Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (115484)	3/24/2019 4:31:57 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By bentway Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358356

Many of the things you seem to not like about Trump are in face products of a lying media. Of course, you do not see that. No, I don't see lies. When there's a mistake, it is followed by a correction. I do see spin. I agree that a slip-up by Trump would not be treated the same as a slip-up by Obama. But there is an underlying excuse if not a legitimacy to that. Although some are more difficult than others. Like "phase" for 'faze". Or "diffuse" for "defuse". "Prostrate" for "prostate" and so on. A difference is that I a pretty sure you know the right word. I am not so sure about some of these others. That's from a recent post to me from cj. People treat mistakes differently depending on their expectations wrt the author. With Obama it's easy to recognize a slip-up. It naturally stands out in Obama's sea of normal discourse. With Trump, slip-ups get lost in all the bullshit and lies and are credited accordingly. I agree that the media can be imperfect about differentiations. But, in the grand scheme of things, the volume of Trump's slip-ups are just noise in a sea of word salad, the un-serious, and the untrue. They amount to the qualitative equivalent of rounding errors. It's not surprising that they may be mis-categorized. As for "products of the lying media," I come by my perceptions independently. It's true that mine are usually pretty consistent with the media's own, but that's not because I'm going to school off them. It's because Washington reporters and I are of the same background and experiences so we will typically observe things the same way. They and I are not geared to see anomalies in the ordinary nor ordinary in the anomalies. I have never done a criminal investigation nor a newspaper expose but I have done studies and inquiries and evaluations. Regardless of the framework for the investigation, analysis of what is or is not anomalous, as I explained at length to Kate a while back, is largely a function of when people deviate from what is expected. It's similar to "think horses, not zebras." For example, when a public servant finds himself in possession of a dossier that suggests a security risk, he immediately and without question hands it over to the FBI. Any ethical person in Washington knows to do that and no rational person would twist that into anything other than doing one's duty. An obvious horse.