(updated below)
The Republican presidential candidate leading every poll, Donald Trump, recently unveiled his plan to forcibly deport all 11 million human beings residing in the U.S. without proper documentation, roughly half of whom have children born in the U.S. (and who are thus American citizens). As George Will noted last week, “Trump’s roundup would be about 94 times larger than the wartime internment of 117,000 persons of Japanese descent.” It would require a massive expansion of the most tyrannical police state powers far beyond their already immense post-9/11 explosion. And that’s to say nothing of the incomparably ugly sentiments that Trump’s advocacy of this plan, far before its implementation, is predictably unleashing.
Jorge Ramos, the influential anchor of Univision and an American immigrant from Mexico, has been denouncing Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric. Yesterday at a Trump press conference in Iowa, Ramos stood and questioned Trump on his immigration views. Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on and repeatedly ordered him to “sit down,” then told him: “Go back to Univision.” When Ramos refused to sit down and shut up as ordered, a Trump bodyguard physically removed him from the room. After the press conference concluded, Ramos returned and again questioned Trump about immigration, with the two mostly talking over each other as Ramos asked Trump about the fundamental flaws in his policy. Afterward, Ramos said: “This is personal. … He’s talking about our parents, our friends, our kids and our babies.”
One might think that in a conflict between a journalist removed from a press conference for asking questions and the politician who had him removed, journalists would side with their fellow journalist. Some are. But many American journalists have seized on the incident to denounce Ramos for the crime of having opinions and even suggesting that he’s not really acting as a journalist at all.
Politico’s political reporter Marc Caputo unleashed a Twitter rant this morning against Ramos. “This is bias: taking the news personally, explicitly advocating an agenda,” he began. Then: “Trump can and should be pressed on this. Reporters can do this without being activists” and “some reporters still try to approach their stories fairly & decently. & doing so does not prevent good reporting.” Not only did Ramos not do journalism, Caputo argued, but he actually ruins journalism: “My issue is his reporting is imbued with take-it-personally bias. . . . we fend off phony bias allegations & Ramos only helps to wrongly justify them. . . .One can ask and report without the bias. I’ve done it for years & will continue 2 do so.”
A Washington Post article about the incident actually equated the two figures, beginning with the headline: “Jorge Ramos is a conflict junkie, just like his latest target: Donald Trump.” The article twice suggested that Ramos’ behavior was something other than journalism, claiming that his advocacy of immigration reform “blurred the line between journalist and activist” and that “by owning the issue of immigration, Ramos has also blurred the line between journalist and activist.” That Ramos was acting more as an “activist” than a “journalist” was a commonly expressed criticism among media elites this morning.
Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession. A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.
Thus: you do not call torture “torture” if the U.S. government falsely denies that it is; you do not say that the chronic shooting of unarmed black citizens by the police is a major problem since not everyone agrees that it is; and you do not object when a major presidential candidate stokes dangerous nativist resentments while demanding mass deportation of millions of people. These are the strictures that have utterly neutered American journalism, drained it of its vitality and core purpose, and ensured that it does little other than serve those who wield the greatest power and have the highest interest in preserving the status quo.
What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hatemongering nonsense about mass deportation, or sit by quietly and pretend to have no opinions on any of it and that “both sides” are equally deserving of respect and have equal claims to validity? As Ramos put it simply, in what should not even need to be said: “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.”
Indeed, some of the most important and valuable moments in American journalism have come from the nation’s most influential journalists rejecting this cowardly demand that they take no position, from Edward R. Murrow’s brave 1954 denunciation of McCarthyism to Walter Cronkite’s 1968 refusal to treat the U.S. government’s lies about the Vietnam War as anything other than what they were. Does anyone doubt that today’s neutrality-über-alles journalists would denounce them as “activists” for inappropriately “taking a side”?
As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the byproduct of the increasing corporatization of American journalism. That’s not hard to understand: One of the supreme values of large corporations is fear of offending anyone, particularly those in power, since that’s bad for business. The way that conflict-avoiding value is infused into the media outlets that these corporations own is to inculcate their journalists that their primary duty is to avoid offending anyone, especially those who wield power, which above all means never taking a clear position about anything, instead just serving as a mindless, uncritical vessel for “both sides,” what NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen has dubbed “the view from nowhere.” Whatever else that is, it is most certainly not a universal or long-standing principle of how journalism should be conducted.
The worst aspect of these journalists’ demands for “neutrality” is the conceit that they are actually neutral, that they are themselves not activists. To be lectured about the need for journalistic neutrality by Politico of all places — the ultimate and most loyal servant of the D.C. political and corporate class — by itself illustrates what a rotten sham this claim is. I set out my argument about this at length in my 2013 exchange with Bill Keller and won’t repeat it all here; suffice to say, all journalism is deeply subjective and serves some group’s interests. All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases — and thus constantly serve one agenda or another — whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.
Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge. As BuzzFeed’s Adam Serwer insightfully put it this morning, “‘Objective’ reporters were openly mocking Trump not that long ago, but Ramos has not reacted to Trump’s poll numbers with appropriate deference . . . . Just a reminder that what is considered objective reporting is intimately tied to power or the perception of power.” Expressing opinions that are in accord with, and which serve the interests of, those who wield the greatest political and economic power is always acceptable for the journalists who most tightly embrace the pretense of “neutrality”; it’s only when an opinion constitutes dissent or when it’s expressed with too little reverence for the most powerful does it cross the line into “activism” and “bias.”
(Ramos’ supposed sin of being what the Post called a “conflict junkie” — something that sounds to be nothing more than a derogatory way of characterizing “adversary journalism” — is even more ridiculous. Please spare me the tripe about how Ramos’ real sin was one of rudeness, that he failed to wait for explicit permission from the Trumpian Strongman to speak. Aside from the absurdity of viewing Victorian-era etiquette as some sort of journalistic virtue, Trump’s vindictive war with Univision made it unlikely he’d call on Ramos, and journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs.
Beyond that, whether a reporter must be deferential to a politician is one of those questions on which people shamelessly switch sides based on which politician is being treated rudely at the moment, as the past liberal protests over the “rudeness” displayed to Obama by conservative journalists demonstrate. That Ramos is not One of Them — Joe Scarborough appeared not even to know who Ramos is and suggested he was just seeking “15 minutes of fame,” despite Ramos’ having far greater influence and fame than Scarborough could dream of having — clearly fueled the journalistic resentment that Ramos’ behavior was out of line).
What Ramos did here was pure journalism in its classic and most noble expression: He aggressively confronted a politician wielding a significant amount of power over some pretty horrible things that the politician is doing and saying. As usual when someone commits a real act of journalism aimed at the most powerful in the U.S., those leading the charge against him are other journalists, who so tellingly regard actual journalism as a gauche and irreverent crime against those who wield the greatest power and thus merit the greatest deference.
UPDATE: Caputo, while noting that he disagrees with many of the views in this article, objects to one phrase in particular and sets forth his objection here. I quoted and/or linked to all of his referenced statements and am happy to allow readers to decide if that one phrase was accurate. I am quite convinced it was and stand by it.
Best explanation of why “We the people” would cheer a plutocratic, xenophobic, racist, fascist (to just point out a few “qualities” he doesn’t shy about) buffoon all the way to the office of U.S. president
People have the tendency to think in “then-this-‘happened'” ways, but I think that “Yes we can” slogan is still resonating in people’s minds
~
Trump defies political gravity thanks to fed-up supporters
By Jill Colvin Associated Press
POSTED: 09/06/2015
~
denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_28768009/fed-up-and-angry-supporters-let-trump-defy
~
Satyagraha,
RCL
ROFL @ “committing journalism.” On that night, Ramos was just an activist, a paid employee to a cause that pays his rent.
I don’t think it’s coincidence that the cited articles claiming authorial objectivity are written by white men, working for companies owned and operated by white men. Maybe it’s so obvious that white men wield the most power that the gender and racial dynamics underlying this story go unmentioned. Or maybe the white man who wrote this article didn’t even notice.
Seeing what has become of this country and our politics I can’t imagine any reason anyone would want to immigrate here except because of the violence our government created in their home countries which seems to be happening everywhere all over the world in the name of peace and democracy. I’m beginning to believe that I may be able to provide a better life for my family somewhere else. I for one am not proud to be an American because there’s very little to be proud of. Half of our population doesn’t give a rats ass about the suffering going on right here at home not can they and many others can even recognize the suffering that our governments actions cause all over the world. It is not a good time in history to be an American. I love this country but I’m not proud of what superpower status has brought with it, it’s truly not worth the status.
The Dersh this morning on CNBC arguing against the Iran nuclear deal – because “they” can’t be trusted:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000416599
I have noticed that the Press is now holding the children of illegals out as shields a lot more now that they cannot justify not using interior enforcement. In some ways this is a very healthy thing. That, and yelling racism is their last resort. A few years ago there seemed to be a substantially higher percentage of idiots telling us that E-Verify, secure ID, and a fence would never work, even slightly. They are still grossly over represented on the airwaves but they are now just going straight for pure unadulterated demagoguery.
Some great comments.
Trump is the ‘serious’ person, a genuine candidate for presidency.
Ramos is the meddler, the little man, the unserious man, as defined by NYT and others.
Trump is the big man, not to be interfered with. Guys like Ramos are to be mere spectators to those decisions. And not questioning them.
This is the system of which we are a part:
It’s decided by someone else what this process is, who the election candidates are. It’s decided by someone else we have to be objective and neutral about that. It’s decided by someone else whether we are being that properly or not. Someone else decides what will happen if we do not obey and what all this means.
What part do we play? We are spectators to these decisions. This is the system, which we are all taking part in right now, in which these, the real decisions, are made by others. We then argue with ourselves over whether little Ramos overstepped a ‘line’ (drawn by others) when questioning one of these candidates for proper power or not. And some say yes. Some say no.
I do not mean to insult anyone here, since I include myself in the observation. But if you find yourself taking the trouble to post in the comments section of an article on the website ‘The Intercept’ then you are a spectator, like the rest of us, who in a year or so of arguing out the tiny points will be asked to put a tick against one name or another of those who were vetted and decided on by those who hold the real power, to run the whole country.
If people want to make more decisions than this, then they need to offer resistance to those other decisions, the ones taken and forced on us by others. But we are not to ‘interfere’ in the process in this way. We are not candidates for real power. Or any. Because they said so. And we can see the reaction when one journalist disrupts the one true method of electing candidates in the US as decided by others, as decided by others.
We know who the real journalists are, we seek them out. My mute and fast-forward buttons are getting a work-out when Trump appears.
Now the New York Times is piling on, with a piece entitled Jorge Ramos is no Walter Cronkite. Another piece of drivel from a mostly worthless rag.
‘Ground control to major.. what gives w/ the ‘moderation’….?!?!
“Here we find, yet again, the enforcement of unwritten, very recent, distinctively corporatized rules of supposed “neutrality” and faux objectivity which all Real Journalists must obey, upon pain of being expelled from the profession.”
“…very recent…”
Are you not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine?
I mean, don’t get me wrong, for the most part I agree with you. But, at the same time the idea of “neutrality” has been central to the US’s broadcast journalism for pretty much all of it’s existence, and to suggest that’s it’s a recent occurrence strikes me as disingenuous to the point of dishonest.
From the article:
As Jack Shafer documented two years ago, crusading and “activist” journalism is centuries old and has a very noble heritage. The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the byproduct of the increasing corporatization of American journalism.
But you drew your cut off line of “very recent” only back to The Fairness Doctrine?
“The notion that journalists must be beacons of opinion-free, passion-devoid, staid, impotent neutrality is an extremely new one, the byproduct of the increasing corporatization of American journalism.
Activist journalists: opinionated, passionate, partial. Example: Fox News.
You have no originality, but to your hapless point: Do you believe that testifying and testilying are one and the same?
Originality? What originality has to do with the example? Fox News is loaded with opinionated, passionate, and partial journalists. So, why they cannot be classified as activist journalists?
The Fairness Doctrine hasn’t been in effect for decades. I’m not sure I see the point you’re trying to get at. That journalists have to follow the faux objectivity?
Yes, Ramos had every right to ask the question and Trump had every right to have him removed for not allowing others to ask their questions. I am glad some cooler minds and voices prevailed and Ramos returned to confront a deportation policy that both Ramos and Trump know is only going to happen if the USA goes full bore police state, a remote but real possibility. Both Ramo’s and Trump’s visibility and reputations among their base and beyond were enhanced. Trump should thank Ramos for his unwitting “support” for his run for President.
The right wing conservative and left wing liberal elites continue and I early on underestimate Trump. The elites are emotional distressed, blind to his end game. The script of a King Jeb to blatantly serve the wealthy or Queen Hilary through the poor a bone but serve your class is no longer a surety. I was once a soldier and underestimating an opponent will get you all the steel you can carry and all the dirt you can eat. In politics dismissing a viable candidate helps clear their path to office. Moral know your enemy and never believe your own bias. Whether you love, hate or as in my case I am “watchful waiting” you best take a look at the man behind the curtain.
I believe for good or ill what you see is not Exactly what you get. I believe the man has written the book “Art of the Deal” on who he is and how he operates.
No need to read the book nicely summarized:
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-business-philosophy-from-the-art-of-the-deal-2015-6
The dumb-assed immigration policy Trump initially put forth is a deal killer, just an opening bid. In Trump’s world and politics the “art of the deal” is compromise. In Trumps own words:
“You can’t con people, at least not for long,” Trump writes. “You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you can’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.”
Nixon when to China can Trump get all parties to make a “fair” deal on Immigration. I do not know but I do not dismiss the possibility.
Well, I just have a question. If Donald Trump gets elected for President and has to face a crisis, does he is going to remove journalist from a press conference if he doesn’t like the questions being asked.
First off presidential press conferences are well control and stocked with lap-dog reporters that strictly wait their turn so as not to lose their place in the kennel. I believe if any reporter broke protocol and continued to talk over other reporters, who also have questions, and the President, President Bush, Obama or Trump maybe not Sanders, would have them removed. However, if a respected reporter with a important question were remove they would as Ramos has be handed fame and a 24/7 soap box to ask their question exactly as we have seen. This is a good thing. Trump, Ramos and the question of mass deportation is now seared into the conversation of immigration legal/illegal. I also suspect, but do not yet believe, (“watchful waiting”) this is classic Trump “Art of the Deal” ask for the whole loaf but will take half. Of course half a loaf will never satisfy either total deportation or open borders advocates. Extremes can start the conversation but rarely resolve it in a good way. Most Americas would take a piece of a loaf rather than wait until the extremes push us all into some real bad totality policy probably not Mayday open borders but “Seven Days in May” CLOSED.
Those journalists attacking Ramos work for the racist right wing corporate owned media owned by the elites. They are not interested in telling the truth. They are interested in maintaining power.
Univision=Haim Saban.The MSM is only interested in mammon,Israel and dividing and conquering their enemies,US and the peoples of the world.
Ramos is just another useful tool,and a very leaky vessel for hopes and dreams.
Jorge Ramos represent the voice of 11,000,000 of humans as we speak as well opened the eyes of more than of 16,000,000 of voters of who really Sr. Trump is? as well what’s is planning to do if ?
Gracias Jorge la comunidad Mexico- Americana te apoyamos & we are going to make America great again not voting for Sr. Trump
Mr. Greenwald,
I have to admit that at first I was leery of Mr. Ramos approach. Having said that, I’m not sure how he could have acted any differently. The odds of Mr. Trump calling on him where slim at best. Mr. Trump ‘s reaction of ” Go back to Univision, (Mexico)” , literally scared the heck out of me. And then some flunky telling Mr. Ramos to go back to Mexico really pissed me off. I am Cuban born, US citizen, ex-Marine, and married to a Mexican citizen, now a permanent resident along with my step-daughter. $12,000.00USD later by the way, which I’m sure all immigrants wishing a better life can afford:)
For me, the reality is simple. There is a group of American’s that are scared of losing their identity, I can understand that, it is scary for some. If we do not come to terms that we are a boiling pot, blood will run, sad but true.
Our African American brother’s and sister’s, our Jewish community understands this, our Irish brethren understand this, our Asian friends understand this, our Southern brother’s understand this, and on and on. Let’s be clear. Mr. Trump is a racist, ignorant buffoon, who doesn’t understand this? Thank you for an insightful article, and let’s hope he just goes away, best regards,
Carlos Lopez
Jorge works for Univision. A reporter/investigator/journalist for more than 30 years.
Almost 2 months ago, he asked Trump for an interview, but Trump kept saying no.
Why? Because he knows what Ramos is going to ask and Trump don’t have legit answers.
I see a journalist trying to get the real information we need from a guy who wants to be our president.
Some don’t see it that way, but nowadays, you have no choice but to confront some individuals to get real answers.
Glenn, Thank you for seeing the big picture on the stance that Jorge Ramos took. As a citizen of this country I want to be educated on how our candidates are going to accomplish what they tell the people. If only more journalist took the stance that Jorge Ramos took prople woukd be able to see the truth that exists out there but too many times is just getting their simplistic question out and too afraid of the truth and stirring the pot but it’s necessary to probe so that Americans can know the truth.
Thank you Mr. Greenwald for taking the time to address the hypocritical reactions of certain journalists siding with a bigot simply because they are too scared to question a billionaire with power. Hate and racism will most definitely not make this country great again.
Sorry Glenn, but there’s a fine line between journalism and activism ..and Jorge clearly CROSSED that line. Reporters DON’T launch accusations, they ask questions.
What a comfie little world you live in. Don’t let anything disturb that, whatever you do.
Says who?
Here I was thinking he got kicked out for being a heckler because he was heckling.
Yeah, you were totally wrong about that: he got ejected for committing journalism.
This is no journalist. This is a little bias peon posing as journalist. Quit twisting around what happened in to something it wasn’t. I watched the conference and I encourage anyone who wants to know what happened do so as well.
A rude little reporter jumps up without being called upon in front of other reporters that did wait patiently.
What bothered you more about Jorge Ramos? That you think he’s not a journalist, even though he has been a journalist for something like 30 years? Or that you are offended by whatever it is that you estimate of his physical stature to be?
Yes, George seem quite preoccupied with belittleing Jorge Ramos. Odd, that.
Tom Friedman has been a journalist for ? how many years?Do you give him the same respect re longevity.This guy Ramos works for Zionist oligarchs,just as Friedman does.I believe nothing from serial liars.
No, I don’t give Friedman respect and I don’t give a lot of other long time so called “journalists” respect just for having been in the business. I think if you have been reading Glenn Greenwald for any amount of time (which I know that you have), and thus been reading some of my comments over that time, you know that you are asking me a bull shit and rhetorical question.
My comment to the asshole who made no case against Ramos, unless you think a case is calling him “little,” stands on it’s own. A Friedman Whataboutery isn’t relevant.
Where’s Doctor Gonzo when you need him.
Probably on a joyride, blamin’ it on the strongest amphetamine analogue/psychedelic combination he can put together in this day and age. Paisley sunglasses, 60s convertible, driving til the gas runs out.
Pity that ‘gonzo journalist’ is now considered anathema… Journos now are all so party line (in all senses of the word), towing toe-to-toe, trying not to lose their press passes.
Then again by all accounts, it’s hard to know exactly when that sort of journalism expired. Anybody have any idea? Or was it just a slow decline into nothing?
