Login

MalabarJag · 09-21-2017, 11:19 AM

(09-21-2017, 09:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:
(09-21-2017, 07:37 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: I completely agree, but the FACT of the matter is that it's selectively applied. Journalism is critical for democracy. Unfortunately the self-imposed standards of the press in the U.S. have turned it from a fourth estate into a fifth column. They've undermined their own credibility by leveraging idealism over infallibility. Standing on your soapbox while making noble proclamations about the truth is only aping the censor when applied inequitably.

Okay, you and I completely agree that politicians should be truth-checked as much as possible. So it must follow that what they are doing to Trump with the truth checking is okay. The problem you have is that you don't think they applied the same standard to Obama. But that's a different issue.

Personally, I think the difference in the way the press treats Trump is less a result of a double-standard, and more the result of the incredible volume of lies that come out of his mouth. They can't avoid truth checking him, because that's their job. If a politician tells a lie, the press has a duty to provide the facts that reveal the lie. If they failed to do enough truth-checking on Obama, that would be bad, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't truth-check Trump, because as you and I agree, they should truth check everybody as much as possible.

It's 100% double standard. Compare how they portray Trumps statements to how Snopes treats similar statements about Obama.

http://www.snopes.com/barack-obama-accomplishments/

As long as the double standard exists, then the fact checking should not be trusted. Yes, ideally fact checking politics, if objective, should be a big part of the information. But objective fact-checking by the mostly far-left media is a pipe dream.

This is not to mention that your link was about throw-away lines by Trump about domestic issues. Those statements were insignificant in the context of his speech, which was about how the US would deal with the UN and foreign countries. Can't you see that the article itself was reaching for any tiny thing they could say to discredit Trump? Shouldn't that be a dead giveaway to you?

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"