Boom or Bust: How The Media Fulfilled Trump Narrative On “Fake News”

ASC_Leiden_-_Coutinho_Collection_-_C_37_-_Candjambary,_Guinea-Bissau_-_Unexploded_bomb_-_1974.tif200px-Cnn.svgI recently criticized Gloria Allred for giving Roy Moore a badly needed boost in her belated admission that her client wrote some of the words that she attributed to Moore in the now infamous yearbook press controversy.  Now CNN and other media outlets have given critics the most compelling evidence that they are seeking to allege that our media is rife with “fake news.”  Trump himself pounced on the false report. CNN went all in on a report from Congressional reporter Manu Raju that Wikileaks gave the Trumps early access to undisclosed hacked emails before they were made public.  The story was wrong on the key date and failed to note that the source was just some unknown character encouraging the campaign to look at the publicly available material.  Brookings Institution’s Ben Wittes and others joined in the spasm of “bombshell” reporting, as detailed by Glenn Greenwald.  This follows the Washington Post reporter David Weigel tweeting a false image of empty seats at a recent rally to contradict Trump’s latest crowd assertions — a picture that was found before Trump spoke.  Trump called for Weigel’s firing, which I have said would be excessive (even though Weigel has made past controversial statements against conservatives before the Post hired him). Weigel withdrew the tweet and apologized.  I think that that is sufficient and the Trump Administration should be the most sympathetic with wayward tweets.  The more serious issue is the CNN coverage of the Wikileaks story and the eagerness to pounce on any story damaging to the Trump Administration.  That is a legitimate basis for criticism and review.  If this were not Trump, would CNN have run with the “bombshell” without more scrutiny?  The alleged lack of circumspection and caution on the story has been raised as characteristic of much of the Trump coverage. (Notably, Fox was also criticized for a headline on the yearbook disclosure, though the objection was to the use of “forgery” in the headline not the content of the reporting).


CNN ran with the story on Friday morning at 11:00 am EST and then flogged the story endlessly and breathlessly for hours.  The strong suggestion was that it was an exclusive to CNN — discussing the email from an unknown character named “Michael J. Erickson” who offered  a decryption key and access to DNC emails.  The date it was suggested as  September 4. That would be ten days before WikiLeaks made the emails publicly known.

The date was actually September 14th, which is after the Wikileaks disclosure.  Hours later, Manu Raju, finally posted a tweet with a correction. Raju went on CNNat he had “two sources.”

The question is who were those sources. In torts, we often explore reckless disregard allegations under the New York Times v. Sullivan standard for defamation.  The question is whether these sources were biased, such as Democratic members on one of the committee. We have seen virtually immediate leaks from sealed hearings on the Hill.  Clearly some stories can go awry like some tweets, particularly in today’s Web driven accelerated news cycle.  The concern is not that CNN and others got this wrong but the tendency to go “all in” on a story before confirming keys facts.  There is a tendency to be too judgmental since all of us have found ourselves dangerously ahead of confirmed news reports. However, the concern is that there is a greater tendency to jump the gun on anti-Trump stories.

Greenwald goes after Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes “whose star has risen as he has promoted himself as a friend of former FBI Director Jim Comey.”  He notes that Wittes literally tweeted a cannon to signify a bombshell moment and never corrected his own postings:


124 thoughts on “Boom or Bust: How The Media Fulfilled Trump Narrative On “Fake News””

  1. Conservatives have long been targeted by the mainstream media. It’s completely unprofessional, reckless, and a tool of despots.

    Trump often handles this extreme bias, indeed, weaponization of the media, ineffectively. He often plays right into their hands. Almost every President in our history has disliked the media. Trump’s dislike is certainly not newsworthy. The media handles Trump’s opinions on their coverage poorly.

    Trump should correct on inaccuracies in the media effectively, and professionally. He can have a bit of fun with it, and call it The Correction Quarter Hour, or something more catchy. He could calmly discuss how the media got it wrong, and say that these corrections just come with the job. A job he’s happy to do. Joke around with the media pool. “I’d like to announce the winner of the press pool’s ideas for our new remodeling plans will include quicksand behind the podium, which won by a landslide. Am I getting shorter?” Have some fun but in a good natured way. Of course the media is vicious and weaponized against conservatives. This is reality. You are not going to win the hearts and minds of people who believe them by playing into their hands.

