PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: acrogimp on November 02, 2016, 07:07:53 AM
-
I want this, I want Milo as Press Secretary
'Gimp
-
Can you imagine the heads exploding on all sides?
British accent, gay, conservative, well-spoken and totally unafraid to take it to the media in their face in a take-no-prisoners kind of way.
Would be awesome to watch the lamestream media and special snowflake perpetual offense brigade SJW's try to figure out if they could attack him or not.
'Gimp
-
Love him! Thanks for a great start to my day!
Press Sec would be perfect.
I can just see it! "I beg pardon, but your question is badly convoluted, and I like to give perfectly straight answers. Would you like to reword and try again?"
-
Milo is the real deal. I like when he speaks at universities, and the faculty and students get all upset at him. Sometimes they "ban" him. Freedom of speech, and thought doesn't seem to be important at colleges today.
-
I loved the video. That guy can hold his own and well-articulate his ideas. But he'd make a terrible Press Secretary if that video is any indication. He'd be constantly at war with journalists, ruining the administration's ability to get a reasonably-unfiltered message through a modern media that loves to filter the hell out of things, especially if they're pissed or have a shiny distraction to focus on.
-
I loved the video. That guy can hold his own and well-articulate his ideas. But he'd make a terrible Press Secretary if that video is any indication. He'd be constantly at war with journalists, ruining the administration's ability to get a reasonably-unfiltered message through a modern media that loves to filter the hell out of things, especially if they're pissed or have a shiny distraction to focus on.
Respectfully disagree, IMO that confrontation is exactly what is needed to cut through the constant manipulation by the partisan lamestream media - like when Reagan would bypass the opinion keepers and go straight to the people. While it is significant that the hackery is being exposed on a daily basis the only way to destroy the pretenders in the 4th Estate and re-establish a free and unbiased media is to do battle with them, each and every day on their turf and let them continue to self-immolate, then go to the people with the straight skinny.
Hey, it is my fantasy, let me live it.
'Gimp
-
I loved the video. That guy can hold his own and well-articulate his ideas. But he'd make a terrible Press Secretary if that video is any indication. He'd be constantly at war with journalists, ruining the administration's ability to get a reasonably-unfiltered message through a modern media that loves to filter the hell out of things, especially if they're pissed or have a shiny distraction to focus on.
Why should anyone suck up to unethical people?
-
I want this, I want Milo as Press Secretary
Shilling every day for Donnie...another job Americans just won't do.
-
Respectfully disagree, IMO that confrontation is exactly what is needed to cut through the constant manipulation by the partisan lamestream media - like when Reagan would bypass the opinion keepers and go straight to the people. While it is significant that the hackery is being exposed on a daily basis the only way to destroy the pretenders in the 4th Estate and re-establish a free and unbiased media is to do battle with them, each and every day on their turf and let them continue to self-immolate, then go to the people with the straight skinny.
Hey, it is my fantasy, let me live it.
'Gimp
Why should anyone suck up to unethical people?
Expecting to get an unfiltered message directly to the people in the current reality of the American media environment is a pipe dream. The media also has a positive role to play, though the value of that has been eroded lately. I guess a ground up reimagining of the process might work, but I doubt it.
A presidential administration at war with the media is not a good thing for said administration. Thus, my opinion that Milo would make a terrible Press Secretary. But it's only an opinion, and Milo would probably make a good something else.
-
Expecting to get an unfiltered message directly to the people in the current reality of the American media environment is a pipe dream. The media also has a positive role to play, though the value of that has been eroded lately. I guess a ground up reimagining of the process might work, but I doubt it.
A presidential administration at war with the media is not a good thing for said administration. Thus, my opinion that Milo would make a terrible Press Secretary. But it's only an opinion, and Milo would probably make a good something else.
Who would have started that war with the media - Trump, or the media?
Frankly, this is an area where I support Trump. I've said for a long time that the Fourth Estate has become the Fifth Column. Too many Republicans have tried to make nice with the media, got burned, and came back for more. Republicans have the world's worst case of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Trump has said "Fuck that!" Trump's message will get heard even if he has to say bizarre shit in order to get heard. I'm OK with that.
-
Expecting to get an unfiltered message directly to the people in the current reality of the American media environment is a pipe dream. The media also has a positive role to play, though the value of that has been eroded lately. I guess a ground up reimagining of the process might work, but I doubt it.
A presidential administration at war with the media is not a good thing for said administration. Thus, my opinion that Milo would make a terrible Press Secretary. But it's only an opinion, and Milo would probably make a good something else.
"Reimagining?" I thought there was more daylight than that between you and the leftist narrative.
How about just having some actual journalistic standards so they give us the facts and then we decide for ourselves what we want in our country and government?
That is the process. It must be adhered to. In lieu of actually licensing and enforcing, calling out crap is our best defense.
-
Again, it's not about what we wish the media was. It's about what it is. Thinking about Milo as Press Secretary is a lot of fun, but not realistic. It is difficult to get an unfiltered message directly to the people, because so many of the avenues by which the people gather their information are controlled by media organizations.
So what would you do? Cancel the press gaggle and daily press briefing? Banish the traditional press reporters? How do you get your message out now, over the cacophony of the traditional press summarily destroying your administration on every channel? Like I said, it would take a ground-up reimagining of the Press Secretary position and process, and I still don't think it would work.
Do a bit of reading about what it takes to be Press Secretary, as articulated by former Press Secretaries. The ideal person is not a sharp-tongued attack dog who hates the traditional media. Ya'll can wish it weren't so, but a wish isn't worth much.
-
sucking up to the left's lapdogs is a stupid idea.
Today, the White House can simply present directly to the American People. The left's lapdogs are not necessary.
-
sucking up to the left's lapdogs is a stupid idea.
Today, the White House can simply present directly to the American People. The left's lapdogs are not necessary.
I will add that that is the ONLY way to overcome MSM bias, as "journalism" is dead and those former practitioners of it have simply become part of the statist cartel.
-
sucking up to the left's lapdogs is a stupid idea.
Today, the White House can simply present directly to the American People. The left's lapdogs are not necessary.
Please describe to me how The White House can present directly to the American People.
-
Please describe to me how The White House can present directly to the American People.
Fireside chat on prime time.
-
Please describe to me how The White House can present directly to the American People.
Internet, radio, TV.
The White House can buy air time on radio and TV without it being filtered by the networks. The Internet is self explanatory.
-
I will add that that is the ONLY way to overcome MSM bias, as "journalism" is dead and those former practitioners of it have simply become part of the statist cartel.
Negative. It doesn't overcome MSM bias, it only attempts to present a message alongside it. Further, it has little ability to disseminate that unfiltered message to a wide audience (or to avoid a drowning-out of the message by a pissed off and blocked out MSM) without implementation of state-run media. I am confident that is not what we are after here.
-
From the President's lips to our ears. Of course, if the President lies to us, we are still receiving false or spun info. But the chain should be as short as possible.
This all begs a question. Is it possible to create a source of news that tells the truth as close as possible? One that, say, 80% of Americans would agree is trustworthy?
If not, journalists themselves could remedy that by holding themselves and their field to a higher standard. A respected and heavily watched news source SHOULD suffer ratings and respect losses if it veers toward deception. Currently, we don't seem to have that.
-
From the President's lips to our ears. Of course, if the President lies to us, we are still receiving false or spun info. But the chain should be as short as possible.
This all begs a question. Is it possible to create a source of news that tells the truth as close as possible? One that, say, 80% of Americans would agree is trustworthy?
If not, journalists themselves could remedy that by holding themselves and their field to a higher standard. A respected and heavily watched news source SHOULD suffer ratings and respect losses if it veers toward deception. Currently, we don't seem to have that.
What do we know is true? A question that reminds me of the scene in Dark Star where astronaut Doolittle argues with a bomb that is about to explode:
-
What do we know is true? A question that reminds me of the scene in Dark Star where astronaut Doolittle argues with a bomb that is about to explode:
Giga-kudo's for the Dark Star reference - a lost classic.
'Gimp
-
Giga-kudo's for the Dark Star reference - a lost classic.
'Gimp
Not too many Country & Western songs about Special Relativity tearing apart two lovers. I have "Benson Arizona" in my play list on my iPad (along with WingX.)
"Now the years pull us apart
I'm young and now you're old
But you're still in my heart
And the memory won't grow cold
I dream of times and spaces
I left far behind
Where we spent our last few days
Benson's on my mind"
-
Please describe to me how The White House can present directly to the American People.
Maybe some of the same methods utilized by "news"...
-
From the President's lips to our ears. Of course, if the President lies to us, we are still receiving false or spun info. But the chain should be as short as possible.
