Leaks to damage Clinton. An odd number of Trump aides and advisors have had Russian connections (not Chinese but specifically Russian) and several have somehow failed to report these connections as legally required. The Trump administration has projected a softer position on Russia, and Flynn apparently told their ambassador that with the new administration they would not need to worry about sanctions. Trump fired Comey and said among several other reasons, that it was for the Russian investigation. Yes Trump is not under investigation for colluding with the Russians, and neither was Nixon one of the Watergate burglars.
7
What in the world are they so desperate to HIDE????? When Comey didn't stop the investigation he was fired and then Trump bragged to the Russians about taking the pressure off. Even though Trump wasn't being investigated, he obviously fears that the ongoing investigation of Flynn and others will lead to him eventually,
5
Please share the names of EVERY top Democrat.
4
Only one set of facts.
Many, many sets of lies.
The difference between then and now is that we have professionals who have made a career of spreading the lies of the right.
Many, many sets of lies.
The difference between then and now is that we have professionals who have made a career of spreading the lies of the right.
36
"made a career of spreading the lies of the right"
What about the careers of the professionals who spread the thousands of articles and broadcasts on the made up Trump – Putin connection?
What about the careers of the professionals who spread the thousands of articles and broadcasts on the made up Trump – Putin connection?
2
Are those professionals' false news generation seditious or treason?
"What about the careers of the professionals who spread the thousands of articles and broadcasts on the made up Trump – Putin connection?"
Either they're all stark raving mad, or you're just plain wrong.
Either they're all stark raving mad, or you're just plain wrong.
1
Maybe if media such as the New York Times rose above bumper-sticker labels such as "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative." Those labels present the struggle as if the sides were merely two football teams with different-colored jerseys in a game with no consequence greater than win or loss.
How about rising up to use terms that have meaning about what the competitors represent? Instead of "left" or "liberal," say by and for The People. Instead of "right" or "conservative," say by and for The Oligarchs, The Money.
That would shed some light on the great, dominant issue and problem of U.S. and world civilization today: the seizure of economies and governance from The People, by and for The Oligarchs, The Money.
Assign the writers at the New York Times the duty of reading Piketty, so they will thenceforth understand the consequences of the game they are writing about.
How about rising up to use terms that have meaning about what the competitors represent? Instead of "left" or "liberal," say by and for The People. Instead of "right" or "conservative," say by and for The Oligarchs, The Money.
That would shed some light on the great, dominant issue and problem of U.S. and world civilization today: the seizure of economies and governance from The People, by and for The Oligarchs, The Money.
Assign the writers at the New York Times the duty of reading Piketty, so they will thenceforth understand the consequences of the game they are writing about.
6
Listen to Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones for ten minutes each; then come back and tell us The New York Times is the problem.
There is a multi-media 24/7 right wing noise machine murdering the truth and inciting sedition.
There is a multi-media 24/7 right wing noise machine murdering the truth and inciting sedition.
This article lays out extremely well the enemy within. We will be undone by a lack of factual analysis and unfettered greed by media outlets to pander to its audiences. It may be time to discuss letting the right have their version of a country (red states) and the left have theirs (blue states). At the rate the divide is widening, these United States are breaking....I dont see it ending well....
2
There is no question in my mind that the main responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs where facts and logic are disregarded rests with the media, not excluding the Times. Decade of concentration on the sensational, the political, and who had what opinion instead of bringing the public the facts, has eroded the media's reputation and produced a generation of not ill informed voters, but uninformed voters.
Take the health care care debate which I followed religiously in the Times and the Washington Post. Neither paper was the slightest bit interested in what kind of health care system would be the most efficient and what evidence there was. All they cared about the the political horse race. Senator X says A while the gang of six appears to support B. For example, a 7,000 person meeting in Princeton to support Medicare for All was not reported at all, but a meeting of 350 Tea Party supporters was front page news. I wrote to many reporters begging them to look at the data supporting a universal government run system, but none were willing to do so. Kevin Sack finally wrote to me, "Single payer is not news."
A similar thing happened in the 2016 campaign. All were got day after day, were outrageous statements from Trump and rumors about the molehill that was Clinton's eMail. Nothing about the POLICIES proposed by the candidates. To this day, there are otherwise well informed commenters who have no idea of Clinton's platform.