    Crafting effective, well thought out responses to the media’s attempts to unseat a President is going to be one of the most vital skills that any Republican or Libertarian candidate will have to master for the foreseeable future.

  2. Thank you for your candor and honesty. I do not always agree with your commentaries however they are always instructive and noteworthy. Every Student of the Law should have a Professor of Law with your knowledge and integrality.

    Have a joyful and peaceful Christmas

  3. Our view: Conservatives should consider Senator Shelby’s example

    Updated December 10, 2017 at 6:31 AM; Posted December 10, 2017 at 6:30 AM

    By AL dot com Editorial Board


    In the past few weeks, we’ve heard story after story of conservative Alabamians frustrated and confused about their choice, worried about how to do the right thing.

    That worry isn’t misplaced – it is a choice that matters.

    We urge you not to be fooled into believing this is a matter of “liberal” vs. “conservative.”

    If you care about the future of this state, this election is for you.

    If you are (or love) a woman, this election is for you. If you are looking for a job, if you run a business, if you worry about the future of your children, this election is for you.

    On Tuesday, the rest of the world will see just one winner — and will declare that all of Alabama has spoken.

    Just 100 Americans get to be in the Senate. Alabama chooses two of them. That’s a privilege the Constitution gives to our small state in order to balance the influence of states with huge populations.

    We should choose wisely and carefully in exercising this privilege. Voting for Roy Moore just because he has an “R” next to his name, ignoring his record of personal and official misconduct, is neither wise nor careful.

    That’s why we urge you to consider the decision of our state’s senior Senator Richard Shelby.

    Shelby assessed Moore’s record in state office and the credible allegations against him of sexual misconduct – including sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl – and deemed Moore unqualified.

    When voting early several days ago, Shelby wrote in what he called “a distinguished Republican write-in.” There are many.

    Moore might dismiss Shelby as part of the “Washington establishment” (though he has been silent about Shelby’s choice). But 64 percent of Alabama voters reelected Shelby a year ago. He has been Alabama’s senator since 1986. He has served the state with dignity and he has never embarrassed us. His judgment of Moore is convincing.

    For a state’s senior senator to not support his party’s nominee for the other seat is almost unheard of. Historians could find just one example: from 1990, when Louisiana’s Republican nominee was David Duke, a former KKK leader. Alabamians should think hard about how effective Moore can be as junior senator, with such a fissure between him and Shelby, let alone other Republicans.

    Shelby is not alone among Alabama conservatives or Republicans in his judgment against Moore. Alabama’s Young Republican Federation pulled their endorsement from Moore. State Sen. Dick Brewbaker has stated that he won’t support Moore. And we suspect there may be other Republican leaders quietly planning to vote against Moore.

    Outside of Alabama, the last Republican nominee for president before Donald Trump has also declared Moore unacceptable. Mitt Romney also might be dismissed as an outsider by Moore, but he won more than 60 percent of Alabamians votes in 2012, nearly 200,000 more votes than Roy Moore who shared the ballot with him. Republican Evan McMullin’s PAC has taken out ads against Roy Moore, as have Log Cabin Republicans. The outspoken opposition to Roy Moore by his own party, particularly given the balance of power in Washington, is surprising and noteworthy.

    Alabamians struggling with their decision could follow the path of some of these conservatives and write in a name.

    Or they could consider the Democrat candidate, Doug Jones. Moore and Trump have tried hard of late to paint Jones as a liberal. But Jones is not particularly liberal and has campaigned hard on his intent to try to work across party lines. That’s something Washington needs more of – and something it would not get from Moore.

    Some Republicans have expressed that they’ll vote for Moore with the hopes that the Senate will expel him and he can be replaced with more palatable conservative option. That’s unlikely. National Republicans have already begun stating that they’ll respect the decision of the voters of Alabama. And voters must ask themselves: should you vote for a man you hope will be kicked out of his job?

    Many conservatives are deeply troubled by Moore’s conduct in his 30s, and his being removed from the bench twice for ignoring the U.S. Constitution, but one issue more than any other holds them back from rejecting him – abortion. Moore wants to criminalize all abortions. Jones is in favor of leaving Alabama’s law as it is currently written. He is pro-choice but a vote for Doug Jones will not create one more abortion in this state. Or this country. He has held to his beliefs on this even as some have urged him to waffle in order to defeat Moore. It’s rare that a politician in Alabama will hold onto his beliefs, even when they’re unpopular.

