Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Goldhammer]

The WP is left and anti-Trump.   I read their news articles all the time.  Their readership is 97% anti Trump and vile when they post responses to WP articles on the web.   Unlike the NY TImes, the WP doesn't review before allowing the posts to post.  The NYT is also 97% anti Trump. But their  reader's posts are more sophisticated with less cursing due to their moderators.  The most biased part is not their opinion page.  I could care less about that.  It's their news section that's biased.  The part that's repeated throughout the world.  Of course, if you believe as they do, you see everything they do as balanced.  The same thing happened in 2016 when Washington insiders just couldn't understand middle America supporting Trump.  They still can't.

It's a total waste of time to look at reader's comments in any on-line newspaper.  I don't read comment on either the WaPo or NYT website.  Regarding the news section of the WaPo, they do a pretty good job of calling out Trump's constant lies.  Do you think this is not appropriate?  They have been dogged about reporting on the various cabinet members.  For someone who campaigned on draining the swamp, President Trump has done little to accomplish this.  He surrounds himself with syncophants and then gets rid of them when they are not fawning enough.  He has incompetent family members as key advisors (did you take a look at Jared Kushner's economic development plan for the Palestinians?).   

You are wrong about people not understanding why Trump won the election.  I knew the minute Sanders entered the race against Clinton that she would have great difficulty winning in November.  Had one of the more mainstream Republicans won the nomination it would not have been as close an election.

[Robert Roaldi]

The WP is left and anti-Trump.   I read their news articles all the time.  Their readership is 97% anti Trump and vile when they post responses to WP articles on the web.   Unlike the NY TImes, the WP doesn't review before allowing the posts to post.  The NYT is also 97% anti Trump. But their  reader's posts are more sophisticated with less cursing due to their moderators.  The most biased part is not their opinion page.  I could care less about that.  It's their news section that's biased.  The part that's repeated throughout the world.  Of course, if you believe as they do, you see everything they do as balanced.  The same thing happened in 2016 when Washington insiders just couldn't understand middle America supporting Trump.  They still can't.

It is a logical error to claim that a publication is anti-Trump just because they often come out against him. They may feel that they have perfectly good reasons to criticize things he does. Btw, it is the job of the press to critically examine what people in power are doing.

The press is NOT the marketing department of the administration.

And as I've repeated many many times, the more politicians complain about the press, the more convinced I am that they're doing a good job.

[Alan Klein]

It is a logical error to claim that a publication is anti-Trump just because they often come out against him. They may feel that they have perfectly good reasons to criticize things he does. Btw, it is the job of the press to critically examine what people in power are doing.

The press is NOT the marketing department of the administration.

And as I've repeated many many times, the more politicians complain about the press, the more convinced I am that they're doing a good job.

Newspapers are not suppose to criticize.  They're suppose to report the news, not take sides.  That's what good journalism is about. Criticism should  be reserved for the op-ed section, not page 1. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Newspapers are not suppose to criticize.  They're suppose to report the news, not take sides.

The moment Trump stops lying, they do not have to report that he's lying.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

It's a total waste of time to look at reader's comments in any on-line newspaper.  I don't read comment on either the WaPo or NYT website.  Regarding the news section of the WaPo, they do a pretty good job of calling out Trump's constant lies.  Do you think this is not appropriate?  They have been dogged about reporting on the various cabinet members.  For someone who campaigned on draining the swamp, President Trump has done little to accomplish this.  He surrounds himself with syncophants and then gets rid of them when they are not fawning enough.  He has incompetent family members as key advisors (did you take a look at Jared Kushner's economic development plan for the Palestinians?).   

You are wrong about people not understanding why Trump won the election.  I knew the minute Sanders entered the race against Clinton that she would have great difficulty winning in November.  Had one of the more mainstream Republicans won the nomination it would not have been as close an election.

No it's not.  You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are. When 95+% of the responses are anti-Trump and liberal, you understand why the newspaper is also.  They write for their customers.  It's the same with cable news.  They produce for their viewership too.

[Alan Klein]

The moment Trump stops lying, they do not have to report that he's lying.

Cheers,
Bart

You told me two years ago that you found Reuters to report the news more fairly.  So I've been taking your advice and reading them.  You were right.  They are less biased and present the news in an old-fashioned journalistic way.  Unlike the NY Times and the Washington Post.  You ought to take your own advice. 

[faberryman]

No it's not.  You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are.

I don't think the comments on the left leaning websites are any worse than the comments on the right leaning websites. Pick your poison.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You told me two years ago that you found Reuters to report the news more fairly.  So I've been taking your advice and reading them.  You were right.  They are less biased and present the news in an old-fashioned journalistic way.  Unlike the NY Times and the Washington Post.  You ought to take your own advice.

Trump accuses Democratic congresswomen of hating America, says they can leave
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats-whitehouse/trump-accuses-democratic-congresswomen-of-hating-america-says-they-can-leave-idUSKCN1UA1Y7

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday defended his attacks against four Democratic congresswomen, saying he was not concerned if people thought his tweets toward them were racist and accused the U.S. lawmakers of hating America.

