Politics Deal Coming Soon- Special Counsel Investigation Prediction Thread

A small part of the problem is that now that most of us don't have physical newspapers anymore, the line between the news and the editorial pages has become blurred (in the reader's mind). Far too often here someone will quote an opinion piece and claim it is evidence of media bias.

barfo

 

Nope. Media bias does exist, and I'm not defending it. However it is less prevalent than people currently believe.

Nope. That statement suggests you don't understand the difference between editorials and news. You are chewing on a dog toy and saying "this banana is not ripe".

barfo

 

I agree, for the most part. 20 years ago when I was (required to) reading 3 papers a day, I could count on editorials to be just that. An example:

The Clinton impeachment vote in the House reported by the NYT (front page at the time, I can only grab the link). While not how I like to read my news (the reporting of emotions and the like seemed odd), it was pretty balanced and factual. This editorial from the same week, however, assigns motives, "sticks up" for the President's use of missile strikes, etc. It gives one a different perspective that if you were, say, listening to Trent Lott speak at the time, but that's what you signed up for when reading a NYT editorial.

Today's NYT front page:
Trump Divides His Blue-Collar Base With Steel Tariff Plan
Around the World, Threats of Retaliation Against U.S. Exports
A Week That Leaves Even Trump’s Supporters Confused
Trump Pushes G.O.P. to Oppose Funding Hudson Rail Tunnel
Trump Embraces a Trade War, Which Could Undermine Growth
Each one of those runs with uncertainty and assigns motive to fact, rather than reporting on the story it reports on the President's role in it. The story wasn't "Steel Tariff Plan, line-by-line." Or "What economists say the tariff means".
Not "Hudson Rail Tunnel funding still in negotiations."
Not "Trump's Tariff May Cause a Trade War". It could just as well not undermine growth. But these opinions are now being pushed on the front page. The blatant changing of words and misattribution of a quote by CNN a couple of weeks ago (changing the quote from "illegal" to "undocumented" while still quoting the police) is another aspect, but I know CNN is for entertainment. NYT is supposed to be a paper of repute (since they famously asked to not be called a "paper of record" years ago)

 

That looks eerily similar to my 6y/o's underpants on a bad day.

 

Prediction:

We're going to wake up one morning and find out that while Ivanka was away on business, Kushner has taken his 3 kids to Moscow, ending up in the same hotel as Snowden. There will be no comment from him, leading to wild speculation by the press. Trump will acted shocked but use this to make Kushner the fall guy. He will offer Kushner a pardon for return of the kids, then declare the Russian investigation is over and takes steps to fire Rosenstein and Mueller.

 

Implausible - there's no way he takes the kids with him.

barfo

 

The kids are key. It gives Trump a reason to act. "To save his grandkids!"

It also highlights the difference between Hillary and Trump. Have you seen Hillary's grandkids? Of course not, she's eaten them.

 

WaPost recently wrote an article about how 4 nations talked about compromising Kushner because of some business deals. Buried 15 paragraphs into the article, they wrote that it is typical of foreign nations to try to compromise anyone they can for whatever reason they can. The article suggested Kushner was some sort of special case or somehow more subject to such compromise. The truth is that there's nothing to the story at all. When called on it, WaPost will say, "we did write that in the article."

CNN does it all the time. 24 hours of some hair on fire thing. 1 minute of telling the truth. When called on it, they show that 1 minute clip and say, "we did cover this legitimately."

 

She didn't eat them all. Just the brains and the internal organs. Her winged monkeys ate the remainder.

barfo