|
Post by robeiae on Feb 28, 2017 8:30:55 GMT -5
Here's a story from WaPo: These Iowans voted for Trump. Many of them are already disappointed.Sounds ominous, right? Trump voters who regret their votes. Many of them. The problem is, the actual content of the story doesn't reflect the title of it, at all. Of the people actually cited in the story, some didn't vote for Trump, some didn't vote at all, and those who did vote for Trump are either not disappointed or only voted for Trump reluctantly. Here's an examination of the WaPo piece at The American Spectator. Partisan? Sure. But what it says about the WaPo piece checks out: Pretty sad.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 28, 2017 11:53:50 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with the WaPo's story or the story's title. Many of the Iowans quoted in the story are disappointed in their vote for Trump and both critics and supporters are included. The title is simply meant to draw eyes to the story. Mission accomplished, even if it does draw the ire of carping critics who are locked and loaded in pursuit of media bias and so-called "fake news." But you know what is sad? Looking to a right-wing rag like The American Spectator as the arbiter of what is and is not is objective journalism.Well, apparently some people take the American Spectator very seriously. A suggestion, robeiae? When you're swinging your mighty hammer of righteous indignation to smite down the foul perpetrators of media manipulation, make sure when you're smashing the bastards of the Left, you catch the bastards of the Right on the backswing.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 28, 2017 13:03:11 GMT -5
*shrug*
I'm not indignant. And your defense of the WaPo story is weak. You said:
"Many of the Iowans quoted in the story are disappointed in their vote for Trump."
Many? How many is many? I count exactly one Trump voter in the piece who is "already disappointed," and that's qualified by this:
Not exactly the sense of the title, imo. Regardless, the title is simply a lie. The story isn't even exclusviely about Trump voters. It's quoting non-voters and Clinton voters. And there's no "many" Trump voters who are now "already disappointed." One is not many. Shit, two isn't many, either.
My suggestion: learn to count.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 28, 2017 13:12:16 GMT -5
The title says, these Iowans voted for Trump. So the article should deal only with those who cast their vote for Trump.
And then it goes on to say are disappointed. So if person A voted for Trump believing he'd be a disaster but less so than Clinton, than it's not much of a disappointment to have him live down to your expectations.
Only those who thought Trump was going to be great and feel he hasn't been should be discussed under the title.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 28, 2017 15:38:01 GMT -5
*shrug* I'm not indignant. And your defense of the WaPo story is weak. You said: "Many of the Iowans quoted in the story are disappointed in their vote for Trump." Many? How many is many? I count exactly one Trump voter in the piece who is "already disappointed," and that's qualified by this: Not exactly the sense of the title, imo. Regardless, the title is simply a lie. The story isn't even exclusviely about Trump voters. It's quoting non-voters and Clinton voters. And there's no "many" Trump voters who are now "already disappointed." One is not many. Shit, two isn't many, either. My suggestion: learn to count. Are they all Iowans? Then they count. The story never said it was exclusive to Trump voters, so naturally it's going to include Clinton voters and non-voters. Why? Because they're Iowans too and it adds balance, a contrast and context. If my defense of the WaPo article is "weak," then your American Spectator criticism is even weaker. My suggestion? Count again: Now we can quibble on whether Mr. George and Mr. Schurbon are "already disappointed" or "somewhat ambivalent," but if the story was entitled, " These Iowans voted for Trump. Many of them are already excited to vote for Trump again" it would probably be running in The American Spectator, not the Washington Post. The title says, these Iowans voted for Trump. So the article should deal only with those who cast their vote for Trump. And then it goes on to say are disappointed. So if person A voted for Trump believing he'd be a disaster but less so than Clinton, than it's not much of a disappointment to have him live down to your expectations. Only those who thought Trump was going to be great and feel he hasn't been should be discussed under the title. Which only goes to show whatever you do to make a buck, you don't work at a newspaper, never have and have no idea how (or why) headlines are written. The writer of a newspaper rarely comes up with the title of the story. They may suggest one, but if the editor doesn't like it or thinks of a better one, that's the one the reader sees. Newspapers, magazines, and blogs all have to come up with ways to get views and reads and clicks and one of the best ways is an eye-grabbing and thought provoking title attached to the article. I can guaran-damn-tee, nobody at the WaPo is whining about this article being "a lie." It got clicked, it got read, and now it's been noticed. If I were the editor who titled the story, I'd consider that a win and the consternation it created the cherry on top.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Feb 28, 2017 15:48:43 GMT -5
