US Congressman Shot In Washington DC Suburb

[someguy1]

If you want spin-free news, try Reuters, Omaha World-Herald, Houston Chronicle, Washington Post,

Do you regard WaPo as an impartial outlet? Really? I couldn't disagree more. WaPo is flagrantly anti-Trump and has been running one false story after another lately based on anonymous sources.

As a "radical independent" (meaning I'd gladly drop both major parties and everyone in Congress off a cliff) I'm appalled at what's happened to the NYT but especially WaPo.

ps -- This just popped up. This is from WaPo. It's shocking.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III is investigating the finances and business dealings of Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, as part of the investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, according to officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 03b585f461

Well. That really is something. The whole Trump family will soon be behind bars.

Except ... my practiced, cynical news-reading eye was drawn to this: "...according to officials familiar with the matter."

What do you think that means? Here is what I think it means. Someone who refuses to allow their name to be printed in the paper as the source, calls a reporter and tells a story. If the source has actual information about an FBI investigation, leaking it to the press is a firing offense and probably a felony. They have an agenda. At worse they're just making something up. It might be true. It might be false.

You'll remember that the NYC in February ran a story that an unnamed source said Comey would refute that he told Trump that Trump was not under investigation. When Comey testified, he said that he DID tell that to Trump and that the NYT story was flat out false.

So these lies from anonymous sources who have an agenda take months to play out, and sometimes nobody ever finds out what's true.

WaPo has been printing crap like this for months. This is not journalism. Printing unconfirmed stories from agenda-promoting anonymous sources is not journalism. You'll remember that in Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein had a rule that everything they printed had to have at least two independent confirmations. That's how WaPo used to do business. Not any more.

[SciameriKen]

If you werent going to rail against WaPo then I was lol! If you ask me all of this is the fault of NYT and WaPo - we should be talking about president Sanders right now - but those two hacks wanted to have their hillary- Bah I say!!!

[Lomax]

Well if I thought it was silly to imply that those who defend the second amendment are asking to be shot, I come back to find it claimed that those who uphold the first amendment are responsible for it instead. Of course writers are not obliged to withhold leftist opinions. People who work in "the media" - mainstream or otherwise - are as entitled to their "biased opinions" as the rest of us are. Some politicians are terrible even if the New Statesman says they are terrible. To confuse this opinion-mongering with incitement to attempted homicide is morally bankrupt. If that opinion is too biased for you, then I'll make sure I don't come too close to the window.

[someguy1]

Well if I thought it was silly to imply that those who defend the second amendment are asking to be shot, I come back to find it claimed that those who uphold the first amendment are responsible for it instead.

I believe it is possible to hold two seemingly contradictory beliefs:

* The nutball who owned this gun (in spite of a recent history of violence against his stepdaughter and others) is the sole individual responsible for this crime; and

* Nutballs can be and often are influenced by the prevailing social climate.

Doesn't that seem like a fairly reasonable position? I don't think Kathy Griffin is responsible for this shooting. In fact as deplorable as her Trump-beheading photo was, as a First Amendment absolutist I support her right to have done it. And note that she has not been sanctioned by any branch of government. She has not been deprived of life, liberty, or property by any governmental entity. That's one of the best things about the US.

But no law can protect you from the social consequences of what you say, especially in the age of Twitter.

The shooter is the sole person responsible for the shooting. And,I'd like to see the left wing dial back the rhetoric. Yes there's plenty of disturbing rhetoric from the right as well, but we're not talking about that today. And in any event, perhaps some on the left could simply choose to stop engaging in this race to the bottom. Remember, when they go low, we go high. Lately when the right goes low, the left goes a lot lower.

[Serpent]

Well. That really is something. The whole Trump family will soon be behind bars.

and I will begin to believe in the efficacy of prayer

[Serpent]

* Nutballs can be and often are influenced by the prevailing social climate.

Doesn't that seem like a fairly reasonable position?

It sounds like one... until we realize whom you are blaming for creating the whole, unspecified, unexplained "social climate".

But no law can protect you from the social consequences of what you say, especially in the age of Twitter.

And those 'consequences' include - what?

And,I'd like to see the left wing dial back the rhetoric. Yes there's plenty of disturbing rhetoric from the right as well, but we're not talking about that today.

Today, we are blaming everything that's wrong with America on "left wing" reportage....

And in any event, perhaps some on the left could simply choose to stop engaging in this race to the bottom.

...demanding unilateral disarmament...

Remember, when they go low, we go high.

... holding an entire array of communication media to the campaign slogan of a candidate they didn't necessarily endorse...

Lately when the right goes low, the left goes a lot lower.