Trump defiant as lawmakers blast his 'racist' attacks on four congresswomen
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats/trump-defiant-as-lawmakers-blast-his-racist-attacks-on-four-congresswomen-idUSKCN1U90H7

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump doubled down on his attacks against four minority U.S. congresswomen on Monday and dismissed concerns that his comments were racist, prompting outrage from Democrats, who moved to condemn him in the House of Representatives.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

I don't think the comments on the left leaning websites are any worse than the comments on the right leaning websites. Pick your poison.

I'm sure you're right.  However, the problem is much of the world thinks that the Washington Post and the NY Times reports the news in a balanced way.  They don't.  Since these papers are considered important, the world often gets a distorted view of what's going on here.  They influence voters here and leaders and people in the rest of the world.  Trump supporters have understood this for years.  That's why they respond to his comments about "fake news" with such support. 

[Alan Klein]

Trump accuses Democratic congresswomen of hating America, says they can leave
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats-whitehouse/trump-accuses-democratic-congresswomen-of-hating-america-says-they-can-leave-idUSKCN1UA1Y7


Trump defiant as lawmakers blast his 'racist' attacks on four congresswomen
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-democrats/trump-defiant-as-lawmakers-blast-his-racist-attacks-on-four-congresswomen-idUSKCN1U90H7
 

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, So I found another Reuters article that shows Trump in a different and better light.  The point is Reuters cover different aspects fairly.You won't find headlines like this in the NYT or WP.
"Trump says a lot of progress has been made with Iran"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-trump/trump-says-a-lot-of-progress-has-been-made-with-iran-idUSKCN1UB24Y

[faberryman]

I'm sure you're right.  However, the problem is much of the world thinks that the Washington Post and the NY Times reports the news in a balanced way.  They don't.  Since these papers are considered important, the world often gets a distorted view of what's going on here.  They influence voters here and leaders and people in the rest of the world.  Trump supporters have understood this for years.  That's why they respond to his comments about "fake news" with such support.

Then the right needs a paper that is "considered important." I don't see any compelling candidates at the moment. Quit whining and get to work.

[Alan Goldhammer]

No it's not.  You get a good idea who reads their newspapers and what the newspaper's views are. When 95+% of the responses are anti-Trump and liberal, you understand why the newspaper is also.  They write for their customers.  It's the same with cable news.  They produce for their viewership too.

95% are anonymous and one can have multiple accounts to post from on the WaPo site.  It's very much different from the NY Times.

[Alan Klein]

Then the right needs a paper that is "considered important." I don't see any compelling candidates at the moment. Quit whining and get to work.

So you approve that journalists should provide biased news?

[faberryman]

So you approve that journalists should provide biased news?

It only seems to be biased if you don’t approve of it.

[Alan Klein]

It only seems to be biased if you don’t approve of it.

not true.   Articles can be written without to much editorializing.  Also,  editor's can present articles that balance out the differences.   For example,  you can have a particular study of how climate changes is damaging the environment.   Than have another that shows how it's helping certain species.   If all you show is one or the otherall the time,  then your paper is biased.

[Rob C]

Alan, has it ever struck you that were you to be a newspaper, you would come across as the most biased one on Earth?

Rob

[Alan Goldhammer]

Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker, has an interesting op-ed this morning.  She discusses the Tweet storm of the last several days against 'The Squad' and thinks that President Trump might be doing this as a sleight of hand distraction to keep attention from wandering to something he doesn't want people to think about.  Her theory is that the President wants to draw attention away from Jeffery Epstein who was recently arrested in New York.  Police recovered some interesting things in the safe of his apartment, including a fake passport and address in Saudi Arabia.

"The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.

Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now."  writes Parker.

[Rob C]

Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker, has an interesting op-ed this morning.  She discusses the Tweet storm of the last several days against 'The Squad' and thinks that President Trump might be doing this as a sleight of hand distraction to keep attention from wandering to something he doesn't want people to think about.  Her theory is that the President wants to draw attention away from Jeffery Epstein who was recently arrested in New York.  Police recovered some interesting things in the safe of his apartment, including a fake passport and address in Saudi Arabia.

"The bogus passport opens a Pandora’s box of questions. Who knows what Epstein was up to? Who else might be implicated? All those diamonds and cash suggest that Epstein was prepared to leave suddenly.

Who knows? Somebody. Maybe several somebodies. But 2020 is a long way off — and anyone who was ever connected to Epstein must be sweating grenades about now."  writes Parker.

If there is a hidden agenda, I would bet that he will escape unscathed.

If he were to go down, does anyone imagine he'd go quietly and alone? He's safe.

[RSL]

Conservative Washington Post columnist, Kathleen Parker. . .

Eh! Say again. . .

[Alan Klein]

deleted