The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

And what about my Peter Baker question? Do you think that's an example of fair, objective reporting?

Smedley said:

Amazing I've been parroting Cillizza and Brooks all this time and you've never caught me plagiarizing once. I'm sure you would have tripped over yourself at the opportunity had it presented itself. 

Obviously your comments are not word for word plagiarism.  Again you are reading more into what I wrote than what I actually wrote. 

Smedley said:

And it's debatable whether the coverage has been fair and accurate on balance.

oh yeah, forgot to mention.

it's really not debatable. the position for "fair and accurate" is practically non-existent.

Smedley said:

Is there anything you’d like us to know about Agnes Smedley? 

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

To get back to my comment to smedley which started this tangent, it's incredibly naive to think that Biden's poll numbers on Afghanistan have not been effected by the media coverage. I mean, what else is there to base it on except media coverage? That's where poll respondents get their information.

Ok, yes I imagine Biden's poll numbers have been affected by the media coverage. And it's debatable whether the coverage has been fair and accurate on balance. But at the same time, I think it's head-in-the-sand to believe that the media coverage is the only factor.  

To your question "what else is there to base it on except media coverage?", my answer is: Biden himself. I watched the George S interview and Biden's presser from a couple weeks back where he took a few questions. Both direct from the horse's mouth and unfiltered by any media prism. And both times I came away really meh on the notion that Biden is a strong leader and in command of the situation. 

I know from past discussions that nobody on here x-MT has any concerns about Biden's ability to lead, but I strongly believe the number of poll respondents, ie voters, who do have concerns is more than it was one month ago. 

 and how many people do you think actually watched the whole speech as opposed to those who saw excerpts wrapped around media commentary?

and I saw it all and think he did fine. He's not a compelling speaker, but he says what needs to be said.

I know you probably won't answer this, but what specifically did Biden do during those speeches that turned you off?

 I'm only reticent to answer bc this has been debated seven ways to Sunday. But since you asked: incomplete thoughts, rambling, slow, unclear answers, weird/questionable answers (with George S - about what military commanders said or didn't say, and "that was four or five days ago"), tentative, just overall a bit foggy and befuddled. Doesn't project confidence at all. But I guess we see different things.   

drummerboy said:

And what about my Peter Baker question? Do you think that's an example of fair, objective reporting?

 No, but it's one example. I don't think you can hold this up and say this is how the MSM does things, because for every one thing like this they get it right many more times. 

drummerboy said:

How about when a big time NYT reporter who might be named Peter Baker writes a piece and quotes a source who he never reveals to be a board member of Raytheon (big time defense contractor) and simply pretends that they're an impartial academic? 

Impartial academic?

“The administration is presenting the choices in a way that is, at best, incomplete,” said Meghan O’Sullivan, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who oversaw earlier stages of the Afghan war. “No one I knew was advocating the return of tens of thousands of Americans into ‘open combat’ with the Taliban.” 

Someone commented that Biden has been in office for just a few months, and yet he is being blamed for the mess. He has spent some 40 years in government, including 8 years as Obama’s VP. He is no newbie, nor was he born yesterday. However, he seems to be mired in the past — his own personal past — right back to his granddaddy. I have found that his homespun riffs down memory lane — frequently repeated — sound phony and serve to make him appear as an old cogger, rather than POTUS.

https://www.nysun.com/national/the-sum-of-all-fears/91647/

Perhaps, as an old cogger myself, it takes one to know one.

I was weaned on FDR’s fireside chats, and, even when he was actually near death, he spoke forcefully to Americans, wounded by the Great Depression, and attacked by  foreign power and fighting in WW2 on two continents. History revealed how imperfect the president was personally, but the image he presented to the world was strong and decisive. Biden is no FDR.

mtierney said:

Someone commented that Biden has been in office for just a few months, and yet he is being blamed for the mess. He has spent some 40 years in government, including 8 years as Obama’s VP. He is no newbie, nor was he born yesterday. However, he seems to be mired in the past — his own personal past — right back to his granddaddy. I have found that his homespun riffs down memory lane — frequently repeated — sound phony and serve to make him appear as an old cogger, rather than POTUS.

https://www.nysun.com/national/the-sum-of-all-fears/91647/

Perhaps, as an old cogger myself, it takes one to know one.