...and making unsupported allegations.

Maybe we'll do better tomorrow, fair'n'balanced-wise.

[someguy1]

It sounds like one... until we realize whom you are blaming for creating the whole, unspecified, unexplained "social climate".

An absurd and manifestly false characterization of what I wrote.

But no law can protect you from the social consequences of what you say, especially in the age of Twitter.

And those 'consequences' include - what?

She lost her New Years Eve gig, she was disinvited from a number of planned appearances, and she's suffered many other professional consequences.

You know I enjoy discussion with people who hold different opinions than mine. But I must say it's tedious to have to read you the news as well.

Today, we are blaming everything that's wrong with America on "left wing" reportage....

I blame "everything that's wrong with America" on the left. A complete fabrication, obvious to anyone who can read.

And in any event, perhaps some on the left could simply choose to stop engaging in this race to the bottom.

...demanding unilateral disarmament...

You prefer a race to the bottom? Maybe the right should shoot some Dem pols, then the left can shoot some more GOP pols? This is the position you're here to defend? You want a shooting war on the streets?

Maybe we'll do better tomorrow, fair'n'balanced-wise.

I don't think you represented your point of view well in this post. You are all-in for a race to the bottom, which can only mean more violence and more polarization. Or are you representing your viewpoint perfectly? I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean what you wrote. But as someone watching the antics of the "Antifa" fascists smashing people over the head with bike locks, perhaps this is exactly where you're at.

[Braininvat]

Someguy, when you provide evidence that WaPo stories are false or misleading, then I will reconsider my estimation of the paper and remove it from my list. Until then, I will consider it not anti-Trump, but anti-b**sh**t. And opposing government lying and obfuscation is the 1st amendment duty of the press.

[Old Rasputin]

Of course writers are not obliged to withhold leftist opinions. People who work in "the media" - mainstream or otherwise - are as entitled to their "biased opinions" as the rest of us are.

Lomax, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. But, in your opinion, are these reporters also rightly “entitled” to ‘express their hatred’ (by trying to ‘incite’ political hate with their written words)?

If YES, then why isn’t the shooter also rightly “entitled” to 'express his hatred' (by trying to kill a congressmen)?

If NO, then the reporters ‘expression of hate’, is no more justifiable (nor excusable) than the shooter’s.

One cannot be 'right' if the other is 'wrong'!


**********
And since we are talking about "entitled opinions", it is my entitled opinion that those who 'incite hate', specifically the leftist MSM, are just as guilty (if not more!) than the deranged (mentally unstable) shooter himself.

Hate only begets hate.

[Braininvat]

Am curious about what some posters mean by "incite hate." If I report "Trump falsely reported a total lack of pay-for-play deals with Saudis," and someone out there starts hating Trump for being a liar, am I culpable for their state of mind? If my report was correct, then I am doing my job as a member of the press, right? If someone hates, it is their choice how they express that, right? If the facts favor one ideological side over another, what is the press supposed to do?

[Serpent]

An absurd and manifestly false characterization of what I wrote.

If that is the case, I apologize.

She lost her New Years Eve gig, she was disinvited from a number of planned appearances, and she's suffered many other professional consequences.

That's fine, and who gives a sff?
The statement I responded to was : "But no law can protect you from the social consequences of what you say, especially in the age of Twitter."
and I asked that in a general way. We know of many other, even more prominent people who express themselves freely on Twitter, and for whom there may be social consequences.
Why differentiate out this one person's one ugly self-expression and not expect similar consequences for other persons who express ugly sentiments, intentions and attitudes?

I don't think you represented your point of view well in this post. You are all-in for a race to the bottom, which can only mean more violence and more polarization.

You seem overly fond of that metaphor. I'm not interested in races and bottoms. I am interested in sound public information.
If "the left-leaning MSM" -
- I have asked , several times, in vain, for a clarification of what is meant by that term -
were to stop broadcasting and printing any negative remarks, regardless of factual content, or any commentary that can be construed as negative, and can be accused of swaying the readers'/viewers' feelings against persons regarding whom news articles are broadcast/printed (presumably because they have done something news/note-worthy) about any players identified with "the right",
while the mouthpieces of "the right" proceed unopposed in their -
- from what I've heard, considerably more prejudicial and negative, not to mention fact-free -
commentary regarding any players associated with 'the left ',
there would be no "race to the bottom."
But would that, as I have asked before, reverse, stop, slow down, mitigate or ameliorate the hatreds in the social climate or in the very fabric of America? Is that the cure?