"As you sow so shall you reap." -
Take the health care care debate which I followed religiously in the Times and the Washington Post. Neither paper was the slightest bit interested in what kind of health care system would be the most efficient and what evidence there was. All they cared about the the political horse race. Senator X says A while the gang of six appears to support B. For example, a 7,000 person meeting in Princeton to support Medicare for All was not reported at all, but a meeting of 350 Tea Party supporters was front page news. I wrote to many reporters begging them to look at the data supporting a universal government run system, but none were willing to do so. Kevin Sack finally wrote to me, "Single payer is not news."
A similar thing happened in the 2016 campaign. All were got day after day, were outrageous statements from Trump and rumors about the molehill that was Clinton's eMail. Nothing about the POLICIES proposed by the candidates. To this day, there are otherwise well informed commenters who have no idea of Clinton's platform.
"As you sow so shall you reap." -
177
Excellent points. Even today, we still hear a steady stream of drivel, both on news and opinion pages, about ACA from the NYT, which steadfastly refuses to consider the point that it's an unsustainable program.
Medicare for everyone.
Medicare for everyone.
1
There is a story about the absence of policy coverage. During the entire campaign, national television news spent a total of 2 hours on policy during the entire 18 month campaign. Not sure if that story itself was counted as "policy coverage".
Focusing on "why this matters", and "what else could be done" should be news, not editorial material. Certainly we get this in, of all places, sports reporting in newspapers, magazines and television. None of these outlets do the same for political coverage.
Focusing on "why this matters", and "what else could be done" should be news, not editorial material. Certainly we get this in, of all places, sports reporting in newspapers, magazines and television. None of these outlets do the same for political coverage.
1
Do not be too critical of the news media. Their job is to sell newspapers for profit. They are not a government in waiting or an educator. If you want a news service that purveys truth you need to have a well funded public broadcaster that is reasonably independent of the government.
Most governments around the world seem to be aware of this and try to reduce the funding for public broadcasters. The US is no exception in this.
Most governments around the world seem to be aware of this and try to reduce the funding for public broadcasters. The US is no exception in this.
1
If Trump's "facts" survive then everything we know is false.
11
not sure wapo would have persued Watergate so forcefully if it had happened in a Democratic admimistration .
I take no joy in writing this and apologize for spelling errors; Vietnam vet, sad for our country now
I take no joy in writing this and apologize for spelling errors; Vietnam vet, sad for our country now
3
Well, we won't know because It didn't happen that way, did it? Why are you manufacturing controversy? Does the Kool-Aid taste that good?
6
Did the paper neglect to report the misdeeds of President Clinton?
8
So you've forgotten about Clinton, have you?
6
What the NYT always leaves out of its - Russia interfered with our democratic elections - story that the NYT has been spinning since November 9, 2016, is the undisputed fact that the DNC colluded with CNN to rig the election in favor of the dear leader, Hillary Clinton. That's right, totally ignore that fact and evidence, and come up with a Russian Conspiracy based on lefty leaks heavily spun with no evidence. The DNC conspiracy story is your Watergate, NYT, you are just too biased to see it.
6
From Vox:
"As soon as the searchable database of emails appeared on WikiLeaks, journalists began scouring them for juicy tidbits. The emails contained enough evidence to confirm Sanders supporters' suspicions that DNC officials were biased toward Hillary Clinton, but no proof that they used the resources of the Democratic Party to aid Clinton or hurt Sanders."
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12261020/dnc-email-leaks-explained
And it is all unreasonable that the DNC staffers preferred a candidate who had spent decades helping their candidates at all levels over one who was not even a member of the party?
"As soon as the searchable database of emails appeared on WikiLeaks, journalists began scouring them for juicy tidbits. The emails contained enough evidence to confirm Sanders supporters' suspicions that DNC officials were biased toward Hillary Clinton, but no proof that they used the resources of the Democratic Party to aid Clinton or hurt Sanders."
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/23/12261020/dnc-email-leaks-explained
And it is all unreasonable that the DNC staffers preferred a candidate who had spent decades helping their candidates at all levels over one who was not even a member of the party?