I was weaned on FDR’s fireside chats, and, even when he was actually near death, he spoke forcefully to Americans, wounded by the Great Depression, and attacked by  foreign power and fighting in WW2 on two continents. History revealed how imperfect the president was personally, but the image he presented to the world was strong and decisive. Biden is no FDR.

you're linking to Larry Kudlow?  Really?  The guy who has made a career of being wrong almost all the time about almost everything?

Trump’s New Economic Adviser Lawrence Kudlow Has Been Wrong About Everything for Decades

ml1 said:

mtierney said:

Someone commented that Biden has been in office for just a few months, and yet he is being blamed for the mess. He has spent some 40 years in government, including 8 years as Obama’s VP. He is no newbie, nor was he born yesterday. However, he seems to be mired in the past — his own personal past — right back to his granddaddy. I have found that his homespun riffs down memory lane — frequently repeated — sound phony and serve to make him appear as an old cogger, rather than POTUS.

https://www.nysun.com/national/the-sum-of-all-fears/91647/

Perhaps, as an old cogger myself, it takes one to know one.

I was weaned on FDR’s fireside chats, and, even when he was actually near death, he spoke forcefully to Americans, wounded by the Great Depression, and attacked by  foreign power and fighting in WW2 on two continents. History revealed how imperfect the president was personally, but the image he presented to the world was strong and decisive. Biden is no FDR.

you're linking to Larry Kudlow?  Really?  The guy who has made a career of being wrong almost all the time about almost everything?

Trump’s New Economic Adviser Lawrence Kudlow Has Been Wrong About Everything for Decades

I don't understand the point of the non sequitur article links. Kudlow is his own type of crazy, but his article has nothing to do with rants about Biden not being FDR

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

How about when a big time NYT reporter who might be named Peter Baker writes a piece and quotes a source who he never reveals to be a board member of Raytheon (big time defense contractor) and simply pretends that they're an impartial academic? 

Impartial academic?

“The administration is presenting the choices in a way that is, at best, incomplete,” said Meghan O’Sullivan, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who oversaw earlier stages of the Afghan war. “No one I knew was advocating the return of tens of thousands of Americans into ‘open combat’ with the Taliban.” 

 I misremembered. Shoot me.

The point still stands.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

And what about my Peter Baker question? Do you think that's an example of fair, objective reporting?

 No, but it's one example. I don't think you can hold this up and say this is how the MSM does things, because for every one thing like this they get it right many more times. 

one example? exactly how many examples do you want me to give in an MOL post?

Practically every NYT article on Afghanistan in the last month is an example.

Has CNN removed the word chaos from their chyron yet? I can put up with a lot of nonsense from the MSM, but I really can't watch CNN anymore.

drummerboy said:

The point still stands.

The point being that the Raytheon connection would have left readers more aware than just the Bush connection of where O’Sullivan was coming from?

DaveSchmidt said:

The point being that the Raytheon connection would have left readers more aware than just the Bush connection of where O’Sullivan was coming from?

 wouldn't both connections be relevant to the reader?

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

The point still stands.

The point being that the Raytheon connection would have left readers more aware than just the Bush connection of where O’Sullivan was coming from?

The point being that a member of the Raytheon board should not be asked for their opinion in the first place.

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

And what about my Peter Baker question? Do you think that's an example of fair, objective reporting?

 No, but it's one example. I don't think you can hold this up and say this is how the MSM does things, because for every one thing like this they get it right many more times. 

one example? exactly how many examples do you want me to give in an MOL post?

