Minister of Propaganda Spicer taking it on the chin today

[Original Mountaineer1]

after likely talking one on the chin yesterday from Donnie. But I digress. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Only in this parallel universe that we now live in could one claim every news outlet was wrong and Donnie's estimates from the podium was spot on? How on one hand do you say that the Park Service no longer counts attendees then in the next sentence say it was the largest crowd ever?

Please Donnie focus on fixing the issues and quit worrying about nothing. He you succeed, you will be one of the greatest presidents ever. Focus on that Donnie

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

&

 

[Boomboom521]

after likely talking one on the chin yesterday from Donnie. But I digress. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Only in this parallel universe that we now live in could one claim every news outlet was wrong and Donnie's estimates from the podium was spot on? How on one hand do you say that the Park Service no longer counts attendees then in the next sentence say it was the largest crowd ever?

Please Donnie focus on fixing the issues and quit worrying about nothing. He you succeed, you will be one of the greatest presidents ever. Focus on that Donnie

I think this is less about ego, and more about driving a wedge between the American public and news sources. The division of the news outlets will contribute to President Trump and his administration being able to control the message by simply dismissing unflattering coverage as fake. I even think his speech at the CIA was an attempt to drive a wedge between his followers and the IC. To self aggrandize in front of the wall, he is baiting the IC to publically speak out against the speech, and then President Trump can claim that he is being attacked by the IC as well.

 

[WVPATX]

after likely talking one on the chin yesterday from Donnie. But I digress. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Only in this parallel universe that we now live in could one claim every news outlet was wrong and Donnie's estimates from the podium was spot on? How on one hand do you say that the Park Service no longer counts attendees then in the next sentence say it was the largest crowd ever?

Please Donnie focus on fixing the issues and quit worrying about nothing. He you succeed, you will be one of the greatest presidents ever. Focus on that Donnie

I agree that Trump should focus on the important stuff. Crowd size is not one of them. But I do understand his anger. Sure. The media and Dems are trying to delegitimize him, so he lashes out. Still he should stay silent. The media used "early" pictures of the crowd size before the actual inauguration. That was meant to reinforce their opinion. Later, a pool reported lied about the MLB bust being removed from the Oval Office and tweeted about it. It wasn't removed and he later apologized. And the numbers are in and he had the second largest TV audience in 36 years.

What is the old saying, a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. His lie was retweeted by many in the press. He later apologized but the damage was already done.

 

[Boomboom521]

I agree that Trump should focus on the important stuff. Crowd size is not one of them. But I do understand his anger. Sure. The media and Dems are trying to delegitimize him, so he lashes out. Still he should stay silent. The media used "early" pictures of the crowd size before the actual inauguration. That was meant to reinforce their opinion. Later, a pool reported lied about the MLB bust being removed from the Oval Office and tweeted about it. It wasn't removed and he later apologized. And the numbers are in and he had the second largest TV audience in 36 years.

What is the old saying, a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. His lie was retweeted by many in the press. He later apologized but the damage was already done.

What is your source that the photos were used from before he took the stage?

 

[WVPATX]

I think this is less about ego, and more about driving a wedge between the American public and news sources. The division of the news outlets will contribute to President Trump and his administration being able to control the message by simply dismissing unflattering coverage as fake. I even think his speech at the CIA was an attempt to drive a wedge between his followers and the IC. To self aggrandize in front of the wall, he is baiting the IC to publically speak out against the speech, and then President Trump can claim that he is being attacked by the IC as well.

I don't disagree. But Boom, I know you are empathetic. I know you are tolerant and fair. Trump was savaged by the media (91% negative coverage during the general election). Would you trust the media if you were Trump? He is trying to delegitimize the media because they are trying to delegitimize him and because he knows more is coming. More and more negative press. So he is preempting that strategy by mocking the press and they make so many stupid mistakes (e.g. Trump removed MLK's bust from the Oval Office), it is easy for him to do so.

 

[WVPATX]

What is your source that the photos were used from before he took the stage?

I saw the photo this morning stretching back to the Washington Monument and will try and relocate it. But the hard facts are that Trump had the second largest TV audience in 36 years. Hard to argue with those facts, even if you didn't attend the cold, rainy day in DC.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

I don't disagree. But Boom, I know you are empathetic. I know you are tolerant and fair. Trump was savaged by the media (91% negative coverage during the general election). Would you trust the media if you were Trump? He is trying to delegitimize the media because they are trying to delegitimize him and because he knows more is coming. More and more negative press. So he is preempting that strategy by mocking the press and they make so many stupid mistakes (e.g. Trump removed MLK's bust from the Oval Office), it is easy for him to do so.