Testing 1… 2… 3…
Estoy de acuerdo con Jorge Ramos el unico que se enfrento con Donald Trump
I am very impressed that you write the truth of what it is. As a citizen, I need to know what’s really going on and the main reponsability of a journalist is to ASK questions that I have but I can’t ask the politicans. I may not like what I hear but I am informed so I can make up my own desicions about the candidates. I despite when journalist work like they are part of a hurdle. They are there to ASK meaningful questions and yes to put these politicians in a spot. We need to see their reaccion. Remember your vote is for he or she to represent you. Now will you want someone that is so bully and disrespectful towards anyone that doesn’t agree with his same views to run this country. Please look at other countries like Cuba and Venezuela. Because they voted with feelings not with reasoning they are where they are today. Do you want the same for USA?
We are instructed by quite a few respondents on how to become neutral and objective by taking a helpful step backward to take a look at the larger picture. So let us take a step back.
What we see here takes place within the public relations extravaganza in which billions of dollars will be spent, mostly by very large companies on advertising the candidates they want to see elected. The candidates desired and picked by this enormous and enormously private interest are then advertised and marketed to the ordinary voters to buy or not buy in the same way as they might pick up the latest Apple iphones and automobiles. This phenomenon is called, with all wonderful neutrality and objectivity, a ‘free’ election.
Feeling neutral and objective still? That’s one step back. The media are not neutral in this process. For they are the industry taking in the billions of dollars, so long as the process continues the way it does. And they are as objective about the issues, about the economy, of all policies and political questions as they can be so long as the ‘objective’ policy of accepting the billions of dollars of spending money that arrives in their bank accounts, based on how well they advertise the desired candidates of those paying the money in, continues.
Yes, they are being given quite a lot of money to be this neutral and objective.
Since we ordinary people have no big money, we are supposed to be neutral and objective about this process too, so let us take a step back further still. Let us look back at the great civilisations which have defined us to this day: the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Britons, and—by gosh—the Americans. Everyone loves the civilising force of pyramids, aqueducts, colosseums, skyscrapers (Trump Towers?) and the power and the hierarchy and the slaves who built them. Our societies are highly centralised and hierarchical, and closely policed to ensure it remains the status quo. That’s what hierarchy means. In societies such as these, such as ours, ‘objectivity’ and ‘neutrality’, means subordination to these systems of power and their established order. Don’t think once the property relationships are established. Don’t think how the property relations are established.
What about another step back? We live in a political age. All of our life is politics. In order to stop being political, we would have to stop living. Journalists and others are invited to pretend to stop being political so that they might follow the existing order. We are all invited to stop being so political and follow the given order. The social order of ‘attorneys, accountants, engineers, economists, physicists’ (thanks Nate), employers, managers, politicians and big businessmen exists so that it may be obeyed. And of course, you obey without question—that’s what it means. Nothing remains for ordinary people to be political about. Democracy is a fine word, but our scheme of hierarchy brings the expertise, ethics, standards, morals, qualifications, laws, procedures, classes, fame, influence, intelligence, understanding, ‘science’ which means that all things are already decided—all with the ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ called for. Of course, none of these fine experts finds his or her personal opinions or interests affecting the decisions in his running and making of a society.
Where does it take us? In a democracy, the purpose of the media is for ordinary people to exert meaningful control over their political process. Since this must obviously be avoided, the job of journalists is to reverse that political process called ‘democracy’, by giving the few who run society control over the rest of their population.
And the original issue was of immigration and borders or border controls. Well, the whole of society, the whole of this hierarchy: politicians, nations, laws, business, morals, religions, standards, qualifications, associations, centres, parties, and borders is to destroy the ability we would have to look to ourselves. That is the issue by which we discuss all issues. Everyone knows our democracy and society are flawed, but the meaning of this, I think, is little appreciated, which is to give a small number of people the power to completely control the thinking of all the people in a mass society, by controlling what thinking they are permitted to have, or to reveal about it to others, or to do about it, given their assigned place in the thinking.
So Ordinary people are low in hierarchy, and if they follow the order this entitles them to work, buy consumer goods, tick a box once every couple of years, shut the hell up, never question. Most of all, don’t get all political about everything, because we really hate that. If you want to do anything else you must join another class, which still means doing what we say but in a different class.
Journalists need to stop giving ordinary people anything of meaning they can use to enter the political arena. Don’t let them think. Don’t let them look to themselves on any question. We will get them to think what they think by force of hierarchy, and those neutral and objective facts on the ground. Society’s like this people. Don’t you say anything now.
Similar kinds of acts are going on in the public education field— with teachers getting ostracized or fired for speaking out against education policies or working as activists–that are detrimental to education of children. Alot of discussion on Diane Ravitch’s blog for more details.
In all colleges and Universities they have instituted snitching cells to watch out for hot heads and that the “right memes” are being aired.
RCL
Seen this, everybody?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-target-legal-critics-war-on-terror
And just were do these sanctified professional military lawyers get this Orwellian interpretation? The reintroduction if the ‘enforcement’ of the, mildly put, legally questionable Espionage Act of 1917.
Some pre-9/11 warnings of the Espionage Acts anti-democratic proclivities and civil liberties encroachments:
And:
“It’s strange to think, considering how many terrible things our narrator might see, that it’s the prospect of seeing nothing at all that scares him the most. Is he just afraid of the dark? What’s going on here?” – The Pit and the Pendulum
The law journal has no hyperlink to this article, though it has a lot of other stuff that may be troublesome. Still, the author’s point seems to have been not to bother with an Espionage Act trial and simply pick off dissenters as enemy combatants. It does suspend the rule of law in the Pinochet manner, but it certainly puts the “global” into the global war on terror.
He goes even beyond that:
He has a habit of exaggerating his importance and accomplishments, as if deluded believing that he is speaking to a secret society, and stands no chance at being found out for his lies and exaggerations.
The National Security Law Journal Outdoes the Onion
“Trahison des Professeurs” = Treason of Professors? Provocative, at least.
This guys credibility was compromised as far back as 2005, when he resigned from Indiana University-Indianapolis’s law school, as he was found to have lied about his military record — including “falsely claiming to have won a Silver Star during Desert Storm. See this article in Inside Higher Education.”
Still troubling: the realization that he’s not as much of an outlier as we’d like.
“Trahison des Professeurs” = Treason of Professors? This guys credibility was compromised as far back as 2005, when he resigned from Indiana University-Indianapolis’s law school, as he was found to have lied about his military record — including “falsely claiming to have won a Silver Star during Desert Storm. See this article in Inside Higher Education.”
http://opiniojuris.org/2015/08/17/the-national-security-law-journal-outdoes-the-onion/
Ya. Gearing up? Old pretenses are dropping like snake skins.
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/New-US-War-Manual-Says-Journalists-Are-Legitimate-Targets-20150624-0019.html
And man it’s quiet out there. Even in places where you’d expect reverb *ahem*.
ISIS narrative reads like the mother of all psy ops. Incredible swift impact. Little Pearl Harbors, every day all day. Not good.
Once again, it’s worth flagging this new pub from DoD.
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/images/law_war_manual15.pdf
Press freedom aside, the whole thing re-imagines wartime law.
The article doesn’t link through the journal’s table of contents directly, but you know the Internet: if it’s out there, it’s out there somewhere even after the CYA sets in.
https://www.nslj.org/wp-content/uploads/3_NatlSecLJ_278-461_Bradford.pdf
Wait till Glenn gets hold of this!
That William Bradford guy is someone who King Trump would like to have around!
The guy is so good and versatile, he may even become the Socrates of the NSA!
Satyagraha,
RCL
Giving credence to this is feeding its flame. The first report that actually needs to be done is a side-by-side comparison with this attitude and those of dangerous people in the past, as well as a legal perspective on what kind of crimes this person is encouraging.
I am delighted that this attack on the consummate journalist Jorge Ramos is being played out and reverberating in full view of the public, even if many don’t appreciate the significance. Guts, he has. Which is not to say that there aren’t others with guts but unfortunately not enough in these days and time.
Jorge Ramos is an activist pretending to be a journalist and/or a News Anchor… Also, it is obvious Jorge is indirectly part of the Hillary Team… with his daughter.
>>Also, it is obvious Jorge is indirectly part of the Hillary Team… with his daughter.
So what if he is? Would it matter to you if it were Jake Trapper and his daughter? Or, [insert name Fox News person] and his daughter working for Bernie Sanders? The daughter and the father each – apparently – have a job to do. I imagine those jobs might conflict as often as they are co-inicident.
Jorge Ramos was obnoxious and I wanted to hear some other questions asked by the other reporters.
Oh.
When I consider what drives illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America, I’m struck by an irony…. it seems most people that consider it a horror to be destroyed probably support the ideology that creates it. It was Reagan’s terrorist wars in Central America and his massive subsidies to American farmers that drove the wave of immigrants. If you destroy someone’s life either by destroying the country or making it impossible for poor Mexican farmers to compete with highly protectionist and socialized American agribusiness, what do you expect them to do? What would Americans do?
Of course, this narrative must be ignored by the media, because it lies outside the acceptable range of debate. What, the American government commits terrorism? Are you a shrieking lunatic? Don’t you know that we can only apply the definition of terrorism found in the U.S Army war manual to others?
A propaganda system works best when debate is allowed freely within tight constraints, so it has the illusion of freedom. Crucial for control in a very free society.
Thank you, Burrows!
I’m also struck by the same kind of irony. Moreover, I see also racism and a lack of basic humanity helping to erect those mental blocks
It goes way back, all the way back to the Monroe doctrine:
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
~
and when gringos speak of ‘America’ they mean they own the whole dam continent so they do whatever they want with any of their states
A good case in point is what “happened” to Guatemala during their Jacobo Arbenz’ presidency (“Red” Jacobo as called by U.S. officials)
// __ Arbenz & the CIA, Guatemala 1950’s
~
youtube.com/watch?v=rb7XaF1rs1E
~
Guatemala has become one of the most chaotic and instable countries ever since. Gringos trained their dogs at the terrorism madraza so-called “School of the Americas”
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Pérez_Molina
Genocide involvement, deportations and torture participation
In 2011 reports were made, based on United States’ National Security Archives, that Pérez carried out the scorched earth campaigns of the 1980s under the military dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. At that time, up to 250,000 indigenous Mayan peasants were killed in a 16 months period by the Guatemalan military. Widespread genocidal rape and mass sexual violence as well as cultural destruction were common.[13] Pérez commanded a counterinsurgency team in the Ixil Community in 1982-3, and razed 80-90% of the villages. At least 184 civilians were killed or disappeared under his authority.[14][15][16]
~
where they have also trained
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_D'Aubuisson
// __ Roberto D’Aubuisson Haciendo El Ridiculo
~
youtube.com/watch?v=r8Jdc4Wj5M8
~
also known as “Blowtorch Bob” for his habit to torture people with blowtorches. He was directly involved in the assassination of Monseñor Romero. Imagine how much this guy was hated that when they killed one of his sons pretty much every body in Latin America was partying.
~
Another of the “freedom fighters” who graduated from the so-called “School of the Americas” is:
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviación_Flight_455
~
doing things like “freedom-lovingly” blowing up a plain in midflight full of teenagers in order to save the cause of democracy and freedom in the Universe …
~
and
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raoul_Cédras
who is directly involved in the assassination of
// __ Jean Dominique
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Dominique
~
// __ The Agronomist
~
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Agronomist
~
The CIA toppled the democratic government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Bertrand_Aristide
because: “he was a black man speaking French and trying to make another Cuba out of Haiti”. That is maybe why good ‘American’ Christians went there to steal babies …
~
If you look into those issues even though you won’t see the end of it, you will find the irony more and more crass and inhumane, but, well, “we are a Christian nation” that is why (courtesy of the U.S. media) that is not even right or wrong; none of this is even real to begin with …
RCL
2 Aljazeera journalist sentenced again to 3 yrs in Egyptian prison. Yeah journalism comes at a cost.
… for saying, doing what?
RCL
Es Chistoso porque ese “dizque” PERIODISTA, DICE QUE EN VENEZUELA NO HAY LIBERTAD DE EXPRESIÓN
I am amazed that many seem to have expected for Trump to behave in any other way.
Probably we know Trump much better here in NYC, because he is a Queens, NY guy and the media couldn’t get enough of his buffoonery and his plutocratic [email protected] which he seem to love to shove on people’s face in the most uninhibited and (to him, it seems) “natural” way (notice his Freudian slip bellow) as if it says anything about someone who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was favored by exclusive sweet deals throughout his business careers.
By the way, he doesn’t know sh!t about the difference of a 94 with a 95 floor building. He is just a business man who has the money to hire those engineers, architects, economists and workers who actually know and do the work.
I wonder if people actually pay attention to what he is saying in stead of his behavior and manners. He is, among many other things, complaining about “the bad deal ‘we’ got in Iran” (more wars?), “China’s economic advances being due to their disregard for environmental regulations” (say this is true, no more environmental regulations then? what is even the point of saying that?), he is “boasting publicly about the wall ‘he’ will make, but the Mexican government will pay for” (a President of a country telling another sovereign country they will have to pay for his fancied projects, when they say: ‘no, we won’t’, his reply is: ‘Oh, yes, they will, you will see’?) …
If Trump wants to “manage” immigration all he has to do is look a little further up to Canada and learn from how they “manage” it instead of exploiting the proles sentiments by talking about all that senseless racist, plutocratic and fascist b#llsh!t.
I think Trump is beyond being just a plutocrat. He seems to fancy himself as a king already. Yet, given the options, even if I would not vote anyway I see the “good” and “healthy” in him.
1) He is not at all about political correctness, but a very explicit b#llsh!tter
2) He is not an “insider” (who would be a better option than him? Killery?)
3) He is making fun of the status quo (including the fake two party system), the media …
~
// __ Must See: Trump Demolishes NBC Reporter
~
youtube.com/watch?v=jk0Rl46dyK8
~
// __ DONALD TRUMP TO JOSE DIAZ-BALART: “YOU’RE FINISHED”
~
youtube.com/watch?v=l5nNU0e-qW0
~
// __ Donald Trump State of the Union Interview – Megyn Kelly Blood Comments – August 9, 2015
~
youtube.com/watch?v=38npP_h2XUg
(4:25)
TAPPER: Why do you think so many of your fellow candidates, so many conservative commentators are saying that they don’t believe your explanation?
TRUMP: Because they want to be politically correct. They want to get points. I’m leading in the polls by a fortune. They wouldn’t – by tremendous margin.
~
// __ Mr. Trump’s 757
~
youtube.com/watch?v=UZq3iCn2y74
~
Satyagraha,
RCL
emotions, philosophical wanderings, fat fingers, typos, being trapped in editing, not letting stuff rest …
his plutocratic [email protected] which he seemS to love to shove on people’s face
look a little fArther up
RCL
King Trump has also been boasting about making the U.S. military so powerful that people will sh!t in their pants at the thought of confronting it …
He has a beef with the Mexicans, Chinese, Iran, … reporters, … and at this rate he will end up having a problem with the world at large including “lazy ass ‘Americans'” who won’t take the slave jobs after he deports all those millions of illegal citizens and makes Mexico pay for his kingdom’s wall
Will he start with China first or Mexico? Maybe Russian? He should get advise from his beloved friend Palin who is very well informed about foreign policy because “she can see Russia from Alaska” …
Quite honestly, I never thought I would find Trump enjoyable …
Let’s make ‘America’ “‘great’ ‘again'”!
King Trump for U.S. President all the way! This is exactly what gringos want and need!
‘Americans’ will have a really good chance to test if “‘God’, gives a sh!t about them” He may even have a chance and reasons to reread his favorite ‘American’ book: “The Bible” … I would love to hear what King Trump likes about the Bible.
and Yes, I think those are an entirely valid questions: What books have you demonstrably read and what have you learned from them? He may have probably read only “the part of the bible that says: in Good we trust!”
RCL
Are you intimating the illegal immigrants in the USA are fleeing to Canada?It’s that bad here,huh?
The USA is a giant filter for Canada,we only get the best and brightest,while they get our outcasts.sheesh.
Aside;I’m sure that Canada,being a rich nation and relatively stable,is a target of illegals,but mostly through airlines.
No, I am not. Canada actually has neat and orderly immigration policies including for migrant workers
RCL
While I admire stenography journalism, there is also much to be said for plagiarism journalism. For example, I have copied an excerpt from an article in the Baltimore Sun from July 26, 1920, changed two names and I feel it captures the current election rather nicely:
“It sounds like plagiarism, but it probably wasn’t” ~ Mark Twain
Actually think it might be the inverse. This intensifies things not a small bit.
(in which @billmon1 scares the bejeesus out of me)
https://t.co/j3fzDSA1Rk
It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between politicians who have no convictions, and those who hide their convictions. So you may be right.
Trump may be guilty of pandering to his fawning would-be fascist supporters, who yearn for a strong man to set the country right. But you could say the same about any politician. At some point, if he wants to actually get the nomination, he’ll have to cut a deal with the establishment to ensure the status quo is protected. The establishment likes the idea of a special class of citizen with no human rights – call them slaves, call them illegal aliens, call them what you will – and will object to any mass deportation. So I don’t see any cause for alarm.
mutually exclusive? not convinced.
Most of our current govt.,media and corporations are now Nazi accolytes,Trump is just following suit.
Trump is an idiot,but even idiots are correct occasionally,and his 3 truths,illegal immigration sucks for America,McCain aint a war hero,and you can buy politicos,are totally verifiable truths.Other than BernieSanders(and boy is he putting his foot in mouth lately),I haven’t any truths from any of our plethora of candidates from both parties.
And Trump,the idiot,is about to ally himself with the absolute moron Cruz,in fighting Obombas one good deed,the Iran deal.sheesh.
Jeremy Corbyn? for POTUS.
They’re all truths but they’re all deliberately out of context. So it only flatters the reactionary mind. I think billmon is saying because he is an idiot, this is all particularly poisonous.
Must see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeju2SG7UMA
There’s no need for Palin to be so disrespectful to Trump. She was obviously trying to trip him up with questions such as, “where do you get your guts for that kind of necessary confrontation?” Luckily, Trump didn’t take the bait and admit how afraid he was of Ramos.
Idiots love idiots.
:… journalists don’t always need to be “polite” to do their jobs ..”
But they can be clever. It appeared Ramos was making a statement, rather than asking for facts. He probably wanted to get booted.
Glen, Glen, Glen ….
“What is more noble for a journalist to do: confront a dangerous, powerful billionaire-demagogue spouting hate mongering nonsense”
What is the law? Is Trump’s policy a violation of the law? The law says “deport” undocumented non citizens, that is not hate mongering, that is legal principal.
I disagree with Trump’s characterization of Snowden, but on this issue, he is saying nothing more than enforce the law. Another deep pocket, the guy that founded Home Depot believes Snowden to be a hero. So do I. When one of our employees sees corruption he’s supposed to make it public.
Yes, well, Ramos was trying to get at what Trump is not saying. Like Ramos,
I want to know, with great specificity, how Donald Trump imagines he would rid the country of 11 million people, and how he will “seal” the border. Do you know his answer to those questions?
He dodged the question and started to talk about gang members in Chicago (who I bet are mostly citizens). He needs to be clear on what he thinks about due process for allegedly undocumented immigrants. Saying he’ll be “humane” does not answer the question. More journalists need to press him on specifics, just like Ramos did, and — to be fair — like O’Reilly sort of attempted to do.
I doubt that the border can be hermetically sealed,but they can do better than the absolute failure they do now.Deporting 11 million?How about announcing all illegals register,their past looked at,those with crimes deported,along with those who won’t register,and then,like legal immigrants,they undergo a language and citizenship course,pass tests,and get citizenship.