This all begs a question. Is it possible to create a source of news that tells the truth as close as possible? One that, say, 80% of Americans would agree is trustworthy?
If not, journalists themselves could remedy that by holding themselves and their field to a higher standard. A respected and heavily watched news source SHOULD suffer ratings and respect losses if it veers toward deception. Currently, we don't seem to have that.
I don't want the news to report the truth, which so often would involve a subjective decision by the folks in the newsroom. I want it to report the information; and as much of it as possible. Then I can decide what the truth is.
-
I don't want the news to report the truth, which so often would involve a subjective decision by the folks in the newsroom. I want it to report the information; and as much of it as possible. Then I can decide what the truth is.
so, to the liberal mind, "truth" is "subjective"
That is really sad.
-
Negative. It doesn't overcome MSM bias, it only attempts to present a message alongside it. Further, it has little ability to disseminate that unfiltered message to a wide audience (or to avoid a drowning-out of the message by a pissed off and blocked out MSM) without implementation of state-run media. I am confident that is not what we are after here.
I don't want the news to report the truth, which so often would involve a subjective decision by the folks in the newsroom. I want it to report the information; and as much of it as possible. Then I can decide what the truth is.
You're arguing with yourself. Which is it?
I proposed that the White House bypass the MSM to overcome bias and you disagreed. Now you are saying you want the "information."
Regular, or decaf?
-
so, to the liberal mind, "truth" is "subjective"
That is really sad.
There have always been subjective truths. The philosophical debate about truth spans millennia. But I'm sure you know that.
I don't especially care whether you or anyone else think all truths are objective and absolute. But I do care when a news organization makes a subjective determination about what information I should be presented. So I say to them: your job is to give me information, and to give me as much of it as possible. My job is to take in that broad array of data and come to conclusions, to include what I believe to be "the truth".
-
You're arguing with yourself. Which is it?
I proposed that the White House bypass the MSM to overcome bias and you disagreed. Now you are saying you want the "information."
Regular, or decaf?
The two statements are not in conflict.
You submitted that a president who takes his message direct to the people "overcomes" MSM bias. I disagreed, saying it just presents a message alongside the MSM message, and does so from a weak position because the MSM controls the media avenues.
That's not a statement about what I want out of the news.
-
There have always been subjective truths. The philosophical debate about truth spans millennia. But I'm sure you know that.
I don't especially care whether you or anyone else think all truths are objective and absolute. But I do care when a news organization makes a subjective determination about what information I should be presented. So I say to them: your job is to give me information, and to give me as much of it as possible. My job is to take in that broad array of data and come to conclusions, to include what I believe to be "the truth".
discussion/communication is aided by common vocabulary.
I'm guessing what you want are facts. (btw - facts, by definition, are true)
-
One of the main reasons we're looking at the horrific possibility of HRC, who is barely-human, narcissistic, corrupt-to-the-core, deceitful, negligent, open-borders betrayer of all things American, being elected president, is because of the media.
We have endured eight years of a led-by-the-nose-by-Valerie-Jarrett, bowing to Saudi kings (Americans don't do that. It's the core of our founding.), hate-creating, divisive and ineffective president, largely because of the media.
The media is shaping us by deception and omission and we are letting it. You don't; you are here, discussing things. But millions do. And they believe what they see is true. We all know people who will not look at anything but ABC, NBC, CNN. They stop right there.
But send them a link or mention an article you read on ... American Thinker? Heritage Foundation? Americans for Tax Reform?
"You can't trust those sites."
If not Milo, then Bob Noel for Press Secretary. Facts. Give 'em to us. And let us decide.
-
discussion/communication is aided by common vocabulary.
I'm guessing what you want are facts. (btw - facts, by definition, are true)
Ok, I'll take "facts". But if it were that easy, we wouldn't be where we are. Truth can be subjective. I don't want the media deciding what is true. Facts can be omitted, and whether we like or not, we often can't even agree on whether something is fact, despite the literal definition.
I want the news to report as close to ALL of the information about an event as possible. I think it's a mistake to ask for only "the truth" or only "the facts". I want all of it, without filtering, so I can decide for myself. (And there is my pipe dream for the day.)
But I think we're now just arguing semantically around each other. I think we want similar things from the media.
-
Ok, I'll take "facts". But if it were that easy, we wouldn't be where we are. Truth can be subjective. I don't want the media deciding what is true. Facts can be omitted, and whether we like or not, we often can't even agree on whether something is fact, despite the literal definition.
