Week 3. What will this week bring? Trump thread

[amispartacus]

Continued

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2846025-Trump-thread-continued-Who-rules-the-USA-Vote-now

I think the Washington post article has links to US coverage.

If EVERY attack / gun incident / shooting / bombing in the WORLD was covered to a high level, what would that do to a society?

And who would read it?

I listen to French news and its coverage of foreign affairs is very diffirent to UK news. Predictably it is much more focused on News that relates to France, ex- French colonies and news involving French people.

No newspaper or TV programme covers all the news.

It's always possible to debate editorial decisions - why does Farage seem to dominate the news?
However, I think Trump was just talking trash and the WH now has to back him up.

This link compares the coverage of the Paris attack in the US (extensive) and in Beirut at a similar time (hardly any and minimising).

So, yes, some terrorist attacks are not as covered, but certainly not those in Europe.

Once again very grateful for this thread and everyone that's providing new links and tweets and whatnot - haven't followed current affairs with this much interest since I was in University.

Just waiting for Trump to infect my dreams next shudders

I think it's a terrorist attack on a terrorist target? Retaliation?

Traditionally, U.S. media has been very inwards-looking - I managed to accidentally cause An Atmosphere as a 4yo by asking why the family friend we were staying with in D.C. had British newspapers sent out to him & watching the news on TV (admittedly it is now several years since I've been to the States & thus sat & watched the news properly) is a completely different experience to doing so in the U.K. (or indeed elsewhere in Europe). They've got a bloody big country to cover though, which goes some way to explaining what tends to be criticised/dismissed as insularity. My friends in the U.S. pretty much all look to foreign media for foreign news though - mostly the BBC. Obviously they're a small sample size, I'm not trying to claim that this is true everywhere, the plural of anecdote is not data etc. As far as media coverage of things goes, one of my friends on FB makes a point of posting about terror attacks that she feels aren't receiving enough media attention - but Trump wouldn't want to talk about them, because they're ones where Muslims are the [majority of the] victims...

(Sorry, this is a bit meandery & possibly not worth posting. But it was a bugger to write with fingers I can't feel properly, so...)

Zebra - spot on.

These are the best tweets. Just great. Terrific.

@realDonaldTrump "What is happening in Europe and the Middle East"? Can you be more specific? Brexit? Football? HUMMUS??

@TJFixman @ezydayzy I would like to know why the media never covered the Hummus Bombing.?Is there hummus among us?...

Odds Trump doesn't know difference between hummus & Hamas, anyone?

I wonder if we don't pride ourselves far too much on our media. Perhaps it used to be great, but it certainly isn't any longer. The BBC are supine these days and kept in utter check by the threat of licence fee withdrawal, and everywhere you look the economic and political viewpoint is roughly the same: there is no real opposition, no real alternative, no real battle of opposing views. Everything is capitalist and centrist. We compare unfavourably to Germany, I think - I am always shocked on reading even the centre-right German press about how very much more reasonable the tone is, and how much higher the level of debate and discussion. We are

So, yes, some terrorist attacks are not as covered, but certainly not those in Europe

When is a terror attack a terror attack?

Man attacks women with knife.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3697451/Mother-three-daughters-aged-8-14-STABBED-French-holiday-resort-scantily-dressed.html

Or

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36837108

Or

www.ledauphine.com/hautes-alpes/2016/08/06/famille-poignardee-le-suspect-a-mis-le-feu-a-sa-cellule

Was it terror? Or someone who had an issue with woman and who attacked them and happened to be Muslim?

Perhaps it used to be great, but it certainly isn't any longer

Our media is appallingly biased.

It is an interesting debate - what is news, what is newsworthy and how do you report news?

It's a massive debate - so much going on - and the filters we apply definitely affect our thinking.

If only certain attacks were mentioned - and others ignored - your view would be skewed.

I would love to have a sensible discussion on this with the President.

For a musical interlude:

www.facebook.com/RandyRainbowOfficial/videos/985784971523446/

Basically an attack is terrorist only if attacker is muslim. ami I don't believe twitler is capable of "sensible" discussions.

Or for watching on MN

Basically an attack is terrorist only if attacker is muslim.

But on the list, some attacks are listed as "US person(s)"

Not sure why.
Others just have the name of the attacker.

Weird list.

Basically an attack is terrorist only if attacker is muslim

And if a Muslim carries out an attack of any nature, it is a terror attack?

Yesterday, a man was shot dead in a supermarket. He was thought to be a shoplifter so a man shot him.

If the man had been a Muslim, would that have been a terrorist attack?

www.wesh.com/article/alleged-shoplifter-shot-at-pine-hills-walmart/8676747

Arthur Adams, 19, was shot and killed during the incident. Authorities said Adams was one of three people who entered a Walmart neighborhood market and took two grocery carts full of diapers without paying.

As an employee confronted the three alleged thieves in the parking lot, a customer saw the incident and went to help the employee. When one of the alleged thieves reportedly made a move like he was reaching for something, the customer pulled his gun and fired several shots at the suspected diaper thief.

OK, this is interesting that "the list" includes attacks which actually did have wall-to-wall rolling news coverage (as long as they were by the Wrong Sort of person, of course).

I've seen posters on MN make the same claim of cover up, about some of the same attacks. To a thread full of posters who must know it was false, as they'd probably watched the rolling coverage themselves.

I've also seen posters trying to claim a media coverup in the minutes between a breaking news banner and the update when more is known.

I've come to the conclusion that "don't trust the mainstream media - and certainly not the BBC or Guardian" is a specific message being pushed on MN. (Though whether by organised astroturfers or by just by people who've drunk their KoolAid, I couldn't say).

I worry that trump will jump to conclusions and act before more is known.

From 1984:

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge, which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control.

Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.

The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible

Interview with Milo on C4 news

Hi all, I am actually working today, hence the lack of constant posting on here

Have we had the guardian list of the list yet? It goes through what each incident is and some of the reporting on it. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/07/full-list-of-trump-under-reported-terror-attacks-and-how-they-were-reported

according to the trump tapes podcasts trump views himself as special and born to lead, intended for greatness, he would never want to have a sensible discussion with the common people.

He views himself as inherently and eminently Superior

Astonishing when you consider that he is clearly just not very bright, not to mention crass

Perhaps Melania will be the one to bring him down?

(Idle speculation- have no evidence!)

I've come to the conclusion that "don't trust the mainstream media - and certainly not the BBC or Guardian" is a specific message being pushed on MN.

I don't think this is specifically can MN thing. I think it is a general idea people have about both the BBC and the guardian. I find the BBC particularly interesting in this respect as I constantly hear left wingers complaining it is too right wing and right wingers complaining it is too leftwing. On occasion over exactly the same segment. The BBC has an impossible task of trying to please everyone all the time while remaining neutral and unbiased. I think it does a pretty good job though makes mistakes. There are presenters and programmes I think are better at it than others.

Newspapers are completely different. They are open about their biases and actively support a particular political view point. There is no pretence here. I have no shame in saying I read the guardian because I am a left leaning liberal and I like to read a paper that shares a lot of my concerns. I also read other papers and news sources. I don't go to the guardian or the mail for an unbiased opinion on the news. That's not what they do. People need to get better at looking across sources for different views and understanding where their information comes from.

Fresh news from Trweets:

Donald J. Trump ‏*@realDonaldTrump* 3 minhá 3 minutos
Mais
I don't know Putin, have no deals in Russia, and the haters are going crazy - yet Obama can make a deal with Iran, #1in terror, no problem!

Bigly in terror.