Practically every NYT article on Afghanistan in the last month is an example.

Has CNN removed the word chaos from their chyron yet? I can put up with a lot of nonsense from the MSM, but I really can't watch CNN anymore.

 Well as I've said previously, the media by nature plays up the conflict and tension and drama of a situation. That's just what they do. 

Rather than airing and re-airing (and re-airing) the now-famous video of Afghans running alongside the military transport plane, do you think they should have aired and re-aired a video of people stepping onto a plane, calmly and in an orderly fashion with bags in tow, which then took off from Afghanistan via a clear runway? 

That would be dog bites man and pretty boring. The chaotic video (and it was chaotic) was man bites dog and thus it was interesting and newsworthy. Interesting generates eyeballs which generates advertising which generates revenue. 

So you can have your objections to how the media covered the Afghanistan pullout, but I thought it was on balance reasonable, par for the course, and not especially unfair to Biden or anyone else.  

The most important item in the news is the new Taliban Afghan government has no women or LTBGQ representation

If you ever want to know why I quit watching cable news in the 2000's and cut the cord from cable altogether a few years ago, just read this page.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

And what about my Peter Baker question? Do you think that's an example of fair, objective reporting?

 No, but it's one example. I don't think you can hold this up and say this is how the MSM does things, because for every one thing like this they get it right many more times. 

one example? exactly how many examples do you want me to give in an MOL post?

Practically every NYT article on Afghanistan in the last month is an example.

Has CNN removed the word chaos from their chyron yet? I can put up with a lot of nonsense from the MSM, but I really can't watch CNN anymore.

 Well as I've said previously, the media by nature plays up the conflict and tension and drama of a situation. That's just what they do. 

Rather than airing and re-airing (and re-airing) the now-famous video of Afghans running alongside the military transport plane, do you think they should have aired and re-aired a video of people stepping onto a plane, calmly and in an orderly fashion with bags in tow, which then took off from Afghanistan via a clear runway? 

That would be dog bites man and pretty boring. The chaotic video (and it was chaotic) was man bites dog and thus it was interesting and newsworthy. Interesting generates eyeballs which generates advertising which generates revenue. 

So you can have your objections to how the media covered the Afghanistan pullout, but I thought it was on balance reasonable, par for the course, and not especially unfair to Biden or anyone else.  

so, you accept that the coverage is unfair and inaccurate (despite your last sentence, which basically negates the rest of your post), yet you don't think that has an effect on Biden's approval rating?

okay.

anyway, what we've got in you is the average news consumer, who just accepts garbage as "par for the course". It is par for the course, but you can't then ignore its negative effects on the body politic.

Am I getting through here?

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 apparently you don't understand your own assessment.

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 apparently you don't understand your own assessment.

 Could you two just STFU, so we can continue the discussion?

How in the world can we hope to solve, or even cope with the  big issues which affect all of us, when posters here dissect and rehash each other’s comments endlessly?

How about a discussion on what our government should or could do about the $85B in  high tech equipment and materials left behind? The spoils of war — that’s it?

How about the folks who served our county for 20 years who are still there at this point — be it only 100 or 150? 

How about discussing the journalists who have been beaten by Talibans — or the violent dispersal of the Afghan women who were marching in protest by Taliban enforcers?

Can America stay out of this endless conflict?

edited — $85Billion was the total.  I get light-headed in terms of billions of dollars — don’t get me started on the Trillions on the table currently.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 apparently you don't understand your own assessment.

 Could you two just STFU, so we can continue the discussion?

 what discussion?

mtierney said:

How in the world can we hope to solve, or even cope with the  big issues which affect all of us, when posters here dissect and rehash each other’s comments endlessly?

How about a discussion on what our government should or could do about the $85M in  high tech equipment and materials left behind? The spoils of war — that’s it?

How about the folks who served our county for 20 years who are still there at this point — be it only 100 or 150? 

