Member of The Internet Defense League

Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Revealing: Wall St. Journal Editor Explains His Hesitancy to Use the Word ‘Lie’ When It Comes to Trump


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"I'd be careful using the word 'lie'… It implies a deliberate intent to mislead."


Much like the New York Times and the Washington Post, President-elect Donald Trump targeted the Wall Street Journal on the campaign trail.

“I'm not a believer of the Wall Street Journal, I think it's a piece of garbage, it's going to lose a fortune, don't work,” Trump said on February 19, 2016 at a rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.

“Don't worry, it'll be out of business like all the rest of them very soon,” Trump added.

Wall Street Journal Editor-in-Chief Gerard Baker is used to Trump's attacks by now, or as he calls it, “strange, tough love.”

“He'd attack our reporters individually, anything we'd done, anything he didn't like, and then at the same time you also know how much he actually reads the newspaper or watches TV,” Baker told MSNBC's Chuck Todd about Trump. But Baker is still hesitant to call out Trump's lies. Here's why: “I’d be careful using the word ‘lie’,” Baker told Todd.

“Lie implies much more than just saying something that’s false. It implies a deliberate intent to mislead.”

Baker would prefer to investigate Trump's outlandish claims and gave the example of Trump's lie regarding “thousands” of American Muslims being seen celebrating 9/11. Otherwise, he feels the publication risks objectivity.

“I think if you start ascribing a moral intent, as it were, to someone by saying that they’ve lied,” Baker said. “I think you run the risk that you look like you are — like you’re not being objective.”

Baker wants the reader to be trusted to make up his or her own mind while reading the Wall Street Journal and their writers' social media posts.

“If our readers see that you're saying scathing things about Donald Trump on Twitter or they see you on TV saying things in a commentary way, that appear to be very critical and hostile to Donald Trump, they're not going to trust you.”

“I was very concerned that we be seen to be fair.. to all candidates,” Baker concluded.

“Imagine a Sane Donald Trump,” read one Wall Street Journal headline two weeks before the election, followed by the question: “You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?”

Here PolitiFact rates 69% of Trump’s public statements as Mostly False, and just 4% as True.

Watch:


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j0pxLz
via IFTTT


Cop Gives Teen Caught With Marijuana Bizarre Choice: Do 200 Push-Ups or Go to Jail


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


"He could have very well arrested this teen," said Arlington Lt. Cook about the unnamed 17-year-old.


Arlington police officer officer Eric Ball was working off-duty when he received a tip about a teenager smoking weed, and proceeded to follow the scent. 

“Marijuana gives [off] a distinct odor. He knew what the teen was up to,” said Arlington police lieutenant Chris Cook of officer Ball.

After realizing he'd made a mistake, 17-year-old was surprised to hear Ball's punishment of choice. 

“He said, 'You give me 200 push-ups, I won't put you in jail,” said Lt. Cook. “He could have very well arrested this teen, but instead he tried to do something better,” said Lt. Cook about the unnamed teen.

“I would have made him do more push-ups,” the boy's mother said regarding the officer's actions.

While officer Ball was inspired by the discipline on his high school football team, exercising on marijuana may actually be better for you. One California gym even allows its members to smoke weed while they work out; a world's first. 

Raiza Paredez posted video documentation of the alternative punishment, which has since received over 200,000 views.  

“Big UP's to the Arlington Police Officer that made the young black guy that decided to smoke weed on the movie theater parking lot to do push-ups then take him to jail or shoot him just Cuz. We need more cops like this. #Policeeverywhereneedtotakenotes #ArlingtonPoliceDept,” Paredez wrote.

http://ift.tt/2ipRX0K


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2iBfyeP
via IFTTT


NPR’s Michele Norris: ‘Make a America Great Again’ Is Deeply Encoded ‘Promise of White Prosperity’


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


Norris argued that Trump’s “Make American Great Again” slogan misses the mark for addressing current reality in the United States.


NPR host Michele Norris pointed out over the weekend that President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is a “deeply encoded” message that troubles minorities while promising prosperity to white Americans.

During a Face the Nation panel discussion on resisting Trump’s agenda, conservative columnist David Frum offered a sobering assessment about how the new president would impact the country.

“I am hopeful that Americans will rise to this challenge,” Frum said. “I think the message that they do not need to hear is, ‘Don’t worry, your grandparents rose to the challenge and therefore you can stay on the couch.'”

“I don’t think we do people a service by saying, ‘You know, there have been bad things in the American past before,'” the former speechwriter for George W. Bush continued. “This is our bad thing and it’s about a bad a thing as has happened in any of our lifetimes.”

Norris argued that Trump’s “Make American Great Again” slogan misses the mark for addressing current reality in the United States.

“In the phrase ‘Make America Great Again’ there’s one word that if you are a person of color, that you sort of stumble over, and it’s the word ‘again’.” Norris observed. “Because you’re talking about going back to a time that was not very comfortable for people of color. They did not have opportunities, they were relegated to the back of the line.”

“And this was a country that — to be honest — was built on the promise of white prosperity above everything else,” she added. “And for a lot of people, when they hear that message, ‘Make America Great Again,’ deeply encoded in that message is a return to a time where white Americans can assume a certain amount of prosperity.”

According to Norris, Trump’s win was made possible by white people who feel like they are “not at the front of the line.”

“And Donald Trump was able to tap into a message where people felt a lot of discomfort,” she noted. “That is somewhat retrograde. I mean, fear is not our brand in America. And that is so much sort of the bright vein that ran though the campaign.”

 


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!



 

Related Stories

from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2j03FQt
via IFTTT


My Shortlist of Political New Year’s Resolutions: A Guide to Staying Sane in 2017


[Reuse options]
Click here for reuse options!


Yeah, 2016 was hard — and 2017 could be harder. Here are three resolutions I'm undertaking to preserve my sanity.


Everyone, well everyone with sense, can agree on this: 2016 was a vile, no-good year that can go suck eggs. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe that 2017 will be treating us no better. In fact it is quite likely, with President Donald Trump in the White House, to be a waking nightmare from which there is no escape.

Under the circumstances, it’s wise to grab control of what you can, and in that spirit, I’ll be doing something I almost never do: making New Year’s resolutions. Not to exercise more or eat less or play with my cats more, but to manage my political life a little better, with an eye toward not going barking mad at the sheer idiocy of it all.

So here are some steps I’ll be taking, or trying to anyway, to make what will already be a stressful situation a little more manageable.

1. No more attention given to dudes who want to relitigate the Democratic primary. I learned at a young age to avoid these types of guys, when they were claiming that Courtney killed Kurt or arguing that Missy Elliott isn’t a proper rapper, but thanks to our nifty age of social media, the insecure-yet-opinionated bros of the world can continue spewing their bilious rage about Hillary Clinton winning the primary in my direction. I know better, and yet sometimes the urge to argue against the unrelenting stupidity kicks in and I shame myself by talking at men I know full well will never, ever listen to a woman.

In 2017, for my own sake, it’s time to silently block and move on. And not read the comments. It’s painful to be reminded that so many men on the supposed left are so hung up about gender, but having learned the extent of the problem, there’s no reason to keep torturing myself. Let them go massage each other on The Intercept. I’m done.

2. A strict outrage diet for Donald Trump’s culture war antics. I’m not one of those liberals who shrugs off culture-war issues as a sideshow distracting from real politics, to be clear. On the contrary, I’m the first to argue that there’s important political meaning in battles over what the guys on “Duck Dynasty” said or whether or not Beyoncé was right to proclaim her feminism. These culture-war fights touch on some of the deepest political issues of our time, even if the trappings are frivolous.

But it’s become clear that Trump’s provocations — from the Mike Pence “Hamilton” fiasco to whatever asinine thing he’s saying on Twitter this week — are rooted in his reality-TV background and his understanding that glib provocation is a great way to sow chaos that both distracts from and helps dismantle our democracy. So my goal is, every time Trump is spouting distracting culture war nonsense, to start looking for whatever, usually more serious, story he’s trying to distract the public from.

 

Taking potshots at Trump is, of course, too delicious a temptation to be refrained from wholly. This is not a pledge to abstain. But not letting our country devolve into a reality TV show is an important goal, and I want to do my part.

3. Having a life outside politics. I pride myself on being someone who has a life outside of politics, who tries to engage in art, music, books and games that aren’t enmeshed in the day-to-day news cycle. That’s been hard to keep up in 2016, which is one reason I gave up putting together my annual playlist of my favorite music of the year. Frankly, I didn’t keep up with it enough this year.

But with Trump ripping through our democracy like a tornado, it’s doubly important to remember that there are things in this world that aren’t terrible. So it’s important to take the time to read a novel or go to a museum or listen to a record the whole way through.

Things are stressful these days, so I’m giving myself permission to go light with the entertainment, if that’s what I need. I don’t need to watch that tearjerker movie that will rack up all the Oscars and leave me more stressed than I was before I saw it. Watching “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” or geeking out on the latest Marvel movie is likely going to be a lot of what goes on in 2017. But the important thing is to give myself a break when I need it. Because things are going to be hard enough in the real world.

New Year’s resolutions are notoriously hard to keep, of course, and that’s one reason I hesitate to make these at all, even less share them. But the ugliness of 2016 should serve as a reminder to be a little easier on yourself and on each other. Maybe these ideas will inspire you to draft your own road map toward staying sane in 2017, as we enter the age of Trump.

 


[Reuse options]Click here for reuse options!


from AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed http://ift.tt/2iZXxHX
via IFTTT