Until then,these people will be marginalized and preyed upon by slavers and those who hate America,as chips in divide and rule,as they are now.
I don’t know the answer, but I believe the “rule of law” provides a remedy.
First, understand, I have no pony in this race. I quit voting when my precinct poll manager told me the votes could not be audited.
BTW Trumph, is surging among our Latino brothers.
Ramos should have just thrown a shoe he had no question, or wasn’t clever enough to devise one, he just wanted to do what he was instructed to do, and make a statement.
Trump wants to be an Abbott. Get on your kness and pray you have your papers with you.
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2015/aug/28/protest-against-border-force-visa-crackdown-shuts-melbourne-streets-live
Plan to flood city with officers for random checks on visas prompts uproar and forces police to cancel media conference, then entire operation. Follow developments live
What you need to know if you are stopped
Social media erupts over visa check plan
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/28/border-force-police-join-stop-and-search-crackdown-in-melbourne-cbd
Border force join police in huge visa fraud crackdown in Melbourne CBD
‘If you commit visa fraud you will be caught,’ warns border chief, as human rights advocates warn of possible ‘racial profiling’ by officers on city streets
Protests force Australian Border Force to cancel visa crackdown operation
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-border-force-to-patrol-melbourne-cbd-as-part-of-antisocial-behaviour-operation-20150828-gj9qtd.html
Border Force operation off after protesters take to the streets
What powers do Border Force officials have?
$10 million splurge to rename Australian Border Force
Mark Kenny: Operation Fortitude a case of uniformed insanity
An operation involving the Australian Border Force that was to target potential visa fraudsters in the heart of Melbourne has been cancelled following a public backlash.
There is a lot of truth to the saying that there is strength in numbers
The Abbott government is under pressure to explain why the police-led operation including the ABF involved stopping people for visa checks – a measure independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie compared to East Germany’s Stasi.
from the guardian
Independent MP Andrew Wilkie has gone all out in his statement on the Australian Border Force operation, comparing it to the East German security service the Stasi, former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin and Chilean president general Augusto Pinochet. In one paragraph.
Here’s his statement in full:
Joseph Stalin would be proud of Tony Abbott. Just as East Germany’s Stasi would be delighted with the Australian Border Force. Why even General Pinochet would be impressed.
The decision by the federal government to cancel this weekend’s security operation in Melbourne is a welcome respite, for now at least, but the government has shown its hand by planning the operation in the first place.
The community was outraged at the prospect of the random visa checks and should remain incensed with the government for thinking such an activity would be acceptable in the first place.
Australia is now a police state where citizens could be stopped in the street to have their papers checked. Are we to presume the enemies of the state will start to be disappeared?
Since the terrorist attacks in the US in 2001 Australians have been subject to countless new security law excesses, including the mandatory retention of metadata by the current government. To now have the prospect of the Australian Border Force “randomly” stopping people in Australia is surely the final straw.
“You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples.”
The Case for Open Borders by Jesse Myerson
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/03/the-case-for-open-borders/
(NOW we’re cooking with gas)
A good companion to this piece is Matt Stoller’s research on the origins of NAFTA.
http://mattstoller.tumblr.com/post/77315135524/nafta-origins-part-two-the-architects-of-free#_=_
Do read the whole post. Ball’s statement in that hearing is remarkable. If it wasn’t in the congressional record you’d think it was some boutique NWO spoof.
So, liberal capitalism (classical liberalism) unwound into corporate monarchism. Why? I used to subscribe to some dissonance on the matter, but now I think the only difference between libertarians, liberals and neoliberals is that it is solely the latter that understands the logical extension of their belief system. Of course they won.
Perhaps it’s a wry irony, the type of irony only long passages of time can provide, that the only hope of reclaiming the commons, reclaiming locality, reclaiming particularity, requires organizing with our fellow man, wherever she may emanate from, or reside. Workers of the world, united.
I’m still cooking with grease, but that was some really sound and insightful stuff benjamin! …except my head hurts (cognitive dissonance?) trying to figure the distinctions bewixt ‘liberal capitalism (classical liberalism), libertarians, liberals and the nasty neoliberals’ who, alone, truly understand the logical extension of their malfeasance!
Save for a few off-tune Trump’ets (h/t abadaba do), seems to me the flow of capital *and labor* will be hard to stop under any circumstance. Long before Mr. Gorbachev tore down that wall, people (and capital.) were, no doubt, leaking through like a sieve. After all, notwithstanding all the old men who still think in terms of the absolute sovereignty of nation-states … ‘the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens’.
TY! Two of my favorite political writers there. Opposite ends of the spectrum (or are they?)
Yeah, see, grappling with those distinctions used to give me a headache too. But then I learned to stop worrying, and learned to love the vulgar pinko. Now it’s just a light throb. ;-)
Mmm hmm. I guess the question is (always is).. to what end? Until the oil stops? Musical chairs can get dark in a hurry, y’know?. Yeesh. Not sure I want to go there right now. It’s been a beautiful day and that song will be in my head for the next week. Worse fates!
In dreams begins responsibilities.
Show me one nation in this world from where refugees are spewing with a better govt.,institutions and educated populace than America?You are advocating chaos and the impoverishment of millions and millions of Americans.Until the world is Utopia,fuggettaboutit.
I don’t hate my country,just the scum in charge,who’ve sold Americans down the river with those aforementioned stinking trade steals..
Too optimistic imo.
I hate to keep on this, but the stories here are STILL not opening in their own tabs. It’s frustrating if you want to e-mail a link to someone or post a link — you’re posting a whole slew of articles.
Other commenters have said there is a way to open a story in its own tab (I think it was “LM” that told me one way). I have never been able to get that or any method to work. Is anyone at TI listening? Anyone???
While you all were busy arguing, the assault on civil liberties is continuing. How about the developments in Canada?
http://observergal.blogspot.com/2015/08/whats-happening-in-canada.html
For James Baldwin fans, you may also want to check out another post – “This concerns ALL of us” – I think I called it.
The terror bill is scary shit. Does NDP have a shot?
The 5 Eyes are busy to form their pack. Anti-immigration laws. Civil liberties that goes to shit. I’m sure the fuckers are up to something mayor.
Ramos was the only one in the room acting rude and belligerent and speaking out of turn. It has nothing to do with the questions and everything to do with Ramos unprofessional conduct. All the other journalists in the room were acting with manners and professionalism. Unlike the childish tantrum of Ramos. That is why everyone in the room was against him. He was an embarrassment to himself and to the company he represents.
https://twitter.com/stevesalaita/status/522901783371579392
Remind me, when did Trump supporters start to be concerned about someone being rude, belligerent, unprofessional, without manners, childish and embarrassing?
The “Green Card” was instituted to stop illegal immigrants from taking jobs away from citizens. A friendly reminder for those who forgot or didn’t know.
Speaking as an American who has immigrants in the family currently and in the past, all of which did it legally. The legal way can and will take a long time. For some of our family it took over 40 years. What Donald Trump is saying on immigration isn’t causing discomfort amongst us.
I see very large numbers of foreign born people here in California and they are occupying jobs they shouldn’t be in. Our government needs to make sure the citizens of this country are not being denied anything by a foreign person or group within the borders of the U.S. proper! The government is failing.
Mexicans have a problem with Mexico. That is their problem to solve, not ours in the US. Mexico is rich in natural resources. The foundation for a productive society is there but Mexicans are screwing their own people by accumulating the country’s wealth amongst a few. Some of the wealthiest people on the planet are Mexican, made that way with mexican resources. That my friends is a Mexican problem. That applys to all of the other immigrant groups fleeing their country of origin to come to the U.S.
11 million illegal/undocumented immigrants taking millions of jobs away from the people who should have them. Anyone that says those jobs are jobs Americans don’t want is a fucking liar! Those jobs were occupied by Americans before, yes…
It’s amazing to me that whenever Trump gets criticized like this, his numbers go up. I too believe that a policy that allows illegals to effectively do whatever the hell they want is a bad thing, and I’ll take Ramos’ questions on that stance as well.
We can and should get into a discussion about how the news is reported, and how as journalists we’re taught to be objective, however in 2015 not too many truly are.
Bravo GG & Jorge Ramos! This needs to be said. Just to remind you all, one of the jobs of a journalist is to speak truth to power. That the majority not only don’t, but justify their spinelessness in the face of this pernicious wealthy demagogue with nonsensical criticisms of the one who dared, should be a source of great shame to American journalism.
After Glenn was on TV last night, and given his position on AM leaks, wonder what his position would be on outing the CEO for his purported infidelity:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/28/ashley-madison-neil-biderman-stepping-down
I mean is he more like the legislator who attempts to impose their moral worldview on others while being a hypocrite or is it purely a private affair between the CEO and his spouse and nobody’s business because life is difficult and complex. Or is he a new third category–a “public figure” or business person who profits off something like this, voluntarily facilitates others doing it, and takes his chances in his own personal life as a “public figure” with possible involuntary disclosure even though his behavior is perfectly aligned with his personal and professional moral/ethical stance on such behavior.
Interesting question to say the least.
I wonder how many people were sexauly abused by hostage taking takers who set them up through Ashley? Great way to silence your victims, no? Cosbies for EVERYBODY!
didn’t hillary just say ” you’re entitled to one question ? ”
not only would I have thrown him out when he tried to turn a question into a debate much less an interview , I’d have banned Univision back when they dropped the Miss USA competition
Trump’s platform isn’t unlike this one. How quickly people forget.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7923
Carter had a different view to Trump.
From your link ( http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7923 ) a snippet
ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
The fact that there are millions of undocumented aliens already residing in this country presents one of the most difficult questions surrounding the aliens phenomenon. These aliens entered the U.S. illegally and have willfully remained here in violation of the immigration laws. On the other hand, many of them have been law-abiding residents who are looking for a new life and are productive members of their communities.
I have concluded that an adjustment of status is necessary to avoid having a permanent “underclass” of millions of persons who have not been and cannot practicably be deported, and who would continue living here in perpetual fear of immigration authorities, the local police, employers and neighbors. Their entire existence would continue to be predicated on staying outside the reach of government authorities and the law’s protections.
Ah,rationality.
I generally agree; however, Trump had a private room I believe and he is free to invite, remove, etc. who he pleases in a private event.
Yes he is. And as a candidate for the nation’s highest public, office when he throws out a reporter asking tough questions on a subject area Trump has consistently refused to be pinned down on, we citizens are also free to make our judgments.
All employees of corporate media have surrendered their right to criticize for they take money from from organs of the plutocracy that are partners in the destruction of America’s democracy and now runs the country.
These corporate employees willingly feed 75% of Americans that get their news from the 6 corporations controlling 90% of the media what the corporatists have decided our people should be allowed to read or watch and listen to.
Instead of being the guardians of honor, truth, ethics, principles, and values, they have helped transform journalism from the most important component of a democracy to a profession of remoras.
Our loudest Trump supporter, John Parker, is indignant that some apply the fascist word to his Leader. But consider Trump’s support from white nationalsts:
Trump is wildly popular among those who are simmering with anger that they cannot say “nigger” in public. He’s the “white nationalists” candidate.
Any “tough” nationalist leader who promises to cleanse a decadent society so it becomes “great” again, by pretty much disregarding any legal and ethical constraints, is a Fascist. That’s all it means.
I don’t think we can say for sure that Trump is a Fascist right now, but it’s not a big leap to say he will be one once he assumes power. The alternative is that he’s just a demagogue who doesn’t mean what he says.
Agreed. Trump could “merely” be a wight-wing populist demagogue, but the road from that to fascism isn’t that long.
Hispanic whites?The Spanish and Portuguese are illegals?:)A few? I’d guess.
Actually,I believe they consider themselves Latinos(or prefer being called),those coming across the borders,and those American citizens of native American, and or of black, or white descent.
Oh how brave, a Latino journalist challenging someone who is rocking the corporate open borders folks…that’s “journalism”? For once I would love to read from someone who does not support open borders, and sees this influx of low skilled workers as a crime against America’s indigenous poor.
Just turn on Fox News…
Fox news,who I don’t watch at all except sports,does not have American nationalists on regularly.Occasionally maybe.Lou Dobbs was their nationalist,and he’s gone ,I believe.It is run by Rupert Murdoch,a right wing globalist Zionist,to whom American nationalism,the traditional kind,is anathema to his aims and interests.
And Fox is just a little more fascist than all the other MSM garbage nets.
And American fascism has been current for years.I mean,really.sheesh.
Framing the debate as Open Borders vs. Forcible Deportations is dishonest. There are all kinds of middle ground positions. I also think it’s a debate over a minor issue. There’s no real evidence of the alleged harms of illegal immigration. Less than 4% of the US population is undocumented. Furthermore, net migration to and from Mexico is close to zero and apparently in decline.
Much of Europe had open borders since before Nixon with no ill effects. (Back in the day, they tried to encourage travel (and trade) through euro-rail passes that would essentially take you anywhere for one low, low low price.)
*of course, since operation free Libya and Syria’s deep despair a lot of desperate people are trying to take advantage of a near-by European sanctuary. .. or any sanctuary.
Are you suggesting that white people are America’s “indigenous” poor? Black people?
I kinda think Hispanics have the edge when it comes to “America’s indigenous” anything.
Well… I rarely disagree with M.Greenwald but here I gotta say that I have a hard time not believing that there could’ve been a better way to proceed than that.
He is not acting as a journalist, he is acting as a protestor and an advocate. Journalists are supposed to be neither, In addition, he interrupted another journalists, and instead of waiting his turn to ask his question he shouted down the speaker.
Says who?
Most journalists I know are worried about job security and won’t bite the hand that feeds them. Most are glorified stenographers who boringly write for each other rather than the public. Period.
While I greatly admire your own work and your passionate advocacy, journalism in the U.S. is different than in England — at least some of it is, and I think that’s a good thing. I worked for the AP for 15 years here, in a state bureau. We had to provide “just the facts, ma’am,” for our members, which included everyone from Fox News to very left-leaning news outlets, and our commitment to doing that gave us a kind of credibility that Fox just doesn’t have. But the facts we reported also provided context, such as facts that contradicted statements by political candidates, businesses, etc. We are not just simple-minded stenographers, as you imply. Many of us are investigative reporters who dig well beyond the “he said, she said” that you are condemning us for. I certainly have my own political opinions, biases, and conclusions — but I strongly support the role of journalists like Caputo who do their best to report fairly and objectively, so readers, listeners, and viewers know there are sources where they can get unbiased facts daily reportage accompanied by historical and factual context. Like Caputo, I don’t believe Ramos should have been removed from the news conference, but unlike Caputo, I don’t believe he gave other reporters a bad name. I think it’s instructive for people to see how many millions of American citizens and contributing community members Donald Trump is writing off and how imperious he is in treating everyone who disagrees with him. There’s a place for the kind of journalism that you and Ramos do — and there’s a place for the kind of journalism that the AP, Times, and other mainstream media do, and there’s a place for the kind of criticism that organizations like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) level at the mainstream. But you don’t need to insult the mainstream media in such simplistic terms — because you, too, are feeding into the myth that ALL journalists are biased and promoting their own political and personal agendas, or someone else’s. And that’s just not true. Sometimes, giving the Nazis their say is the best way to show people just how ugly they are — and no journalistic advocacy is needed.
“how many millions of American citizens and contributing community members Donald Trump is writing off”
Point out any “citizens” that Donald Trump is “writing off”.
Say Louise, you have expressed support and admiration for Joe McCarthy. Could you point out what there was to admire?
See this video starting at 10:00. It’s unequivocal. Trump tells the CEO of Macy’s that Hispanics “will be gone… one day.” He doesn’t mean illegal immigrants. There’s no way to confuse this.
@ K. Webster
You believe AP does a better job of objectivity and truth seeking on balance than most other corporate media/news services?
Heard of Ken Dilanian?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/02/26/aps-dilanian-covers-news-clappers-threat-testimony-instead-covering-it
I do like that you guys are unionized if I’m not mistaken–News Media Guild.
Here’s the thing, all “journalism” is “biased” in one or more ways–in what “stories” or events are chosen to be covered and/or published, the “angle” which they are approached among theoretically many, the language employed to report a story, what facts are included or omitted as “important” or “relevant”, . . . whether or not these inherent “biases” are in service of a personal or corporate agenda, is a fair topic for debate. But I’d argue all bias is necessarily “political” in the sense that our myriad biases (as individuals or journalists) have “political” ramifications given the position the “press” holds within society and the role it nominally fills in relation to its readers.
Is all “bias” the same in kind, degree or motivation, no. But that goes without saying.
Now even liberal western Europe is fed up with illegals ( see link )
These were the natural ally of illegals but even they have made a drastic change after they saw all the harm that illegals do to their country. The illegal immigrant advocates have blown it. They just weren’t smart enough to go about this the right way and now all they have left is playing the race card.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/11734074/West-Europeans-want-end-to-open-borders.html
Yes, it makes perfect sense that a Trump supporter such as yourself should not favor refugee status in France or other parts of Europe for the Sudanese fleeing horror. Just call them “illegals” and let god sort it out, right?
The “illegals” (as you call them) are doing very little tangible harm to western European countries. Opposition to them appears to be rooted in racism pure and simple.
Gee my TV keeps telling me that everybody wants immigration reform. Then reality contradicts it.
—————————————–
From the article – “Bipartisan elite support did not prevent comprehensive immigration reform from failing in 2007, despite the backing of a Republican White House, nor did it prevent the DREAM act from being voted down in 2010, despite the backing of a Democratic White House. The Democrat-controlled Senate voted for a newer version of comprehensive immigration reform in 2013, but it is bottled up in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.” (where it died ).
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/why-the-billionaires-got-bupkus-110978.html
Jorge Ramos did exactly the right thing. The New Yorker:
And:
Trump is a Mussolini in the making, catering to populist fears of the Other and racism. Journalists, such as Ramos, do their jobs in trying their best to pin this creature down on exactly what it is he means and what he intends to do.
The establishment elites want the borders open, want the cheap labor, want the new customers, spare us the contrived notion that this is anything more than corporate manipulation, not altruism.
Look, Tom, you are not heralding anything that isn’t already known by myself, Greenwald, and his regular readers here. No sane person think the WSJ has long advocated liberal immigration policy because it’s heart bleeds for the wretched masses yearning to breathe free.
Nevertheless, I want to know, with great specificity, how Donald Trump imagines he would rid the country of 11 million people, and how he will “seal” the border. Don’t you want to know these things?
Mona,
Personally I think Trump is insane, I have long hated the man, and I believe that discussing any issue in the context of Trump does a huge disservice to humankind–but everyone needs to explain how they see this playing out. Yelling racism and ethnic cleansing does not in any way resemble rational conversation.
The tough issues are tough because they are tough. The harder a problem is to tackle the more motivated we are to just divide people, name call and then thank god that this argument will go on forever.
If the goal is to divide there is no motivation to solve problems. When the goal is endless division, that last thing you want is nuanced debate and problem solving.
Both open borders and wall building are not sustainable courses of action. The problem runs very deep and involves at its foundation modern slavery, capitalism, the need of capitalism to create poverty, and a whole bunch of things no one is talking about because this issue is only discussed through the prism of partisan politics using hatred of the other and division.
Truthfully, I see very few people trying to make a positive contribution on this topic.
Except, of course, for a significant sector of the populace it is about racism. And to repeat: I want to know, with great specificity, how Donald Trump imagines he would rid the country of 11 million people, and how he will “seal” the border.
