That sort of implies that the press is making up the news. In fact most of this is self-inflicted by Trump himself.Originally Posted by Norton
That sort of implies that the press is making up the news. In fact most of this is self-inflicted by Trump himself.Originally Posted by Norton
It was yuge!!!
Not really.Originally Posted by Humbert
It does become a cacophony and it becomes hard to distinguish what is actually worth paying attention to or is truly important versus what is just noise or less important.
The 24 hour "breaking news all the time" news cycle is probably not good for Democracy or for holding politicians responsible in the grand scheme of things.
No intent on my part to imply the news not true. I have no doubt it is what Trump said to the Russians.Originally Posted by Humbert
Of course it is. A good portion of news is his obsession to endlessly continue to respond to news items.Originally Posted by Humbert
Call me old fashioned but I view todays breaking news as a news item. Worthy of note but until the 5 on going Trump related investigations (Justice Department, House Intelligence Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) are complete I refuse to convict anyone under investigation based on a news item. A practice I see everyday on mass media.
Let the investigation continue to conclusion. In the mean time let the news media publish "breaking news" but let's not pronounce folks guilty based on the news.
People can decide how much information they wish to take in. There is always the off switch. I would never argue that too much information is bad for democracy. I would argue that limitations on the press of any kind are not good for democracy.Originally Posted by redhaze
To your credit. I doubt anyone gets 'convicted' by news stories. There is a criminal justice system for that.Originally Posted by Norton
This post has not been authorized by the TeakDoor censorship committee.
Basically the press is just sitting back at this point and letting it flow. I personally saw clear signs of exasperation from Anderson Cooper. I think the press is just as overwhelmed as we are that this shit just keeps coming.
I will say that I generally stay away from cable news but CNN has done on excellent job of reporting and discussing this. Lots of experts being brought in. Ex-FBI agents, ex-DOJ officials, ex-special prosecutors and even members of the Nixon administration. Their take has been very insightful to say the least.
Yeah but its pretty passive intake often. Examples: News on in every waiting room, news on at my gym, news on when I flip through the channels, news in my yahoo loading screen.Originally Posted by Humbert
I disagree that there is an off switch
But many have. And I certainly would. Because it becomes background noise. You tune it out so you can function and live a normal life. Reading the paper once per morning was a better way to filter through what was important versus what is just ratings driven crap and hysteria.Originally Posted by Humbert
Many have argued this, its not a novel thought that 24 hour "breaking news" driven cycles are causing people to tune out.
Well who said anything about that? But there is a cost to be had when everything is profit and ratings driven, and there is nothing wrong with recognizing the consequences of what that means.Originally Posted by Humbert
Donald Trump never even sniffs the presidency without the modern 24 hour news cycle.
No further indictment of the absurdity of such a system than that
I could be wrong then!Originally Posted by ENT
I have not seen any stories within the MSM that claim that there is evidence of collusion yet. Some are reporting, with more of these leaks coming out about what Trump has reportedly said about Comey, that we are coming very close to real evidence of obstruction of justice.This is leading to a lot of speculation and discussion which is dominating the news.Originally Posted by bsnub
Within Fox and Breitbart there is a massive campaign to try and shift the focus away from these stories and complain about fake news, witch hunts and red herrings concerning Clinton and Obama.
Well I did of course.Originally Posted by redhaze
I accept that risk. I would much rather have that than state imposed limitations on freedom of the press. My words - don't assume they are a response to something you said.Originally Posted by redhaze
Yes, state media is not the answer. I think informative media sort of reached its zenith during the newspaper/nightly news driven cycles that were the norm for several decades (the Nixon impeachment era being a good example of an effective press informing an interested public)Originally Posted by Humbert
During that time I was working in my studio and watching the impeachment hearings all day long for months. There was a lot of wall to wall coverage. That was also an era in which people actually bought and read newspapers and news magazines. Nobody had smart phones conveying news to them constantly. Different times.Originally Posted by redhaze
News stories influence the court of public opinion which can influence the "justice system". Case in point is one I remember well and formed my opinion regarding inflence of the news media. The McMartin preschool case. A trial that ruined all the accused financially and jailed one for 5 years without a single conviction.Originally Posted by Humbert
"After six years of criminal trials, no convictions were obtained, and all charges were dropped in 1990. When the trial ended in 1990 it had been the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history."