While I agree that the press was not pro trump post convention, the press is a large part of the reason he gained the nomination. He got far more press than his rivals due to the fact that he was good television.

 

[Boomboom521]

I don't disagree. But Boom, I know you are empathetic. I know you are tolerant and fair. Trump was savaged by the media (91% negative coverage during the general election). Would you trust the media if you were Trump? He is trying to delegitimize the media because they are trying to delegitimize him and because he knows more is coming. More and more negative press. So he is preempting that strategy by mocking the press and they make so many stupid mistakes (e.g. Trump removed MLK's bust from the Oval Office), it is easy for him to do so.

I think President Trump has a very love- hate relationship with the media. I'd have much more respect for the man and his "war" on the media if he didn't cherish his ratings and mag covers so much, and do tv shows and comment on tv and Hollywood so often. He loves good coverage and hates bad coverage....a President must welcome bad coverage, and be open and receptive to the press.

 

[Boomboom521]

I saw the photo this morning stretching back to the Washington Monument and will try and relocate it. But the hard facts are that Trump had the second largest TV audience in 36 years. Hard to argue with those facts, even if you didn't attend the cold, rainy day in DC.

I saw that photo (one from CNN) it's at a lower level and tough to tell if the back sections are filled or not

 

[Boomboom521]

I agree that Trump should focus on the important stuff. Crowd size is not one of them. But I do understand his anger. Sure. The media and Dems are trying to delegitimize him, so he lashes out. Still he should stay silent. The media used "early" pictures of the crowd size before the actual inauguration. That was meant to reinforce their opinion. Later, a pool reported lied about the MLB bust being removed from the Oval Office and tweeted about it. It wasn't removed and he later apologized. And the numbers are in and he had the second largest TV audience in 36 years.

What is the old saying, a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. His lie was retweeted by many in the press. He later apologized but the damage was already done.

And Paxx, let me ask you this: should a President allow a statement like

“But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance.”

To be made without clarification?

 

[WVPATX]

While I agree that the press was not pro trump post convention, the press is a large part of the reason he gained the nomination. He got far more press than his rivals due to the fact that he was good television.

But you hit on exactly why I feel they are corrupt. They gave Trump all the press he wanted during the Primary. Good press coverage. They wanted Trump as the nominee because they thought he was the weakest candidate. What changed in the general election? He was running against the preferred media candidate and the coverage changed on a dime.

He was still good coverage in the general, still got good ratings, why did the coverage change? 91% negative coverage is no accident. It is planned, orchestrated to achieve a desired outcome. The media is not in the game to decide or try and decide elections.

 

[WVPATX]

What is your source that the photos were used from before he took the stage?

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

The New York Times and Trump Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, appear to be in an argument over the crowd attending the President Trump inauguration. In the politicized era of jaw-dropping media bias, fake news and constructed Potemkin villages, does this come as a surprise.

Generally speaking, most intellectually honest political followers/researchers already anticipated a massive amount of DC-based hostility in all things related to President Trump. After all, Hillary Clinton won the DC vote with 91%, and only 4% of DC residents supported Donald Trump –LINK–



Pause. Consider the disparity. Think about that for a moment.

WASHINGTON DC VOTE: 282,830 Clinton (91%), 12,723 Trump (4%) Trump. That’s more than a 22:1 ratio of Clinton supporters -vs- Trump supporters amid DC residents.

It’s Washington DC. Political shenanigans should always be anticipated – it is just how DC rolls. Slow-walking TSA screenings under the auspices of “security”, obstruction, annoyance, intentional delays and all manner of historic DC employee behavior is the norm – not the exception. Again, reference the statistical political ideology.


Seriously, have we forgotten the spiteful DC park closings during the “sequester” budget debate when DC authorities closed open space –including war memorials on “Memorial Day weekend- because they wanted to create the optic of impact from budget cuts. To wit, they put barricades around the National Mall, and transmitted warnings to kids in school about the zoo animals no longer being fed. Remember all that nonsense?

The behavior of federal employees in DC is nothing if not predictable. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to their interests; and by extension anyone who supports Donald Trump is antithetical to their interests. That is the correct background for the “optics” of crowd size.

However, all of that said – we can see a Gigapixel Image HERE [we can zoom in/out and drag the image etc.] of much of the area during President Trump’s speech and decide for yourselves.



Explore Interactive HERE
Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings. Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.

Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort….

 

[Boomboom521]

(Interactive Gigapixel Image HERE)

The New York Times and Trump Press Secretary, Sean Spicer, appear to be in an argument over the crowd attending the President Trump inauguration. In the politicized era of jaw-dropping media bias, fake news and constructed Potemkin villages, does this come as a surprise.

Generally speaking, most intellectually honest political followers/researchers already anticipated a massive amount of DC-based hostility in all things related to President Trump. After all, Hillary Clinton won the DC vote with 91%, and only 4% of DC residents supported Donald Trump –LINK–



Pause. Consider the disparity. Think about that for a moment.

WASHINGTON DC VOTE: 282,830 Clinton (91%), 12,723 Trump (4%) Trump. That’s more than a 22:1 ratio of Clinton supporters -vs- Trump supporters amid DC residents.

It’s Washington DC. Political shenanigans should always be anticipated – it is just how DC rolls. Slow-walking TSA screenings under the auspices of “security”, obstruction, annoyance, intentional delays and all manner of historic DC employee behavior is the norm – not the exception. Again, reference the statistical political ideology.


Seriously, have we forgotten the spiteful DC park closings during the “sequester” budget debate when DC authorities closed open space –including war memorials on “Memorial Day weekend- because they wanted to create the optic of impact from budget cuts. To wit, they put barricades around the National Mall, and transmitted warnings to kids in school about the zoo animals no longer being fed. Remember all that nonsense?

The behavior of federal employees in DC is nothing if not predictable. President Donald Trump is an existential threat to their interests; and by extension anyone who supports Donald Trump is antithetical to their interests. That is the correct background for the “optics” of crowd size.

However, all of that said – we can see a Gigapixel Image HERE [we can zoom in/out and drag the image etc.] of much of the area during President Trump’s speech and decide for yourselves.



Explore Interactive HERE
Despite the shenanigans Sean Spicer was correct. The crowd grew significantly just as the event began. Yes, this was mostly due to the crowd being intentionally delayed from attending. Yes, tens of thousands of people could not get through the screenings. Yes, the federal workers and DC Park and Security leadership made attendance more difficult than any previous inauguration.

Yes, every imaginable tool and technique was utilized last week to provide the maximum level of crisis and discomfort….

I see a lot of white.

 

[WVPATX]

I think President Trump has a very love- hate relationship with the media. I'd have much more respect for the man and his "war" on the media if he didn't cherish his ratings and mag covers so much, and do tv shows and comment on tv and Hollywood so often. He loves good coverage and hates bad coverage....a President must welcome bad coverage, and be open and receptive to the press.

Couldn't agree more. But Obama too, was thinned skinned, hated negative coverage, tried to delegitimize Fox and tried to have them ejected from the Press Pool. I think Obama is every bit as thinned skinned and egotistical as Trump but he does a much better job of masking it.

 

[WVPATX]

I see a lot of white.

Here is another issue the media chose to ignore. The DC parks crew put down white pads to protect the grass (not so under Obama) so white clearly shows up better than green. Regardless, you can't discount the TV ratings. The park service does not provide crowd estimates. The media claimed the crowd did not reach the Washington Monument. Clearly they did.

I have no doubt that Obama had more people at his inaugural. Why did the media make this an issue? Why compare? They feel it is their mission to delegitimize. And now one show that I watched today mentioned the TV ratings. Second largest since Reagan's first inaugural.

 

[bamaEER]

I think this is less about ego, and more about driving a wedge between the American public and news sources. The division of the news outlets will contribute to President Trump and his administration being able to control the message by simply dismissing unflattering coverage as fake. I even think his speech at the CIA was an attempt to drive a wedge between his followers and the IC. To self aggrandize in front of the wall, he is baiting the IC to publically speak out against the speech, and then President Trump can claim that he is being attacked by the IC as well.

Agree. Fact checkers are his enemy and he wants to control what is true or not. It's all about perception to him and controlling the tilt of the playing field.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

But you hit on exactly why I feel they are corrupt. They gave Trump all the press he wanted during the Primary. Good press coverage. They wanted Trump as the nominee because they thought he was the weakest candidate. What changed in the general election? He was running against the preferred media candidate and the coverage changed on a dime.

He was still good coverage in the general, still got good ratings, why did the coverage change? 91% negative coverage is no accident. It is planned, orchestrated to achieve a desired outcome. The media is not in the game to decide or try and decide elections.

