President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

I have opined about what I think happened based on what I know of Trump based on his 40-plus years in public life and the reactions of just about everyone not named Trump who heard the call.

I have not been "unfair" at all.

 

I think he's talking about Trump. It has been @MisterCreosote's contention - and the contention of a lot of other posters - that Trump's statements and actions should be evaluated in light of his known history. It comes up a lot in the "admitted to sexual assault" discussions.

 

Yeah, that's not a journalistic standard. At least it's not one that journalism ought to aspire to.

 

I don't know, DQ. I've mentioned before that journalists are more intuitive than the average person.

 

What about the FACT that the president has lied about it at least a half-dozen times and the FACT that everyone else who heard the call corroborates Wilson's version of it?

 

I just don't think your "I know this man and this is just the kind of shit he would do" passes journalistic muster.

ETA: I'll disengage with this part of it at this point, however, as my track record as a failed journalist back when dinosaurs roamed the earth is widely known.

 

That's more of a reaction to the indignant suggestions that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

He objectively does not.

 

Huh? He was entirely clear. He said she lied when she attributed the quote "He knew what he signed up for" to him. He said he absolutely didn't say that. But he was lying; he did say it.

I don't even know what "the way his comments were presented were untruthful" means, or has to do with that. He lied in that Tweets (and subsequent Tweets) about what he said, yet had the nerve to call Wilson and liar and claim he had "proof." That's what was untruthful.

Aha, so Kelly's only mistake is that he incorrectly attributed her grandstanding to the wrong thing, but that she was, in fact, grandstanding. I had a literal LOL at that. A rueful L, but still.

"Trump tweets simply to make the media's job easier" is one of the most original defenses of Trump's Tweeting I've heard yet. Kudos.

[/QUOTE]
I was talking about your focus, which IMO you clearly want away from Trump's latest self-inflicted idiocy. Though I'm not sure of the examples in this instance of the "press not following their own ethical guidelines," unless you mean their temerity to question the statements of a former four-star general on a subject that has nothing to do with the military.

Beyond that, others can speak for themselves. Thanks for reading.

 

Doesn't really matter whether he "deserves" it or not. What matters is whether in not extending it a journalist (or journalism in general) puts at risk something far more important.

 

This is truly comical irony.

 

I feel like in most cases here journalists have played this pretty down the middle:

The widow said that Trump said this.

Trump said he didn't say that.

Widow responded this.

Trump responded with this.

That doesn't seem unfair to anyone involved. They have been taking depositions for the public record.

 

So does not applying skepticism commensurate with the source's track record.