There would be only one source of information and commentary, and what it promulgated wouldn't be called "propaganda", since that term has already been suborned to designate left-leaning opinion.
I wonder what it would be called? Truthiness maybe, or Real News.

[Old Rasputin]

Am curious about what some posters mean by "incite hate." If I report "Trump falsely reported a total lack of pay-for-play deals with Saudis," and someone out there starts hating Trump for being a liar, am I culpable for their state of mind?

No.

If my report was correct, then I am doing my job as a member of the press, right?

Correct.

If someone hates, it is their choice how they express that, right?

Yes. (of course, this assumes that you didn't 'incite' this hate (twist the facts) with your own personal view/agenda).

If the facts favor one ideological side over another, what is the press supposed to do?

Nothing. Just keep reporting the facts-as-they-are.

As a (supposed unbiased) reporter, don’t ever twist/distort the facts to align with your own personal agenda/opinions. Stick to the facts. If you wish to vent your personal views/opinions/hatred, then go join a chat forum! And stop inciting your hateful opinions under the banner of "reporting news".

[Braininvat]

If I write an editorial for the paper, and 1000 people read it, and some feel hate for the government after reading it, am I responsible for their subsequent actions? Is that different from writing the identical opinion piece and posting it on a FB page and having 1000 people ead that? Am I more or less responsible for the FB readers actions? In either case, does my opinion wrongfully incite violent action? (Let's assume I don't advise any action, and am just saying, say, "Trump and his team are all horrible and amoral monsters, bent on ruining our country....") IOW, where do you start telling people they can't express opinions, while still honoring the 1st amendment?

This is tricky, and it's why we have courts and SCOTUS.

[Lomax]

If anyone can read a sentence like "Trump is a terrible president" and confuse that for an objective fact just because it was written in a supposedly unbiased newspaper, then no amount of decent journalism is gonna cure that person's disposition to confusion. Let alone if that person thinks the appropriate response is murder.

Anyway, there are two primary forms of bias which will deceive your readers: suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. I don't see how any news outlet can definitively protect against charges of the latter. Blaming anti-GOP polemics for anti-GOP bullets is a red herring.

[wolfhnd]

If anyone can read a sentence like "Trump is a terrible president" and confuse that for an objective fact just because it was written in a supposedly unbiased newspaper, then no amount of decent journalism is gonna cure that person's disposition to confusion. Let alone if that person thinks the appropriate response is murder.

Anyway, there are two primary forms of bias which will deceive your readers: suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. I don't see how any news outlet can definitively protect against charges of the latter. Blaming anti-GOP polemics for anti-GOP bullets is a red herring.

Under normal circumstances that would be true but I can't recall the media ever labeling the president as a foreign agent before.

[Old Rasputin]

If I write an editorial for the paper, and 1000 people read it, and some feel hate for the government after reading it, am I responsible for their subsequent actions? Is that different from writing the identical opinion piece and posting it on a FB page and having 1000 people ead that? Am I more or less responsible for the FB readers actions? In either case, does my opinion wrongfully incite violent action? (Let's assume I don't advise any action, and am just saying, say, "Trump and his team are all horrible and amoral monsters, bent on ruining our country....") IOW, where do you start telling people they can't express opinions, while still honoring the 1st amendment?

Nothing wrong with expressing ‘opinions’. Everyone knows that opinions are just opinions.

If you are not misleading your reader, then there is no harm. But if you knowingly mislead your reader, then you are culpable of any resulting harm. In other words:

1. If you are writing an opinion piece or editorial, then the reader knows that your words are just your opinion. So be it.

2. If you are a reporter just “reporting the facts”, and you truly are just reporting the facts, then the news is what it is. So be it.

3. But if you are a reporter and mislead your reader into thinking that you are “reporting the facts”, when in actuality you are twisting/distorting the facts to support your political opinion or to attack (incite hate) against the opposing opinion, then you should be held responsible for any harm caused by the dissemination of your misleading and “fake news”.

[Braininvat]

Just to make sure we're clear....a newspaper has 2 sections that concern politics, each section with a distinct function:

News - factual reporting

Editorial/Op-Ed - opinions of editors and guest columnists

Please specify which section you are speaking of. If "DT is a Russian puppet" appears in News, that's libelous and defamatory, at this point.

If the same sentence appears on the Op-Ed, then it's an expression of opinion and to be taken as such.

