Page 376 of 376 FirstFirst ... 276326366374375376
Results 15,001 to 15,014 of 15014

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #15001
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Oh, I did start with the second episode since I wasn't really interested in the Monica Lewinsky stuff. I got the impression that there was less there of substance and more just the impression of stuff.

    I guess it depends what you consider a scandal. It seems you don't want to put much distance from actual scandalous activities and simply the perception of scandalous activities, as though both are equally scandalous. I think what I learned from the podcast was that there was little in the way of actual scandalous behavior, but loads in media perception. You could argue that people thought there were scandals and that the Clintons were bad at handling it, sure, but if little of it was of substance, do we still consider his presidency scandalous? I think George W. Bush's was more scandal prone TBH, in terms of actual, concrete, verified, real, not bull**** scandals like Whitewater.
    I have some thoughts about this, obviously, but don’t have time now to write them out right now. But yeah, I do think this touches on the crux of my position, and I think you’re right to say it depends largely on how you define what a scandal is. I do think there’s a difference between scandal and between bad behavior/bad governance (as I said above), and I don’t think they’re equally scandalous; only scandals are scandalous. Being scandalous isn’t the same thing as being bad at governance or being morally corrupt (which the Bush administration was worse at than the Clinton admin on both counts.)

    I think there’s a way to talk about this where it’s not just a semantic discussion where each of us are going back and forth saying, “this is what scandal means to me!” And that’s what I’ll write about later when I have the time.

  2. #15002
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I well, uh, am personally familiar with media, and I don’t see reporters and editors as automatons who slavishly follow the dictates of their executive overlords.
    This is juvenile understanding of organizational behavior. Large organizations are capable of doing immensely unethical things without most (or even any) individual members of that organization behaving unethically, or recognizing that they have personally contributed to the problem.

    "Automatons who slavishly follow the dictates of their executive overlords" is not required to achieve an industry-wide editorial slant. All it takes is for management at the "liberal" mainstream outlets to encourage their responsible, ethical editors to pay respect to the business interests of subscriber growth and fairly report on the "opposing side", whatever that is. The employees individually think they're doing a good thing, gettin' themselves in on a big ol' circlejerk about how much more ****ing enlightened and centrist they are than those loudmouths on Fox, but the actual output of their organization is the exact same: giving monsters a megaphone, leaving left-wing advocates shouting to be heard over insano wackjobs, not only in the right-wing media where their views aren't represented at all, but in the left-wing media where they have to share a platform. And I guess you don't think that's working as intended?

  3. #15003
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    I have some thoughts about this, obviously, but don’t have time now to write them out right now. But yeah, I do think this touches on the crux of my position, and I think you’re right to say it depends largely on how you define what a scandal is. I do think there’s a difference between scandal and between bad behavior/bad governance (as I said above), and I don’t think they’re equally scandalous; only scandals are scandalous. Being scandalous isn’t the same thing as being bad at governance or being morally corrupt (which the Bush administration was worse at than the Clinton admin on both counts.)

    I think there’s a way to talk about this where it’s not just a semantic discussion where each of us are going back and forth saying, “this is what scandal means to me!” And that’s what I’ll write about later when I have the time.
    Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong about this, but here's my take-away from this conversation so you can understand what's got me boggling a bit:

    - You agree that George W. Bush was more corrupt and worse at governing than Clinton.

    - You agree that the media paid way more attention to Clinton's relatively minor personal problems than Bush's, uh, war crimes and gross violations of the constitution.

    - And you're mainly blaming the Clintons for how the media portrayed them, apparently without asking ^ critical ^ questions ^ about ^ this

  4. #15004
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    I well, uh, am personally familiar with big corporations, and I bet at one point in 2009 at a S&P 500 media company there was a director-level meeting about "president is a monkey" jokes to discuss why they wouldn't be able to make them anymore.

  5. #15005
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong about this, but here's my take-away from this conversation so you can understand what's got me boggling a bit:

    - You agree that George W. Bush was more corrupt and worse at governing than Clinton.

    - You agree that the media paid way more attention to Clinton's relatively minor personal problems than Bush's, uh, war crimes and gross violations of the constitution.

    - And you're mainly blaming the Clintons for how the media portrayed them, apparently without asking ^ critical ^ questions ^ about ^ this
    Ha. Whenever you accuse me of strawmaning you in the future I’m going to remember this post. Yes, you got me very wrong on this.
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-23-2019 at 09:27 AM.

