Media already criticizing Trump's foreign trip.

[Mac1958]

What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

Is this really fact-based reporting to you? This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

You can say bias... But the is Yahoo News... Seriously.... The reporter is based in San Fran, if that doesn't get a liberal edge then what would we expect...

Bill Clinton suffered from Vertigo and he took the Cable Car... Sorry see that as a bit of an asshole thing to do..

Millar writing a speech to be delivered in Saudi, Sorry man that is just highly ironic. Millar is one of the major weak links in this admin...

Saying that the headline goes too far... All they have to do is wait a few day and put it in the past tense...

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being unbiased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

 

[Mac1958]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being biased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

So you're saying it's an editorial?

Why did you say "What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information."

Is this reporting or is it editorializing?

And if it's editorializing, why is it not identified anywhere as such?
.

 

[BULLDOG]

What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

 

[Mac1958]

What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What a surprise, imagine the media prematurely passing judgement on President Trump. Start with the headline you want, then fill in the blanks. "Let's get him" has been the mantra since November 9th 2016. Facts don't matter, just cut him and keep doing it.
Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started

So?

 

[BULLDOG]

What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

 

[Mac1958]

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

This isn't about accuracy, it's about bias. As you know.

I went into detail, and you're not answering my question.

My point is made. This is PRECISELY what the Right screams about, and they're absolutely correct.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being biased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

So you're saying it's an editorial?

Why did you say "What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information."

Is this reporting or is it editorializing?

And if it's editorializing, why is it not identified anywhere as such?
.

Did you miss the "devil's advocate" remark in my reply to you?

 

[Mac1958]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being biased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

So you're saying it's an editorial?

Why did you say "What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information."

Is this reporting or is it editorializing?

And if it's editorializing, why is it not identified anywhere as such?
.

Did you miss the "devil's advocate" remark in my reply to you?

You appear to be saying that the "reporter" is simply playing "devil's advocate".

You also appear to be saying that this is a fact-based, reporting-based news article.

Great. You've answered my question, and you've made my point.
.

 

[BULLDOG]

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

This isn't about accuracy, it's about bias. As you know.

I went into detail, and you're not answering my question.

My point is made. This is PRECISELY what the Right screams about, and they're absolutely correct.
.

You think every article is required to be favorable to Trump? Sorry, but the facts in this situation just don't present much favorable evidence for that obese orange fool. If you want Trump centric propaganda, you should probably stick to fox and other altRight sources. You won't get the truth there, but you will get what you want to hear.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started"
This is the headline on the piece. Are you saying "disaster" indicates objectivity? A summary of the article couldn't have been something more benign, like "Changes being made to Trump Trip"? Really?

"Trump was set to take a cable car to the top, as visiting U.S. presidents before him have done, like George W. Bush in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1998...But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently, so the Masada visit is canceled..."
"But Trump doesn't do cable cars apparently" - yeah, no blatant cattiness there. The writer just had to cram that in there for journalistic integrity, right?

"Also while in Israel, local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem. Apparently this is enough time for a quick talk and to sign the guest book."
Same blatant, biased cattiness. See above.

"Another opportunity with lots of terrible potential is a speech Trump is planning to give about radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. The speech writer is none other than his policy adviser Stephen Miller. He's credited as one of the chief architects of Trump's failed travel ban to keep people from Muslim-majority nations out of the U.S. He also has a strong history of anti-Muslim rhetoric and beliefs."
Well, there's a nice, down-the-middle comment, right? "Lots of terrible potential'. Yeah, I don't see any opinion there, do you?

"His aides are apparently freaking out about the president going off script, walking into unfamiliar territory or making promises to foreign leaders that he can't keep."
"Freaking out". Was this written by a high school kid? Can you think of a more professional, objective way that could have been written?

"Welp, it’s not like Trump ever spontaneously says offensive things or gets distracted, so, um, this should end well."
Well, there's a perfectly appropriate end to the piece. Nice and objective and fact-based.

This thing is presented as an "article" and not a biased opinion piece, which is what it is.

Anyone who can't see the blatant LACK of professional journalistic objectivity in this "article" can only be so blinded by their own partisan ideology that they can't understand the difference between partisan bias and reporting information.

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.
.

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here understand things like tone and intent only when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

 

[usmbguest5318]

This is a PERFECT example of the bias the right screams about.

What the article is, and the response I expected to see for I am well aware I played "devil's advocate" with my comments above, is that the article is an editorial and editorials make no pretence of being biased; thus what is there to complain about? Nothing.

Readers must be able to discern an editorial from a pure news article. Careful readers can, as I did, from Lekach's piece distill facts (verifying their veracity if desired) and ignore the "loaded" language that also is found in the story.

Was this written by a high school kid?

Ah, no, but then neither is Sasha Lekach among the nation and world's most highly regarded news and editorial writers, though she is competent as a writer. Neither, for that matter, is Yahoo News among the nation's/world's most highly regarded news and editorial publishing organizations.

