Must be a slow news day if we're resorting to Kicking The Media.
As for the DoJ story, The Dispatch is reporting on it from the perspective of one of their writers who worked in the Trump DoJ, Sarah Isgur:
"In order to investigate anyone, you’re going to pull their toll records, meaning who they called, the numbers that they spoke to at the time you think the leak happened. So let’s say in that one-week period for this House staffer that they were investigating, they pulled 100 phone numbers that he interacted with in some way, that his cell phone interacted with. You’ve just got a bunch of 10-digit numbers David, you don’t know who they belong to. You don’t know what these numbers are. He could be calling for pizza. So what you do is you go to Apple and you say, ‘Here’s a subpoena, we need the account information for these 100 phone numbers,’ in order to figure out who is useless on that list, right? And if you are a House staffer, it is not surprising that two of the numbers that you might have called are members of the House."
More over at the Advisory Opinions podcast[1].
As much as I'd like to jump on the "Orange Man Bad" bandwagon with respect to the DoJ story (and boy, do I love opportunities to to disparage Trump!), this is one where I'm keeping my powder dry until we learn more about the subpoenas. The fact that Sessions, Barr, and Rosenstein are all denying any knowledge seems to be significant, especially with respect to Barr, who previously went to the mat for Trump for sillier things than this during his tenure.
As for the newsworthiness of Trump's re-ascension in August, I think that story is fair game, if only for the facts that significant numbers of Americans have been sucked into the newest grift and that we have a former President so ignorant of how our government works that he's publicly convinced he'll both be back and welcomed with open arms. For all the crap that I heard from family reciting right-wing media's claim that Obama was secretly planning to stick around for a third term (memory-holed alongside Operation: Jade Helm), spending some time on Trump's delusion doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Granted, I'd rather see CNN get back to more international reporting and leave the conspiracy stuff to Maddow, et al, but what bleeds leads.
As for crime reporting, as a resident of Chicago, there's no shortage of local[2] or national reporting[3] on our bounce-back in violent crime, so I think that Media-wise, we're set on that front. Also, as for your "Atlanta homicides are up 60% over 2020" and similar comparisons, keep in mind that a more useful comparison may be with 2019, given how weird a year 2020 was. I'm having a hard time finding news stories that include that comparison (again, "what bleeds leads"), so maybe The Racket can set a good example when it comes to crime-level comparisons in non-pandemic years. :-)
So in other words, the media is quoting what actual people said, and they’re “desperate” and at fault for doing so?
Are they biased unless they say what we want, when we want, and how we want it to be said?
I won’t be consumed with hating on the media. It’s kinda old. And I’m actually grateful for an imperfect entity of thousands of people trying to expose anything and everything they can. They sometimes get it wrong. They usually get it right. But they’re doing the hard work you and I won’t or can’t do. They’re generally more connected than you and I. And they have more checks and balances than you or I.
I call them out when I sniff BS, but I defend the monolith that conservatives constantly bash when it doesn’t confirm or conform.
Come on. Trumps political machine is trying to stir things up. And Flynn did actually call for a coup. Quoting what they and everyone says in between is not feeding a false narrative or trying to inflate their ratings. It’s just reportable.
Sometimes you’re doing to the media what you accuse them of doing to trump.
Must be a slow news day if we're resorting to Kicking The Media.
As for the DoJ story, The Dispatch is reporting on it from the perspective of one of their writers who worked in the Trump DoJ, Sarah Isgur:
"In order to investigate anyone, you’re going to pull their toll records, meaning who they called, the numbers that they spoke to at the time you think the leak happened. So let’s say in that one-week period for this House staffer that they were investigating, they pulled 100 phone numbers that he interacted with in some way, that his cell phone interacted with. You’ve just got a bunch of 10-digit numbers David, you don’t know who they belong to. You don’t know what these numbers are. He could be calling for pizza. So what you do is you go to Apple and you say, ‘Here’s a subpoena, we need the account information for these 100 phone numbers,’ in order to figure out who is useless on that list, right? And if you are a House staffer, it is not surprising that two of the numbers that you might have called are members of the House."
More over at the Advisory Opinions podcast[1].
As much as I'd like to jump on the "Orange Man Bad" bandwagon with respect to the DoJ story (and boy, do I love opportunities to to disparage Trump!), this is one where I'm keeping my powder dry until we learn more about the subpoenas. The fact that Sessions, Barr, and Rosenstein are all denying any knowledge seems to be significant, especially with respect to Barr, who previously went to the mat for Trump for sillier things than this during his tenure.
As for the newsworthiness of Trump's re-ascension in August, I think that story is fair game, if only for the facts that significant numbers of Americans have been sucked into the newest grift and that we have a former President so ignorant of how our government works that he's publicly convinced he'll both be back and welcomed with open arms. For all the crap that I heard from family reciting right-wing media's claim that Obama was secretly planning to stick around for a third term (memory-holed alongside Operation: Jade Helm), spending some time on Trump's delusion doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Granted, I'd rather see CNN get back to more international reporting and leave the conspiracy stuff to Maddow, et al, but what bleeds leads.
As for crime reporting, as a resident of Chicago, there's no shortage of local[2] or national reporting[3] on our bounce-back in violent crime, so I think that Media-wise, we're set on that front. Also, as for your "Atlanta homicides are up 60% over 2020" and similar comparisons, keep in mind that a more useful comparison may be with 2019, given how weird a year 2020 was. I'm having a hard time finding news stories that include that comparison (again, "what bleeds leads"), so maybe The Racket can set a good example when it comes to crime-level comparisons in non-pandemic years. :-)
[1] https://advisoryopinions.thedispatch.com/p/doj-lawmaker-subpoenas-explained
[2] https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/05/28/lightfoot-chicago-summer-violence/
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/us/rising-crime-homicides-mayors.html
So in other words, the media is quoting what actual people said, and they’re “desperate” and at fault for doing so?
Are they biased unless they say what we want, when we want, and how we want it to be said?
I won’t be consumed with hating on the media. It’s kinda old. And I’m actually grateful for an imperfect entity of thousands of people trying to expose anything and everything they can. They sometimes get it wrong. They usually get it right. But they’re doing the hard work you and I won’t or can’t do. They’re generally more connected than you and I. And they have more checks and balances than you or I.
I call them out when I sniff BS, but I defend the monolith that conservatives constantly bash when it doesn’t confirm or conform.
Come on. Trumps political machine is trying to stir things up. And Flynn did actually call for a coup. Quoting what they and everyone says in between is not feeding a false narrative or trying to inflate their ratings. It’s just reportable.
Sometimes you’re doing to the media what you accuse them of doing to trump.
Think about it.