Mona,
Just so I understand your position. If you are against open borders, then you are a racist? Is that your argument? Or is this just one of those ‘I’m not saying muslims are savages, it’s just that a lot of people who self define as muslims are savages’ type of argument.
I have also noticed that you seem to think that the best way to argue your position (Which I still have no idea what your position is) is to not have an opinion yourself on this issue.
Any comment at all on my point about problem solving and division.
No.
No.
For the third time now, my position is: I want to know, with great specificity, how Donald Trump imagines he would rid the country of 11 million people, and how he will “seal” the border.
No. I find that Hallmark argument inappropriate to Donald Trump and his ill-defined but deeply worrisome ranting about illegal immigrants.
Mona,
I’ve got to imagine you realize that only Donald Trump can answer this question the way you have phrased it, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he is probably not going to post in this thread.
1. Which is partially why I am so supportive of Jorge Ramos’s journalistic behavior.
2. I’d also like to see his ardent supporters — and there are some here — take a shot at some plausible answers that are not also heinous.
@ lastnamechosen
Agreed, that the management of immigration into this nation is a very tough topic. It is certainly worthy of nuanced and extensive debate. For too many it is a topic that cannot be discussed without resort to racism and xenophobic emotion. That’s it part what makes it a highly volatile issue. It’s too bad because it most certainly is a legitimate concern to many people for many different, and many legitimate, economic reasons. My solution is provide an easy/easier path to citizenship for everyone already here (and going forward) and otherwise not a felon, and then pour the resources into regulating immigration consistent with solid analysis American’s economic needs at any given time going forward. Now arguably that goes on now with “illegal” immigration being sensitive to market cues and people flowing back and forth/in and out of America in concert (or at last as a lagging indicator) with the economic prospects in America at any given time.
But permitting a big population of non-citizens who don’t have the legal rights and protections of citizens and as workers has huge implications both for them and for every other person in this nation. Treating them as pariahs isn’t going to solve any of “the problems” created by that reality. And that’s unacceptable and needs to change. Give undocumented immigrants here presently a fair opportunity to become citizens and then let’s get on with it. It’s always going to be a difficult thing to manage, but demonizing people, 99% of whom come here to seek a relatively better life than they find in their nation of origin and are willing to work toward that end, is foolish and not what American should be. Although it is almost axiomatic that every immigrant group has felt the sting of being “otherized” in this nation until they weren’t with the exception of the first immigrants. Decedents of African slaves being a wholly different “otherization” dynamic and not fairly characterized as voluntary immigrants in the first instance, and of course different in kind and degree as well.
rrheard,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I agree with your points about an easy path to citizenship for everyone already here and everyone period, and I also agree that after citizenship we need to start regulating immigration. Amnesty and then regulation.
Since corporations and certain individuals who want to exploit others have a very large financial incentive in using modern slave labor, what are your feelings about, after amnesty, instituting real punishments for those that support and facilitate what can be rightly called human trafficking. In other words, punish the johns and the pimps, not the prostitutes. I’m sure there is a far less offensive metaphor, but that does get my point across.
I do understand the argument that when you punish the johns and pimps the prostitutes are punished too, but in the context of undocumented immigration this argument sounds a lot like ‘slave owners were pretty good to their slaves’, which is not really a great argument.
To say it another way, if undocumented workers are being exploited against their will, then punishing the pimps and johns makes sense, but if undocumented workers are going to be given agency and free will and therefore punishing the pimps and johns is really punishing undocumented workers, then you really are opening the door for racists and xenophobes because you give them very good economic arguments to back up their hatred.
I swear sometimes I think issues are framed specifically to roust the racists. I don’t just mean Trump.
While it’s fine to propose all of that reasonableness, proposing is not, and has never been, the problem. Actually doing it is the problem because it’s all basically the same situation as the “Two Tiered Justice System” and “The Banks Own Congress” and No Bankers (and affiliates) Have Been Prosecuted” for the at least thousands of felonies that they have committed. And all of that is why addressing Trump and almost anything Trump says or pretends to stand for or pretends to be proposing is a waste of words and time. Trump isn’t going to build a wall. Trump isn’t going to deport 11 million people out of the country. Trump is the clown show he appears to be, and most all of the media is the clown show in response to Trump that they appear to be.
As long as the systemic protection of the money-set corporation ceo’s oligarchy, agribusiness and so on, who gain from immigration policy or ignoring immigration policy continue to make bundles of money from exploiting both the immigrants and the legal and illegal system, there will be no changes such as what you and Rrheard proposed or rehashed.
And because of all of that, to repeat asking those who support Trump to explain how Trump is going to accomplish what he claims he is going to accomplish, without explaining how, is not avoiding the issue, it is addressing the reality that their is nothing new or reality based about this ‘Trump Candidacy’ that we haven’t seen so many times before under other names. Granted, though, he is even more of a clearly defined buffoon and clown than most who have come before him and those currently running against him; and considering the long field of posers gone by that we’ve suffered in the past, that is saying a lot
Kitt,
You seem to be pretty sure about what Trump is and is not going to do. Frankly, I think you are being very naive. Trump is nuts. You may think this is all an act and that he actually won’t be scary as hell as president, but forgive me if I don’t follow you down that path.
As far as what can or cannot be changed–rehashed or not–I’m not going to follow you down the path of pessimism either.
In a Trumpless Universe we would still have the issue of immigration, so I really am not sure what Trump ultimately has to do with any of this.
I’m not being pessimistic. I get really tired of explaining the difference between “following down that path” which is the same old fucking path and expecting a different result, rather than where I really stand, which is that if we don’t upend the systemic rot there is no point in continuing to pretend that nibbling at the edges, begging the politicians and oligarchs to toss little bones is anything but foolish.
This isn’t new thinking or new suggestions I’m making. Why do you want to pretend that it is? You’ve really never heard anyone, not to mention me, suggest that the system is completely broken and we need a revolution or rebellion, depending on which word or suits your temperament?
I’ll repeat: I. Am. Not. Being. Pessimistic. Please learn the difference between pessimism and not “following down the path” that you’ve fabricated to be someone elses path.
@ lastnamechosen & Kitt
I would agree with you both. My theory is regulation should be aimed at employers–strictly. The question is how, how to do it cost effectively, and it will probably take an entire new enforcement bureaucracy or a huge expansion of INS’s role (or whoever currently polices employers–maybe IRS?). But until everyone has a reason to voluntarily come forward to be given legal status and identified in a centralized way any meaningful change is likely impossible.
I agree that as the system stands too many employers depend on the status quo and they are incredibly powerful and like the status quo exactly as it is. Presumably that’s the “rot” the Kitt thinks needs to be totally upended and I’d agree. If it’s something else, I’m all ears.
But on “immigration” and failing to bring all immigrants into the American political and economic system lawfully, either as citizens or under some full legal status of some kind, the whole “debate” seems wildly problematic if not intractable.
Kitt,
I also called you naive.
Don’t know why you think that was worth repeating. The problem with it in the first instance is that you misunderstand what I’m saying about Trumps bloviating. To be a Republican primary contender and say that you are going to turn everything upside down upon your election is not something that I’m going to waste my breath on. What I will do is what Mona was doing, which is to ask Trump, and his supporters, to explain in detail how Trump is going to do that.
If you’re calling me naive because I, same as say the “naive” Chris Hedges, Wages of Rebellion–The Moral Imperative of Revolt am saying that this system will not be fixed with the baby steps, and begging people such as Hillary Clinton and her money people to fix, well, you’re not convincing at all. Take a look at the latest post on The Intercept about Wells Fargo and their ongoing thefts. Another powerful example of how the two tiered system just goes on and on destroying people’s live and almost never being held accountable for the cruel destruction and thievery.
I have seen some progress being made in the fight to put a stop to police violence in America. This a people run campaign. It’s not a Hillary Clinton run campaign. It’s not a Donald Trump run campaign. Based on what I’ve read and studied of what this collective of people have put together, I don’t see your label of “naive” being a good fit at all. I see people who know that taking power into their own hands is how we’re going to accomplish getting real and sustainable results.
Campaign Zero
“We can live in a world where the police don’t kill people
by limiting police interventions, improving community interactions,and ensuring accountability.”
Kitt,
While I appreciated your post explaining the subtle but important distinction between a faux radical and a pessimist, I think your time would have been better served coming to the realization that not only can you not read Donald Trumps mind, but you will say anything, no matter how stupid, if you think it will support your argument–no matter how stupid your argument.
You can’t read Trump’s mind, and you can’t predict the future. Pretending that you can doesn’t make you intense, or edgy, or closer to the truth. It just makes you someone who is unable to distinguish between what is squeezed out of your colon and your brainstem.
I’ll let that stand as another example of a comment from a commenter who has made a case against themselves much better and more acutely than I could make against them with any rebuttal that I might form.
I will add, though, that “reading Donald Trump’s mind” if of no interest to me, but what is of interest is that some here (Mona, in particular), asked that Donald Trump himself explain what is going on in his mind:” I want to know, with great specificity, how Donald Trump imagines he would rid the country of 11 million people, and how he will “seal” the border.”
You chose to disparage that reasonable line of questioning. I can’t read your mind as to why you made that choice.
Look Kitt–
You can either be funny, or smart, or insightful, or constructive, or not be a dick–but if you can’t do any of those things, then you need to bring your “A” game, and if you don’t–then you will get spanked. This is certainly nothing to spill milk over.
And like pummeling a small child, it’s not that I am ashamed of our encounter–but I have grown bored.
All those words and I still have no idea where you stand on immigration.
Four tired old cliches all bunched together into one short comment. No wonder you have “grown bored” — which is, by the way, the fifth cliche in a short comment.
I’m not that familiar with your past commenting. I see now that you’re “a dick.” Make that six cliches in your one short comment. Yeesus shit, what a mess.
Good comment.Curious,has Ramos ever directed any opprobrium towards the corrupt Mexican,or Central American govts., whose policies have also have helped create this disaster?
Something tells me,probably not.
Univision,that paragon of journalism.
My wife says they run porno and homosexual soaps all day(like US ),or is that a subsidiary?
The celebration of the lizard.
The bastards have even started with the dinner hour 4 hour hard on crap,as they sell sex drugs to a wacked(no wiki,wacked is from wacky,not whacked as in ball) out audience.
Wacky world.
Will Bunch weighs in
There is a special word in English for those times when the costumed character at the microphone is presupposed to be the only one present with anything valid to say, and must not be interrupted. We call that “church”.
The support for immigration reform is overrated inside the Dem alternative reality
——————————————-
Opposition to immigration reform is a winning strategy for Republicans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/02/27/opposition-to-immigration-reform-is-a-winning-strategy-for-republicans/
This article explains why Trump is so popular
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/07/us-usa-immigration-worries-idUSKBN0G70BE20140807
From the article – Seventy percent of Americans – including 86 percent of Republicans – believe undocumented immigrants threaten traditional U.S. beliefs and customs, according to the poll.
As does this one:
Is Donald Trump leading a proto-fascist movement?
Do you see yourself in there, John Parker?
Wow Trump haters calling Trump a facist. What a surprise ? I heard that Trump kicked a puppy and made a baby cry too.
This is a poutrage.
As can be seen by now after having read your several posts and replies, you are, not surprisingly, embarrassingly shitty at this “debate” stuff. The reasons why are too obvious, and so it would be boring to bother pointing them out.
CIA, FBI, NSA cannot afford to have Donald Trump dictate to them. I wish Mr Trump the best of health, while admitting I am somewhat concerned about his welfare.
Some possibilities.
One, he already has a working relationship with the agencies so he already knows who is boss.
Two, as soon as he is in office he learns who really runs the country, and falls in line with the status quo.
Three, after election he tries to force change upon the power of the agencies and something hazardous happens to him.
Four, he does not give a shit about them and leaves them alone to do their thing, while he concerns himself with making more money.
I very much doubt the third one is a realistic possibility.
He used to be an idiotic plutocrat who can’t help but compulsively play “the boss” and a darling of the media for his buffoonery. Now he has become a dangerous idiotic plutocrat who may become the next U.S. President (which says a lot about the U.S. citizenry)
Notice how he acts in that press conference. He has always been like that. He behaves like a bratty, surly teenager. Like Bush Jr., he is an honest idiot. Moreover, Trump doesn’t shy away from, very actively indeed (even using twitter!), publicly blurting his racist, plutocratic and fascistic sentiments. At the end of the day those people are less hurtful than Mr. “Yes we can”, “constitutional lawyer” kinds of guys, whom the CIA, FBI, NSA would rather have as a front.
I don’t vote myself anyway. One of the things I have learned in the U.S. is not believing in “representative democracy” (to me it is like factually believing in voodoo). I’d just wish he would be a little cynical and “smarter managing the crowds” because by attacking Mexican/”Hispanic” people in such a disrespectful, crazy @ss way he is not only disenfranchising himself from a large constituency, but making many people wonder about him.
RCL
Agreed. #3 is a possibility but a very, very remote one put forth by the General.
Trump will go along with the established order, it is in his interest to do so. Egotists like him have no empathy for the little people. No altruism exists within him.
The system of representative democracy is broken. Voting is a waste of time and occupies the minds of fools.
Trump is “not a Stupid man” he knows you must play ball to some degree with the military -industrial-complex(MIC) or take one for the team. He might test the binderies more than most due to his ego but will not cross the line. MIC deal in silver or lead just like the cartels but even better information can scandalize and destroy without being rash, ask General Petraeus. Trump knows how to stay healthy and is too smart to jeopardize his reputation on some trumped-up scandal . He’s on a mission and believes his own hype, hell there’s a small chance he might even get something done. The only check to MIC will be the bankruptcy of America, Trump could handle this better than most.
I agree in part with Glenn that Jorge is a journalist and I really don’t care if he is also an activists as along as he reports on truth. I did watch the highlights of the interchange and actually both were wrong. Jorge actually talked out of line when he wasn’t called upon and became disrupting. Trump was wrong in having him removed; he could have let Ramos finish his piece and then address him but if Ramos thereafter kept interrupting then he should be removed. I am all for any journalist or a person asking questions to go after these powerful people but at the same time when it is a setting like that to do so respectfully, especially to the other journalists there.
Seriously? Have you never seen the journalists packing the courthouse steps outside a high-profile trial shouting questions at the defendants, lawyers, and even the victims? Have you never seen the news vans camping out in front of the house of someone who’s the subject of some “breaking news” waiting for any opportunity to push a mike in their face and ask a question? Yet you call Ramos “out of line” and “disrupting”?
And also can we please dispense with this fucking bullshit of equating a reporter persistently asking a question with a US Presidential candidate with a known grudge against Univision having one of his goons forcefully eject a Univison reporter for asking a question “out of turn”? I mean, do you really believe for one second that Trump was EVER going to call on Ramos?
Doesn’t freakin matter. If poor Jorge (George) doesn’t like it, its too bad. When Code Pink interrupts Congressional hearings by outbursts and interruptions, guess what they get removed. Jorge wasn’t asking a question; he was spewing propaganda. And, because you think for one second that you wouldn’t get called on, doesn’t allow you to just interrupt at your will. Sounds like a selfish child not getting their way but then again, Jorge does not respect his country’s immigration laws. I wonder if Jorge can do this with the Mexican govt and their horrendous policies toward illegal immigration? Yep, didn’t think so.
The Israel on Campus Coalition has just a report(pdf) ringing the alarm bell about the pro-Palestinian movement making common cause with many other social justice movements, including Black Lives Matter and Dream Defenders. The ICC report also finds BDS support sweeping over U.S. campuses. Alex Kane reports, my emphasis:
And indeed, the ICC is very nervous. That portends well for justice.
Why Mona is a Dumb Ass:
“You mean a military that, like civilians, could legally reports atrocities and abominations to the media? Why, we’d have a much more moral army. Requiring them to first see the gatekeepers, and standing on how great that system supposedly is,m is nothing less than Kafkaesque. But then, we are dealing with you, lenk.”
Dumb statement. The US military does not have regulations, general or special orders that prevent military personnel from reporting crimes to the media. Military personnel who intend to report crimes or what they believe to be crimes related to classified information are provided with free legal advice before they proceed.
About limitations on free speech in Europe:
“And they’re wrong, and also do not then really believe in free speech. France is horrendous, and the UK is becoming so”.
Dumb statement. Basic freedom is not unlimited. The US government will invade your privacy and search you and your private property if you intend to use American Airlines services although the contract between you and AA is private. Defamation, libel, providing pornographic material to minors are punishable offences under US laws. An individual committed to a mental institution cannot obtain a firearm license under the law. No reasonable individual would believe privacy rights, freedom of speech, and freedom to bear arms are gone because of these laws. And no reasonable individual would believe laws against inciting children to kill innocent human beings mean the end of free speech.
“No, I (meaning Lenk) have no documentation for my implication that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have requested drone bombings of their citizens.”
Dumb statement. Iraqis and Afghan officials have publicly requested air strikes against ISIL, Taliban and Al Qaeda.
“We have a request from the Iraqi government for air power” to fight ISIS (US General Martin Dempsey, June 2014)
“Iraq has officially asked Washington to help under the security agreement, and to conduct air strikes against terrorist groups,” (Iraq foreign minister Hosyar Zebari, 18 June 2014)
“we need more attacks by the international coalition aircraft and heavy weapons” (Iraq prime minister Haider Al Abadi, December 2014)
“We asked for foreign air support during the military operations in Kunduz, Badakhshan, Nangarhar and Sangeen district of Helmand province,” (Dawlat Waziri, spokesman for Afghanistan Ministry of Defense, Aug 2015)
Nothing personal Mona, you are just a dumb ass!
Nothing I need to reply to in that, lenk. It’s all so fallacious, and transparently so. No one serious would be persuaded by such dreck.
“Nothing I need to “REPLY” to in that, lenk. It’s all so fallacious, and transparently so. No one serious would be persuaded by such dreck.”
After you clicked on the REPLY link. Hence you are dumb ass! Nothing personal.
All I can see from the shit you post here is that you are a little arsehole or that you are an old arsehole stuck in a little arsehole’s mind.
You are very passionate about ass. Sorry, I am interested in your sexual life.
I didn’t offer a substantive reply, because there is no “substance” in your comment that merits attention. Advising you of that fact is not a reply to your crap itself.
Translation: ” Lenk provided factual evidence that I am a dumb ass”
Not yet.
Are Fox reporters and anchors noble “activist” journalists’?
How many of those denouncing Ramos for, you know, not allowing Trump to ignore the question of how he was going to do what he said, have been committing journalism by not allowing Trump to ignore the same question? Those offering up the Trump version about Ramos (which is the equivalent of demonizing a Jewish reporter who was attempting to question the short Austrian about how he was going to go about deporting Jews) seem more like stenographers jealously guarding their claims to be journalists.
The idea that journalist aren’t also stakeholders when they refuse to show faux objectivity in the face of nonsense, is well, nonsense.
How can you give balance to a story that inherently has none? If a reporter can’t question hateful dangerous rhetoric then we have no free press. There was also I time when papers didn’t give clowns the headline in presidential campaigns. Now we give clowns the headline and ignore sane thoughtful adults trying to make a difference. It’s lunacy!
I believe reporters are all too often lured into “subjectivity” by simply quoting “official sources” who lie more than they tell the truth.
Had I taken the “official sources” approach on two stories in 2013, an innocent person would surely have gone to jail. The local print paper in my town didn’t give shit that this could happen and followed the official police line every time.
A reporter at another local paper was essentially fired for filing regular FIOA requests on local and county government.