There is nothing wrong with the WaPo's story or the story's title. Many of the Iowans quoted in the story are disappointed in their vote for Trump and both critics and supporters are included. There is only one person quoted in the article - Tom Godot - who matches the description in the title. And he's actually ambivalent. The other persons quoted in the article are Tyler Schurbon, who gives one quote about how shutting down free trade is "hurting us" but otherwise likes what Trump is doing (nowhere does he say he regrets his vote); Dave Drew, who voted for Clinton, an unnamed truck driver who voted for Trump and is happy about it; Steventjie Hasna, who did not vote; Oscar Ramirez, who is not a citizen and did not vote; Jim George, who might be counted as a "regretful" voter though he says he voted for Trump as a "lesser of two evils" and knew he was doing it (he does not actually say he regrets his vote); and three women in a yoga studio whose votes are either not mentioned or who also voted for Trump without liking either candidate. The title implies that the reporter has found a lot of people who voted for Trump and are now regretting it, but the article doesn't support that. It supports only the idea that there are a lot of people who (a) didn't like Trump before the election and don't like him now; (b) did like Trump before the election and still like him; (c) had mixed to negative feelings before the election and still feel that way. In other words, it's trying to cast Trump voters as being like all those Brexit voters who supposedly freaked out the next day saying "OMG what have I done?" Except we really are not seeing that. I have no doubt many Trump voters do regret their votes now (and many more will in the future), but if the WaPo wanted to show this as a significant phenomenon, as yet they've failed to do so.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 28, 2017 17:11:12 GMT -5
Are they all Iowans? Then they count. The story never said it was exclusive to Trump voters, so naturally it's going to include Clinton voters and non-voters. Why? Because they're Iowans too and it adds balance, a contrast and context. Well, when the story's title begins with "These Iowans voted for Trump," I think it's fair to assume the story is about Iowans who voted for Trump, not Iowans who voted for Clinton or Iowans who didn't vote at all. Okay. *counts again*Nope, sorry. There's still only one person in the story who might fit in the group the story purports to be about. The two you cited don't come anywhere close. But for funnsies, let's set aside reality and suppose that they did. That would make a grand total of three. If a politician held a rally and one, two, or three people showed up to support him, would "Many people attended Fred's rally" be an accurate description in your opinion? Come on. How about a little straightforward honesty for a change. One can be thought-provoking without being dishonest, imo. Great. It created consternation because it was dishonest. Helluva standard, there. Where's the line?
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 28, 2017 19:47:58 GMT -5
Are they all Iowans? Then they count. The story never said it was exclusive to Trump voters, so naturally it's going to include Clinton voters and non-voters. Why? Because they're Iowans too and it adds balance, a contrast and context. Well, when the story's title begins with "These Iowans voted for Trump," I think it's fair to assume the story is about Iowans who voted for Trump, not Iowans who voted for Clinton or Iowans who didn't vote at all. Fair? What's "fair" or "unfair" got to do with it? You're bent because you didn't get the story you assumed you were going to get? Do you feel gypped? Do you feel cheated? When you're writing the story you can write it your way, but that's not the way the reporter wrote it. I still would have run it. You wouldn't. There's your "fair." After you, sir. If you'll be honest The American Specator is a bullshit right-wing rag but you quoted them anyway because their view of the WaPo article lined up with yours then I'll reconsider my postion. Run that by President Pussygrabber. He's a master of both. Dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask President Pussygrabber. He's a master of creating consternation in his dishonesty, but yet I don't see you banging on him in the same way you're banging on the Washington Post. The press is a paragon of virtue compared to Trump. So, where's your line?
|
|
|
Post by Don on Feb 28, 2017 21:16:14 GMT -5
Even a bullshit right-wing rag can do simple math. That proves nothing about rob's politics, just his math skills.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Feb 28, 2017 21:42:50 GMT -5
Even a bullshit right-wing rag can do simple math. That proves nothing about rob's politics, just his math skills. You got a point, Don or just giving your pom-poms a good shake? Quoting a bullshit right-wing rag isn't about math. It's mostly about bullshit and it's bad for ya.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 1, 2017 5:45:13 GMT -5
This is an ad hominem attack in the the literal sense - not against anyone personally, but "attacking the source" to dismiss an argument. Whether or not the American Spectator is a bullshit right wing rag, or the Washington Post is full of terrible journalism, you should be able to attack the argument based on facts presented. "Your argument is invalid because the American Spectator is a bullshit rag" is not a logical argument.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 1, 2017 5:58:58 GMT -5
Gee, Alternate Math is almost as compelling as Alternate Facts.