So....someone please post evidence that a national circulation newspaper, subject to libel litigation, has in its News section, misrepresented or falsely characterized the actions or words of Donald Trump. It may be there, but vaguely alluding to it is not enough. We should be able to point to concrete cases of libel. And "inciting hate" is a red herring, since it is impossible to predict the emotional state of an individual reader. Someone could report that Kate Winslet is pretty and has red hair and I would hate her for being an evil witch and shoot James Cameron for casting her in Titanic

[Lomax]

I'm quite strongly opposed to defamation laws - largely because they hold the defendant guilty until proven innocent, and consequently force the courts to confuse their duty to determine what is proven beyond reasonable doubt with a duty to determine what is actually true or false - and when I was threatened with a defamation suit for telling the truth about an ex-employer, I refused to respond in kind for the lies they told about me. But even this is by the by: everybody here seems know they are able to tell a truthful claim about the president from a libelous one, so what excuse does this leave James T Hodgkinson with? Or are we suggesting the press has to take responsibility for anyone who, lacking the ability to scrutinise it like the rest of us do, decides to break away from our inexplicable mass docility and pick up a semi-auto?

[wolfhnd]

I'm quite strongly opposed to defamation laws - largely because they hold the defendant guilty until proven innocent, and consequently force the courts to confuse their duty to determine what is proven beyond reasonable doubt with a duty to determine what is actually true or false - and when I was threatened with a defamation suit for telling the truth about an ex-employer, I refused to respond in kind for the lies they told about me. But even this is by the by: everybody here seems know they are able to tell a truthful claim about the president from a libelous one, so what excuse does this leave James T Hodgkinson with? Or are we suggesting the press has to take responsibility for anyone who, lacking the ability to scrutinise it like the rest of us do, decides to break away from our inexplicable mass docility and pick up a semi-auto?

Again I would agree with you if your assertion that people can discern what is news and what is editorial opinion applied to large segments of the population of which this board may not be representative.

The problem is not new. When Southern newspapers claimed that Lincoln intended to abolish slavery as a dictator that was not true. The Southern aristocracy and Newspapers knew it was not true but acted as if it was.

The problem is reducible to an analogy to the petty nobility of France prior to the French revolution. The working class had legitimate grievances that were not being represented by the nobility. The petty nobility's interest superficially were aligned with government policy. When the problems of the working class were sufficient revolution was unavailable. Trump represents a working class revolution while the educated and bureaucratic class represents the petty nobility. The court is represented by the financial class that funded Clinton. The left has become the establishment but it does not represent the working class. Incompetent bureaucracy is an important component of this a analogy. A bureaucracy that instead of addressing clear failures doubles down on failed policies.

It isn't a question of resolving the shooters responsibility but of considering the larger ramifications for society related to an editorial position that has lost contact with reality and is on the verge of believing it's own false narrative.

[Serpent]

I didn't need any journalist to incite me to hate this guy.


Is it not possible that many other people's dislike is not directly attributable to the media ---
unless you mean, showing video footage of him.

Supplementary question: Is there a distinction between anger
- an emotional response a person might feel, without any help from the press, if they lost their pension or their house or their health insurance or their son -
and hate - something a person would build up over time toward another person, for whatever reasons?

And, suppose a news-magazine or documentary film producer were to make a study of presidential actions and their consequences; laid out criteria for what constitutes good and bad presidencies. If the authors then concluded, that Lincoln or Coolidge or Roosevelt was "a terrible president", would they be censured for promoting hate?

[Lomax]

I entirely fail to see the parallels between Trump and the enlightenment revolution for liberty, equality, fraternity. Either way the points I made apply to the news just as easily as they apply to polemic journalism. If Hodgkinson wanted to read the other side of the story, opposing opinions or fact-checks, does anybody doubt he would have known where to look? Either he did so or he did not bother, and in either case the media hold no responsibility for his decision to settle this debate with bullets rather than with words of his own, which are the right antidote to the wrong words of others. JFK nearly blew up the planet but this does not exculpate Oswald, or even allow him to share the blame with anyone who might have told him it was so.

[Old Rasputin]

So....someone please post evidence that a national circulation newspaper, subject to libel litigation, has in its News section, misrepresented or falsely characterized the actions or words of Donald Trump.

BIV, are you a "Fake News" denier???

Do you deny that the NY Times, Washington Post, and the National Inquirer have all produced "fake news"? Or is this "fake news" just fake news in itself? Do you believe everything you read in the News section of these papers? If so, then why?

[wolfhnd]

I entirely fail to see the parallels between Trump and the enlightenment revolution for liberty, equality, fraternity. Either way the points I made apply to the news just as easily as they apply to polemic journalism. If Hodgkinson wanted to read the other side of the story, opposing opinions or fact-checks, does anybody doubt he would have known where to look? Either he did so or he did not bother, and in either case the media hold no responsibility for his decision to settle this debate with bullets rather than with words of his own, which are the right antidote to the wrong words of others. JFK nearly blew up the planet but this does not exculpate Oswald, or even allow him to share the blame with anyone who might have told him it was so.