How about discussing the journalists who have been beaten by Talibans — or the violent dispersal of the Afghan women who were marching in protest by Taliban enforcers?

Can America stay out of this endless conflict?

. 

first of all, the number is 85 billion, not million, and secondly, that number is b.s. anyway.

200 people were flown out of Afghanistan today.

what is there to discuss about the Taliban's actions, other than to denounce them? do you have some suggestions as to what we could about it? we're eager to hear them.

drummerboy said:

first of all, the number is 85 billion, not million, and secondly, that number is b.s. anyway.

200 people were flown out of Afghanistan today.

what is there to discuss about the Taliban's actions, other than to denounce them? do you have some suggestions as to what we could about it? we're eager to hear them.

 Why bother with her misinformation and Republican mierda del toro?

She won’t say it was trump who negotiated this whole deal with the taliban through Pompeo.

She won’t say it was trump who negotiated the release of 5000 Afghan fighters in prison.

She may not know or don’t care to know that trump wanted to invite the taliban leadership to camp David for the 9/11 anniversary.

It was trump who refused to brief Biden’s incoming administration on the  situation in Afghanistan.

I wonder if she remembers that it was trump who bragged about not needing an exit strategy from Afghanistan. He also boasted that the troop withdrawal he started could not be stopped…

She just comes here to troll the libs. Blind deaf and dumb republicans…

did you hear what Trump is doing to mark the 20th 9/11 anniversary?

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 dB pretty much nailed your assessment. Maybe you didn't realize the implication of the first part of your comment. 

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 dB pretty much nailed your assessment. Maybe you didn't realize the implication of the first part of your comment. 

 Sure, other than db saying I don't think the coverage had an effect on Biden's approval rating when I explicitly acknowledged it did, and him saying I accept the coverage is unfair and inaccurate when I said no such thing, what he said was spot-on.

You guys can continue to blame the media for Biden's recent troubles, and I will continue to say that's lame. The notion that the media is wholly responsible for the drop in Biden's approval rating is ludicrous. 

I certainly hope the WH doesn't take that approach, but rather looks inward and focuses on accountability, learning from its mistakes and being a more effective administration. I for one found it really annoying and tiresome when Trump blamed the media for everything -- guessing maybe you felt that way too, but it seems it's ok for a Democratic president to do.   

Smedley said:

ml1 said:

Smedley said:

I stand by my assessment and I'll let your gross misrepresentation of my assessment stand as well.

 dB pretty much nailed your assessment. Maybe you didn't realize the implication of the first part of your comment. 

 Sure, other than db saying I don't think the coverage had an effect on Biden's approval rating when I explicitly acknowledged it did, and him saying I accept the coverage is unfair and inaccurate when I said no such thing, what he said was spot-on.

You guys can continue to blame the media for Biden's recent troubles, and I will continue to say that's lame. The notion that the media is wholly responsible for the drop in Biden's approval rating is ludicrous. 

If you didn't accept that the coverage wasn't fair and accurate, you still described the coverage as being done more for ratings than to give an accurate factual picture. 

Smedley said:

 Well as I've said previously, the media by nature plays up the conflict and tension and drama of a situation. That's just what they do. 

Rather than airing and re-airing (and re-airing) the now-famous video of Afghans running alongside the military transport plane, do you think they should have aired and re-aired a video of people stepping onto a plane, calmly and in an orderly fashion with bags in tow, which then took off from Afghanistan via a clear runway? 

That would be dog bites man and pretty boring. The chaotic video (and it was chaotic) was man bites dog and thus it was interesting and newsworthy. Interesting generates eyeballs which generates advertising which generates revenue. 

So you can have your objections to how the media covered the Afghanistan pullout, but I thought it was on balance reasonable, par for the course, and not especially unfair to Biden or anyone else.  

It can't be objectively reasonable and also stress the "man biting dog" over the multiple "dogs biting men".