I don’t like most reporters and most of the editors I’ve worked with of late are spineless fucktards that couldn’t write their way out a wet paper bag. They are essentially PR people– just wretched human beings.
Let’s just look at the SPJ Code of Ethics (the industry standard for reporting that is the first thing all journalism students are taught in school):
1. Seek Truth and
Report It
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
2. Minimize Harm
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
3. Act Independently
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.
4. Be Accountable and Transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
Ramos may have been passionate, but no doubt he followed — in fact epitomized — the code of ethics and reminded me that even though I’m not a working journalist, I should re-read them every once in a while.
If you can’t figure out why Trump is in first place you need to read this from the liberal Guardian.
———————————————
Massive opposition to immigrants world wide
http://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2015/aug/06/immigration-viewed-negatively-half-developed-world-population
Could you explain why you think that article from “the liberal” Guardian makes your case for why Trump is “in first place?”
“Immigration viewed negatively …”
” a view shared by only a minority of citizens in the US, Spain, Canada and Germany
Youre so dishonest you cut off the title of the article. Heres the rest of it
Immigration viewed negatively by half of developed world’s population
Obviously you understand that is a massive amount of opposition to immigration otherwise you wouldnt have tried your cornball effort to censor the title .
HAAAAAAAA. Dude you cut the title of the article in half cause you couldn’t handle what the second half said.
That’s as wimpy as it gets.
The complete IPSOS report is even more informative. USA numbers are very interesting and do not exactly paint a picture of a citizenry in love with massive illegal immigration.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6930
By the way, you can see that The Guardian, in printing the line “a view shared by only a minority of citizens in the US, Spain, Canada and Germany” in response to the question about “causing their country to change in ways they don’t like” , left out the interesting bit – that the relevant minority percentages are
“United States (43%), Spain (44%), Canada (43%), Germany (41%)”
On other questions, USA numbers are
“A majority (81% +3 since 2014) indicate that over the last five years migrants have increased in their country.
-United States (69% +4 and -12 since 2011)
Half (50% +2 since 2014 and -2 since 2011) of citizens surveyed in 24 countries believe that there are too many immigrants in their country.
-United States (49% +1 but -10 since 2011)
And almost as many (46%) agree that immigration is causing their country to change in ways they don’t like…
-United States (43%)
Only one in five (21% n/c since 2014) citizens from the 24 countries surveyed say that immigration has generally had a positive impact on their country – and there has been no change in this figure between 2011 and 2015.
-United States (25% n/c since 2014 but +7 since 2011)
Only three in 10 (28% +1 since 2014) of citizens in 24 countries indicate that immigration is good for the economy of their country.
-United States (30% +2 and +7 since 2011)
Half (50% +1 since 2014 and steady since 2011) of those citizens surveyed in the 24 countries indicate that immigration is placed too much pressure on public services in their country.
-United States (58% n/c and -8 since 2011)
Almost half (45% -1 since 2014 and -3 since 2011) of citizens surveyed in 24 countries indicate that immigrants in their country have made it more difficult for their own nationals to get jobs.
-United States (48% -3 and -12 since 2011)
Four in 10 (41% -1 and -4 since 2011) of citizens in the 24 countries surveyed believe that priority should be given to immigrants with higher education and qualifications you can fill shortages among certain professions in their country.
-United States (35% +2)
Just three in 10 (30% n/c since 2014) of citizens in 24 countries indicate that immigration is good for the economy of their country.
-United States (41% + for and +5 since 2011)”
This speaks for itself.
Of course, the issue isn’t whether a minority or a majority in a poll support or don’t support a certain policy. The important point is to elect people who will get the job done, regardless of what pro-illegal-immigration dummies think.
I’ll inform you again what you did and what I did.
You posted excerpt and link from an article that you thought — or pretended to think — backed up Trump’s popularity about immigration policy. So I read the article and noticed that the statistics about immigration in the US made the exact opposite argument that you thought — or pretended to think — that you were making. So I posted what was actually the point of the article in regards to a candidate running a campaign in the United States (that would be Trump) who’s immigration ideas or proposals or rhetoric are in opposition to the majority of voters in the country he is running in — that would be the United States.
Also, when I post a link I am reasonably expecting that if anyone would like to read the article within the link, all they have to do is open the link. Based on your comment post you didn’t understand what the article was about, and so thought that your posting of the link would favor your incorrect assessment and your excerpts and your editorializing. But you were wrong on all counts. So I posted the link and posted excerpts which specifically addressed what this discussion is about–Trump’s immigration proposals being adverse to the majority of those who were polled on the subject. The article, in its entirety, backed that up.
There is no “haaaaaaa” about being as freaky obtuse are you’re being. I don’t see any humor in seeing someone who is pitifully illiterate when their illiteracy is coupled with being pompous about their illiteracy.
Ramos got thrown out for trying to cut the line ( where have I seen that before) .
Talk about your greasy kid stuff. Really childish and unprofessional behavior. I do enjoy the desperation of you Trump opponents. You kept telling us he was never gonna make it to where he is now and he showed you that your attempts at predicting the future were laughable
Yes, but journalists aren’t kindergartners.
Greenewald has never said that. However I’d point out, it is highly doubtful Donald Trump could win a general election. He appeals to the racist authoritarians, the ones who have been seething that they can’t say “nigger” out loud in public. He doesn’t need any of the media, including — perhaps especially — Fox. The right-wing populists who are his base love that,and it makes him shaming-proof. Indeed, if he said “nigger” his base would swoon and clap. But I deem it unlikely he could win the general.
I did notice that Ramos was asking questions out of turn. And that the journalist who was supposed to be next didn’t raise any complaint.
Uh. Sorry. Ramos became the story. Not a clever way to report or get answers. Besides, if this is the first time he felt what a political figurehead said was “personal”, he hasn’t been paying close attention. Another example of the decline of true journalistic standards (i.e., consider ethics used during civil rights, suffrage reporting, etc.)
Perhaps you could share some supporting facts of history that demonstrate you have anything like a clue?
“Ramos became the story.”
Yeah, so did James Foley. How stupid of him to get beheaded like that. He should have been more polite to ISIL.
If you’re a journalist doing your job and powerful people decide to take hostile actions against you because of that, then to some extent you’re going to “become the story.”
Why is it so important to be polite to a psychotic blowhard who wants to commit ethnic cleansing against 11 million people?
Jack Shafer (who is so ill-fitting at a corporate-media, insider outlet like Politico, but there it is) is quite merry over the Ramos v. Trump matter, Trump Meets His Match in Jorge Ramos:
Just so.
Louise Cypher spews more silliness:
Again, it is well to bear in mind that our Louise is simply unsound in her mind and judgments. The “woman” suffers from extremely paranoid delusions, to wit:
She’s also defended the honor of Joe McCarthy. And, she feels that Stephen Hawking is dumb as a box of rocks.
So, assess her claims and judgments accordingly.
lenk lenk lenk lenk lenk lenk lenk
You have several times now claimed this:
Are you claiming that I never seriously disagree with anything that Glenn Greenwald writes? Yes or no?
If ya have any cojones, lenk, answer this simple, yes or no inquiry.
Well?
Most people (I think) appreciate the difference between skepticism and contrarianism. Obviously, some do not.
“Are you claiming that I never seriously disagree with anything that Glenn Greenwald writes? Yes or no?”
“If ya have any cojones, lenk, answer this simple, yes or no inquiry.”
Lol Lol lol
The answer is no. You have been on your knees for the last ten years swallowing EVERYTHING he gives you, but you probably stand up once in a while to wash your face, put more make up so you can look fresh again when you get back on your knees.
Very good, lenk.You avoided the embarrassment one of your ilk got himself into not that long ago when he announced I would never disagree with Glenn. Given that Glenn and I have rather strenuously disagreed a great deal on several issues — most strongly in this past year — you did yourself a solid by dropping that point.
‘You (Mona) have been on your knees for the last ten years swallowing EVERYTHING he gives you” lenk
“very good, lenk” Mona
lol lol lol
Where are all the journalists who stood up for Megyn Kelly when she pressed Donald Trump exactly this way?
I saw this speech a few years ago by Connie Fogal who is a leader in a political party in Canada regarding the North American Union:
https://myspace.com/humbletruth/video/canada-s-connie-fogel-on-the-corporate-north-american-union-./57850727
I honestly do not know the status of the agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico at this time, but I think it is worth researching to find out.
Glenn, …really…, you know full well that all War Fare (and politics) is based upon deception. Its one thing to an enemy but to write an article such as this and deceive your readers. I agree that Donald Trump or any other office holder should be held accountable for deceiving the voter they represent or campaigning for their votes. You should make every effort to point blank expose the deceptive qualities on display by Mr. Trump and Mr. Ramos at this presser. Any builder understands that if a huge wall is to be built that obvious foundational surveys are needed to identify any TUNNELS before digging and laying block. Heck….maybe, Mr. Trump can find El Chapo and Mr. Ramos can report if and YOU can be the one via First Look to let everyone know before the first foundational survey for a wall is every assessed.
Come on ……Glenn, you know full well how much oil can be fracked along the border alone. Mr. Trump and Ramos are not dumb and we feel certain your readers are not.
Glenn, lets go……
Call it whatever you want to call it. He did an exceptional job, not like the buch of cowards that are afraid to give their opinion toward Trump’s stupidities.
Okay, now after reading what one activist thinks about the so-called “journalism” of another activist, here you can see what an *actual* journalist thinks about this pathetic Ramos stunt:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/27/why-jorge-ramos-crossed-line-in-confronting-donald-trump/
“Actual journalist” Howard Kurtz, eh? *chuckle*
Ah, Louise Cypher. How ’bout a nice cup of shut the fuck up?
Calm down dear, you’ll pop a vein.
But he did not call it a pathetic stunt; you did.
Not a Trump fan, nor a Republican. I plan on voting for Bernie. But, I disagree with your headline that Jorge Ramos “committed journalism.” What he committed with obnoxious and boorish behaviour. Trump was right to throw him out. This was a press conference. You wait to ask your question until you are called. And Ramos wasn’t asking questions, he was giving a speech.
I agree with your assessment 100% (was actually going to post nearly that exact description – note to Glenn Greenwald, i like my news unbiased and FACTUAL. It’s hard to comprehend how Mr Ramos’ statement, given while interrupting another reporter, can be viewed as journalism.
You have “press conference” confused with kindergarten class.
News this, His daughter works for Clinton.
EVERYONE IS BIASED.
Reporters call this bias an “angle” and they are completely entitled to it.
Journalism is about getting at the real facts. Every article has an angle to it and people need to understand that no one journalist is the absolute authority on anything.
To achieve a broader understanding one must read from multiple sources.
Only then will you understand that the “truth” is not in any one article, but that there are kernels of truth in each.
Read BETWEEN the lines
One of the main problems with our media in this country is that they no longer see deference to power as a form of bias.
Donald Trump acts like a badly spoiled child and his popularity increases!?
When I saw this a chill ran up my spine because he could be the next president
Mike from Canada –
I feel EXACTLY the same way. I can’t BELIEVE anyone would vote for such a moron. I just say — preserve us from his even getting a nomination.
Millions of legal immigrants have patiently waited, submitting documents, paying the fees and undergone the background checks and interviews, as required by law. Seems 11 million other folks didn’t care about the country’s laws at all and leapfrogged over the law abiding immigrants who got pushed to the back of the lineup – and also suffered the inevitable blowback those sneaking in illegally produced against all immigrants.
It is true that treating illegal immigrants inhumanely – as is the unfortunate propensity for authority to too often do, to citizen and foreigners alike – is wrong. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and consequences should be proportional to the offense, not draconian. But if a person knowingly violates the law, sneaking past authorities knowingly and willingly, realizing that without following the process and without some sort of status, there is no right to be in the United States, how does that convey an implacable right to remain? Proportionality demands that a police state apparatus not be built to root out every last offender whatever the collateral damage to a free society, liberty and privacy, but one cannot expect that there is a legal right to remain, unless the law is changed.
I myself wish for a world of open borders, where any of us are free to travel, live and work peaceably wherever we wish in the world. But that’s not true for us as Americans, either (unless we’re warriors occupying a foreign country, or wealthy or corporate elites) – we are constrained, unless we break the laws of other countries, from doing so either. Sadly, we are not as free as birds.
When the illegal immigrant paradigm is conveniently abused in order to exploit both the legal American residents who have their incomes undercut, and to at the same time exploit the desperate who without legal rights can be paid less and less as their marginalization increases, there is clearly more to solving the problem than simply blanket amnesty, with more of them to come.
Europe faces a refugee crisis of enormous negative consequence both to the refugees and the stability of the societies they flee to. What caused it? The chaos that western financial, political and military invasions and occupations have unleashed on the countries the desperate flee for their lives from. That is the consequence of mistaken American policy strong armed onto allies.
Similarly, the degradation, depredation and corruption in Latin America have been part and parcel of an American policy that seeks to dominate for financial and political advantage. Were our policies to change so that true economic independence and prosperity were fostered in those countries, instead of striving for subjugation, it wouldn’t be necessary for the economically desperate to flee by the millions across a border where those economic benefits have accrued, though lately largely only to an elite.
He just beat Megan Kelly to the punching bag. Had she stepped up to sound him out on what his plan is for marginalizing women’s needs, she would have been lauded as the REAL HILLARY.
If Trump wants to get rid of those who don’t belong in the US legally the only ones left will be Native Americans. Goodbye Trump…get thee back to Europe.
Hello there –
That was a good one. Put a smile on my face for sure :-)
What irks people is that Ramos was not acting as a “reporter” who does just that, reports the news. Instead he acted as a journalist who delves into the story and tries to get to the heart of the matter.
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-ramos-trump-exchange-gop-candidates-muddled-but-clearly-xenophobic-message/
To paraphrase Roger Ebert:
Those who are calling for journalists to be objective are revealing that they haven’t given the matter a moment’s serious thought. Most times, those calling for objectivity are essentially saying they wish you had written an article that reflected their subjective opinion.
Uninformed children are being taught that the man asking the question at the press conference is rude and the Trumpet with the bad hair piece is the FUTURE!
“don’t look back…”
“The future ain’t what it used to be.”
I suppose all the southern Russians are racist due to the influx of Asian migrants into their country illegally as well taking their jobs. I guess also the Macedonians who are not accepting of the Greek immigrants are racist for not acclimating them into their system and society.
Every country’s immigration policies are racist and we should do away with them because they are mean and we can’t be mean to immigrants who illegally enter our country by illegal means when there is a process to gain legal status but since they are here now it is racist to say they are illegal. We should immediately give them status in our bankrupt country where we cannot even take care of our homeless or our veterans. We should also continue to allow people to come here and have children in our medical system to which they cannot pay for and then give their child citizenship to receive welfare and then allow the parents to become citizens since they will need to take care of them.
That’s a brain dead myth that people keep repeating. Don’t you think it would be much easier for someone to go to a US consulate, fill out an application and do a 5-minute interview, than get in touch with criminal gangs, pay them around $5K, and risk their life crossing deserts and rivers? See, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
To be clear, I’m not arguing US law is too restrictive or anything like that. It’s more or less as restrictive as that of any other country. I just hate ridiculous baseless narratives that propagate the way that one does.
Also Mexico is especially racist for having this sort of immigration policy:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNT-vwFU8AIcZ-5.png
Shame on vile, bigoted, inhumane, racist Mexicans, punching down on already brutalized and marginalized people trying to illegally enter their country.
They should just erase the border (a book by this so-called “journalist” – who amassed millions by cashing in on false grievance industry he helped inaugurate – is titled “No Borders”) and say, fuck it, everyone’s welcome.
I fail to see how the behavior of one of the most loyal US lapdogs in Latin America is evidence of anything other than what imperialism does.
“We should immediately give them status in our bankrupt country where we cannot even take care of our homeless or our veterans.”
This would be the same “bankrupt country” that seems to have no problem scraping up $13 billion for the USS Gerald R. Ford or $80 million for each F-35 ordered (and those orders are for hundreds or thousands of planes).
I feel the major reason Trump has amassed such a large following and support group is that he speaks in short iterative sentences that when boiled down just make baseless statements. He never has any facts to support his statements and when asked to expand his reasoning on a statement Trump just turns to his fail proof method of saying he is going to return jobs to America never mind the “how.” I liken it much to taking keys out to distract a baby from crying. Trump’s supporters just mindlessly support his celebrity status and admire his brash stance and rhetoric, but cry foul when someone else does the same and God forbid it be a Latino person. Unfortunately much like Trump’s supporters resemble toddler’s throwing tantrums; I am sure what will follow are distasteful comments on this post from grown men and women who are channeling there inadequacies onto my post.
but if you think of it that would be much of an improvement when compared to his predecessor who enchanted the crowds with just one phrase: “Yes we can”. He didn’t explain his “we” was a royal one, that he actually meant: “I can wipe my black @ss with the supposedly sacrosanct the U.S. constitution”; “We/the NSA can and do spy on anything around that moves by itself or possibly thinks”; “We can and did make out of that silly illusion of that thing you used to call “privacy” some antiquated believe”…
So, at least things are improving!
RCL
lizzy86 –
distasteful comment? Nah – I think you make some valid points…
I like Jorge Ramos, but just simply ask the question without inferring a bias or agenda. It’s not that hard. Caputo is correct.
Everyone is biased, everyone has an agenda. To pretend otherwise is to delude yourself.
Mr. Ramos added in El País that Mr. Trump plans to round up illegal immigrants would require the use of the Army and stadiums to house them. Just like South American dictators did. Mr. Trump’s very clear authoritarianism is reminiscent of that of Pinochet. I knew I recognized something horribly familiar in him!
Trump or no Trump, Ramos should have been thrown out on his ear….by fellow journalists…for his deplorable behavior. He had no business hijacking a news conference for his pet cause. The press would have booted a pro-law disruptor, to be sure.
Further, the august press loves a little bang-bang spectacle to call news, doesn’t it.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Kudos to Ramos for having the courage to stand up to this megalomaniac. Donald Chump sounds more like Adolph Hitler and America better keep an eye on him.
Do you think Jorge Ramos would go after the narcos with the same vigor that he demonstrated against Trump? He “champions” that he’s trying to help his people where it will do the most good.
Who cares? He went after Trump on a critically important issue. “Whataboutery” is not a rational response.
Aggressively offensive and obnoxious. Ramos was making speeches, not asking questions. Whatever validity his point of view had it was lost in the delivery. He was clearly there to disrupt not to solicit information.
When the questioner becomes the show, he loses credibility as a journalist. Wrong methods employed here.
What show? Do you think this is a so-called fucking ‘reality’ show on TV? That you are busy watching The Apprentice? Get the fuck out. It might seem like a show because the US media industry loves to patronize their viewers, but fact is, this is the reality and you better wake the fuck out of your illusions of grandeur. The questioner is equal to the fuckhead in front imagining himself something he ain’t. If the arsehole were true to himself and to the idiots who thinks he’s worth shit, he would have answered the questions.
How many of you here are aware that Jorge Ramos’s daughter, Paola, works
for Hillary Clinton’s campaign…? So much for “objective journalism”, eh Mr. Ramos..?
And the truth is is that after Ramos was let back into the news conference, Trump
spent more time answering Ramos’s questions than he did with any other journalist.
The problem Ramos had was that he didn’t get the answers HE wanted to hear….
Selah
I knew that. I can see why that would matter in terms of him advocating or opposing any one presidential candidate (and I’d expect him to back establishment candidates anyway) but I think everyone recognizes that when it comes to the issue of immigration, his interest in it comes from the fact he was an immigrant himself. He’s written a number of books about it. Clinton has exactly zero to do with any of this.
Trump and Ramos are both “rather” extreme on this issue. Good to see them raise the critical issue and open a wider debate. Our generous immigration “policy” looks more like an incursion than lawful policy. Few countries in the world match our generosity which has been abused to the point it is no longer viable or affordable. A Nation that does not control their border does not control their destiny.
Hopefully the extremes will fire the debate but not prevail. Every human soul we “import” as an immigrant or guest worker must have a place set at our table but the table is limited to those we can reasonably accommodate. To continue with the present extreme of poor policy will insure that other extremes become policy. I am no Trump fan: however, TI and many others underestimate Trump and the numbers people who might vote for him or someone much worse out of contempt for Demo-craps and Republi-craps. If the candidates are King Jeb, Queen Hilary or Donald Duck, the duck’s got my vote. Something “bad” happens such as finical crash and Trump can win. Mr. President Trump will be a kick in the pants to the conservative and liberal elites that are the master’s of decades of self-serving bad immigration and other policy. Trump would be their deserved punishment, he might do worse but he will have to work at it.
That’s a myth. It’s pretend self-righteousness, like many other such claims.
You should hope some “self-righteous” moderates get a handle on this issue before the two extremes push us some place a reasonable man does not what to be. America will not get an open borders “May Day” but closed borders “Seven Days in May”. I do not want to go where the extremes will push us. If it happens do not expect my help against well armed military, Nation Guard, Federal, State and Local Police and some “extreme” armed citizens, too big to fail can become too big to fight. We will move from police state-lite to police state-heavy Constitutional Republic totally down the drain. Then we can both have a nice day. I believe commitment and compromise is a better course but the extremes may not agree.
That’s a muddled argument, to be honest. It sounds like you think Trump is extremist due to his apparent advocacy of violent ethnic cleansing, and you’d prefer a “compromise”. What would that be, and what would it solve?
I am a man who fears extremes and what they produce conflict and bad policy and potentially a police state. Deportation would be my last option reserved for convicted felons, proven gang members and those without employment or family support; sorry we have plenty of our own indigent. Workers “currently” here would get green-cards in place social security number and be subject to E-Verify and be allowed to stay and work or could return to country of origin and return to work. Those who have worked here for five years would get some legal status and like others could become citizen though legal immigration procedures. Borders would be secured legal immigration tallied as part of “generous” new guest worker and immigration policy. All get to say there piece but citizen we the people sent the policy. A bit like what is stalled in Congress. All who serve in our military get full citizenship.
But only one of them is running for President and has the support from a large number of crazies.
Trumps popularly is not just crazies but what I call the “Soap” phenomena.” The last two Presidents sent the stage, “Crazy’s looking good here.” Not my cup of “tea” but he can win if all else fails.
“Soap: Episode #3.1″ (1979)
[Burt has been abducted by aliens and bound in an examination room]
Burt: Stay calm. Stay calm. Just think… stay calm here. I’ll just analyze the situation. One of three things is going on here. Either I’m dreaming I’m on a spaceship, or… I’m on a spaceship, or I’m crazy.
[laughs]
Burt: I’m dreaming!
[laughs]
Burt: I’m in a dream. This is what happens when you eat pizza in bed.
[laughs]
Burt: It’s time to wake up, though. Wake up, Burt!
[Aliens enter the room, talking amongst themselves]
Burt: Burt. Burt! Hey, Burt! Wake up, Burt! Burt! Come on, rise and shine, Burt!
[Burt looks over at the aliens nervously]
Burt: Crazy’s looking good here.
There is always ample room at ‘the table’ for good people who are creative and willing to work … despite the multi-Trillion$ spent on wars in the Mid-East and even more Trillion$ to bail-out the global banking/financial conglomerates infesting Wall street NYC, NY.
Those “imports”, including my own who arrived here before the American Revolution, are, to no small degree, what built this country.
A small part of my Native America heritage was here when you arrived. Immigration did not work out well for them.
I didn’t arrive. I was born here and I’m about 1/4 Cherokee … so that did work out well from my point of view.
*I assumed you understood the great contribution Native Americans (and African Americans brought here against their will) have made, both literally and figuratively, to everything good the United States of America stands for?
I am pro immigration but not open borders and to a lesser degree like you part Cherokee, and they often fully adapted runaway slaves into the tribe. I may be part Black? There is also a very good black basketball player with the same names as mine, a legacy of slavery? It was Major Alexander Cowan that fired double canisters and stopped the last forward motion of Pickets Charge at Gettysburg , other distant relative may have been on the receiving end of this cannonade. I understand the history and importance of immigration good and ill (slavery, Native American loss of land and life) in our history. I was on the border out in the dark four decades ago. Lots of stuff when bum in the night, “No Country for Old Men” even then. Generous but controlled immigration is my hope but that will satisfy neither extreme.
Thank you for writing this article. The problem of this is ignorance and racism. We need more educated people capable of having their own opinions and not being influenced by charlatans like Trump who wants to win the Presidency using hate and racism instead of approaching other issues that are more important for the USA, he is taking the easiest route. We are not masses that he can manipulate, we need journalists to ask him questions about the future of USA, about economy, education, jobs, , terrorism, etc., etc., etc. We need more people like you to remind people in this country that we need honest journalism.
Not only do I love hugging puppies, but I am constantly amazed how many of life’s problems can be fixed by hugging puppies.
This isn’t one of them.
The goal is slave labor. Hugging puppies is not going to help here. Truthfully, it will only make things worse. Besides hugging puppies, what actually is the end game here? Open borders for everyone? Open borders only for Mexico? If you are preaching anarchy capitalism, is the goal to also eliminate copyright, patents, tariffs, environmental law, etc., or does the anarchy capitalism only apply to labor?
Or maybe the goal is to artificially create “culture” and “race” so that in order to belong to category “X” you must believe “Y” and vote for “Z”.
If you haven’t thought this through beyond hugging puppies, just listen to people when they talk about “Jobs Americans won’t do”–they are preaching slave labor. So ask yourself, is it the puppies hugging or the slavery you really want? Or maybe you just need a dog walker. Also ask yourself if a love that is rendered instantly irrational at the thought of hugging puppies is really love at all–or just immature selfishness.
Your greatest strength is your love and it has been turned against you.
—
It is not “Mexicans” that want slavery and free labor–it is capitalism. You can’t build a wall around capitalism–especially not using capitalism to build it.
Is your hate so strong that when your slave boss tells you to blame the other slaves for your servitude, that you actually believe him? No one deserves their chains but you make it hard not to laugh. In your favor–at least you don’t see yourself as master. External division has made all of your allies into enemies. Soon you will stand completely alone. Even worse you have made hate itself irrational. (I know, right)
You want to control and constrain capitalism, and you want to make capitalism better by making it less exploitative, but you are unable to admit this simple fact, so you make it all about hating someone else. Which also happens to be great news for your boss.
Understand I am not preaching against capitalism–I am preaching against exploitation.
If all this seems confusing to you–just imagine that you are working for Mexicans. Illegal Mexicans. Not take all that riled up blood and focus it back at your real boss.
Your greatest strength is your hate and it has been turned against you.
Brilliantly said.
Brilliantly put.
Who’s advocating open borders here? If anything, the argument is that a government shouldn’t engage in a mass transfer of a population reminiscent of Nazi Germany. If laws are to be enforced, civil liberties need to be respected while doing so.
I think ‘thelastnamechosen’s point was the stark distinction between defending the territorial integrity of a nation … and ‘open borders’.
*… and petting fluffy puppies./
The contradiction between the free flow of capital (globalization/”free” trade) and the restricted flow of labor (ethnic cleansing/wall building). Atomized labor follows (migrates toward) capital, not the other way around. Free for thee, not for ye. You can’t have NAFTA and territorial (read: ethnic) integrity too. That cat is well out of the bag.
Distinction without difference. “Ending” exploitation involves, necessarily, the antagonism of capital.
BenjaminAP,
I think immigration and outsourcing are both used to push the cost of labor to zero. At the very least we a are getting a nice preview of what things are going to be like post-scarcity. The spoils of zero cost labor are to be shared only with a privileged few.
“Distinction without difference. “Ending” exploitation involves, necessarily, the antagonism of capital.”
I don’t disagree at all, but I do believe that people can trade, have sex, dance, cook and play music together without exploiting each other and without being equal. If that isn’t possible then I will stand up for exploitation.
Jose,
Is the difference between immoral and moral really one big deportation vs. two or more discreet chunks of deportations? As far a civil liberties go, I completely agree with you, I just don’t really see that the government respects the civil liberties of citizens any more than they respect the civil liberties of non citizens.
The difference is that in mass deportations you are not giving people presumption of innocence or due process, and since many of them will resist, some tragic violence seems inevitable.
Well, yes! Just look at how Trump, someone considered to be an utter buffoon with no chances whatsoever weeks ago, has skyrocketed his approval ratings just using that old and tired tactic.
Let me know of a single time when that hasn’t worked!
Primo Levi (Jewish himself, author of “Survival in Auschwitz”) describes how and why Jewish Kapos were the worst in Auschwitz as they were in the Warsaw ghetto. Jewish people now play Nazis with “terrorist” Palestinian people (and they claim to be “‘the’ chosen ones”, so imagine!) Mexican people, police and narcos chase, extort and kidnap for ransom other people (from Latin America and otherwise) trying to cross the border through Mexico, …
RCL
Ricardo Camilo López,
“Let me know of a single time when that hasn’t worked!”
On this I can only speak of the future.
Remember the scene in Citizen Cain AND Face in the Crowd where the press DOESN’T show up for the obvious flame out? Don’t ya wish our press were flies on the wall instead of hovering over this pile of shite? The press tell us this fascion plate in the head has a chance, so I bet he pays them more than backhanded compliments and their loving’ it!
WTF? WaPo now looks like every story is an ad.
Let’s not forget the shunning of Helen Thomas by Bush43.
The much-viewed video being shown globally might start a little late – the BBC World Service interviewed an AP reporter who was in the room, and according to him Trump clearly indicated with eye contact that Ramos should ask his question, and cut him off with the now-famous verbal lines only when he saw it was going to be a challenge on details of his immigration proposals. On that observation, Ramos was duly recognized and arguably should expect his dismissal while asking the question to speak for itself. Ten more seconds of video might clarify the point.
I could have told you Trump was reading from “How to Blow Up Your Own Press Conference.” Every word is scripted. He may sound like a dumb shite, but he’s paid a fortune to tell us that. He knows how to bust crystal without even throwing a fit. He’ll let his fans do it.
Ramos is a loudmouthed,obnoxious,loathsome,open borders radical. He tried disrupting Trumps’ news conference and Trump would have no part of it. I would have had my security team billy club his stinkin’ @ss unconscious before they through him out. He’s a despicable mongrel.
Yes, I can see why arseholes like you won’t like him. He talks truth to narcissistic fascist pricks that wants to force their one dimentional mindset on to others.
You sound like a really great person!!
In your first sentence, replace the words “Ramos” with “Trump” and “open” with “closed” and I completely agree.
Thanks for writing this. People need to remember that ignorance, racism and xenophobia are as strong as ever in the United States. Comments such as yours reveal unabashedly that we still have a long way to go and that there are a great many people who live in tiny cages of the mind. Keep up the good work!
Westmoreland felt the same way about Dan Rather. But the thugs working for the Dems kicked his ass, Charlie.
What’s the frequency, Kenneth!
You obviously don’t have a clue about Ramos. He is not about open borders. It’s about Trump’s “methods” It’s like being quick to put a law in place without thinking about the consequences. Obnoxious? Trump, yes. Ramos knew Trump would not call on him. So he stood up. It wasn’t until afterwards, when probably someone on Trump’s team told him he would look better if he asked Ramos back, that Trump took his questions.
A pureblooded Trump man writes of Jorge Ramos:
This is the essence of Trump’s appeal.
This article PURPOSELY blurs the distinction between LEGAL immigrant and ILLEGAL immigrant. It is difficult to read this type of biased and slanted presentation when, as a LEGAL immigrant I waited in line for 12 YEARS to attain my US citizenship.
The USA is BROKE. It is not able to feed and clothe its LEGAL citizens and yet you push forward platforms that further degrade the economy by siphoning off money from LEGAL Americans for illegal ALIENS. What about American vets? What about the proliferation of AMERICAN citizen homeless who can’t find jobs?
Great sophistry is embedded in this article. What’s the first thing ILLEGAL immigrants do once over the border? Create children. So now these become the excuse for overlooking the fact that their parents are illegal.
Wake up, folks! There soon won’t be an America. Perhaps that is what is the real agenda.
Yes, it is our cunning plan. We’re going to slowely impregnate all of the American women. Planting our seeds in your midst. Then you will know that there is only one true god, and that god is not Trump. Oh, no. That god is Tezcatlipoca.
Repent, motherfuckers.
I doubt a real immigrant would use the “waiting in line” narrative this way, because a real immigrant understands how things work. Undocumented immigrants are not people who are too lazy to go through the process — “wait their turn” as if often said.
Let’s see if your story checks out. How is it that you became a US citizen?
Let me guess, Libertarian? Perhaps you should ask your corporate masters why it is they choose to hire “illegals” rather than pay higher rates to “legals”. But then again, thinking is hard.
>”The USA is BROKE.”
And you think undocumented *workers* is what BROKE the USA? *Ffs, son, I think Donald Trump wants to sell you the Brooklyn bridge.
If Trump is a valid candidate for office then Journalists should question every thing he says. If any candidate makes broad sweeping claims with no details how to accomplish the goals of his claims it’s the journalist job to try to get the candidate to inform the public just how they are going to realize their claims.
As I see it most journalist aren’t doing their jobs when they any candidate skate by without answering the tough questions of how he proposes to accomplish his schemes. The US went to war because of bad journalism. The journalist for the big media outlets did not ask the hard question about the claims made by Bush about Iraq. I watched the Colin Powell address the UN and he showed a clip of a plane deploying chemical weapons as a kind of proof. The plane in the film clip was not a plane in the Iraqi military service so the clip was just a generic clip of an unknown plane spraying something somewhere. When Joe Wilson rebutted the fraudulent claims about raw uranium from Niger he was attacked not just by the administration but by members of the media as in this case with Mr. Ramos.
Mr. Ramos was just doing his job trying to get Trump to explain the details of his outrageous proposals. I watch Chuck Todd interview Trump , he tried twice for details about how trump was going to deport millions and twice trump gave vague answers and Todd gave up. I don’t think Mr. Todd was doing his job
The bolder the claims made by a candidate the more closely they need to be examined. Trump has made some pretty bold claims and to be a viable candidate he needs to have answers about how he can make the claims real.
I think this needs further emphasis:
Scribes. That is what people are who go to “press conferences” and get in line to record the answers to questions that they know will not piss off those who called the charade. They are not journalists, or at least are not functioning as such at the time, despite what they might have done in the past, if anything.
Trump will push things as far as he is allowed. I doubt that it is going to come to a dictatorship, just yet. If he can get elected president, then he is in a better position to start breaking glass, but that does not mean the US is yet quite ready. But showing that you can get a significant fraction of the US population to support trashing the constitution is a really big step. It is really disturbing that “getting around” an amendment is seen as desirable. I guess that is a result of the Bush and Obama years.
Look at this way Mike; who wouldn’t rather have Trump, who freely admits he paid (ie. donation) Hillary to dance at his wedding, in charge?
It will be really entertaining if Trump wins! Isn’t it time we finally cast off the blinds from the last century of presidents (well only up to late 70s with Carter–Reagan was the beginning of the downward spiral into the robber baron toilet we are now in) who had a sense of civic duty (read that FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower etc)? This century belongs to billionaire wack-jobs! Maybe they will shred the constitution, privatize the all parts of the government and make everything into little corporate franchises? President Trump here we come!
It’s not that Trump was trying to deny Ramos his holy sacred journalist rights, it’s that Ramos was trying to jump the que. Trump was right to tell him to sit down and shut up. Ramos was out of order.
Notwithstanding how that opening sentence must have just rolled off your tongue-to-pen Glenn, and granting the massive ‘police state’ investment necessary to round-up and hold 11 million [illegal] human beings across America … I’ve done a few calculations: it would take a fleet of 100 packed 747 jumbo jets, assuming a 3 day turnaround for each flight, approximately 2.26 years of continuous flights at a cost of at least $5.5 billion to accomplish the…divestment of human capital. *assumes ‘anchor babies’ not included
Iow, Donald ‘Turnip’ Trump is crazier than a 4-peckered billygoat on the 4th of July.
ps. I’ve got a better/workable idea; lets round-up the relatively few billionaires like Trump, who have their own jets, and send them to Mexico free of charge.
“The four cornerstones of the American political psyche are 1) emotion substituted for thought, 2) fear, 3) ignorance and 4) propaganda”
Robert m. –
I think you’re onto something…
Trump was initially considered a fringe candidate, but I’m warming towards the idea of a war with Mexico. The US beat them once before; a repeat would be a step on the road towards making America great again.
Wars in the Middle East have proven to be a bit demoralizing. It’s become a game of whack-a-mole – as soon as you hammer down one fanatical bloodthirsty regime, another pops up in its place. But Mexico has oil too and is closer to home, so soldiers will be able to come home on the weekends.
There’s still a bit of work required to convince the American people. Expelling journalists from press conferences is a first step. Questions are always awkward, especially when you don’t have answers. But it’s not necessary to take the extreme step of getting rid of all journalists – just the bad eggs who don’t stick to the script. The others soon fall into line and eagerly demonstrate their objectivity by fawning over the front runner.
I’m surprised you don’t see the wars in the Middle East as more or less successful, just like Vietnam was. After all, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are wastelands of instability now, so that should be a lesson to any country that decides to be independent from imperialistic control.
Agreed. It’s best to look on the bright side. At the same time, it’s a useful aspirational goal for every war to be better than the one which preceded it.
It’s not that unlikely. The cartels are entrenched down there, and they could start making devastating cross-border raids any time they want. That’s how the last war got started.
There actually is something to be said for annexing a piece of Mexico — hopefully by more peaceful means. The Mexicans seem eager to be under the U.S., so why not give a whole province the chance? If the U.S. annexed someplace like Baja California, it could pour in capital, develop it into a thousand miles of beachfront paradise, make a bundle for itself and for the residents of the area (though some would cry at having to sell their newly gentrified homes for more cash than they ever imagined possible). By having a portion of the U.S. newly annexed, it would create a gravitational center of Mexican culture and Spanish language that would tend to pull back the other Mexican immigrants and reduce the sense of an invasion for the rest of us.
Rather than a full annexation, it might be better to create a buffer state. Think Gaza strip. The white working class might not be too keen on seeing their remaining privilege eroded by a bunch of new citizens. They’re feeling a little grumpy right now – hence Trump.
I’m surprised you can’t see your own handiwork in this pretender, Benito. You trashed the Right AND the Left, and then you ran right up the middle blaming the Church for their sins.
How well do you think that will go over with this BASE? He’s got to drive a wedge to our heads or he’s toast. The evangelicals are gonna split their shorts over this gigantic asshole. Nice of him to expose the faithfuls’ lust for hate.
When people lose faith in the system, they look for someone who can wreck it. Trump’s support will grow as long as he can continue to demonstrate contempt for everyone and everything associated with the establishment. If he starts to sound reasonable, he is finished.
Thank you Glenn, from many of us.
We must also most definitely bring attention to the fact that most politicians have a fixed and skewed response to many of the citizen’s questions while campaigning on the road. Is it not blatantly obvious that the runners are only speaking extremely broadly, and their dialogue is pre-fabricated? Can anyone else not sense the lack of authenticity from the GOP and Hillary Clinton?
I wish Jon Stuart could make a montage of candidate’s different yet effective strategies for avoiding both questions and giving straight answers. This is certainly the infestation of corporations and 1% money in our politics. Corporatization has truly hit and is disrupting honest journalism and democratic progress.
How do we bring attention to this and control it?
remembering a time long ago and far away…
Cronkite once described his approach to his job on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show:
“The ethics of a responsible journalist is to put his or her biases, his or her prejudices aside in an attempt to be really fair to all sides at all times,” he said. “And my pride is that I think I did that fairly well during my years.”
I wonder what he would say today. I think he saw the beginning of the end of non-biased journalism after he went to Vietnam and saw the truth for himself.
Not exactly the facts I recall.
But to the point and right on target. Way to ride the ordinance down to earth, Strangelove!
Why did Rather get sued by Westmoreland for telling the truth about his lies while Cronk was sitting pretty? CBS is best at Generalizing.
quote”Not exactly the facts I recall.”unquote
And those facts would be?
This is why we need beacons like Glenn Greenwald.
“Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts.” – Howard Zinn
“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” – Desmond Tutu
A journalist isn’t only a distant observer. The one that we as the public only should rely on for feedback. The journalist is first and utmostly the public spokesperson. We shouldn’t allow that our spokespersons get thrown out of press conferences. They must be allowed to be activist against tyranny. Not one of us can claim that we are only a neutral observer. Life ain’t a fucking soapy or so-called reality show.
I like those quotes, Valk! lol
Jorge Ramos is a Mexican born US citizen. So am I. Ramos studied journalism at Iberoamericana University in Mexico City, in the late 70s, early 80s. So did I in the early 80s. We probably had the same teachers. One of the firsts myths dispelled was that of the “neutral” journalism pushed by some US journalism schools even then (it has just been carried to extremes nowadays). As Greenwald clearly points out, “all journalism is deeply subjective […] All journalists constantly express opinions and present the world in accordance with their deeply subjective biases […} whether they honestly admit doing so or dishonestly pretend they don’t.”
No human being can pretend to be “neutral” in any activity whatsoever. Everything we do and say is influenced by what we have lived. We can strive for objectivity, but that is about it. What the US needs in the face of individuals like Trump is courageous women and men like Ramos. Where are those US-born courageous men and women? I am proud that a Mexican-American with enough stature faced Trump and his hateful, divisive speech. I understand he takes it personally. So do I. I applaud and support him. I thank Greenwald for supporting him too. We need many more Ramos and Greenwalds for the US to stand tall against chauvinists like Trump.
I only saw countless journalists attacking the Donald. Also, the guy who is pointed to gets to ask a question. Ramos was out of line when he tried to jump in. I have never seen a presser where this behavior is accepted.
As an article in Politico points out, it was common for press conferences to be shouting matches not that long ago. You’ve never seen a movie where reporters shout “Mr. President, Mr. President”?
Thank you, Glenn Greenwald. No, you’re not perfect or Superman, but you’re a fucking real journalist in a world full of charlatans and morons who are making a mockery of journalism. I believe in journalism as a force for positive change in the world, a voice for the voiceless, and it has been perverted by all the “star” journalists walking around “building their personal brand” instead of devoting themselves simply to truth, justice and hard work. And they’re being rewarded! Some assholes have even gone so far as to label this some Golden Age of Journalism, which deserves a harsh slap. It’s DISGUSTING to see big names in journalism defending a presidential candidate’s right to throw someone off the bus for asking pointed questions, but so typical. Journalists don’t fight for journalism anymore, they “build their brand” and worry about themselves. Journalists are like dogs that have been kicked too many times and are now anticipating the kick before it comes. Thank you for being one of the rare dogs who still has some real bark left.
You hit the nail on the head, Nancy, well done !!!!
American exceptionialism demands a president that believes he is exceptional. Trump has this in spades. The election cycle appears to favour the man (god help us woman) that appears to the electorate as being the embodiment of exceptional personal can do ness. A bright shining star on top of the hill as a beacon for the senseless to transfix upon. All personal and national drama will fade with the right president in office.
Journalism, real adversarial journalism, diminishes these so called luminaries to ordinary human beings who are imperfect. Those that want the false light to shine call this process activism and say it is not journalism.
Heroes are above criticism so hard questions can not be allowed that might show the truth of the irrationality of the chosen one.
Trump or Clinton game over America. You will decay as your nation divides itself.
‘It can’t happen here.’ He’s a boob. Too bad CNN didn’t pay for a Boom Operator to capture the rest of the people’s speech. ….. DUH…..,or perhaps they did and the producer (cnn).. chose to mute that track, and still funny that the camera operator framed the podium with a foreground head to spell ‘RUMP’. Good work camera operator! ….at least someone’s paying attention.’It can’t happen here.’
Wow – TRIED to wade through comments but didn’t get far… the extended arguments just wore me out.
So I’ll just post a few thoughts:
@Glenn — fine article. Thanks also for linking to the tweets so we could see them! Now this said it succinctly: “Ultimately, demands for “neutrality” and “objectivity” are little more than rules designed to shield those with the greatest power from meaningful challenge.” that said, how about a Greenwald rant on the Margaret Atwood/NP flap up in Canada? Would love to read that!!!
RE: journalists vs. activists: Consider journalists Ida Wells-Barnett and Nellie Bly. They certainly had an activist streak that permeated their work, still, I don’t know how ANYONE could say they were anything other than: JOURNALISTS!
Yes.
Glenn, thanks for this “teaching moment” for me and (probably) others. Your article touches the truth: why and how so many people (i.e., reporters) are able to conjure realities that make absolutely no sense, but somehow are make it to the printed page or are spouted by an anchor. You breathed a scorcher into this banal mass media meddling into our collective common sense. Yeah! Your words jarred my faculties, loud and clear! lol – Howard Zinn brought up this very same theme when he wrote eloquently, paraphrasing, the one about how on a fast-moving, there is no staying neutral! lol
Like our Planet Earth, fast being eaten alive by capitalist greed, war and a damned recurring, corporate slavery, creeping back from its crypt. And practically no reporting of it! Because it wouldn’t be “fair and balanced”. So let the train wreck? Except for the likes of Indy Journalistic gems like “The Intercept”, the world would end in the hands of ignorant sociopaths, who rightness, are still getting a free pass (to hell)!
Wrong. Wrong . Wrong. Ramos was clearly grandstanding to get airtime for his point of view and himself.
You are being disingenuous if you don’t see that.
“[G}randstanding to get airtime” for a point of view is a fundamental part of journalism. It’s mealymouthed baloney to suggest otherwise.
Trump has been putting a lot of effort lately into demanding an elevated level of ‘respect’ from the press. His people’s stagy habit of always referring to him as “Mr. Trump” is part and parcel of this effort. Trump’s insistence on excessive verbal ‘respect’ is the kind of genuflection-requirement that more commonly characterizes mafia dons………. and Long Island Republicans.
No surprise that he and his people immediately went whole hog with an exaggerated display of offended dignity in the face of Ramos’ mildly insistent questioning. Getting pissy with Ramos played into their narrative.
I think you would see things differently if you could perhaps pull your head out of Trump’s arse. The only true narcissistic arsehole is Trump and Trump himself. That’s why Ramos rightly calls him a dictator. A man that any right thinking person would know that to give power to, would be like digging your own grave. For Trump the whole world goes about Trump and what he can get out of the deal. Not once did Ramos talked about himself. He was concerned of all the people that would suffer under this fascist prick.
I am so fed up with the weird reverence of obama by people who would strew their bodies in front of him rather than see him miffed…but on a more relevant note…
I, personally think journalists are just supposed to make sure they have all their facts straight – whether that is in line with what they wanted to be the truth or whether they have to change their opinion in order to comply with the facts learned…but, I mean, shouldn’t everyone really :b? Journalists are just supposed to be the better writers…
When Jorge Ramos was Told to leave the other gentlemens country , Jorge should have responded that he was not in England .”
For trump ansestors are all immigrants and who’s grandfathers were the first terrorist of this country.
Well, tit for tat doesn’t usually get anywhere. I like Russell Means’ opinion, myself – that if you were born here, you’re a native American :)
Marc Caputo is an ass-covering, douche-bag, fuck-knuckle. But then so is pretty much everyone who works at Politico.
Which asshole? There are so many to choose from.
Can I nominate myself? This asshole is not a journalist. True
Trump Meets His Match in Jorge Ramos
by Jack Shafer
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/jorge-ramos-donald-trump-121773.html#.Vd5cY5eTTAg
Oh.
Always glad to take down the powerful.
But it must be said and it is obvious, this is not the best case of confronting power as he came off as making statements and took a long, long time to get to a question, left Trump looking better and energizing base even more.
PS
ha, Caputo who?
Understand what you said! Agree that there’s a ‘acceptable’ way to confront power. …… How about us that don’t have the ability to play the game? Yet! We are ‘here’ and we are ‘Americans’. …. I hope ‘Thump’ wins! I’ll vote for him. Just to to be able to say: We tried it your way, look where we are!
Excellent article! Good job, Ramos.
How exactly is that a problem? You could be a basketball player with an athletic training or a chess player with an aggressive style or teach history with an Anthropological, social justice or uncritical/”God wants it so”/brainwashing slant …
I still think Ramos should have known better than -repeatedly- interrupting Trump. However, Trump advising to him to “go back to Univision” (which I don’t like a bit BTW, but how does Trump even know what Univision is?) and ordering his body guards to remove him from the place is way over the top. I still that Trump is an honest idiot, @ssh0l3 not a “12 years in college studying constitutional law” one.
There is this Soviet era joke. In one of those general assemblies they had in which no problems whatsoever were actually discussed or solved (similar to what happens in the U.S. nowadays) a reporter stood and said : “I have one question: how are we actually doing economically?”. In the next general assembly 5 years later someone else stood and asked: “I have two questions: how are we actually doing economically and where is the reporter that asked that same question 5 years ago?”
–Glenn Greenwald
After Michael Hastings’ Hollywoodesque “car accident”, the “patriotic”, willing participation or colleges and university in the spying, “monitoring” of their students and the removal of journalists from press conferences for “not behaving”, not “asking the ‘right questions'”, I wonder what will be next?
Glenn, there is a bug in there, which I wouldn’t know how to easily “troubleshoot”. Still, there is something called truthfulness and honesty. Liars and manipulators know that well, they try to cover up the truth in their telltale ways.
People dealing in talk know that they can’t establish a claim to objectivity at all, so why even talking about “subjectivity”. You can only make any kind of claim to objectivity when you are stating something relating to the physical sciences and Math. IMO, the closest you can get to objectivity in politics, history, the law and such “people talk” things is openly societal outer intersubjectivity. Even if the Church punished Galileo for his “heretic” ideas, we surely learned and adopted them at some point as a matter of course. There is nothing like that when it comes to people’s word of mouth and their minds. Our only way out of madness is openly discussing issues, sticking to one’s truths, making sure that people understand what is really going on (this is were journalism should play a role) and letting people decide for themselves
Illegal immigrants (Mexican drug?) gangs in Baltimore, Chicago, Ferguson … organizing police abuses and social unrest?
If Trump were less stupidly racist and would make his point in a “it is not personal, but business as usual” way, he may make at least more sense. What I can’t wait to see is the implementation issues of what he proposes. Will he hire Mexican narcos to bring back minors to their parents? Will he just dump all unaccompanied minors in the U.S.-Mexican border? Will he change the XIV Amendment of the U.S. constitution?
At least and for now he is talking openly about it instead of basing his political maneuvers on secret interpretations of secret laws ruled by secret judges …
Trump has some “good” qualities (to call it something) as a politician he has been openly “trumpeting” his racist and neo-facistic sentiments instead of mesmerizing “We the people” with just one phrase: “Yes, we can”. It would be great if he nominates Ann Coulter as his Vice-president. Smartest move he will ever make.
Satyagraha,
RCL
Oooh, so smart. So tough. Love me, strong daddy.
Trump has decided that all rules don’t apply to him. He can literally say anything and not pay a penalty. He can literally berate a moderator for asking him questions he does not like in the most sexist tone imaginable. He won’t apologize for anything. People like that.
So why is he so baby-sensitive to the most mild deviations from the script when it comes to journalists? Tough questions? Go into wounded animal mode. Sulk, pout, yell, threaten to go home.
This alone would have sunk a conventional candidate:
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-mocks-asians-broken-english-accent-during-campaign-rally-iowa-video-2069216
@ Ted
The guy’s a passive-aggressive lunatic. I mean I’m not a shrink but the guy reeks of about 10 different applicable diagnoses from the DSM. Seriously. He isn’t right in the head or the heart, assuming he has the latter.
Trump is the charismatic demagogue the authoritarian, racist, populist that the masses have been waiting for. There’s an even chance he could call the Black Lives Matter movement a bunch of “criminal niggers” and get away with it — the masses (who so resent not being able to say it) would love it and the media can’t seem to shame him or hold him accountable in any measure. Jorge Ramos tried and the establishment got pissed at him.
Ramos, even if not in the smartest way, is just raising basic humanity issues. I wonder how that can be attributed to some sort of “unAmericanism”.
RCL
This post is related to “what passes for objective journalism” rather than the incident described:
It always makes me laugh that the standards for cause & effect are so low with utterly everyday Objective Journalism. Here’s a bit from an article on polling numbers showing Sanders doing ever better:
“A quarter of likely Democratic primary voters now view Clinton negatively in New Hampshire, evidence that the investigation into her email server is taking a toll on her popularity.”
This is pretty much the standard line these days – Clinton’s numbers are a reflection of the email issue – but is this reading “objective”? How do they know that it is specifically the email thing that is making the polled recoil from Hillary? I can think of loads of reasons why she might be losing support, her disinclination to take the slightest stand on anything comes to mind.
Also, why is support for Sanders seen “objectively” as “anti-Hillary” rather than “pro-Bernie”? They don’t know. Objective Journalism as practiced means filling in any blank with preset answers, until proven otherwise (or more accurately, LONG after proven otherwise).
Ever hear reporters tell you instantly what the mood of the country is in response to something that just happened? You know, what was the reaction to the speech we just heard? Reporter literally hasn’t had time to talk to anybody, but an answer is at the ready anyway. Objective journalism at its best.
And of course, every single day we get to hear the Dow Jones numbers, generated from millions of transactions, interpreted helpfully as having some single cause. (I’m not talking about when we have crash-type events such as we are having now, but the ho-hum everyday business report when nothing historic is happening). Mind you, it would take months of research on one day’s transactions to find out EXACTLY what caused the average on nearly any day to go up or down, but that doesn’t stop reporters from blithely announcing some crap like “tension in the Middle East led to market jitters.” From listening to these reports you get the impression, likely untrue, that investors are glued to CNN 24/7 and every time Wolf Blitzer gets unhinged they start shouting “Sell!! Sell!!!”
Basically, if anybody still wants to support the goal of Objective Journalism they are going to have to completely start over, because it sure is not in evidence in anything we see now.
Lots and lots of interestingly put points, Vic Perry. A very fine read. Thanks for that.
Fifty years ago I volunteered in the news department of KPFK-FM radio in Los Angeles. I learned a lot, and I formed some principles that no longer seem to apply in the “news” media. First of all, I learned to identify my biases as best I could. I learned to report the facts, not to interpret them. I learned to let others express their opinions, and I tried to find others who had different opinions to express them. I learned not to parrot obvious lies or mere spin. I realized that my goal was to let the listeners decide what to believe, not to tell them.
You can say that I chose what to broadcast, that in doing so I was unavoidably biased. Perhaps, but the point was that I didn’t try to force my point of view on what the listeners thought about the stories. That approach wasn’t perfect, but it’s a lot better than what we have now.
Today’s “journalists” feel compelled to report whatever absurd spin any powerful interest puts out. This is an insult to their readers, listeners and viewers. Reporters should feel free to push back against gibberish. It’s OK to report the facts, but leave out the self-serving explanations. It’s easily possible to serve one’s audience without being a conduit for misinformation and propaganda. While you can’t always tell if someone is lying, you can often enough to make a difference.
I will believe in Jorge Ramos when I see him doing something that could affect his income.
Defending “poor Mexican immigrants” is his business and has made him rich.
The massive influx of illegal in this country is another remind us of what Glenn has teach us:there is a 2 tear legal system in this country in which only the full are doing the right thing and paying for everything.
Only a people of fools and with out any character whatsoever allow the political class to get away with such an uninvited invasion and massive braking of the law.
The only Journalists in U.S.A that put principle above money are:Jeremy Scahill,Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibby.
Nothing to admire of what Ramos is doing not even if Glenn said so.
“Defending “poor Mexican immigrants” is his business and has made him rich.”
Well said.
“Only a people of fools and with out any character whatsoever allow the political class to get away with such an uninvited invasion and massive braking of the law.”
*Very* well said.
There is nothing dumber than when supposedly “Leftist” people defend illegal immigration – usually out of some idiotic idea that they are making a supremely heroic “anti-racist” stand doing that – which without exception *always* results in worse conditions for the working people regardless of their color or creed.
oh, I dunno. I’d nominate THIS for the dumbest thing ever:
That’s you, Louise. You, who also thinks Stephen Hawking is dumber than a box of rocks.
“There is nothing dumber than when supposedly “Leftist” people defend illegal immigration”
That’s funny coming from a Zionist.
No seas hipócrita y racista, Martorell, que por ningún mérito propio ni tu ni tus coterráneos cubanos se ganaron la ciudadanía americana.
Sit down.
Ignore Louise Cypher, Romerus. She’s an unhinged racist fascist who thinks the Muslims are poised to blow America up with nukes. In other words, she’s a nut.
Why didn’t you just say she’s on Murdoch’s payroll? She’s Louise Mensch, right?
*sigh*
Well, here’s what I’m wondering (and I seriously have no stance on this)…are there any lines drawn? So no one born anywhere earned paperwork to wherever that was…so what about Americans in Mexico, Haitians in Spain. What do you suggest as the way to do things?
Trump is there to look and act like a clown, but a dangerous clown, in order to make sure that Killery is elected. That is all. The reasoning is that the Dems will be too afraid to have Sanders and will push Killery in order to keep Trump out. Putting clown candidates up against the Dem corporatocracy works every time with the propagandized American left.
I’m not a journalist nor a student of such subject but it seems we forget one thing, what I think is a golden rule for Journalism, THE TRUTH!!! and I really think Jorge Ramos is a true journalist because he goes after it, every single time! I see a lot of very intellectual comments here but no one talks about what real journalism supposed to be, going after the truth! Journalists are supposed to be for the people not the corporate or political convenience, just fair and simple TRUTH!!!
*chuckle*
Only supremely naive people could actually believe that a millionaire pro-illegal-immigration activist is somehow interested in “THE TRUTH”.
It’s important to Louise that you know she chuckled.
Please acknowledge her bemusement at your childish use of the word “truth.” She went to the trouble of backing it in asterix and everything.
*puke*
Says one who wouldn’t recognize the truth even if it was a dick in her mouth.
