Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[MT15]

This:

 

[DaveXA]

Fox continues to lie to its viewers. They are still lying about the vaccines and defaming Fauci.

It's Fox. It's all they do these days. Traffic in lies because they have nothing else.

 

[MT15]

It's Fox. It's all they do these days. Traffic in lies because they have nothing else.

I also see that they are completely misrepresenting the Durham report - just outright saying it says things it doesn’t say. I think CNN is also doing this, but to a lesser extent.

Sometimes I think I must be going crazy because it seems like everybody just goes along with this stuff and nobody actually reads and analyzes these things. Just like the lies about the Mueller report - they’re doing the same thing (except in reverse) with the Durham Report.

 

[Saintman2884]

I also see that they are completely misrepresenting the Durham report - just outright saying it says things it doesn’t say. I think CNN is also doing this, but to a lesser extent.

Sometimes I think I must be going crazy because it seems like everybody just goes along with this stuff and nobody actually reads and analyzes these things. Just like the lies about the Mueller report - they’re doing the same thing (except in reverse) with the Durham Report.

Oh, the Mueller report does say and suggest quite a bit in its findings but let’s be honest, it’s not the complete “absolute” smoking gun, overwhelmingly damning indictment of Trump that many on the left wanted and hoped it would be at the time. You’ve even admitted Mueller wasn’t up to the job in past threads. So, while MAGA GOPers are and certainly misinterpreting and did when his report came out, the overall consensus is that while it’s highly inferring Trump might’ve colluded, there’s no legal slam dunk based on the parameters of the evidence Mueller’s team presented uncovered and were allowed to investigate and so, in a certain sense, Trumpers could feel relieved in a way.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The woman suing Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News for defamation in the wake of the $787m settlement with the voting machine company Dominion has accused the media giant of waging a campaign of “vitriolic lies” against her that amounts to a threat to democracy.

Nina Jankowicz sued Fox News and its parent company Fox Corporation for allegedly damaging her reputation as a specialist in conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns.

The lawsuit was lodged in a Delaware state court exactly a year after she resigned as executive director of a new Department of Homeland Security unit combatting online disinformation.

The Disinformation Governance Board was abruptly shut down in the wake of a storm of virulent rightwing criticism, allegedly fueled by Fox News. Jankowicz and the new DHS division she led were attacked as being part of a conspiracy to censor rightwing comment spearheaded by Joe Biden.

Jankowicz resigned from the federal post on 18 May 2022, barely three weeks into the job.

In an interview with the Guardian, she said her motive in suing Fox was to ensure accountability for what she alleged was a campaign of lies against her that undermined American democracy. “There needs to be consequences,” she said.

“It was lies, very personal and very vitriolic lies. And I don’t think that is democratic.”

She added that what she claimed was Fox’s reckless disregard for the truth had implications for the future of the country. “If we can’t agree on statements of fact, how can you live in a democracy?”

Jankowicz was announced as the head of the new disinformation board on 27 April last year and was instantly engulfed in a tempest of rightwing anger.

In the lawsuit, Jankowicz’s lawyers allege that the attacks skyrocketed the following day, after Fox News hosts began fuelling the hatred with unfounded claims about her desire to censor rightwing voices………

Fox News’s ‘vitriolic lies’ threaten democracy, says disinformation expert suing channel

Exclusive: Nina Jankowicz, who is suing over campaign of falsehoods, says ‘if Fox isn’t brought to account, it will not stop’

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Remember the story about how the Biden Administration was kicking USVets out of facilities to house immigrants?



NY Post strikes again, also Fox featured this story. All lies.

 

[MT15]

The media is treating this debt ceiling story as if it is a normal negotiation. They should stop doing that.

 

[Saintman2884]

The media is treating this debt ceiling story as if it is a normal negotiation. They should stop doing that.

Well, if Biden does what liberal Dems are telling him to do, he can use the 14th Amendment and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally but there’s a catch. Biden knows and realizes that if a sitting U.S. President can unilaterally raise it without Congressional approval, well it establishes a precedent that later presidents could and would use more flippantly to bypass Congress and raise it whenever and however they like. Who needs Congress/Senate approval anymore?

Besides, while I do agree with you that Republican legislators are hypocritical and shameless insisting on deep, spending cuts to the annual budget when they passed large, bloated deficits under Trump without protest and that this is dangerous political theater, they also know that Dems’ requests that “we’ll talk about deficit spending later on” will never happen and their promises to discuss financial restraint are likely hollow.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well, if Biden does what liberal Dems are telling him to do, he can use the 14th Amendment and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally but there’s a catch. Biden knows and realizes that if a sitting U.S. President can unilaterally raise it without Congressional approval, well it establishes a precedent that later presidents could and would use more flippantly to bypass Congress and raise it whenever and however they like. Who needs Congress/Senate approval anymore?