Here is an article from the daily wire that makes your argument from the free speech perspective.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17599/don ... #main-menu

They are reasonable arguments if you are not too worried about social cohesion and assume that the dangers of political division are not exaggerated.

As I have always argued the problem with logic is that it only proves internal consistency. If your world view is that Trump and the non neo con republicans represent a danger to democracy then it is reasonable to dismiss the exaggerations and omissions of the media as being mostly harmless. If you believe as I do that the media being more or less international corporate entities represent the authoritarian interests of neo liberals and their corporate and globalist partners then they are collaborators in the destruction of Western Civilization.

When the left abandoned the working class and embrace Cultural Marxism it came at a time when conditions were already creating greater class divisions. The new class structure is largely determined by IQ. What was previously an economic system where intelligence was of minimal value for most workers became a system where IQ became increasingly valued. The new bureaucratic and educated classes that are not directly productive have essentially made the working class especially foreign workers their serfs. That the left is paradoxically aligned with this shift is no stranger than the feminist alignment with patriarchal Islam. In the first case it is about perceived self interest and in the second case it is about the destruction of the established order at any cost. Just as with French Revolution the privileged or those not engaged in dangerous or demanding physical labor are unenlightened as to the foundational requirements of a civilization in terms of the production of basic necessities such as energy, food and other forms of productive labor.

The French Revolution no more represents the enlightenment than the Trump revolution. Their genesis is in the disenfranchised workers. While the idle rich in the late eighteenth century were the nobility today they are the unproductive classes of bureaucrats, financiers, self indulgent academics and international corporations. It is the coming apart of the classes and the resentment of the "deplorables" that make for bloody pointless revolution.

[Braininvat]

So....someone please post evidence that a national circulation newspaper, subject to libel litigation, has in its News section, misrepresented or falsely characterized the actions or words of Donald Trump.

BIV, are you a "Fake News" denier???

Do you deny that the NY Times, Washington Post, and the National Inquirer have all produced "fake news"? Or is this "fake news" just fake news in itself? Do you believe everything you read in the News section of these papers? If so, then why?

I believe your sample group merits 3 differing levels of belief, to wit:

National Enquirer - tons of fakery. That's what they do. It's entertaining trash.

NYT - fakery is rare and, as in the case of Jayson Blair, they fire the reporter and issue retractions. Like most papers, the editors who oversee staff will issue corrections on a daily basis. NYT is more sloppy than fake.

Wa Po - somewhat better than NYT, and fake news is rare and, again, results in retractions and firings. If I suspect that a story in the paper is inaccurate, not the same thing as fake or fraudulent, then I look at other sources to crosscheck facts, like Toronto Star, Reuter's, AP, BBC, et al. If the story is an "exclusive," then I wait for more information to emerge, like any sensible person does.

Do I deny faked news stories exist? Of course not. The blogosphere is full of them. So is Huffpost and Breitbart and
Zerohedge and Alex Jones. These outlets often post personal blogs as news, and fail to meet any criteria of reputable journalism. Ditto the opinion shows on Faux news. The recent meltdown there was long overdue.

[Lomax]

As I have always argued the problem with logic is that it only proves internal consistency. If your world view is that Trump and the non neo con republicans represent a danger to democracy then it is reasonable to dismiss the exaggerations and omissions of the media as being mostly harmless. If you believe as I do that the media being more or less international corporate entities represent the authoritarian interests of neo liberals and their corporate and globalist partners then they are collaborators in the destruction of Western Civilization.

71% of British newspapers sold are owned by the same three companies, and they are all right-leaning. Readers have to take responsibility for this themselves. If I read a Daily Mail article that tells me immigration is an existential threat to the UK, it is my choice not to go and read a Guardian article for the opposite perspective. Hodgkinson must take the same responsibility. If he's sure enough about his views to pick up a gun, then he'd better be sure he knows the arguments on all sides. And if your concern is about protecting Western Democracy you had better see the contradiction in claiming that journalism is tantamount to assassination and terrorism.

The French Revolution no more represents the enlightenment than the Trump revolution. Their genesis is in the disenfranchised workers.

One difference is that the movement was for labour rights, rather than the vindication of temporarily embarrassed millionaires. It's also rather hard to reconcile "liberty, equality, fraternity" - any of those three words - with the white power and nationalist resentment that underpins the alt-right and the movement for Trump. I also think it would be worth your time to read up on the influence of Thomas Paine on the French Revolution.