The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 If David Pakman is the primary source for this I'm not sure it's worth much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: If David Pakman is the primary source for this I'm not sure it's worth much. He's citing a NYT story, I believe... https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/12/us/politics/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-lawyer.html /I don't believe Pakman ever cites himself as a source for anything. His is essentially a news reporting show, not an investigative one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: He's citing a NYT story, I believe... https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/12/us/politics/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-lawyer.html /I don't believe Pakman ever cites himself as a source for anything. His is essentially a news reporting show, not an investigative one. If he was just a news parroting show I would probably watch him a bit. But I find he's more or less the left/progressive version of people like Tomi Lahren, just with a little less obvious shrill hate. I just generally avoid both of these shallow ends of the "news" pool. And I find Russel Brand's commentary on news and current events more entertaining. So for unofficial media he's my go to. Well, him and Colbert and Last Week Tonight. Well actually him, Colbert, Last Week Tonight AND gen chat. Actually... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudguard Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: He's citing a NYT story, I believe... https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/07/12/us/politics/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-lawyer.html /I don't believe Pakman ever cites himself as a source for anything. His is essentially a news reporting show, not an investigative one. Yeah, seems pretty suspicious under the circumstances. If Sessions and/or anyone from the White House like Kushner was involved in the decision to settle the case, this could turn into a big story. It would be interesting to get Preet Bharara's take on the settlement, since he was originally prosecuting the case before being fired by Trump. If Bharara felt that the case was really strong and that he wouldn't have settled, then I'd be very suspicious about the settlement. If this is the case, then I'd also be very suspicious of their claims that the the Russian lawyer provided nothing of value during the meeting with Trump Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 The swamp seems to be starting to spew toxic gas now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said: If he was just a news parroting show I would probably watch him a bit. But I find he's more or less the left/progressive version of people like Tomi Lahren, just with a little less obvious shrill hate. I just generally avoid both of these shallow ends of the "news" pool. And I find Russel Brand's commentary on news and current events more entertaining. So for unofficial media he's my go to. Well, him and Colbert and Last Week Tonight. Well actually him, Colbert, Last Week Tonight AND gen chat. Actually... Yeah, that's fair. I guess it would be more accurate to describe him as a commentator, much in the same vein as an O'Reilly or Maddow in that he inserts a fair amount of interpretation. And I would agree that he's nowhere near as entertaining as a Colbert, Oliver, Seth Meyers or Samantha Bee. That said, I don't think Pakman is going for that sort of comedy vibe. I'm not a huge fan, but I do think his particular brand of "Grass Roots" news is kind of interesting. And he's certainly far more fair and legitimate than say an Alex Jones or even The Young Turks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yeah, that's fair. I guess it would be more accurate to describe him as a commentator, much in the same vein as an O'Reilly or Maddow in that he inserts a fair amount of interpretation. And I would agree that he's nowhere near as entertaining as a Colbert, Oliver, Seth Meyers or Samantha Bee. That said, I don't think Pakman is going for that sort of comedy vibe. I'm not a huge fan, but I do think his particular brand of "Grass Roots" news is kind of interesting. And he's certainly far more fair and legitimate than say an Alex Jones or even The Young Turks. Man, I dunno if I'd mention these two in the same breath in terms of level of crazy at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. From the little I've seen of Pakman and TYT I'd say they are pretty similar. Though my main exposure to Pakman was his video purporting to put two and two together and coming up with Alzheimer's for Trump. I quite like the grass roots media concept, but for the most part the execution is more about putting an ideological spin (or tribal allegiances) on things rather than bring the truth to the people. Also, how long are we going to have to suffer people calling news that they want to be non-news a nothingburger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: Man, I dunno if I'd mention these two in the same breath in terms of level of crazy at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. From the little I've seen of Pakman and TYT I'd say they are pretty similar. Though my main exposure to Pakman was his video purporting to put two and two together and coming up with Alzheimer's for Trump. I quite like the grass roots media concept, but for the most part the execution is more about putting an ideological spin (or tribal allegiances) on things rather than bring the truth to the people. Also, how long are we going to have to suffer people calling news that they want to be non-news a nothingburger? Well yeah, I don't mean to put TYT in the same boat as Alex Jones, but I wouldn't call them reliable either. Pakman is biased for sure, but I don't believe he approaches TYT in terms of shrill partisanship. Agree also that it would be nice to have one of these Grass Roots News shows that was truly unbiased, but I think given the current political atmosphere, it is less than likely to occur. These shows get easy views based on partisan spin. It seems to be the formula across all media. I'm left to wonder what a truly partisan news show might look like. Kind of a Meta Crossfire maybe, with a Lib, an Con, and a Moderate, perhaps? That could be interesting. Or just an absolute mess as well, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Well yeah, I don't mean to put TYT in the same boat as Alex Jones, but I wouldn't call them reliable either. Pakman is biased for sure, but I don't believe he approaches TYT in terms of shrill partisanship. Agree also that it would be nice to have one of these Grass Roots News shows that was truly unbiased, but I think given the current political atmosphere, it is less than likely to occur. These shows get easy views based on partisan spin. It seems to be the formula across all media. I'm left to wonder what a truly partisan news show might look like. Kind of a Meta Crossfire maybe, with a Lib, an Con, and a Moderate, perhaps? That could be interesting. Or just an absolute mess as well, I suppose. I assume you mean non-partisan. But what you describe as a concept is multi-partisan, rather than non-partisan. It's pretty easy to be non-partisan even when you have your own ideological biases: question everything; deal in objective facts as much as possible; assume anything a politician says is at least partially bullshit, especially when criticising someone from the other side; don't engage in speculation. I find many sports commentators to be pretty good examples of being non-partisan even though they surely have their own biases. That's because the commentators are speaking to fans of both (all) sides of a sporting contest so have to keep everyone engaged. Media has realised that trying to keep everyone engaged is a fruitless endeavour, so they don't give a crap about one side and do what they need to do to hold on to the other. The problem, as you say, is people aren't actually interested in news as an independent accountability mechanism for those who are in power. What they are interested in is entertainment, and affirmation of the rightness (and / or righteousness) of their personal beliefs and world view. The news audience has voted, and they have voted for entertainment over edification and shining a bright light on the system and those who run it. So those of us who are interested in the latter are ill served and have to hunt out the nuggets of genuine news when and where they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted July 14, 2017 Author Share Posted July 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said: I assume you mean non-partisan. But what you describe as a concept is multi-partisan, rather than non-partisan. Yup. Corrected. Yeah, I guess multi-partisan would be the correct way to describe that. I suppose with that format you'd at least be confronted with opposing points of view, and you'd get some entertainment. And yeah, straight, unadulterated news does seem to be a thing of the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Yup. Corrected. Yeah, I guess multi-partisan would be the correct way to describe that. I suppose with that format you'd at least be confronted with opposing points of view, and you'd get some entertainment. And yeah, straight, unadulterated news does seem to be a thing of the past. More like a shout-fests where no one gets heard and nothing of any news worth is achieved. Perhaps one of the better options for news is fact checker sites. But are they truly committed to objective assessment of information put forward as fact? Or are they just mostly fact checking (or hunting for lies) for one side of the political divide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makk Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 8 hours ago, Kalbear said: Does...does Trump not know what 'transparency' meant with respect to building the wall? I have not laughed so hard in years. This cannot possibly be genuine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 14, 2017 Share Posted July 14, 2017 1 hour ago, Makk said: I have not laughed so hard in years. This cannot possibly be genuine? It is 100% genuine. It was originally off-the record conversation in AF1, but Trump thought it was so good that they put it on the record. This came from an official White House transcript. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.