Apparently, even the troglodytes writing for WaPo and AmSpec can count to "One" on their thumbs. Should we expect less from posters here?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 1, 2017 7:41:29 GMT -5
If you'll be honest The American Specator is a bullshit right-wing rag but you quoted them anyway because their view of the WaPo article lined up with yours then I'll reconsider my postion. Well, if you'll read--I learned to read when I learned to do math, mayself--you'll see that I noted the Spectator was partisan from the beginning. I'm "banging" on ONE STORY and ONE HEADLINE, where the latter clearly misrepresents the former. You're on record now as being okay with lying if it gets someone to click. If that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. Obviously I feel differently. As to Trump, you say "Pussygrabber" a lot...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 9:43:19 GMT -5
This is an ad hominem attack in the the literal sense - not against anyone personally, but "attacking the source" to dismiss an argument. Whether or not the American Spectator is a bullshit right wing rag, or the Washington Post is full of terrible journalism, you should be able to attack the argument based on facts presented. "Your argument is invalid because the American Spectator is a bullshit rag" is not a logical argument. What the self-appointed Thought Police of The Colline Gate thinks is or isn't a logical argument holds cuts no ice with me. If you'll be honest The American Specator is a bullshit right-wing rag but you quoted them anyway because their view of the WaPo article lined up with yours then I'll reconsider my postion. Well, if you'll read--I learned to read when I learned to do math, mayself--you'll see that I noted the Spectator was partisan from the beginning. And if you'll read, you'll see the reason I said the Spectator was a bullshit right-wing rag. I'm "banging" on ONE STORY and ONE HEADLINE, where the latter clearly misrepresents the former. You're on record now as being okay with lying if it gets someone to click. If that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. Obviously I feel differently. As to Trump, you say "Pussygrabber" a lot...[/quote]I say the Washington Post wasn't lying, but if you want to and choose to quote from a right-wing rag which tries to manipulate and fabricate news, that's another case where the latter clearly misrepresents the former. I didn't say I was okay with lying if it gets someone to click, but if you want to interpret it that way, I certainly can't stop you. As to Trump, yes I do say "Pussygrabber" a lot and I say it because HE said it, did he not? I haven't forgotten that and neither have all the women and decent men he offended. I refuse to have anything to do with those who wish to normalize Trump and forget all the unbelievably foul shit he says and does.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 1, 2017 9:44:09 GMT -5
This is an ad hominem attack in the the literal sense - not against anyone personally, but "attacking the source" to dismiss an argument. Whether or not the American Spectator is a bullshit right wing rag, or the Washington Post is full of terrible journalism, you should be able to attack the argument based on facts presented. "Your argument is invalid because the American Spectator is a bullshit rag" is not a logical argument. What the self-appointed Thought Police of The Colline Gate thinks is or isn't a logical argument holds cuts no ice with me. Well, if you'll read--I learned to read when I learned to do math, mayself--you'll see that I noted the Spectator was partisan from the beginning. And if you'll read, you'll see the reason I said the Spectator was a bullshit right-wing rag. I'm "banging" on ONE STORY and ONE HEADLINE, where the latter clearly misrepresents the former. You're on record now as being okay with lying if it gets someone to click. If that's the way you feel, that's the way you feel. Obviously I feel differently. As to Trump, you say "Pussygrabber" a lot... I say the Washington Post wasn't lying, but if you want to and choose to quote from a right-wing rag which tries to manipulate and fabricate news, that's another case where the latter clearly misrepresents the former. I didn't say I was okay with lying if it gets someone to click, but if you want to interpret it that way, I certainly can't stop you. As to Trump, yes I do say "Pussygrabber" a lot and I say it because HE said it, did he not? I haven't forgotten that and neither have all the women and decent men he offended. I refuse to have anything to do with those who wish to normalize Trump and forget all the unbelievably foul shit he says and does.
|
|