Khashoggi

[rogue06]

The media has, especially in recent years viewed themselves to be the most important people on the planet. God's chosen if you will. I really noticed it back when Daniel Pearl was murdered and it was all they could talk about. Never mind that many others were meeting the exact same fate, they were mere mortals so who cared about them. They were essentially shamed into having to mutter a few words in after thought about people like the missionary taken a couple years earlier also being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in the Philippines at nearly the same time.

[oxmixmudd]

The media has, especially in recent years viewed themselves to be the most important people on the planet. God's chosen if you will. I really noticed it back when Daniel Pearl was murdered and it was all they could talk about. Never mind that many others were meeting the exact same fate, they were mere mortals so who cared about them. They were essentially shamed into having to mutter a few words in after thought about people like the missionary taken a couple years earlier also being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in the Philippines at nearly the same time.

The press performs an important service to freedom, and they often put their lives on the line to do it. In that sense they, as do those in the police, or the military, or other public service jobs where their life is on the line, deserve a certain honor when they give their lives in the course of their service. Additionally, that they (those in the press) would be personally more impacted by the death of one of their own is simply human. Alternatively, I would agree the case should be made for a balanced respect for all human life, but on the whole you are over the top here.

Jim

[rogue06]

The press used to perform an important service to freedom but now serve almost exclusively as the propaganda wing for the DNC.

FIFY, n/c

[oxmixmudd]

FIFY, n/c

That just isn't a reasoned assessment of the situation at all rogue. But it does sum up some of the misguided thinking that has let us to the Trump presidency.


Jim

[Tassman]

The media has, especially in recent years viewed themselves to be the most important people on the planet. God's chosen if you will. I really noticed it back when Daniel Pearl was murdered and it was all they could talk about. Never mind that many others were meeting the exact same fate, they were mere mortals so who cared about them. They were essentially shamed into having to mutter a few words in after thought about people like the missionary taken a couple years earlier also being beheaded by Islamic terrorists in the Philippines at nearly the same time.

Well you clearly choose to characterize the media with which you disagree as grandiosely claiming to be “the most important people on the planet”, but less so for the media outlets that support your views. This as indicated by your gratuitous alteration of oxmixmudd’s post so as to accuse it of left-wing bias. Presumably you’re excluding Fox and Breitbart et al from such a bias.

[Charles]

You're aware that "person of the year" is meant to be done on an evaluation of someone's influence, right? It's not a statement that someone is good. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Nikita Khrushchev were all person of the year... in fact, Joseph Stalin got it twice.

It's just plain goofy to try to read some kind of "message" into Trump not getting it this year.

Not quite as simple as that and it is not always the case. Look at what they say about what matters. There is a rather obvious message in that (truth matters more):

That world is led, in some ways, by a U.S. President whose embrace of despots and attacks on the press has set a troubling tone. “I think the biggest problem that we face right now is that the beacon of democracy, the one that stood up for both human rights and press freedom—the United States—now is very confused,” says Ressa, the Rappler editor. “What are the values of the United States?”

Efforts to undermine factual truth, and those who honestly seek it out, call into doubt the functioning of democracy. Freedom of speech, after all, was purposefully placed first in the Bill of Rights.
In 2018, journalists took note of what people said, and of what people did. When those two things differed, they took note of that too. The year brought no great change in what they do or how they do it. What changed was how much it matters.

http://time.com/person-of-the-year-2018-the-guardians/

[Charles]

Enough of Trump's nonsense: The entire Senate just said Trump is wrong about Jamal Khashoggi

“Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event — maybe he did, and maybe he didn’t!” Trump said in a statement. “That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

Thursday’s resolution is the Senate saying, with a unified voice, that’s simply not good enough. It’s saying that the U.S. government needs to be on the record with moral clarity — moral clarity that Trump and company simply haven’t provided. It would be one thing for Trump and Pompeo to say that Mohammed did it but that it’s not worth retaliation; they’ve gone further by covering up the amount of certainty that exists about his role.

[Sparko]

Not quite as simple as that and it is not always the case. Look at what they say about what matters. There is a rather obvious message in that (truth matters more):





http://time.com/person-of-the-year-2018-the-guardians/

This story about Trump embracing despots is a non-starter and completely false. When Trump was denigrating Kim, calling him "rocket man" and mocking him, why then Trump was trying to start a war and needed to be nicer to him. When he was nicer to him, he is embracing a despot!

It's a no-win situation with you libs and the MSM.

[Charles]

This story about Trump embracing despots is a non-starter and completely false. When Trump was denigrating Kim, calling him "rocket man" and mocking him, why then Trump was trying to start a war and needed to be nicer to him. When he was nicer to him, he is embracing a despot!

It's a no-win situation with you libs and the MSM.

And of course there is nothing in between the two extremes?

[Sparko]

And of course there is nothing in between the two extremes?

That he doesn't like Kim but played nice (called Diplomacy) in order to get him to comply with his wishes and stop testing missiles and make nice with South Korea. That in between? Then yes.

[Charles]

That he doesn't like Kim but played nice (called Diplomacy) in order to get him to comply with his wishes and stop testing missiles and make nice with South Korea. That in between? Then yes.

Doesn't like Kim?

During his visit to Singapore, Trump showered praise on Kim, calling him a “very talented man,” a “smart guy” and a “very good negotiator.” He also complimented Kim’s “great personality.”https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bbe_story.html

I certainly doubt the people in his concentration camps would agree that he is a great personality.

[Sparko]

Doesn't like Kim?



I certainly doubt the people in his concentration camps would agree that he is a great personality.

Did you even read what I wrote?

[Charles]

Did you even read what I wrote?

Of course. But calling a man who runs concentration camps a great personality is not an "in between". Calling him "Rocket Man" one day and a great personality another day is going from one extreme to another. You don't need to go that far and call him a great personality. Calling that "diplomacy" is just another bad excuse for defending what cannot be defended. We are talking about a dictator and a person who has done and continues to do so many bad things.

[Sparko]

Of course. But calling a man who runs concentration camps a great personality is not an "in between". Calling him "Rocket Man" one day and a great personality another day is going from one extreme to another. You don't need to go that far and call him a great personality. Calling that "diplomacy" is just another bad excuse for defending what cannot be defended. We are talking about a dictator and a person who has done and continues to do so many bad things.

So if Trump is denigrating Kim and then complimenting him, that equates to "embracing despots" in your mind because you ignore his previous actions and just concentrate on the one that fits your confirmation bias?

[JimL]

This story about Trump embracing despots is a non-starter and completely false. When Trump was denigrating Kim, calling him "rocket man" and mocking him, why then Trump was trying to start a war and needed to be nicer to him. When he was nicer to him, he is embracing a despot!

It's a no-win situation with you libs and the MSM.

No, not a no win situation, what Trump embraces is despotism, such as is exhibited by his despotic buddies Putin and MBS, not necessarily the despots themselves. He can take or leave the despots themselves.