    However, if a voter shares Moore’s view, and is willing to see any woman, even a rape victim, jailed for having an abortion, nothing we or anyone else can say will change her or his mind. These voters, like Sen. Shelby, still have an option: write in a name and make their conscience, and their regard for women in this state, heard.

    A novel argument from some Alabamians has been that electing Jones will be better than electing Moore, because as a Democrat Jones could be easily defeated in the next election, whereas Moore would likely be a senator for life. There is truth to that. And frankly, our state and our country would be better off with more Senators and Representatives serving just a term or two, and fewer career politicians in office.

    In the end, we urge you to vote. Each of us will live with the outcome of this election on our shoulders. This state needs people of good conscience to come forward Tuesday and to register a voice for dignity for all people.

    -AL dot com Editorial Board

    1. anonymous – both AZ senators not only failed to support Trump but have actively worked against him. Look at what it got them. Flake cannot win his primary and McCain cannot survive brain cancer. The fix is in. If Trump wants a candidate, God wants that candidate. 😉

        1. mespo – Lindsey Vonn knocks Trump and then hurts herself, her ex-boyfriend Tiger Woods plays golf with Trump and then does well in the next tournament. Best he has done in a long time. Whose side is God on???

            1. mespo – other than the armor is from the wrong period and the score is from the 20th century, I see nothing wrong with it. 🙂

  4. Some people like Crappy News Network. Some people enjoy NewsWeak. Some prefer The New York Slimes. Some swear by The Washington Compost. Some crave Always Bull Crap. Some need their Network Bull Crap. Some people get their “information” from Main Stream Network Bull Crap. Some people depend on Contemptuous Bull Crap. But they all have one thing in common. They are all Fake News dedicated to providing disinformation designed to manipulate the public to support their Leftist agenda.

    When their lies and manipulations are exposed, they don’t change their ways. They merely learn to become better liars and manipulators in the hope that can fool more people. But intelligent people aren’t fooled, no matter how good they get and lying.

    1. And then there are posters here like David Benson and Linda that are always fooled by Crappy News Network, NewsWeak, Main Stream Network Bull Crap, etc. They are mindless bots who can be depended upon to be willingly programmed with lies. You can see a good example of those mentals like Benson and Linda in the video below.

      1. Here’s some more people like David Benson and Linda who get their “information” from Fake News being interviewed:

      2. These interviews should tell us our education system is pathetic! We don’t teach our true history. The progressives have tried to change our history, spending more time on negatives. Hopefully, truth will be the focus of the Trump Education Department.

      3. Ralph, Just a little geography. This interview is on Pacific Beach in San Diego w/ the famous Crystal Pier in the background.

        1. Yes, Nick, I know. I wasn’t sure of the precise area, but since Mark Dice is from San Diego and I figure he does these interviews at Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Del Mar, or La Jolla. But San Diego’s a pretty affluent town, so I don’t think socio-economics can be blamed. The lack of basic knowledge is a far deeper problem than that. However, I suspect that Mark would have a tougher time getting dumb answers if he were to go to Coronado beach, the island just off San Diego.

  5. “Tech’s New D.C. Partner- Charles Koch” Politico, Dec. 2017
    Not two political parties- just one out to destroy the middle class and democracy.

          1. If so, maybe they can report on Bannon’s opinion about the article focused on his ex-wife’s Florida rental home (to clarify -3rd ex-wife- reflecting the family values that attract evangelicals to the Republican party).

          2. Ken, Linda, and Benson are the perfect trolls. They never have anything of merit to say. Their sole purpose is to attack those who post messages analysis of facts and evidence. They, however, HATE facts and evidence. Ken, Linda, and Benson are exactly what they claim others are: TROLLS. But such phoniness is typical of Leftists. It’s all they know how to do.

    1. A big effort by all “news” organizations to belittle President Trump. From the day he announced and till going. Ratings are down and still the lies. If Mueller doesn’t insist on impeaching President Trump he’ll be run out of town!

  6. I will defer to lawyers out there, but I do not see the legal significance of the Trump campaign being sent an e-mail regarding Wikileaks on September 4th as opposed to the 14th. If someone sends the Trump people an email on a subject before it’s widely reported in the press — so what?