"The media coverage was generally skewed towards an uncritical acceptance of the prosecution's viewpoint.[4] David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times wrote a series of articles, which later won the Pulitzer Prize, discussing the flawed and skewed coverage presented by his own paper on the trial.[31] It was only after the trial that coverage of the flaws in the evidence and events presented by witnesses and the prosecution were discussed.[4]
Wayne Satz, at the time a reporter for the Los Angeles ABC affiliate television station KABC, reported on the case and the children's allegations. He presented an unchallenged view of the children's and parents' claims.[32] Satz later entered into a romantic relationship with Kee MacFarlane, the social worker at the Children's Institute International, who was interviewing the children.[32] Another instance of media conflict of interest occurred when David Rosenzweig, the editor at the Los Angeles Times overseeing the coverage, became engaged to marry Lael Rubin, the prosecutor."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMa...reschool_trial
When all is said and done the "justice system" may get it right but even if cleared of any wrong doing some folks careers will be ruined based simply on the influence of over zealous media coverage. Hence my reluctance to jump on the media bandwagon prematurely even though the daily break8ng news is of interest to me. Between the news and Trump's insane tweets I've never seen anything quite like it before. Expect the circus to continue for a few years to come.
.
Riyadh, capital of Saudi Arabia, will be the first foreign destination Donald Trump visits as the President of the United States on May 20. This trip signals that the Trump administration acknowledges Riyadh as a crucial US strategic partner in maintaining regional stability and world economic security. Trump's decision to visit Saudi Arabia should not come as a big surprise.
Saudi Arabia had a prominent role in the national security doctrine of every US president, from Roosevelt to Obama.
It all started in 1931, when the US officially recognised the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by extending full diplomatic recognition. The relations were bolstered when the US President Roosevelt met with the Saudi King Abdul-Aziz bin Saud on board the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal of Egypt in 1945. The US-Saudi relations were cemented on one core doctrine, oil for security. The Saudis guaranteed continued access to oil, and President Roosevelt declared that the "defense of Saudi Arabia was vital to the defense of the United States".
The US-Saudi relations, however, went through many ups and downs. Back in 2009, the Saudi leadership conveyed to John Brennan, President Barack Obama's advisor on counter terrorism that "President Bush [junior] didn't take his advice on dealing with issues in the region, and they found their problems compounded". The Saudis perceived that US policy in Iraq after the 2003 war was emboldening Iranian influence in Baghdad. According to documents released by Wikileaks, the Saudi king even said in his meeting with Brennan that "thank God for bringing Obama to the Presidency [to restore US credibility in the region]". Yet, the relations between the Kingdom and the US deteriorated even further under the Obama administration.
The Saudis were angry when Obama told Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, a long-time ally to Washington and Riyadh, that he needs to step-down during the 2011 Arab Spring protests. They were frustrated with Obama's inaction on the "Assad must go" policy in Syria. They were wary that the Iran nuclear deal is the beginning of an American pivot toward their regional rival, Iran. And Obama's statement that Saudi Arabia should "share the region" with Iran shredded the relations between the White House and Riyadh. The Saudis felt that the US administration was abandoning its 70 years alliance with the Kingdom.
Now, with Trump's visit to Riyadh, the hope to restore US commitments is revived in the Saudi capital. The Saudi King, Salman Bin Abdul-Aziz, saidthis historic summit will hopefully lead to a new partnership "in confronting extremism and terrorism, disseminating the values of tolerance and coexistence, and bolstering security, stability and cooperation to serve the present and future of our peoples". But the Saudis are expecting more concrete actions from the Trump administration.
In Iraq, they want to see a more inclusive - and less-sectarian- government in Baghdad. In Syria, they support a political transition that will eventually lead to the departure of Bashar Al-Assad. In Yemen, they launched a military campaign to degrade the Iranian-backed Houthi rebel's capabilities, and to restore the internationally recognized Hadi-led government. The Saudis will be pushing for a US support on these three fronts to circumvent the Iranian influence in the region. If these objectives were to be met, it will provide the Saudi government with more leverage to engage Tehran diplomatically.