Besides, while I do agree with you that Republican legislators are hypocritical and shameless insisting on deep, spending cuts to the annual budget when they passed large, bloated deficits under Trump without protest and that this is dangerous political theater, they also know that Dems’ requests that “we’ll talk about deficit spending later on” will never happen and their promises to discuss financial restraint are likely hollow.

The next president can raise it unilaterally to infinity bajillion dollars, but it doesn't matter because the budget itself is still a congressional matter and there's not really any spending beyond that.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There was a good op-ed in the Time a few weeks ago, and the author did a long interview with Krys Boyd on NPR's Think show/podcast.

Podcast: https://think.kera.org/2023/05/19/what-happens-if-we-dont-raise-the-debt-ceiling/

Op-Ed: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/opinion/biden-mccarthy-debt-ceiling.html

 

[MT15]

Well, if Biden does what liberal Dems are telling him to do, he can use the 14th Amendment and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally but there’s a catch. Biden knows and realizes that if a sitting U.S. President can unilaterally raise it without Congressional approval, well it establishes a precedent that later presidents could and would use more flippantly to bypass Congress and raise it whenever and however they like. Who needs Congress/Senate approval anymore?

Besides, while I do agree with you that Republican legislators are hypocritical and shameless insisting on deep, spending cuts to the annual budget when they passed large, bloated deficits under Trump without protest and that this is dangerous political theater, they also know that Dems’ requests that “we’ll talk about deficit spending later on” will never happen and their promises to discuss financial restraint are likely hollow.

This is money that Congress already authorized, so the President isn’t usurping any power from Congress. It’s stupid that they have to re-authorize it in this way. And I don’t know how you can say that Dems won’t ever talk about deficit spending - with the House in control of Rs they will have to discuss it during the budgeting process.

So your two main points are basically not correct.

 

[FullMonte]

This is money that Congress already authorized, so the President isn’t usurping any power from Congress. It’s stupid that they have to re-authorize it in this way. And I don’t know how you can say that Dems won’t ever talk about deficit spending - with the House in control of Rs they will have to discuss it during the budgeting process.

So your two main points are basically not correct.

Exactly...and that's the biggest problem with this whole debt ceiling debacle. A significant portion of the general public does not understand what the debt ceiling is, and the "leader" of one of the parties in congress is blatantly lying about what it is in order to somehow try and force the other side to do what he wants. The people who are on that side eat it up, and believe what he says.

I can't understand why these GOP members are allowed to go on tv and do interviews, and say things like "If you gave your child a credit card, and they went over the limit, would you keep raising the limit, instead of trying to educate them on responsible spending," without the interviewer call them out and explain, in detail, how that analogy is factually incorrect, and then explain what the debt ceiling actually is.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

...A significant portion of the general public does not understand what the debt ceiling is, and the "leader" of one of the parties in congress is blatantly lying about what it is in order to somehow try and force the other side to do what he wants.

Pfft, a significant portion of Congress doesn't understand! Member after member gives the same stupid arse speech on TV complaining about the BUDGET and the changes they demand to cut spending! I say fine, you want to do that, then do it when you are debating the BUDGET! They should go line by line and look at what is in the budget and eliminate or cut down spending on items that the CBO has identified as a significant deficit increase. I bet the GOP extremist wouldn't want that, their tax cuts for their buddies are the biggest reason for our escalating debt.

 

[brandon]

I can't understand why these GOP members are allowed to go on tv and do interviews, and say things like "If you gave your child a credit card, and they went over the limit, would you keep raising the limit, instead of trying to educate them on responsible spending," without the interviewer call them out and explain, in detail, how that analogy is factually incorrect, and then explain what the debt ceiling actually is.

Yea, it's much more like if you signed a purchase order for an item, and the item was delivered to you with an invoice. Now you have to write the check to pay the invoice. It's not optional - you already signed a legally binding purchase order to pay for the item.

In paying for the item, your overall debt is going to increase, because you didn't actually have the money to pay for it. But it doesn't matter--you already have the item, and you don't have the money to pay for it, and you signed a legally binding document saying you would pay for it. You have no choice but to borrow to pay for it. And your loan borrowing limit is already maxed out, so you're gonna have to get your limit raised. And you may not want to raise your limit, but it doesn't matter. You've still gotta pay for this item you've already received.

If you don't, you're gonna default and they're gonna repo your item, and your credit is gonna tank in the process.

And then the entire world is going to go into a recession.

So just pay for the shirt you already bought, and maybe buy less next time.

On the other hand, the bank said they actually don't care how much you borrow, because they totally trust you, and they'll be happy to just remove your limit entirely so you don't accidentally throw the entire world into a recession in the future. Yes, it costs more in interest, but you have infinite money, so it doesn't mean much. You should really look into this option while you figure out how to reduce your overall debt later on.

That's the debt ceiling.

 

[Saintman2884]

This is money that Congress already authorized, so the President isn’t usurping any power from Congress. It’s stupid that they have to re-authorize it in this way. And I don’t know how you can say that Dems won’t ever talk about deficit spending - with the House in control of Rs they will have to discuss it during the budgeting process.

So your two main points are basically not correct.

They can discuss it, sure. But, if in the future if a Republican president is in a similar battle with a Democratic-controlled Congress, and some hardline House Dems object to how maybe this ——— R president is spending on wrong things included in deficit spending, forget discussing it, he’ll point to Biden using the 14th Amendment to arbitrarily raise it despite their approval, as a precedent. Doesn’t matter whether their reasons are valid or what they might be 10-15 years from now or whenever. If President isn’t usurping power from Congress on using the 14th Amendment arbitrarily, then why hasn’t it been done before or been threatened to be used to defy the opposing party-controlled Congress? Biden is very hesitant to use this option because he’s cognizant of the future precedent it might set, even if House Reps leave him no choice.

I’m not entirely sure some Dems or Biden’s administration would listen to GOP concerns about deficit spending because once the debt ceiling is raised, it’ll be 2-3 years before the problem pops up again and by that point, who knows, maybe Dems will control both houses of Congress again and can dictate terms more to their liking without suggestions. If Trump runs again in 2024 and wins the GOP nomination, Biden will likely win even though he’s a flawed President who’s past-his-prime as an effective administrator, but as DaveXV pointed out in another thread, that doesn’t necessarily will equate to more Dems victories down-vote.

 

[Saintman2884]

The next president can raise it unilaterally to infinity bajillion dollars, but it doesn't matter because the budget itself is still a congressional matter and there's not really any spending beyond that.

Assuming, of course, the next time the nation’s debt ceiling limit needs to be raised, it will still be controlled by Republicans and if Dems control it two years from now with a 25-30+ seat majority, they’ll add whatever they want without nearly as much opposition because that factor won’t exist.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

They can discuss it, sure. But, if in the future if a Republican president is in a similar battle with a Democratic-controlled Congress, and some hardline House Dems object to how maybe this ——— R president is spending on wrong things included in deficit spending, forget discussing it, he’ll point to Biden using the 14th Amendment to arbitrarily raise it despite their approval, as a precedent. Doesn’t matter whether their reasons are valid or what they might be 10-15 years from now or whenever. If President isn’t usurping power from Congress on using the 14th Amendment arbitrarily, then why hasn’t it been done before or been threatened to be used to defy the opposing party-controlled Congress? Biden is very hesitant to use this option because he’s cognizant of the future precedent it might set, even if House Reps leave him no choice.

I’m not entirely sure some Dems or Biden’s administration would listen to GOP concerns about deficit spending because once the debt ceiling is raised, it’ll be 2-3 years before the problem pops up again and by that point, who knows, maybe Dems will control both houses of Congress again and can dictate terms more to their liking without suggestions. If Trump runs again in 2024 and wins the GOP nomination, Biden will likely win even though he’s a flawed President who’s past-his-prime as an effective administrator, but as DaveXV pointed out in another thread, that doesn’t necessarily will equate to more Dems victories down-vote.

This reads as though you don't actually understand what you are talking about. The money being borrowed that is subject to the debt ceiling is to pay for a budget that was already passed, which is still a matter for Congress to take up. A budget was passed and signed into law. Now the Rs in the House are refusing to raise the debt ceiling which is necessary to borrow the funds needed to pay for this existing budget.

In the future, if the debt ceiling were to go away, the budgets would still need to be passed by both chambers of Congress before they could be signed into law by the president.

 

[Saintman2884]

This reads as though you don't actually understand what you are talking about. The money being borrowed that is subject to the debt ceiling is to pay for a budget that was already passed, which is still a matter for Congress to take up. A budget was passed and signed into law. Now the Rs in the House are refusing to raise the debt ceiling which is necessary to borrow the funds needed to pay for this existing budget.

In the future, if the debt ceiling were to go away, the budgets would still need to be passed by both chambers of Congress before they could be signed into law by the president.

Still, when was the last time a sitting President had to use the 14th Amendment to raise it anyway? Why did Biden have to insist on such a hard-line from the very beginning, seemingly not wanting to discuss anything except on a clean lift? Both sides, from the beginning, even months ago, seemingly had this “my way or the Highway” attitude that cost a lot of significant negotiating time and it was so unnecessary.