    What’s the significance of the story and why does CNN spend time on it even with an e-mail dated the 4th?

    I also see no legal significance in the Bryan Ross discrepancy regarding contacts with Russian officials before the election as opposed to afterwards.

    There seems to be implication that these stories have significance if their chronology had been correct. I don’t see any. Flynn can talk to whoever wants before the election or after it.

    Unless you’re still tying to pedal the Logan act and I’m not interested in that.

    1. After the Brian Ross “discrepancy” the stock market lost 350 points. How many people lost money? Joy Behar almost had an orgasm on The View. I don’t believe Ross wasn’t part of this. So he’s off without pay, I’m sure someone is making that up (Soros perhaps). How long will the news industry take to realize they look like fools! The White House Briefings are full of snotty reporters asking stupid questions. Rarely a question of substance.

      1. Well who lost money? A bunch of traders, as opposed to investors, gained money. If you did nothing in the stock market during this period, you wouldn’t have lost a dime. The 2 major variables, at least in the short term, in the stock market, are greed and fear. Not legal significance. Assuming Bryan Ross’ story had been correct, the stock market would have corrected itself anyway, once the dramatics had been discarded and people realized that Wolf Blitzer, Scott Pelley, Lestor Holt, ad nauseum, didn’t know what they were talking about.

        Although as I said to lawyers out there, I be glad to know what the significance of the Ross story was even if the chronology was correct.

        1. “If you did nothing in the stock market during this period, you wouldn’t have lost a dime.” Well let’s qualify that a bit. When traders ride waves, there are some transaction costs spread out among investors, but it’s nominal.

          But that means you shouldn’t approve of people who claim the Ross’ story was significant even if his chronology had been correct (unless lawyers out there can give me some help on that.)

  7. Are reports true that Alabama’s senior senator (GOP) decided that putting party over victims of alleged child molestation was a step too far and it led him to vote against Moore?

    1. So what? Since the Allred fiasco everybody is looked at with suspicion. This whole mess should teach everyone that if you feel sexually harrassed tell somebody then, not decades later.

  8. Glenn Greenwald Retweeted The Intercept

    “It seems clear at this point that we’re never going to find out how it is that “multiple sources” all fed the same false information to multiple news outlets, because those news outlets are concealing the story along with the identity of those who did it. Everyone OK with this?”

  9. This lie had a target, not Trump so much as Assange.

    Google and friends will not remove CNN for posting fake news (which they regularly engage in) while it goes after some of the most accurate reporters of US and world affairs, scrubbing them out. The oligarchy wants us dumb and uniformed. They are doing what it takes to get us there. CNN and their masters are scum!

    1. Right on Jill. It’s a war – all we can hope is after the deluded MSM audience dies off so will the networks.

      1. The ending of net neutrality will make this situation worse. The large companies will become more powerful.

  10. Birther Trump complaining about fake news continues to inspire sad! laughter. To learn more, enroll at his tremendous and very legitimate university.

    People should be fired for posting fake news? Got it. Trump should be in Guantanamo then.

  11. “This just in from Radio Moscow….”
    “Voice of America has new evidence to support….”
    “Radio Free Europe received news today that….”
    The news on all three was: Buster Cherry got caught with her pants down.

  12. Hollywood is trying to rehabilitate the MSM w/ Spielberg directing The Post, starring Streep and Hanks. It’s a bio pic of Katherine Graham and know the glory days. The MSM shoots itself in the foot more than Barney Fife.

  13. This is the problem with the ‘Us or Them’ system in the US. The oligarchs stay in power, purchase future leaders, and design the country to suit them, the top very few percent. Their first and foremost concern is the global perspective, not that of the average American. This is all made possible by maintaining a simplicity of choice, one more than a dictatorship, chaos which stems from the overwhelming wrongness of the other party, and ignorance through focusing on nonsense and not facts, figures, and issues. Once the stage is set: chaos, adversity, and ignorance, it is near impossible to focus on an issue. Most Americans are ideologically focused along their interpretations of what it means to be an American, a Christian, a Patriot. Very few are focused on the issues that affect us all. This is what brought Trump to power: anger, ignorance, and chaos. Trump ranted unrelentingly that ‘everything’ was messed up and only ‘he’ could fix it. And, enough prepped Americans bought this.