So you're saying it's an editorial?

Why did you say "What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump? I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information."

Is this reporting or is it editorializing?

And if it's editorializing, why is it not identified anywhere as such?
.

Did you miss the "devil's advocate" remark in my reply to you?

You appear to be saying that the "reporter" is simply playing "devil's advocate".

You also appear to be saying that this is a fact-based, reporting-based news article.

Great. You've answered my question, and you've made my point.
.

You appear to be saying that the "reporter" is simply playing "devil's advocate".

It was I who was playing "devil's advocate" in proponing the piece's legitimacy as a "straight" news story. I cannot speak to the intentions of the story's writer.

 

[Mac1958]

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

This isn't about accuracy, it's about bias. As you know.

I went into detail, and you're not answering my question.

My point is made. This is PRECISELY what the Right screams about, and they're absolutely correct.
.

You think every article is required to be favorable to Trump? Sorry, but the facts in this situation just don't present much favorable evidence for that obese orange fool. If you want Trump centric propaganda, you should probably stick to fox and other altRight sources. You won't get the truth there, but you will get what you want to hear.

You think every article is required to be favorable to Trump?

And to the blatant, transparent straw man we go. Perfect.

I believe you folks see pieces like this as nothing more than a fact-based, reporting-based news articles. I really do.

And that's the problem I have with partisan ideology. It literally distorts perceptions.
.

 

[Mac1958]

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

Much appreciated.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

Much appreciated.
.

NP. I am willing to give credit where and when it's due.

 

[BULLDOG]

If Trump were a moderately mature diplomat with at least mediocre skills, you would be right. However, that obese orange clown's behavior is only slightly less predictable than a tornado in a rural Oklahoma trailer park.There is NO part of his trip that can't be expected to end in disaster.

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

 

[iceberg]

What a surprise, imagine the media prematurely passing judgement on President Trump. Start with the headline you want, then fill in the blanks. "Let's get him" has been the mantra since November 9th 2016. Facts don't matter, just cut him and keep doing it.
Trump's first foreign trip is already a disaster and it hasn't even started

Did you never watch foxnews during the 8 years of obama ? Or open the internet?

yes.

it was never this bad and they did not demonize every move out there. if so - please show days upon days of links in a row where they dogged his every step and move.

it's online - still there. so prove it. open up that internet. find those links!

 

[Mac1958]

Is that a fact-based, reporting-based news article or is it an opinion piece?
.

Trump's representative said the west wall wasn't even part of Israel, and Israel is pissed that Trump gave their intel to Russia. The potential for Trump's trip being a total disaster is 100% . That is not just speculation or opinion.

Are you going to answer my question?
.

Which part of the article do you think is not accurate? Point out the inaccurate part.

He's not making about point about whether the specific claims are accurate. He's observing, rightly, that the piece uses a lot of "loaded" terms, too many and some too puerile for the article to be seen as a pure news piece, that create a tone.

To Mac1958's credit, he's among the handful of members here who's shown enough integrity in his remarks so that his remarks about and critiques deriving from tone have merit in their own right. The vast majority of members here only understand things like tone and intent when it suits their rhetorical objectives to do so. Mac does not seem that way. That's not to say I'm saying he's right or wrong, but only that by his well presented ideas he's bought himself, with me at least, enough credibility that I'll fairly consider what he has to say rather than write him off as being merely a member of the "peanut gallery"/"echo chamber."

The facts of the article don't put Trump in a good light. Big deal. Are you saying every unflattering fact MUST be balanced by something flattering? I can see the articles now

"Drunken Junkie Kills Busload of Orphans and Nuns, but He Kept His Lawn Mowed Regularly"

Is that what you and he are demanding?

I'll ask again, then I'll just give up:

Is this a reporting-based, fact-based news article, or is it an opinion piece?
.

 

[iceberg]

What statements in that article do you see as criticisms of Trump?

• Trump had planned to make a speech atop Masada. Those plans are no more mainly because Trump has refused to take the cable car trip to the plateau's top and make the speech.
• Trump has noted he doesn't want to take the trip.
• His aides are distraught over the risk that Trump will go "off script." (That's so domestically too and has been every since the 2016 campaign.)
• Do you deny that Israel's "local media was reporting complicated logistical details including only 15 minutes allotted for Trump's visit to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Remembrance Museum in Jerusalem?
• Do you deny that Mrs. Trump will accompany him on the trip?
• Do you deny Miller's having a track record of anti-Muslim sentiment and rhetoric?

I don't think you understand the difference between criticizing and reporting information.

i suppose the next question is - do you deny the headline itself is "leading the witness" heavily? or does it accurately reflect the story?

i see CNN plaster up headlines saying TRUMP AND RUSSIA TOGETHER!!! and 1/2 way through the story "but there is no evidence of this..."

do you deny that CNN baits up the headlines to elicit emotional responses?