Post inauguration Trump:

[Pies4shaw]

If it comes from the White House, why would you accept it as a fact? There is no-one there, so far as the available evidence would suggest, who is capable of opening their mouth without lying.

[David]

I agree with P4S. I've been critical of The Guardian in the past, and no question that they have agendas in what they choose to report, but equating them with government PR is a pretty disturbing equivalence. Those of us who care about things like democracy, accountability and freedom of information realise that one of the primary purposes of a free media is to tell us the truth behind the spin being offered by the government of the day. The idea (pushed by Trump, as it has been by dictators in the past) that the government's own media department is a trustworthy alternative to the press ... well, how credulous would you have to be to accept that?

[Wokko]

Considering the 'free' press are overwhelmingly sitting on one end of the political spectrum I'd say you can't trust them any more than you can trust any other partisan player such as the White House press secretary. When that press is not even trying to stifle their biases or at least feign partiality then no, they can't be trusted at all because they're pushing an agenda, not reporting facts.

It's so bad that you can name pretty much every right wing journo in this country. Even at News Ltd, the mythical 'Right Wing media' the journalists are pushing 70% left wing (20% Greens voters, 47% Labor). Is it any wonder that right wingers don't trust the media. We're more than 50% of the population but only 30% of journalists even in the most right wing media. Only 14% of ABC journalists vote coalition. Pretty damning when your charter calls for total balance.

[David]

If you're talking about Australia, the right pretty much own journalism here, particularly in the wake of Fairfax's implosion. The ABC's board is stacked by right-wingers, commercial TV is mostly right-leaning (to the extent that it considers someone like Pauline Hanson an impartial breakfast TV guest), and we all know about News Corp's closeness with the Liberal Party. It's editors who dictate coverage, not journalists (and when it comes to hard news, the angle is far more important than the writer's politics, because there's not much room to move within a hard-news writing structure), and outside The Guardian, Crikey, The Saturday Paper and a few other niche outlets, I'm not sure there's a single left-wing editorial team left in Australia.

The situation may be different in America, but either way I'd still trust a biased journalist (right or left) over government PR, because at least the former is (selectively or otherwise) trying to uncover the facts that the latter is doing their very best to hide.

[Skids]

Trump’s changes to asylum rules make perfect sense

If migrants are already safe in another country, why shouldn’t they apply for asylum there before coming to the United States and applying here?

That’s the perfectly sound logic behind a rule Team Trump put in place Monday: Migrants who pass through another country will be ineligible for US asylum unless they’ve first sought it, unsuccessfully, in that third country.

Naturally, advocate groups promptly filed legal challenges to the rule, arguing that Congress hasn’t specifically OK’d it. Their lead lawyer, Lee Gelernt, claims that current law requires foreigners to seek asylum in a third country only if that country has a formal deal with Washington and can “ensure a safe and meaningful opportunity to obtain asylum” there.


Fact is, US asylum laws, as President Trump often notes, are wildly abused: A huge share of these migrants are coming here for economic reasons — they can earn far more with even a low-end job in America than they can back home — than out of any particular fear.

https://nypost.com/2019/07/21/trumps-changes-to-asylum-rules-make-perfect-sense/

[David]

Goes to show that even our Labor Party is way to the right of Trump on this issue.

[David]

I have to say, in light of the previous exchange about Trump and the media, this story is a bit of a farce:

https://www.cjr.org/public_editor/nyt-headline-trump-mass-shootings.php

That the New York Times should be pilloried for a neutral and accurate front-page headline that just happens to make Trump look good, plus immediately acquiesce to social media noise about it, suggests that it and its readers really do see it as needing to serve an opposition-party role, just as Trump claims. It's one reason why I've found much of its post–2016 coverage insufferable. I feel the newspaper has diminished itself.

[stui magpie]

I'm unsurprised.

People with strong opinions read media that supports their opinions, not challenges it.

main stream media mainly play to their readership, they want to maintain and grow market share, not diminish it by alienating their base.

If you read any news site, think of what the demographic of their readership is and you know their bias, and they're all biased it's just a matter of degree.

So no surprise that a number of the readership of the NYT couldn't stomach what they perceived as a positive headline about Trump (when as you said, it was actually accurate reporting not an opinion piece) and no surprise that the NYT went into damage control.

[Pies4shaw]

[stui magpie]

News comes out that Trump wants to buy Greenland (for the USA, not personally), media outlets put their own spin on it, and then the Donald comes out with this tweet.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163603361423351808



Some staffer in the White House just got a raise.

[Wokko]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50780/ted-cruz-unloads-new-york-times-after-paper-ashe-schow?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

[David]

I guess Ted has gotten over the whole Trump-insulting-his-father-and-wife thing.

[David]

[Wokko]

He was wanting a meeting to discuss buying Greenland, no point having a meeting when Denmark has already said no.

Weird that the Danes are so keen to hang on to it, it's a huge financial burden apparently. Denmark obviously not ready to get rid of the (only) jewel of tghe Danish Empire

[stui magpie]

It is geographically part of North America and most of the local population are Alaskan Inuit who strolled over via Canada. Population of less than 60,000, 90% of it's economy is based on fishing and Denmark subsidises them to the tune of $500,000 per year.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html