    The media on both sides support their side by ignoring the positive aspects of the other side and lambasting the shortcomings of the other side. However often and obtuse the left wing media attempts at undermining their adversaries, they can’t hold a candle to the right and that sack of hacks. Read the Washington Times and then read the Washington Post. Both are colored but the Times is rabid in its editorial presentations. It is a question of degrees and the shame of their mistake is driving the right wing media to obscure the facts and create as much chaos as is possible to mask this travesty .

    Obama, with a Democrat House, made great moves complete with mistakes and successes in passing the ACA. Along with the good came bad. This move was focused at lightening the health insurance burden for most Americans. Some, a few, had to pay more. Trump and his mutts have made an equally large move in handing over a trillion dollars to the uber rich while tossing a few coins to most Americans. Both moves can and will be criticized by the other side. However, Obama’s move was in the best interests of most of the people, even though he kowtowed to the insurance industry, while Trump’s is in the best intetests of those that don’t need it, just want it.

    From the beginning of time and economies, the driving force behind industry is demand and the disposable income of the masses. Millions are put to work producing what millions buy. However, here when Trump and his mutts had a chance to provide the American economy with what it really needs, more average Americans with a few hundred dollars a month more to spend, he and his puppets gave the lion’s share to those to whom it means nothing, at least nothing to the economy. You would have to be a complete idiot to believe that anyone other than shareholders and others with global perspectives will profit from this.

    So, Turley, keep the bipartisan examples coming and avoid the realities of our nation. A lawyer’s self gratification is eclipsed by his appetite for chitlins, bagels, pizza, sushi, etc. Do we have a future Senator here? Who will pay for this one?

    1. Very good comment, Issac.
      When Turley posted recently about the loss of democracy, he failed to mention ALEC, Citizens United, Koch dark money, intellectual prostitutes at oligarch-funded think tanks, …

      1. Tough bill for the elderly and middle class people. Next Trump will help fulfill Ryan’s dream to cut Social Security and Medicare.

        1. Yep.

          “Next Trump will help fulfill Ryan’s dream to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

          “…to cut Social Security and Medicare” — and privatize.

      2. Those who saved for nursing home care will end up on Medicaid a lot sooner, after the GOP eliminates the medical deduction.
        FYI Americans- There’s no point in saving while the GOP bankrupts the middle class.

    2. There was never anything ‘good’ about ACA for most. If you were one of the few that actually benefited, congrats, that wasn’t common. It wasn’t ‘take good with bad’, it was, ‘this system is rigged and doesn’t work’. It was never intended to, Obama was cut from the same cloth. People have got to stop being blinded by their partisan biases. It’s pretty much just one big corporate party at this point.

      1. This tax bill will make things much worse as the corporations are the beneficiaries and not the people.

      2. ACA addressed the choice between (a) sick people dying in the hospital’s parking lot or (b) hospital personnel working for free.

        1. Indeed; prior to the passage of ACA, “sick people dying in the hospital’s parking lot” was a widespread problem.
          Very tough to watch out for them, and an empty parking space, at the same time.

          1. Prior to ACA, tax dollars prevented the sick from dying in the parking lots. Then, the richest 1% sent their politicians to D.C. (after deciding America should be more like the Philippines). A new plan, created by health care conglomerates and big Pharma, was developed.
            Now we know that single payer is the only answer.

            1. Linda,..
              Tax dollars were/are
              used for healthcare both prior to, and after, ObamaCare.
              Take a look at the year-by-year spending (of tax dollars) on MediCare and MediCaid
              The primary reason for the lower number of uninsured was the expansion of MediCaid eligibilty.
              If anything, tax dollars for health care increased sharply under ObamCare.
              I think your point is well-taken that. “Prior to ACA, tax dollars prevented the sick from dying in parking lots”.
              But the spike in the spending of those tax dollars under ObamaCare was a continuation and acceleration of tax dollar spending.
              There is not a clearcut before/after distinction with respect to tax dollar spending, except that there was a very large increase of that tax dollar spending after ObamaCare.

              1. With luck, Tom, the people who choose your long term care will be as greedy as the richest 0.1%.
                BTW- Long term care costs $1000 every three days. Check out at the longevity tables for people who reach the age of 90- a lot of years left for people at high risk of dementia.That healthy lifestyle buys those years.

      3. James

        There were many negative aspects of the ACA. However, there were more benefits. The biggest negative aspect was the same as the one that shrouded and continues to shroud Obama, too high expectations. My neighbor makes in excess of 250K a year and was complaining about paying $1400 a month before ACA. Then his monthly hit went down to $1100 and that was his complaint, not low enough. Perhaps the biggest failure of the ACA was giving more power and control to the private sector parasites. Perhaps this mess should focus on that. But there it is again. Who pays for the campaigns? The special interests and the private sector oligarchs. Over two hundred years ago people fought and died to get rid of government from afar, government composed of the privileged, government designed to perpetuate control from the few at the top, government that was seen as perverse and self serving. Over two hundred years after one of the greatest revolutions in history, the rebels have embraced the system against which they fought.

        The expectations of Obama after the Bush catastrophe were those that could never be achieved under the present system. Obama was in control for some of half the time and for all of the time, half of it successfully, the Republicans held the country hostage; punishing America for electing Obama. More than one Republican, McConnell himself, on record, stated that regardless of whether or not it is good for America or not, if it comes from the White House, they will vote it down. That is what happened. A President with very little experience, plus a massive economic disaster inherited, plus sky high expectations. All in all, given the ingredients, Obama did a yeoman’s job in righting the ship, bringing the ridiculous situation of American health care insurance to the forefront, and providing a strong foundation for the next President. The shortsightedness of too many Americans brought us Trump. Trump’s ingredients were and continue to be: endless distortions of the truth and facts, unrelenting and vicious lies-on average 6 a day, almost total focus on the most disproven theory-the trickle down routine, and chaos-resulting from the lies, dysfunction, blame, and never-ending tweets.

        Trump saw enough Americans coming and shilled them right in. Even Hollywood couldn’t make this up.

        1. The story about Isaac’s affluent neighbor, who allegedly saw his insurance premiums drop by $3600 a year after Obamacare, is interesting.
          Doubtful, but interesting.

          1. Tom

            There are many, many, many stories out there illustrating some people who have seen their premiums rise and others who benefited. The main culprit here is not Obama. Obama acted partly as enabler and partly to solve some shameful problems. In accomplishing many things, Obama accepted a greater role and greater profit in the insurance industry and much chaos. However, the chaos originates with the 1200 + health insurance agencies in the US. Under the claim of competition and free enterprise the industry created such a chaos of choices and contradiction that next to no one could wade through the mess. This is reminiscent of the 60s and the demise of the American automobile industry. In order to sell more cars, the geniuses in Detroit created more models and more variations, along with planned obsolescence. The Detroit auto labor force shrunk from well over a million to less than a quarter of that and the manufacturers that kept it simple and with quality soon took over. This is what happens with a monopoly and the US health insurance industry enjoys a monopoly. Obama was not the one to KO this disgusting parasite. It will take someone of much greater experience and foresight. First of all they will have to take on the employers. Employers enjoy keeping wages low by offering benefits that cost less than if the employee were on their own. Secondly, up to a million jobs would become redundant as part of what we pay, a large part, goes to the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of administrators. Next, the person or persons who take on the health insurance oligarchs would be smeared and see millions go to puppets that would do the bidding of the oligarchs. It might just be too late. The oligarchical system we enjoy does not permit people of substance to arrive in Washington or any state capital for that matter. The first thing the voter must do is realize that our system is broken and saying so is a point of patriotism while ignoring it, not so much.

            1. Isaac,..
              I’d like to know how your neighbor with a $250k annual income saw his insurance premiums drop $300 a month under ObamaCare.
              I’m not asking for your neighbor’s name, address, phone number or infringing on the neighbor’s privacy in any way.
              It’s doubtful that the neighbor is eligible for ObamaCare subsidies.
              It’s equally doubtful that he saw his insurer lower his premiums…..that is rare unless the neighbor’s employer( if employed) beefed up the employer’s portion of the insurance premiums.
              Let me know how he pulled that off ($300 per month lower
              Karen S. would probably like to know as well; what she experienced as a result of ObamaCare is far more typical of those without ObamaCare subsidies.