For Riyadh, it is equally important that the US continues its support in strengthening the Saudi military capabilities. Also the US should be firm in dealing with Iran's destabilising activities in the region. This will reassure the Saudis and it will decrease the likelihood of a direct military confrontation with Iran. A war between the Saudis and Iranians will destabilise the region more, disrupt the oil markets, and possibly drag the US into a third major war in the region. Something the current US government would like to avoid. While Riyadh and Washington will not always - and should not expect to - have aligned policies in the region, I believe they do share similar strategic interests in many of the issues.
As for the Trump administration, this visit is a chance for the president to roll-back on his anti-Islam campaign narrative and engage the Muslim world constructively to combat violent extremism in the region and beyond. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) and Al-Qaeda brought more harm to Muslims than anyone else. The US and Saudis as well as the other Muslim leaders have a shared goal in degrading and eliminating the threat of these groups. On this trip, President Trump will join King Salman in inaugurating the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology in Riyadh.
But the Trump administration is also expected to push for what White House officials call an "Arab NATO". The actual plans in terms of the structural organisation, membership, and goals are yet to be announced. However, it is clear that the US wants closer security coordination between key Arab states and more burden-sharing to maintain the security of the region. I expect the Saudis and many others to be supportive of this plan. But the US is expected to play an active role in this "alliance" if it was to be achieved. Also it should be clear that the intention of such alliance is to solely defend member states from external threats and to defeat terrorism. This will encourage more regional members to join the security pact, and the alliance will more likely be successful overall.
Another major aspect of Trump's visit is economic. During the GCC-US meetings, I think Trump will offer more military sales to the Gulf States. It is already expected that Trump will announce a new US arms package for Saudi Arabia valued around $100bn in Riyadh. I also suspect that Trump will ask the Gulf States to financially support his $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Reports speculate that the Saudis will commit $40bn to this plan. In addition, a US-Saudi economic program valued at more than $200bn is to be implemented over the next 4 years. The Trump administration will expect other rich Gulf States to chip-in as well. However, JASTA should be scrapped to assure investments from the Gulf.
The Saudi government will extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to President Trump during his visit. But he will be judged based on his actions, not promises.
The US-Saudi relations in the Trump era | Saudi Arabia | Al Jazeera
Good thinking.Originally Posted by Norton
Saudis hire world's biggest PR firm to push 'Muslim Nato'
An international public relations firm is facing accusations of complicity in "whitewashing" alleged Saudi Arabian war crimes in Yemen after signing a deal to represent a Riyadh-dominated military alliance dubbed the "Muslim Nato".
Middle East Eye understands that Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman hired Burson-Marsteller last month to wage a charm offensive on behalf of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism.
Saudis hire world's biggest PR firm to push 'Muslim Nato' | Middle East Eye
Saudi government has vast network of PR, lobby firms in U.S.
The Saudi government and its affiliates have spent millions of dollars on U.S. law, lobby and public relations firms to raise the country’s visibility in the United States and before the United Nations at a crucial time.
And some of Washington’s premier law and lobby firms — including Podesta Group, BGR Government Affairs, DLA Piper and Pillsbury Winthrop — have been tasked with the job, according to a review of Justice Department filings. Five lobby and PR firms were hired in 2015 alone, signaling a stepped-up focus on ties with Washington.
The firms have been coordinating meetings between Saudi officials and business leaders and U.S. media, and promoting foreign investment in the Saudi economy. Some have even been tasked with coming up with content for the embassy’s official Twitter and YouTube accounts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.782bb70d8160
exactly, and why the investigation will go nowhere, no public interest for it eventuallyOriginally Posted by Norton
Dems and Washington officials are acting like children, and start to make Trump look like the only adult
Originally Posted by Dragonfly
is it really information or just noises ? news companies are producing a lot of stories because the attention of the average audience is falling and overwhelmed with informationOriginally Posted by Humbert
it's like walking in Soi cowboy, all those bars are looking for your attention with "breaking news" placard held by sexy presenters, but walkers by are simply fed up, or jaded, or have made up their minds already to go to their usual bars
the issue is not the number of news outlets but the stories themselvesOriginally Posted by Humbert
they should focus on what matters, not reporting noises and farts made by Trump or Obama
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)