  6. #15006
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    Ha. Whenever you accuse me of strawmaning you in the future I’m going to remember this post.
    That's my interpretation of what you've posted. I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked you to clarify if you thought I was wrong. Please do.

  7. #15007
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    That's my interpretation of what you've posted. I wasn't being sarcastic when I asked you to clarify if you thought I was wrong. Please do.
    The press was intensely critical of the Patriot Act, of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, of wiretapping, of Gitmo, of the war in Iraq once it became clear it wasn’t going well, and so on and so on. The media absolutely paid attention to all these issues. No, I don’t think the media paid less attention to these issues than to Bill Clinton’s misconduct.

    I’m doing errands right now but I’ll elaborate when I can sit down and write a response to Reid and justify what I meant when I said that the Clinton admin was “wildly more scandalous,” which has more to do with how the media covered him then evaluating his governance itself.

  8. #15008
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Did you possibly misinterpret my post, too? To elaborate, my understanding is that your position is basically that certain misbehavior is scandalous and certain misbehavior isn't, like it's tautologically more of a scandal when Clinton gets a blowjob than when Bush wiretaps the entire United States because people are more scandalized by Clinton's behavior. Considering that people are obviously more scandalized by the misbehavior that the media chooses to sensationalize and promote, though, this seems circular to me. This seems like saying the same thing as "the media chose to pay more attention to Clinton's personal problems than to Bush's crimes against humanity". And given your earlier posts, where you blamed the Clintons for their perception by the media (e.g. by acting "cagey") it sure seems like you're blaming Clinton for the media's failure to hold George W. Bush to a reasonable standard.

  9. #15009
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Quote Originally Posted by Eversor View Post
    The press was intensely critical of the Patriot Act, of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, of wiretapping, of Gitmo, of the war in Iraq once it became clear it wasn’t going well, and so on and so on. The media absolutely paid attention to all these issues. No, I don’t think the media paid less attention to these issues.

    I’m doing errands right now but I’ll elaborate when I can sit down and write a response to Reid and justify what I meant when I said that the Clinton admin was “wildly more scandalous,” which has more to do with how the media covered him then evaluating his governance itself.
    The media paid attention, but they certainly didn't handle these issues with the same exhaustiveness that they handled Clinton's personal affairs. None of Bush's crits took on life.

  10. #15010
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,061
    Back in the 90s my family took a trip to the US, and I remember seeing CNNs coverage of Operation Desert Fox (IIRC). The commentators spent most of the time talking about how Clinton might have ordered the attack to distract from the Lewinsky scandal.

    When Trump threatens Iran on Twitter, does the media report that it’s just a distraction from his rape allegations? No? Not scandalous enough?

  11. #15011
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Back in the 90s my family took a trip to the US, and I remember seeing CNNs coverage of Operation Desert Fox (IIRC). The commentators spent most of the time talking about how Clinton might have ordered the attack to distract from the Lewinsky scandal.

    When Trump threatens Iran on Twitter, does the media report that it’s just a distraction from his rape allegations? No? Not scandalous enough?

    I mean... yes? You hear all the time that “so-and-so” is just a distraction from the Mueller investigation, or whatever else. Case in point from just a few days ago: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...ws-63915589818

  12. #15012
    Everybody knows “distraction” is a “classic Trumpian move.”

    https://finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/ne...235807045.html
    Last edited by Eversor; 07-23-2019 at 12:27 PM.

  13. #15013
    Likes Kittens. Eats Fluffies
    Posts
    11,922
    Distraction is clearly a classic Eversor move, and if you disagree, that's just you trying to distract me from how right I am.

  14. #15014
    From Forbes, an article called “Gaslighters/Narcissists Are Masters Of Distraction”:

    Gaslighters/narcissists are masters of distracting from their behavior and statements by engaging in even more outrageous behavior and statements. It has been used by both sides of the political landscape for decades. However, it has reached a fever pitch. For example, President Trump’s verbal attacks on four duly elected congresswomen of color turns conversation and media coverage away from his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...straction/amp/

    From WashPo, an article entitled “Trump’s tweets are a distraction for something else he doesn’t want us to see”:

    As always, one must ask, what is the Something Else he doesn’t want us to see? Based on timing, my best guess is Jeffrey Epstein: financier, sex offender, globe-trotting gallivant and alleged sex trafficker of teenage girls.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...tputType%3Damp

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •