Everybody’s favorite logical fallacy these days seems to be the argumentum ad hominem. That’s where you make a personal attack on somebody’s presumed motives instead of engaging the substance of what they’ve said. Sad to say, it’s as prevalent on the political left as the right. Maybe more so. In advanced circles, it’s now seen […]
Reprinted with permission from Shareblue. The White House’s already-shaky cover story about how the administration quickly moved to get rid of a top aide after he was accused of beating his ex-wives suffered another embarassment on Tuesday, when it was revealed the White House initially tried to have the aide talk his way out of the problem. […]
In mounting fear of special counsel Robert Mueller – who is now reported to be preparing indictments that will be unsealed before Thanksgiving – Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House, as well as their media echoes, are reviving the discredited “Russian uranium” accusations against the Clinton Foundation. The aim of this tale […]
What’s the point of all of this? What goes through an editor’s or producer’s head when, in the wake of a neo-Nazi terrorist attack, they reach out to a neo-Nazi for comment? The pathological “both sides”-ism that infects our journalist class is uniquely unsuited for these times. Much like NPR’s institutional refusal to call Trump’s most egregious lies lies or the New York Times’ desire to contrive goodin Trump’s first 100 days, the desire to seek out white supremacist voices on the subject of white supremacist violence is at best, morally negligent, and at worst, fascist propaganda.
This president hasn’t got the self-discipline to lead a coup, and the great majority of his followers are far too comfortable watching the televised spectacle in their recliner chairs to take to the streets. Only a steadily shrinking minority believes the president’s “witch hunt” rhetoric, and not very strongly. As I say, it’s poorly-scripted melodrama.
Fox & Friends was forced to clarify on air a flawed report from the weekend edition of the show blaming The New York Times for the U.S. military missing a chance to capture ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Fox & Friends Saturday co-host Pete Hegseth uncritically repeated a claim that a general told a Fox correspondent, saying, “We would have had al-Baghdadi based on the intelligence we had, except someone leaked information to the failing New York Times in 2015 … and as a result he slipped away.” President Donald Trump subsequently attacked the Times on Twitter following Fox’s report.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched the page from its official website, featuring five reports from U.S. and British media. The publications are dramatically shown on the site, stamped with red text “Fake” above a Russian language disclaimer stating: “This material contains data, not corresponding to the truth.”
In an alternate universe imagined by Danziger, there is a bizarro New York Times — perhaps known as The Trump Times — that publishes only the kind of “alternative facts” pleasing to the president: Massacres in Bowling Green, terrorist refugees in Sweden, millions of fraudulent voters, and gigantic inaugural crowds. Just be happy you don’t live there, yet.
Now that the horses have left the barn, trotted out the front gate, and are galloping headlong down the county road, editors at the New York Times have taken to public bickering about who left the stalls unlatched. Not that it’s doing the rest of us much good.
New questions have been raised about the Times’ decision late in the campaign to sit on the story that Russian officials may have compromising information on Trump. The Times public editor Liz Spayd suggests that the reason they didn’t run with the “explosive allegations” was that journalists didn’t think Trump was going to win the election, and the paper didn’t want to risk sparking a controversy by reporting on the dossier.
The Justice Department said the president has special hiring authority that exempts White House positions from laws barring the president from naming a relative to lead a federal agency. However, if Trump chooses to officially hire Kushner and also give him security clearance, then conflict-of-interest laws would apply.
Trump lies habitually, so unwinding the rationale behind any particular falsehood is difficult. But the result is a news environment in which facts become unstable, reality is constantly under attack, and both journalists and news consumers are unable to process new information within a coherent collective framework.
Lazy, misleading headlines play right into Trump’s strategy of routinely lying while also being historically inaccessible to reporters. Within that sphere, I’d suggest there’s a very specific headline problem — the “Trump says” formula. Solution? Ban uncritical, context-free “Trump says” headlines. It’s a good first step.
News outlets covering the presidential election have made the mistake of treating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as two equally flawed candidates. That false equivalence has made it harder for voters to understand the categorical differences between their options on November 8.
Donald Trump’s threats to The New York Times for reporting allegations that he committed sexual assault are legally far-fetched and provide a troubling portrait of how a Trump administration would handle the press.
For conservative funders seeking to take down the most formidable Democratic presidential contender, Schweizer offered not just audacity and experience but his own nonprofit. As president of the Government Accountability Institute in Tallahassee, Florida, he could accept millions of dollars in tax-exempt funds for research, promotion, and expenses (including his $200,000 annual salary) from foundations and individuals. And unlike the Clintons, who had disclosed decades of tax returns and more than 300,000 foundation donors, Schweizer didn’t have to reveal any of his funders.