I want the news to report as close to ALL of the information about an event as possible. I think it's a mistake to ask for only "the truth" or only "the facts". I want all of it, without filtering, so I can decide for myself. (And there is my pipe dream for the day.)
But I think we're now just arguing semantically around each other. I think we want similar things from the media.
This is a really difficult discussion, and there is no real answer.
You can argue about the difference between facts, truth, honest, information, etc...
but how do you even tell which you are listening to? Or watching or reading about?
If you are a reporter or news editor, it should be assumed you have some intelligence, experience and knowledge of your topic. (false assumption, I know). But any human being with those qualities is going to also have an opinion.
If you are reporting the news and you know the other side just said something completely incorrect and misleading, how do you present it. You can just present what they said and let the viewer research and decide. Or you can point out the fallacy of their statements. Or you can merely ignore it. Mostly they will use a combination. How are we supposed to know what the reporters consider truth or spin?
We can spout statistics. We can say that FOX or MSNBC ran 50 negative stories about candidate A and two about candidate B, but what if candidate is A is a real scumbag that did 50 negative things and candidate B was pure as the driven snow and only goofed up once. Should the news reporters be forced to print 25 negative things and 25 good things about each?
I just wish there was some way to rate or rank the news sites according to their typical left/right bias. MSNBC might get a 2 and FOX might get a 40, but how are we going to trust those that do the rating.
SNOPES? :o
I know the reputation that FOX has about being conservative biased, but at least they do give the other side a voice. And they do distinguish between their opinion shows and their news shows. But regardless, their personal opinions are going to come through. And it doesn't always have to do with honesty, except that smart people can honestly have different opinions.
I don't know where I am going with this rambling so I will stop. But I would love to find a true "fair and balanced" news outlet.
-
All fair points, Joe.
I think there is a simple phrase that comes closer to the ideal we want than anything else: "We report, you decide." (Fox News, too. See, I can think outside the box. ;D)
Not "We present one set of facts to the exclusion of others."
Not "We subjectively decide what is the truth and only give you that."
Not "We give you a 10 second clip of an event and follow it with four hours of opinionated commentary."
I know this is not necessarily an easy task, but the news could do a hell of a lot better at it than they are at the moment.
-
I know the reputation that FOX has about being conservative biased, but at least they do give the other side a voice. And they do distinguish between their opinion shows and their news shows. But regardless, their personal opinions are going to come through. And it doesn't always have to do with honesty, except that smart people can honestly have different opinions.
I don't know where I am going with this rambling so I will stop. But I would love to find a true "fair and balanced" news outlet.
Most media outlets lie to us. They present left biased opinion as news. As you say, at least Fox News differentiates between their opinion shows, and straight news. They also typically present both sides of the argument even on their opinion shows.
-
I am shadow banned on facebook. My tasteful pro-Trump posts only show up on my timeline. A friend verified by calling up my timeline in his account. My Trump posts were not there, but my innocuous posts were. Our iPads were side by side; I saw it.
It's pretty much a given now that facebook, twitter, youtube and google are busy controlling the "discussion."
Taking notes this morning while my husband and I plan our post-election strategy for keeping discussion alive with alternate means.
-
Once the queer queen takes office any hint of a free press will quickly disappear.
The progressives have waited 74 years for this Tuesday and won't waste a second totally destroying any semblance of liberty once the criminal cartel takes office.
-
I am shadow banned on facebook. My tasteful pro-Trump posts only show up on my timeline. A friend verified by calling up my timeline in his account. My Trump posts were not there, but my innocuous posts were. Our iPads were side by side; I saw it.
It's pretty much a given now that facebook, twitter, youtube and google are busy controlling the "discussion."
Taking notes this morning while my husband and I plan our post-election strategy for keeping discussion alive with alternate means.
Add Yahoo, and Microsoft to that list among others. The liberal/progressives control the media, technology, much of the Federal government, and Education on every level.
-
Once the queer queen takes office any hint of a free press will quickly disappear.
The progressives have waited 74 years for this Tuesday and won't waste a second totally destroying any semblance of liberty once the criminal cartel takes office.
And radical Muslim activist Huma Abadein will still be running her.
-
Our local paper has nothing on Hillary today except a big photo of a 102-year-old woman who is just so excited to be alive to vote for woman for president!