I am not sure they saw him as the weakest candidate (although it would make sense) I just think he was good for ratings. I agree, they should not impact elections. And you can't tell me that nobody in the press knew Bernie was getting screwed by the DNC.

 

[dave]

Agree. Fact checkers are his enemy and he wants to control what is true or not. It's all about perception to him and controlling the tilt of the playing field.

Lmao. Tilt!

 

[dave]

Did it occur to anyone that he is playing the media? He is doing all the things he said he would do but he has the media talking about irrelevant stuff.

 

[WVPATX]

Agree. Fact checkers are his enemy and he wants to control what is true or not. It's all about perception to him and controlling the tilt of the playing field.

Bama, these fact checkers are as biased as the main stream media. I can give you example after example of Glenn Kessler at the Wash Post. posting "fact checks' that make zero sense.

 

[WVPATX]

I am not sure they saw him as the weakest candidate (although it would make sense) I just think he was good for ratings. I agree, they should not impact elections. And you can't tell me that nobody in the press knew Bernie was getting screwed by the DNC.

That's a great question. Did anyone in the media know about the DNC sabotaging Bernie's candidacy? I think they did and simply chose to ignore it. They knew about the limited number of debates. They knew of the time slots for the debates to ensure as small an audience as possible. I'm not sure they knew about the racist emails release by Wikileaks, regarding his religion and how to use that against him. And the other very disparaging emails about him from the DNC.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Couldn't agree more. But Obama too, was thinned skinned, hated negative coverage, tried to delegitimize Fox and tried to have them ejected from the Press Pool. I think Obama is every bit as thinned skinned and egotistical as Trump but he does a much better job of masking it.

As I have said many times various presidents have had issues with the press. This is nothing new. What is new is the very public attacks, the denial of recorded things he said or tweeted, and the claim that the press isn't just unfair but lying and corrupt.......that pulls at the core of our right to a free press.

Various media has always been biased. It is up to us to decipher the truth from the numerous outlets that exists, both left and right leaning.

 

[Boomboom521]

Here is another issue the media chose to ignore. The DC parks crew put down white pads to protect the grass (not so under Obama) so white clearly shows up better than green. Regardless, you can't discount the TV ratings. The park service does not provide crowd estimates. The media claimed the crowd did not reach the Washington Monument. Clearly they did.

I have no doubt that Obama had more people at his inaugural. Why did the media make this an issue? Why compare? They feel it is their mission to delegitimize. And now one show that I watched today mentioned the TV ratings. Second largest since Reagan's first inaugural.

Actually they put down the same thing in 2013. But I agree, it shouldn't be such a big thing to cover the crowd size in the first place. But all of Trumps "movement" talk is trying to create a mandate when one wasn't established.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree that Trump should focus on the important stuff. Crowd size is not one of them. But I do understand his anger. Sure. The media and Dems are trying to delegitimize him, so he lashes out. Still he should stay silent. The media used "early" pictures of the crowd size before the actual inauguration. That was meant to reinforce their opinion. Later, a pool reported lied about the MLB bust being removed from the Oval Office and tweeted about it. It wasn't removed and he later apologized. And the numbers are in and he had the second largest TV audience in 36 years.

What is the old saying, a lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. His lie was retweeted by many in the press. He later apologized but the damage was already done.

It is just amazing to me how consistently the media virtually ignored the record numbers of supporters attending Trump's rallies...you almost never heard the term "thousands turned out to hear Trump" mentioned in the same sequence in the same sentence. They never showed his crowds on T-V in those huge panoramic shots Obama was always showed standing in front of.

Now all of a sudden, they're reporting that his inaugural crowds were so much less than Obama's?

Who cares? Obama is now a former President, and Trump is the President, despite the media's concerted effort to prevent it.

Move on.

Trump should just concentrate on fixing the economy. Then if he wants, he can complain when the media tries to give Obama the credit.

 

[WVPATX]

As I have said many times various presidents have had issues with the press. This is nothing new. What is new is the very public attacks, the denial of recorded things he said if tweeted, and the claim that the press isn't just unfair but lying and corrupt.......that pulls at the core of our right to a free press.

Various media has always been biased. It is up to us to decipher the truth from the numerous outlets that exists, both left and right leaning.

I agree with Boom that Trump is so distrustful of the media (91% negative coverage will do that to someone and is simply unprecedented going back to Nixon times). Trump is willfully trying to delegitimize the media so that when they attack, as they surely will, he will have ready responses as to their corruption.