              1. Isaac,
                I would add that 50%+ of U.S. healthcare spending is already government-funded ( MediCare, MediCaid, VA system, CHIPS, etc.
                I think your estimate of administrative savings under a single payer system is infflated.
                But for the sake of argument, let’s say that a single payer government funded system would produce significant savings.
                At best, only the -50% private insurer-funded portion of healthcare administrative costs could produce savings.
                Ostensibly, these efficient government funded and controlled health care programs have already lowered administrative costs for over 50% of the U.S. healthcare system.
                You might see some administrative cost savings onbthe c.$1.6 Trillion privatevinsurer segment, but the other c.$1.6 Trillion government controlled and funded programs have already produced whatever administrative savings, if that sector is in fact so,much more efficient and cost-effective.

        2. “Even Hollywood couldn’t make this up.” Well Isaac, you basically just wrote a fairytale here about your hero Obama.

          I keep saying I’m not going to comment, but it is just too hard to pass up….

          Some of Isaac’s words/analysis of Obama:

          -Obama’s move was in the best interests of most of the people — even though he kowtowed to the insurance industry.

          -Obama, with a Democrat House, made great moves complete with mistakes and successes in passing the ACA.

          -Along with the good came bad.

          -This move (by Obama) was focused at lightening the health insurance burden for most Americans.

          -the Republicans held the country hostage; punishing America for electing Obama.

          -The biggest negative aspect was the same as the one that shrouded and continues to shroud Obama, too high expectations.

          -(Obama was) a President with very little experience, plus and massive economic disaster inherited, plus sky high expectations.

          -Trump saw the dupes coming and shilled them right in.

          *AND….don’t forget that Obama did ALL that with the press in his corner, too, lifting him up like a gentle wind at his back for eight long years.

          And so here is Issac’s fairytale story of his hero Baby Jesus Obama (using Isaac’s words):

          Once upon a time, America elected a very inexperienced president who had to deal with sky-high and unfair expectations of him as he strived his very best to deliver good things for the American people. And he delivered – boy did he ever. He made some great moves. Complete with mistakes and successes, both the good with the bad. And of course he never, ever told a lie to anyone, let alone the American people. And when Obama made mistakes, he always did it with good intentions and in the best interests of most of the people. Because, given all that the oh-so-inexperienced savior named Obama had to face in Washington – especially with the very high expectations of Him, all the messes He inherited, and those big bad Republicans thwarting Him at every step….(say it with me now)…All in all, given the ingredients, Obama did a yeoman’s job in righting the ship. -The End.

  14. All of this stems from an even bigger problem of media doing more with less. Reporters no longer report what they have seen, observed or discovered, they report what they have been told by “sources” whose names are withheld because they “are not authorized to speak on the subject.” Visual media reports are made by “embedded” reporters, which means they are showing us precisely what those in power are permitting them to show us. The net result is at best a massively uninformed public, and often a misinformed public.

  15. If a politician lies incessantly, he/she is praised. He Or she shouldn’t be. If a politician lies, he wins elections. That shouldn’t happen. If a journalist, lies he or she is fired. I have no problem with that as long as all journalists who lie are fired….not just the ones that Trump doesn’t like.

  16. It’s due to the media being in the entertainment business. “Scoops” are the be- and end-all, rather than careful vetting of the story – which may take some time – to guarantee that they have it right.

  17. More entertainment form the professor. You point out a couple indiscretions about news organizations but you let a pathological liar take shelter from his abominable treatment of the truth. His statements that he had the largest inauguration crowd in history! He won the election by 3 million votes instead of losing it by 3 million votes. Obama is not an American.

    ‘The list uses the conservative standard of demonstrably false statements. By that standard, Trump told a public lie on at least 20 of his first 40 days as president. But based on a broader standard — one that includes his many misleading statements (like exaggerating military spending in the Middle East) — Trump achieved something remarkable: He said something untrue, in public, every day for the first 40 days of his presidency. The streak didn’t end until March 1.’

    Yes, news sites should be more careful but your pals at Fox ‘News’:

    ‘Obama was worldly, sophisticated, rational, deliberate. Fox News was none of those. But it was American, unlike the new president (right?). Trump started appearing on the network, touting his investigation into Obama’s supposedly faked birth certificate. A 2010 survey found that 31 percent of Fox News viewers didn’t think Obama was born in the United States.