27
DecliningSociety. Or perhaps you are blind? The New York Times is not a newspaper given to what you call
"Spinning." I read it for the facts! And there is no doubting Comey's testimony or the reality that Trump
lies constantly and has betrayed himself many a time by his incessant tweeting. If you believe what he says then best you stay away from used car salesmen because he is one. Personally I don't buy his used manipulative fascism
"Spinning." I read it for the facts! And there is no doubting Comey's testimony or the reality that Trump
lies constantly and has betrayed himself many a time by his incessant tweeting. If you believe what he says then best you stay away from used car salesmen because he is one. Personally I don't buy his used manipulative fascism
15
Declining Society: your comment is a perfect example of what the article is decrying.
4
Sad but true. I can't imagine what Trump could do to overwhelm the sensibilities of his Fox News allies and turn right wing media against him. And leads me to believe it's a fool's errand to look for something that will erode Republican support. No Republican will vote for a Democrat these days, and the people who held their noses and voted for Trump will be said to be wearing hazmat suits next time. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm probably not.
25
Fortunately, they never were nor will they ever be the majority.
1
Carl Bernstein has stated the problem very well when he says, "...more and more people are looking for information in the media and elsewhere that will reinforce what they already believe.” Conformation bias is preventing even otherwise reasonable people from accepting facts.
60
More and more people are able to find "information in the media" that supports their unfactual viewpoints. Wm F Buckley, Jr., years ago, chased the John Birchers out of the conservative side of the Republican party....Now, they are back, and are daily being "normalized." It used to be that if you had views that were not valid, you could still hold those views, but you would not be able to find support for them...Now you can. Maybe it's a chicken/egg issue....
4
When Broadcast News outlets are forced to make a Profit, marketing strategies shape the news to fit the perspective of the potential viewer. Objectivity is ignored, accuracy becomes "flexible", information is secondary to a presentation designed to elicit strong emotion, and, questions, not answers characterize the dialogue. People turn to the MSM to be manipulated, to find a media outlet which validates their own ignorant opinions, not to seek facts which will provide answers to the questions. Social Media simply amplifies the misinformation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was the Epitaph to Journalism with Integrity; pushing that as secondary to the presentation of viewer driven information in support of a perspective no matter how inaccurate. We are lied to from the age in which we can start understanding Advertising and Marketing; and we once used the News as a way of keeping ourselves grounded in a truthful reality. No More. Our current politics is a reflection of society being lost in understanding what are facts and truth; those two concepts interfere with Profit.
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
Scott E. Torquato, MS, LCSW
48
I don't think you can blame it on the need for profit when news outlets have always been for profit. It's the demands of the customer that have changed.
I remember Watergate. Only the Post and sometimes the New York Times covered the ongoing story. It was not covered by most media, and the Nixon administration downplayed the issue sufficiently to have Nixon reelected overwhelmingly, losing only Massachusetts.
38
" Only the Post and sometimes the New York Times covered the ongoing story. It was not covered by most media"
Heck I was only 5 yrs old and I remember hearing about it on the radio news my parents listened to. But we were in Massachusetts, it's true.
Heck I was only 5 yrs old and I remember hearing about it on the radio news my parents listened to. But we were in Massachusetts, it's true.
1
APS, one has to distinguish between early coverage and later coverage. As the scandal became recognized, after long reporting from the Wash Post and some of the Times, then it hit the news big time. Until that point, it was ignored by most of the major media. Totally ignored. When it moved to the courts and then to Congress, it was coverage extensively.
12
APS- I was 13 during the Watergate investigation. The hearings were broadcast on major networks. I remember my mother watching for hours. This was also in Massachusetts- the "Don't blame me state" which was the only state which voted against Nixon in 1972.
2
Watergate never would have resulted in Nixon's ouster if Fox "News" and the cancerous far-right wing media had existed in such force back then. Today, when you drive out of major metropolitan areas, you simply don't hear or read the truth with respect to the country's political situation. If you're "lucky" you can watch CNN, and there's no real political news on the radio (you can't even hear NPR if you're an hour and a half outside of Washington, D.C.) In addition, congressional Republicans of the sort we have today would never have allowed meaningful investigations of Nixon.
Of course, in today's terms Nixon would have had no place inside the Republican Party to begin with. He'd be considered a moderate Democrat by today's standards.
Of course, in today's terms Nixon would have had no place inside the Republican Party to begin with. He'd be considered a moderate Democrat by today's standards.
124
Are these people happy to accept fake news, just as world wrestling federation offers an escape from reality that everyone knows is fake, but they like it as "anti-elite" anyway? Or are there some numbers of red-land who wish they got real news and common sense, and caring about issues and each other, and they just get too swamped by the slime and beat down by the hopelessness that they don't care to seek real news?
5
The comparison with Watergate is ludicrous. Nixon had ordered a patently illegal and immoral breakin and tried in vain to cover it up, corrupting those around him in the process. Trump did no such thing, not even close. And if you were to ask someone exactly what he's being accused of they'd have to spend some time thinking about it before responding. Comey accused him of lying for expressing his opinion that the FBI director was failing in his duties and his agency was in disarray. Sorry, an opinion, even if incorrect or unfair, is not a lie. Democrats accuse him of colluding with "the Russians," but NO real evidence of that has emerged. Nor any plausible motive. No one in his right mind would see the release of some embarrassing emails as an attempt to subvert the election process -- but lots of folks do seem to have lost their minds in the hysteria over that trivial issue.
A much better comparison would be with the actions of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, in cahoots with the notorious Joe McCarthy, back in the 1950's. Here too reckless and damaging accusations were being made purely on the basis of unfounded assumptions and guilt by association.
A much better comparison would be with the actions of the House Unamerican Activities Committee, in cahoots with the notorious Joe McCarthy, back in the 1950's. Here too reckless and damaging accusations were being made purely on the basis of unfounded assumptions and guilt by association.
8
Victor, we're accusing him of obstructing justice. We believe it is possible that he colluded with the Russians--and circumstantial evidence of this collusion abounds--but we are only asking that the matter be investigated. Because he threatened the job of the man leading that investigation, then fired that man when the man insisted that he remain independent from the wishes of the administration he was investigating, the process of justice was interrupted. That is what Comey accused him of. All of this is pretty clear. I'm surprised you're having trouble understanding it.
99
"Nixon had ordered a patently illegal and immoral breakin".....Certainly Nixon obstructed justice in trying to cover-up Watergate, and certainly Nixon was ultimately responsible for setting the ethics and tone of his re-election campaign, but I have not seen evidence that he directly ordered the Watergate break in. This may well be an over sight on my part, and in the face of historical events even trivial, but I would be curious if you could provide a source for that information.
4
You don't know what Trump did or didn't do, you are just leaping to conclusions. As for Comey accusing him of lying, Trump was not merely expressing an opinion. He was making a judgement, as president of the United States, about the status of Comey's leadership of the FBI. He didn't say, "In my opinion...". When a president speaks, even one who works assiduously to discredit himself with every Tweet, people assume it is fact, not mere conjecture. People assume a president knows and would not speak merely to damage the reputation of a public servant.
The emails and their release looks to be a prima facie case of trying to influence the election. What century are you living in? Destabilization was a standard Soviet trick in the old days and they seem to be using it very well know. They know they can weaken others by causing doubts, concerns, fears and questions. This is not unlike a spouse who constantly questions the actions of a mate. Overtime, the impact can be very damaging psychologically.
Personally, I am keeping an open mind and awaiting further information. To not do so would be to risk having our democracy corrupted from foreign sources and would not be patriotic.
The emails and their release looks to be a prima facie case of trying to influence the election. What century are you living in? Destabilization was a standard Soviet trick in the old days and they seem to be using it very well know. They know they can weaken others by causing doubts, concerns, fears and questions. This is not unlike a spouse who constantly questions the actions of a mate. Overtime, the impact can be very damaging psychologically.
Personally, I am keeping an open mind and awaiting further information. To not do so would be to risk having our democracy corrupted from foreign sources and would not be patriotic.
19
Well, actually it turned out that he was - and a liar.
What about President Trump? What sort of man is the current president of these United States?
Let's face it - honesty is not Trump's strongest suit. He is a habitual liar, one who tells obvious lies for no apparent reason. Like Nixon, he has a deep-seated insecurity. He has conducted both his private and public lives with consistent dishonesty and dishonor. He is not a man who can be taken at his word.
To paraphrase Groucho Marx, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes - add to that lying ears.
He is not a role model that we the citizens of the US can look up to. He is a serial liar and a serial exaggerator. He represents the worst in people.