I used to think the media was simply biased, an unknowing leaning of opinion. I now think they are corrupt. They intentionally slant stories, decide which stores to run to make their enemy look bad and ignore good news or stories, and did it to both Trump and Bernie although to Trump to a much larger extent.

Trump is inoculating himself against this onslaught. It is not good for the country. And I wish Trump and the media would forget the past and start fresh, but only if the media simply reports the facts as they are supposed to do.

 

[atlkvb]

Various media has always been biased. It is up to us to decipher the truth from the numerous outlets that exists, both left and right leaning.

This is true. However the media doesn't think they're biased.

They throw grenades, then blame the ones who get hit by their shrapnel for complaining about it. That MLK bust removal story is just one example, but they got called out on their lie by Trump's people so then they "apologized"....but not for spreading the lie.

 

[atlkvb]

Trump is willfully trying to delegitimize the media so that when they attack, as they surely will, he will have ready responses as to their corruption.

That's the battle going on right now. They (Media) have been systematically engaged in ongoing efforts to delegitimize him since his election, so he's trying to do the same to them since they so confidently predicted and tried to assure his defeat.

What they don't realize, is a vast majority of information consumers already view them as a legitimate anachronism. So the more they try to invalidate Trump, the more they simply do to help him codify their own irrelevance to most Americans.

 

[WVPATX]

That's the battle going on right now. They (Media) have been systematically engaged in ongoing efforts to delegitimize him since his election, so he's trying to do the same to them since they so confidently predicted and tried to assure his defeat.

What they don't realize, is a vast majority of information consumers already view them as legitimate anachronisms. So the more they try to invalidate Trump, the more they simply do to help him codify their own irrelevance to most Americans.

You're right. With each snarky article. With each lie exposed. They are digging themselves a deeper hold. Chuck Todd was taken to the cleaners today. No wonder respect for the integrity of the media is so very low.

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-american-medias-approval-ratings-hit-a-pathetic-new-low

They better figure out how to fix this in the age of Trump or their business model will be forever damaged.

 

[atlkvb]

You're right. With each snarky article. With each lie exposed. They are digging themselves a deeper hold. Chuck Todd was taken to the cleaners today. No wonder respect for the integrity of the media is so very low.

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/the-american-medias-approval-ratings-hit-a-pathetic-new-low

They better figure out how to fix this in the age of Trump or their business model will be forever damaged.

Not only do they not realize what is happening to them PAX, they're so arrogant they continue to promote their own demise. You'd think the election would have taught them a lesson, yet they persist in their narrative about Trump...and he gets the benefit of their myopia.

 

[WVPATX]

Not only do they not realize what is happening to them PAX, they're so arrogant they continue to promote their own demise. You'd think the election would have taught them a lesson, yet they persist in their narrative about Trump...and he gets the benefit of their myopia.

I agree. I don't think the major networks or major cable outlets will change. It is going to take an outside agent to bring change. There is simply too much group think. Many of the greatest innovation we have had in business are from people on the fringes of that business. It is because they are not wed to the same business model or the same way of doing things. Read the book, "Paradign Shift" by Don Tapscott. Fascinating stories. In fact, unbelievable stories.

Until corporate ownership steps in and appoints true outsider, no changes will be forthcoming.

 

[atlkvb]

I agree. I don't think the major networks or major cable outlets will change. It is going to take an outside agent to bring change. There is simply too much group think. Many of the greatest innovation we have had in business are from people on the fringes of that business. It is because they are not wed to the same business model or the same way of doing things. Read the book, "Paradign Shift" by Don Tapscott. Fascinating stories. In fact, unbelievable stories.

Until corporate ownership steps in and appoints true outsider, no changes will be forthcoming.

Agreed, and I have read that book. Excellent insights. I am willing to let the market finish them off. If you owned stocks in phone booths when cellular technology exploded, you had ample time to divest.

The media has been placed on warning, just like cable distribution networks are on notice from online streaming services. When the information market seals their fate, it'll be fun watching them apply for jobs in the "new information industry" if anyone will even need them.

 

[WVPATX]

Agreed, and I have read that book. Excellent insights. I am willing to let the market finish them off. If you owned stocks in phone booths when cellular technology exploded, you had ample time to divest.

The media has been placed on warning, just like cable distribution networks are on notice from online streaming services. When the information market seals their fate, it'll be fun watching them apply for jobs in the "new information industry" if anyone will even need them.

I agree that online streaming services are a grave threat. And turning off half of the country will only serve to expedite their demise. My 26 year old daughter, who is very into politics, never watches the news. She streams it. It is a portent of things to come.