    Rick Wilson, a top Republican strategist, blames Fox News for the dissolution of the principled conservatism that was his party’s core. “As the country has devolved into increasingly hermetic ideological silos, Fox has constantly reassured the GOP base that their support of Trump still makes them conservatives, even though he’s an authoritarian statist with poor impulse control and lacks a conservative bone in his body,” he says. “It’s made them billions and cost the GOP its soul.”

    Be fair with your critiques, since the lies on the right are not right at all.

    1. Obama did that to himself.
      Besides, nothing – Nothing – Trump lied about rises to the level of fraud Barack Obama perpetrated on the American people. If any CEO lied as Obama did, with the “You can keep your doctor…” statements, he would be in jail for fraud.
      Obama also blatantly lied about Benghazi, the IRS, the Iran deal, ISIS, and so on. These were deliberate and false narrative constructed to dupe the American people.

      1. Precisely. I don’t mind differing views, but the Obama worship verges on Moaist level idolatry. That’s not going to help anyone.

        1. James,
          ..As therapy for those with the most serious symtoms of TDS, the Obama Worship seems to be helpful.

    2. Take this note. Mr Turley is on da FOX NEWS staff as a contributor. That is not Fake News. Promotion of da Murdoch brand over da CNN is not beneath da prof.

      1. Has it ever occurred to you the reason he is a Fox news contributor is because CNN doesn’t want someone busting them on air? However, I came to be a fan of Professor Turley from watching him as a guest on other networks including CNN back when you could actually trust their reporting. But you speak ill of a professor of Constitutional law who has said he is a registered Democrat because Fox news is willing to accept his opinion? Ever thought maybe Fox news might be more fair and balanced than you want to believe? If you happened to watch it you would find that many of the people who work on Fox came from the other major networks and vice versa and some of the liberal commentators on CNN and MSNBC got their notoriety from being regular contributors on Fox. Don’t kill the messenger. Professor Turley is not the problem.

    3. speaking of pathological liars. Look in the mirror. She did not have three million more votes in a real election she had three million more in a popularity poll that pertained only to California and was meaningless in the election itself.

      The photo of the inauguaration area that prompted your next fib was taken before the entire crowd arrived and in no way resembled the crowd size during the actual inauguration.

      The rest if your drivel is equally not backed up by any facts, sources, or cites

      Whoever you are you don’t belong on a blog such as this with your overly long tweet mentality.

      Especially since you describe yourself and your robo clone Collective comments so well in the last sentence. and for that I only need to quote James Carville who repeated an old instruction to their members of The Party from Lenin himself. “Anything said or done to advance the party is the truth.” You have failed the Party and besides Hitler gave the same instructions to his National Socialists as Lenin and Stalin gave to their International Carville gave to his Progressive Socialists.

      He did that openly during the failed Gore campaign during his famous “Where’s the sacred ground?” speech.

      Answer to his question? The left has no sacred ground. Your comment bears out that observation.

      By the way I am not of the right but a Constitutional Centrist. You see the center of the left is not the center of our country.. In an Representative Constitutional Republic it IS The Constitution. and it’s main supporters are independent self governing citizens to quote the founders “as the only source of power.”:

    4. A few?

      Greenwald alone documents a list that is too long to be fully posted:

      “That’s just the last week alone. Let’s just remind ourselves of how many times major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump/Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walk-backed, or retracted – often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:

      Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
      An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
      WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
      A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
      RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
      Crowdstrike finds Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
      Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
      Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN)

      That really is just a small sample. So continually awful and misleading has this reporting been that even Vladimir Putin’s most devoted critics – such as Russian expatriate Masha Gessen, oppositional Russian journalists, and anti-Kremlin liberal activists in Moscow – are constantly warning that the U.S. media’s unhinged, ignorant, paranoid reporting on Russia is harming their cause in all sorts of ways, in the process destroying the credibility of the U.S. media.”

  18. The Fake News Network strikes again and they doubled down later in the day with their two sources to back it up. They had never seen the email, supposedly their sources are from the Intelligence Comm and are Democrats so they do not want to give them up. Even their correction wasn’t an apology or real correction to the story.

      1. ) – it was one or the other. He confirmed it with two sources (with a straight face) which were wrong or intentionally gave him wrong information, or he made his two sources up.;)

Comments are closed.

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: