MONDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2024
As noted, the chaos is general: Plainly, Gilda Radner was right. Quite plainly, it's always something!
Today, our utility company conducted another "Planned Outage" in our area. This took our power out for roughly eight hours. With it went the ability to post the report we previewed this morning.
We'll postpone that report until tomorrow. For now, this quick overview:
Everybody makes mistakes. This now includes Jake Tapper!
On yesterday's State of the Union, during his interview with Speaker Mike Johnson, Tapper aired a piece of videotape which had been heavily—and disastrously—edited.
At issue was the response by Candidate Trump, one week before, to a question from Maria Bartiromo. We showed you the text of Bartiromo's question at the start of this morning's report. After a bit of (heavy) editing, Tapper played videotape of one small part of Trump's reply. He didn't play any part of Bartiromo's original question.
Thanks to this textbook terrible editing, viewers had no way of knowing what Bartiromo had actually asked. The editing had also removed the part of Trump's answer which showed what he was specifically talking about when he gave his reply.
This was truly terrible editing. That said, it allowed Tapper to present his own account of what Trump had actually meant in the part of his statement which survived the edit. been saying. Tapper then proceeded to criticize Johnson when Johnson's answer came much closer to being accurate than the account Tapper insisted on giving.
Around here, between the three-day storm-related WiFi Wipeout and planned outages by our utility, the disconnects from modernity are becoming general.
Also, there was the catastrophic cyberattack on the invaluable Internet Archive, which took the Archive down. This other outage has badly restricted our ability to report the disgraceful parody of journalism being conducted, day and night, by the Fox News Channel.
(You'll never learn about what they're doing by reading the New York Times.)
That said, Hallelujah! As our power has returned, we now see that the Internet Archive is up and running again, though it looks like eleven days of material may perhaps have been lost.
We hope the Archive will soon return to normal functioning. That said, Tapper's edit—and his account of what Trump said—were just remarkably bogus.
Full disclosure:
There's a good chance that you won't want to believe that! That said, insistence on the infallibility of one's own tribe doesn't make such a fantasy true.
Tapper's bungled interaction with Johnson was hailed by one and all on today's Morning Joe. Over here in Blue America, our own tribe is partisan too. Our tribe is prone to the (journalistic) sins that flesh is heir to.
That said, the Fox News Channel is conducting a journalistic fraud on the larger society. You'll never learn anything about that from reading the timorous New York Times.
WiFi and electricity and the Archive oh my! That said, the Internat Archive seems to be returning to life. We ourselves will return on the morrow.
Dementia Bob.
ReplyDeleteAsking Trump about the possibility of chaos on election day is pointless. None of us know the future.
ReplyDeleteAsking Johnson about Trump's answer to this question is even stupider. Aren't there any real issues viewers would like to know?
Sure, like why wasn’t Trump tried for leading an insurrection against the United States? Lincoln would have put habeas corpus in abeyance a second time to deal with the traitor.
DeleteGiven that Trump organized the violence on 1/6, he is obviously the right person to ask about whether there will be violence this time around. I consider this an important issue because no one should vote for a candidate who attempted such violence in an effort to overturn a previous election. What is more important than this? Should we instead be asking whether Arnold Palmer was a very strong man or not?
DeleteA Russian propaganda unit is colluding with Trump supporters to produce fake stories against Walz:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wired.com/story/russian-propaganda-unit-storm-1516-false-tim-walz-sexual-abuse-claims/
Elon Musk is giving a million dollars for people to register to vote (or something), plus he’s producing and promoting fake Harris ads.
DeleteYou have been propagandized. You rush to announce and probably believe "a Russian propaganda unit is colluding with Trump supporters to produce fake stories against Walz!!!!"
DeleteBut the supporting evidence says:
"A Russian propaganda unit appears to be behind spread of false Tim Walz sexual abuse claims", "Experts believe, A Russian propaganda unit appears to be behind spread of false Tim Walz sexual abuse claims." Their source says “We believe that it might be a coordinated campaign in [an] attempt to bring numerous false accusations of the same nature against Tim Walz. and "The false narrative appears to be part of a wider campaign pushed by pro-Kremlin media and QAnon influencers ahead of the November 5, 2024,"
And then it ends with a quote from Clint Watts! Oh my.
https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1619029772977455105
So it goes from their words: Experts believe a Russian propaganda unit might be colluding with Trump supporters to produce fake stories against Walz.
To your gushing "They ARE!"
You just showed us exactly how propaganda works. The Wired piece is propaganda and it affected you in the exact way it was intended to. And it comes from Wired's "disinformation " reporter which is another tell you are reading propaganda.
Watch out for these words so you don't get taken again:
likely
possibly
could have
may have
suggests
suggest
appears to
alleges
indicates
It reminds me of the scary report about "Havana Syndrome" that came out a week before Congress was going to vote on giving Ukraine getting more of our billions of dollars where a gushing report said (for those that read it and didn't just go to blogs to post it as gospel truth) "The investigation suggests that it may be linked to possible sonic weaponry from Russia."
DeleteUsing a record three propaganda qualifiers in one sentence! The Charlie Browns were fooled for a couple of days, the military industrial complex got their money and no one ever brought it up again. They'll pull it out again next time when they need it though.
I prefer to think of this as counter-propaganda, since no one wins anything if Wired is wrong but the American voting public loses a great deal if they are correct. Shall we all wait a few years until there is an investigation and the Russians are proven to be behind these efforts (as occurred in 2016), or shall we give Walz the benefit of the doubt and believe that when an identity is stolen in order to fabricate a story accusing Walz of abuse, it may not be factual. Yes, I used words like "may not" in my sentence.
DeleteWe humans deal in probabilities, not proof. We make many assumptions based on plausible evidence, not ironclad. We trade-off the consequences of believing one way against the possible damage of believing another way, and take the most self-protective path.
I find these abuse stories to be entirely incompatible with Walz's other information. I also do not believe the Harris campaign wouldn't have vetted Walz and wouldn't have allowed him on the campaign if such suspicions were lingering in his past. I know that Russia and Trump via his despicable MAGA minions have spread dirt like this before. That adds up to a high likelihood that this is not propaganda but an exposed dirty trick perpetrated by the same MAGA scum as have done any number of other attacks, some proven and others not yet investigated.
So I am not going to let those journalistic weasel-words push me into believing another fake scandal that makes no sense on its face other than as a very dirty campaign attack by Trump's people, who cannot run a normal campaign and so much buy as much other momentum as they can find.
I care that Trump sent covid testing equipment to Putin instead of our hospitals. That is proven, by Putin's own word. Why would this be untrue when Trump has done stuff like that?
I don't respond to idiots, no offense.
DeleteSomeone who never believes anything written in probabilistic language is a fool. You are ultimately pushed to Somerby's corner where he feels compelled to say that anything is possible and can never make a definitive statement about anything.
DeletePropaganda definition: "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"
Notice that the definition has nothing to do with the truth value of the information -- it can be true or false -- but it speaks to the motives of spreading the info, which is to promote a cause or point of view.
I admit that my purpose here much of the time is to promote Harris and to express the point of view that Somerby is not what he seems and often is spreading bullshit. But that doesn't mean my statements are false because they have a motive. So, automatically calling other people's words "propaganda" because they use tentative language does not fall within the definition of that word and is not necessarily motivated but may just be hedging because of uncertainty. And uncertainty is inherent in all speech to a degree because, as Somerby so often notes, we do not know things with 100% certainty and anything is possible. (I disagree that anything is possible but many things are possible even if unlikely and some that are likely will not occur. That is what it means to be living in a probabilistic world instead of a certain one.
The existence of sonic weaponry in Havana has not been ruled out. It also has not been proven. However, there were mysterious illnesses in Havana. Their existence was proven. So, I don't see how this example helps anyone's case who is trying to argue that Russia isn't helping Trump win this election, as Putin did in 2016.
Delete"I don't respond to idiots, no offense."
DeleteName-calling is not any kind of argument. If you can't respond, just go away. No one will mind.
Anonymouse 7:25pm, on this blogboard, generally (always)…what probabilistic language means is that you’re floating an extremely negative interpretation of Bob’s words or motives, but since you wish to sound…somewhat…less dogmatic, malign, and psycho, you temper it with your weasel words.
DeleteI don’t think you understand the discussion, so better if you sit this one out.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:30pm, it’s…almost… as though you’ve gotten defensive…Perhaps… you’re not entirely aware of your underhanded habits.
Delete….Could…it be that you’re this out of touch?…
7:14,
DeleteNo Republican voter really cares about something other than bigotry and white supremacy.
"Plainly, Gilda Radner was right."
ReplyDeleteWhat did she say? I haven't seen the new movie yet. Shouldn't Somerby tell us what she was right about, if he is going to refer to her at all?
Anonymouse 6:43pm, should he or shouldn’t he?
DeleteHe should of course. But he didn’t.
DeleteAnonymouse 8:29pm, “It’s always something.”
Delete"Thanks to this textbook terrible editing, viewers had no way of knowing what Bartiromo had actually asked."
ReplyDeleteGiven that Trump did not respond to her specific question, it doesn't matter what Bartiromo actually asked.
Trump is going to win because Democrats installed a DEI nominee.
ReplyDeleteThe worst personality to run against Trump because all of her unlikable traits that caused Democrats to reject her before are the polar opposite of his appealing traits. You get what you see like it or not with Trump. She's a fraud. At least Hillary could speak coherently about issues.
Why are Harris's favorability ratings so much higher than Trump's?
DeleteAnonymouse 6:53pm, she has no record of doing anything. She was the VP and that means she sat in her office all day doing nothing or she occasionally came out to break a tie in the senate.
DeleteThat’s why everyone likes her?
DeleteAnonymouse 8:28pm, no beefs.
Delete7:45,
DeleteMeh.
Kamala Harris could cure cancer, and Republican voters will still vote for Trump, because he gives them the bigotry they crave.
"That said, Tapper's edit—and his account of what Trump said—were just remarkably bogus. "
ReplyDeleteTapper's edit is bogus, according to Somerby. Tapper's account of what Trump said is bogus too, according to Somerby.
How about what Trump actually said? Is that bogus? Why does Somerby not tell us about that? It almost sounds like Somerby is undermining Tapper in order to rehabilitate Trump's bogus statement itself. Is that what a self-described Harris supporter would be doing in the two weeks leading up to the election, a time in which many people are already voting?
Should Somerby be pretending that Trump doesn't make bogus statements, or implying that it is Tapper who makes Trump sound bogus, not Trump's own bogosity?
Is there anyone here, including Trump supporters, who doesn't recognize that Trump says highly bogus things every time he opens his mouth? Why then is it so important to waste time telling us that Somerby thinks Tapper may have misquoted the full extent of Trump's bogus-ness?
What if Harris had a relentless defender, like Somerby, who would jump to her side whenever anyone missed the mark (in Somerby's opinion)? Might she not have to waste time defending her employment record at McDonalds? And is this stuff really when Somerby thinks voter election decisions should rest upon? Whether or not Tapper said something not quite right?
"Tapper's bungled interaction with Johnson was hailed by one and all on today's Morning Joe. Over here in Blue America, our own tribe is partisan too. Our tribe is prone to the (journalistic) sins that flesh is heir to."
ReplyDeleteSomerby never says what the bungling was, much less what Johnson said. I am not prepared to believe that Morning Joe is wrong, partison or heir to any sins when Somerby cannot even take a minute to quote Johnson. This is too lame of Somerby, no matter his excuse about power being off.
During covid, when my power went off at home, I drove to the nearest McDonald's, where I could use their internet to post whatever I needed. Somerby could do the same, so this excuse doesn't wash. He comes across as too lazy to do his accused the courtesy of quoting their bogus statements. That isn't how serious people do anything.
Public libraries have internet access too. Is it possible that Somerby doesn't know where his nearest public library is?
Delete"That said, the Fox News Channel is conducting a journalistic fraud on the larger society. You'll never learn anything about that from reading the timorous New York Times."
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times is not timorous. It is part of the fraud itself.
Instead of obsessing over Jake Tapper's statement (which Somerby cannot even look up and repeat here), Somerby might discuss Trump's rally statement today:
ReplyDelete"Trump said he would invoke a law, the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to speed up deportations.
"Think of that, 1798," he told the crowd. "That's when we had real politicians that said, we're not going to play games."
"We have to go back to 1798 to target and dismantle every migrant criminal network operating on American soil," Trump added.
Activists pointed out that 1790-era policies had some drawbacks.
"By 1798, politicians had made it legal to own slaves and illegal for women to vote in America," American Bridge noted on X (formerly Twitter)." [Rawstory]
Why would any semi-conscious voter support a candidate who said he wanted to go back to a time when slavery was legal and before women could vote, to restore our country to when America was great? How is this in any way defensible? Tapper doesn't have to misquote Trump -- Trump hangs himself whenever he opens his mouth.
"Why would any semi-conscious voter support a candidate who said he wanted to go back to a time when slavery was legal and before women could vote, to restore our country to when America was great? "
DeleteTo troll dupes like yourself.
Trump is trolling? No, he is lying to get the neanderthal vote.
Delete