Liar…
@ Glenn
Noticed you tweeted a link to Sen. Wyden’s holding out on supporting the P5 + 1 deal with Iran. I don’t think Sen. Merkley has said one way or the other yet. But I can tell you the between Sen. Wyden’s unabashed support of “free trade” and if he goes the wrong way on P5 + 1 in any way that derails it, he’s toast in this state. At the very least he’s going to have the fight of his life on his hands in 2016 (which I think is when he’s up for reelection) if any credible candidate like DeFazio should decide he wants to move into the Senate from the House. I get the senses a majority of liberals in Oregon are already on the war path against the guy over free trade and would come unhinged if he fucks up the Iran deal. I know he’s already received about a half a dozen e-mails or faxes from me that are being responded to with some bullshit form letter. And that’s not going to cut it. Sen. Merkley I think will do the right thing. But I think Wyden better start thinking of his post politics future if he mucks this up in any way.
Wyden, Progressives And The TPP From Popular Resistance
I’m not an Oregonian, but as far as I’m concerned, Wyden’s support for the TPP makes him so suspect at to be irreparable. He could not have gone this long with supporting it unless he is being bought, and bought hard. I’d waste no time making sure that he is challenged and voted out.
___________________________________________________
There is one aspect of reporting that the corporate mainstream media has most assuredly taken a side on: election coverage. They report almost singularly on the two-party Establishment, and of the few times they cover candidates not of the Democratic and Republican Parties, they tend to cast them as “spoilers” and inherently not serious.
I would love to see The Intercept start including some fair and comprehensive coverage of third party and independent candidates, so as to better inform the electorate about them. Democratic elections need an informed electorate in order to work properly, or else you end up with what we currently have in our country today: two entrenched, corrupted parties that mostly represent major corporations and the very wealthy.
Most notes here discuss the minor inessential details of the encounter, just as the typical American corporate journalist blowhard always does. But no one appears to get the clearly stated point Glenn makes when he reveals the ultimate cause of all this nonsense…the fact that journalism in this country is in the hands of the corporations the journalists get their salaries from. Hence no journalism worthy of that name for the most part. With no exceptions the notes here argue ad infinitum about the inane details of the messengers, but no one seems aware of the powerful message. In the US, privatization and ownership by the plutocrats has become the law of the land. They own the newspapers, the internet sites, they own the radio and TV stations, the bookstores, the music, and they tell us what to read, what music to listen to, what TV to watch and what food to eat, and what journalists to listen to. Pretty.
Thanks needs to be given to Glenn and to this newspaper (owned by a billionaire too) not to fall in line with the fascists, the free-market fundamentalists or the mob.
But this is “all that is fit to print”. What else would you want?
Now, don’t get too hopeful about that:
https://firstlook.org/
http://www.wired.com/2015/08/second-take-first-look-media/
http://www.ibtimes.com/beyond-edward-snowden-second-look-first-look-media-2060306
RCL
@ Glenn
And this just about sums up the backwards dumbass contingent we’ve been dealing with here all day:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/round-em-all-up.html
This fucking dimbulb Trump supporter doesn’t even realize Mr. Ramos is a US citizen when he gets out into the hallway. He’s brownish and has an accent so he must necessarily “get out of my country”. Which of course is Mr. Ramos’ country as well. Prick. He is incredibly “rude” pointing and “yelling” at Mr. Ramos to boot. Can you imagine? I hope all the reporters in the country who bashed Ramos for yelling and being rude can find their fainting couches.
Brilliant and important article!
I would like to emphasize that cooperative journalists facilitate power:
Well said!
It’s a dangerous act to publicly challenge existing power structures.
Journalists (editors and venues and those who produce the various scripts) control the present — the significance of an event — by controlling the amount and kind of coverage an event receives. Some events cannot be “over-covered” (9/11, an assassination) and some events cannot reach a certain level of public consciousness. (See “Collateral Murder” tape or US aggression towards Iran — including Iran Air Flight 655.)
Those who might scoff at a confrontation of a minor martinet like Donald Trump proposing mass deportations as “unnewsworthy” (or indeed a violation of journalistic protocol) should re-watch Judgment at Nuremberg. Treating remarkably indecent transgressions as simply a hiccup to be ignored (or endured) leads to normalizing these utterly horrendous propositions. For instance, which “journalist” treated George Bush’s assertion “we do not torture” as a reassuring affirmation of prevailing morality instead of loudly and … er … “belligerently” calling him on a well-crafted, scripted lie? Which “journalists” seriously questioned the fabrications that set the popular foundation for the Iraq War (2)?
Nate: How would you describe Hayden? Clapper? Alexander?
Clapper: the guy that lied during testimony
Hayden: A formidable proponent of surveillance
Alexander: Don’t know enough about him.
You don’t have to be an “adversarial journalist” or resort to highly subjective or angry narrative to achieve meaningful work that makes a strong point, supported by facts.
Nor are you a “good journalist” by pretending that by just stating both sides’ views – without any analysis, fact-checking or following up on those views – you’ve accomplished a hard day’s work.
Glenn’s correction within this article is an example of a flaw inherent in adversarial journalism.
That of course wasn’t said; it was Glenn’s conjecture based on a series of Tweets. This could have been easily avoided in two ways:
(1) If Glenn takes off his prosecutor’s cape for a few seconds and strives for what he fears the most – some objectivity! He simply did not need to make this comment. He had all the quotes he needed from Caputo to characterize his views on “bias.” That is as objective as it gets!! Slap in some narrative to set the backdrop, add the quotes and you’re done!! But like Glenn so often does, he has to provide a prefatory or supplemental sentence that takes those quotes and molds and contorts them into something more definitive and usually of questionable accuracy. Next thing you know, Caputo is supposedly saying that Ramos failing to do journalism or that he was “ruining journalism.” Caputo simply did not say that. Glenn felt the need to speculate that Caputo’s comments – which have their merits – were an indictment of Ramos and that he was basically kicking him out of the journalists’ club. Glenn briefly abandoned objectivity and what did it yield? An irritated response from Caputo, who argued with Glenn on Twitter and created a strikeout version of the article, requesting a change. Glenn of course didn’t relent because he knows other journalists better than they know themselves /s/. He could have made a point – maybe a less dramatic one – without resorting to hyperbole. In summary, even though the quotes are sitting in front of our faces and are self-explanatory, Glenn feels the need to repackage them and spoon-feed it to his readers in a hyperbolic manner. Glenn’s method doesn’t create a constructive dialogue, it creates resentment and Twitter battles.
(2) If Glenn actually cared a lick about the subject of his articles, maybe he’d contact them and ensure that he and his subject are on the same page. Doesn’t he have the resources and clout to actually do some of this stuff? Then maybe you wouldn’t have to base articles on Twitter, the worst medium ever for detailed or complex matters. Glenn could have contacted Caputo via phone or e-mail to ask for clarification: “Are you arguing that Ramos does not do ‘journalism’ or that he is ‘ruining journalism!?'” But don’t hold your breath, Glenn doesn’t operate that way and it would be incompatible with TI’s goal of achieving “adversarial journalism.” I’d have a hell of a lot more respect if TI’s goal was applied consistently to all, but it isn’t. Because TI is also into advocacy, you will one moment hear a sugar-coated narrative about the married female employee who cheated on her Cancer-ridden husband, where Glenn warns of the complicated nature of the issue and how the public is turning her into a villainous cartoon cutout. She’s not the adversary though! But then Glenn, not missing a beat, will distill someone’s entire being into the exact cartoon character he previously decried. One of my favorite examples was when he called Mike Hayden “[one of the] most pernicious human beings on the planet.” Quality journalism there!
An example of great journalism on Trump is Evan Osnos’ piece in the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/08/31/the-fearful-and-the-frustrated
It has a much greater respect for the reader than pieces you’ll find around here.
Nate’s fuckwittery is in high relief today!
How arrogant would one have to be to try to lecture a Pulitzer-prize-winning journalist on how to do proper journalism, from an internet comment thread?
How stupid would one have to be to accept whatever a Putlitzer-prize-winning “journalist” states as exemplary journalism? People with brains (Galileo, Einstein…) question and challenge everybody. Dumb Asses (Mona, you..) consume whatever the prize winning con man tells them.
A worthless piece of Stalinism-justifying trash Walter Duranty – an apologist for murderous Communist totalitarianism back in the 1930s – got one of those. It is of *absolutely no value* when it comes to assessing either the character of a journalist or his or her journalism’s professionalism.
It’s a simple concept. Mind you, I’m not making an argument from authority, but one from expertise — a perfectly reliable heuristic. For example, if your doctor is talking to you about medicine, and you’re just some guy who’s read about medicine on the internet, you’d do well to listen and learn. You’re not going to lecture a renowned doctor on how to practice medicine properly, unless you’re a doctor yourself. The idea that Nate can lecture Glenn about journalistic practice is as laughable as the idea that Rick Santorum can lecture James Hansen about climate change.
1) Glenn Greenwald is not an expert in journalism.
2) Experts are subject to scrutiny. I would have some concern if my doctor is prescribing me medications that have not being tested. And I guess you have never heard of doctors recommending unnecessary procedures so they can overcharge insurance companies.
“The idea that Nate can lecture Glenn about journalistic practice is as laughable as the idea that Rick Santorum can lecture James Hansen about climate change.”
I do not know Nate. Maybe you know him very well to testify on his knowledge of journalism.
To be fair, I don’t know if Nate can claim any journalism expertise, and as far as I know, he hasn’t done so. He is kind of an expert at defending establishment journalism, though.
Your analogy is way off. A doctor and scientist are examples of professions. or expert fields. They require specialized education, training, and experience and are typically guided by some body of standards and/or ethics. Attorneys, Accountants, Engineers, Economists, Physicists — these are professions. Blogging online – uh no.
However, I’ll admit this: Glenn does apply his past profession of attorney to his journalism. That is why he is so frank about his biases and prejudices, because it is the lawyer’s job to do so within the context of our judicial system. But we
So what code of journalism-related conduct or specialized training/education does Glenn have to do this work? Did he pass some kind of Journalistic certification exam that is often required in many professions such as law, real estate, public accounting, et al? What professional body or set of standards guide and regulate his work?
No, he does not deserve acquiescence from me or anybody. What he does can be done by just about anybody. What differentiates him is in how well he does it. As for your Pulitzer point, Charles Krauthammer also won the prize and I can’t think of a single area I agree with him on.
Uh oh, did I commit TI blasphemy? Did I dare call question someone that I didn’t realize was above reproach!? Posting my views in a comments section and having the audacity to include criticism. Oh, the nerve!!
Jose — comments like yours are interesting. It seems that several people who are most dedicated or interested in TI’s “adversarial journalism” (not all though – shout out to coram nobis, Duce, rrheard, sillyputty and a couple others that are capable of creating a rebuttal without just resorting to name-calling) are the most intolerant of “adversarial comments” aka criticism. Whether an appeal to Glenn’s credibility as you are doing here, or the rantings of his acolytes who feel they must defend his every word, it seems strangely thin-skinned and “yes-man”-ish. Surely if you cast stones regularly, you should expect some to be fired back, right!? I strongly disagree with Glenn’s approach to journalism and TI’s strategic approach. If that is stunning to you, maybe a trip out of the echo chamber is necessary.
This seems to be a change in your demeanor around here. In the past, didn’t you try to discuss topics, even disagreeable ones? Now you seem more satisfied to trot out some lazy, discussion-ending cliches. Be mindful Jose, you could be on the path to becoming a digital groupie like Kitt or Mona: Basically lobotomized drones who try to subdue others’ criticism by attacking them.
If what I’m saying is unreasonable to you or you don’t care, why respond? I’m of the mindset that if people truly did not care, they’d just ignore the commentator. For example, I actively ignore Mona and Kitt because they are intellectually dishonest people, whose opinions and insults mean nothing to me.
Lastly, Using your logic, would it not also be arrogant for Glenn to criticize the NYT and WP (which he does regularly) since they typically win the most Pulitzers?
@ Nate
I appreciate the compliment. I try not to make it too overly personal with you when you write something I disagree with. I generally find you are one of the better ones for someone who fundamentally disagrees with most of some of Glenn’s more vocal supports, of which I am obviously one. I try to argue against your ideas on merits to start. Which is not to say that as things progress sometimes I take another tack. But that’s how it goes on the interwebs some days. But all in all I try to keep the insults to a minimum with you.
But in fairness to Kitt and Mona, I think you’ve been here long enough to know that neither of them are “yes(wo)men” to Glenn’s opinions. Mona was one of his strongest critics on the Charlie Hebdo–writer’s guild dissenters issue, and I can’t think of one for Kitt recently right of the top of my head, but both have been a strong critics as well over the years if either think Glenn’s opinion, logic or facts are off the mark.
You’re entitled to your opinion about anybody’s intellectual honesty. I don’t think that’s a fair critique of either but like I said you’re entitled to your opinion they can defend themselves in that regard.
That’s the second ‘Back-Biting’ you posted in that comment post. It’s ironical that the post was a self-important lecture to someone, but yet you littered it and concluded it by, in essence, childishly talking behind the backs of people. To post about me, (and or Mona) as you did there and as you have done several times in the past, while posting to someone else, is not, as you chose to call it, “actively ignoring.” It is, quite to the contrary, highlighting what a child you can be and highlighting how badly you need to believe yourself to be above others. As they say, “for fucks sake,” just how obvious can you show your insecurities to be when you have to repeatedly *indirectly toss out your whining about other people–*Too Other People–instead of too their cyber-space faces?
It’s the 6th grader belting out the announcement to all her friends in the room that she’s not speaking to the girl standing right next to her, but that if she did speak to her, she’d tell her she’s a skank. That’s just Nate’s fuckwitted level.
A 6th grader just reasonably deducted how a Dumb Ass you are.
I addressed this above.
I appreciate your concern, but it’s not like this is a career. At best, it’s a minor addiction.
A bland repetition of so much of what Trump has said and done does not respect the reader.
“(1) If Glenn takes off his prosecutor’s cape for a few seconds and strives for what he fears the most – some objectivity! He simply did not need to make this comment. He had all the quotes he needed from Caputo to characterize his views on “bias.” That is as objective as it gets!! Slap in some narrative to set the backdrop, add the quotes and you’re done!! But like Glenn so often does, he has to provide a prefatory or supplemental sentence that takes those quotes and molds and contorts them into something more definitive and usually of questionable accuracy.”
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Glenn is trying to engage in straight news reporting in this article. He is not. He is writing an opinion piece, and thus is fully justified in characterizing the facts he reports in whatever way he feels best conveys his opinion. Many people do not read Glenn Greenwald because they think he is a great reporter of news; they turn to other sources like Dan Froomkin for those kinds of articles. Many people read Glenn Greenwald because they like his style of writing, because he is clearly very intelligent and thoughtful, and because the arguments he makes are thought-provoking to them. As far as “questionable accuracy,” that’s a subjective judgement on your part.
“He could have made a point – maybe a less dramatic one – without resorting to hyperbole.”
Again, “hyperbole” is your subjective judgement; and leaving aside the merits of the argument, relatively few people are going to be avid readers of anodyne, “drama”-free commentary. Further, if your goal is to be persuasive, a banal and boring drone is going to be far less successful than a passionate, “hyperbolic” piece that takes a side and relentlessly forces you to confront it.
“If Glenn actually cared a lick about the subject of his articles, maybe he’d contact them and ensure that he and his subject are on the same page.”
First, how do you know he doesn’t do that? Second, what duty does he have as a columnist to do so? I hardly think Maureen Dowd or Chris Cillizza or any of the rest of them take pains to run their columns past the targets of their jaundice before running them. Why should Glenn be held to a different standard (other than that you are desperate to find some way to vilify him)?
Mike Hayden is, in fact, one of the most pernicious human beings on the planet. That’s not even debatable. It is simply a fact.
Oh… that is so beautifully put.
“Trump at first ignored him, then scolded him for speaking without being called on.”
Yeah, that’s the way it works in all news conferences. What’s the news? The speaker calls on the reporter who is to have the next question.
Can Glenn cite another political news conference of record where the reporter jumps up and successfully demands to be called on first even after the speaker called on someone else? Specific citation with a link, please. No BS.
#LatinoReportersGoFirst Will Mr. Obama get behind this new-found privilege in his news conferences? Will Hillary in hers (assuming she answers any questions at all)? Will anyone? No.
Ramos wasn’t “committing journalism”. He was simply being deliberately rude — and it was absolutely right that he was called out (and put out) for his exceedingly bad manners.
The astonishing thing is that Trump invited him back in to ask his question later.
“The astonishing thing is that Trump invited him back in to ask his question later.”
Indeed.
But it was also a good thing because by the time Trump was done with him Ramos was left looking like a complete buffoon.
Impossible, because Trump is the ur-Buffoon. He cannot tolerate anyone being buffoonier than himself. Dare I say, he is the acme, nay, the apotheosis of buffoonery. Yes, I dare!
The judgment of “she” who thinks Stephen Hawking is dumb as a box of rocks and that Max Boot is possessed of a superior intellect.
@ Mona
Well as a former litigator yourself Mona, and if you watch the clip when Mr. Ramos got back in and tried to engage Mr. Trump, it was the real epitome of effective Q and Aing someone and pinning them down. He was do busy fencing with him or trying to talk over him. Now some of that was Trump wanting to dissemble at length with his non-answer, but the better way to do that is either have the patience to let him finish or interrupt in an effective way. With Trump probably not possible so your really have to be patient and then burn him with concise almost yes or no questions. Keep repeating them if he tries to evade them.
For such an experienced journalist I just didn’t think he did the best job when he had his shot.
Dang . . . “wasn’t the real epitome of effective Q and Aing someone . . . .”
Of course Trump wanted to continue a contentious exchange once he got his other business out of the way. Think about it. Ramos should not have come back in. Trump almost always wins in this kind of situation.
Shouldn’t journalists be in quotes since we don’t have any real journalists with corporate media in charge?
Glenn: Thanks for the article. I’m old enough to remember watching the McCarthy Hearings, as well as Edward R. Murrow, who must be spinning in his grave. Scarborough is as big a liar as Trump when he claims not to know of Ramos. And to the trolls on here: I will be thinking of you while wearing my Edward Snowden American Hero shirt when I attend a Wanda Jackson concert Saturday.
It’s totally believable to me that Joe Scarborough would not know who Jorge Ramos is. There’s little room in Joe Scarborough’s brain for knowledge of anything not directly related to Joe Scarborough.
I think this says it all — “I’m a reporter. My job is to ask questions. What’s ‘totally out of line’ is to eject a reporter from a press conference for asking questions.” — Ramos tiene todo el razon!!
Thanks so much Glen for once again speaking out!!
*chuckle*
He wasn’t asking any questions, he was emoting. When the big Univision baby calmed down, his questions were all answered, and his deceitful conflation of *illegal immigration* with *immigration as such* was made plain for all to see.
He was really left looking stupid there when Trump cornered him, asking him whether he agrees or not that criminal illegals coming from Mexico should be returned to Mexico.
Not really a good day for poor Jorge.
It was a great day for Jorge, who got his issue discussed nationally and held Trump to account for his moronic statements on how he would handle illegal immigration. I don’t see how you can call it anything but a win for Ramos.
As far as decrying it for not being “journalism,” journalism as such is long dead in this country and certainly has no relevance to political campaign coverage. You can’t damage the reputation of what already has no reputation to damage.
Nonsense. The only thing millions of people who watched this saw was an activist for illegal immigration being completely destroyed by Trump when his dumb logic was shown to be utterly insane, leading as it does to support for all sort of criminality just because it is perpetrated by members of a supposedly oppressed and marginalized “race”.
Tens of millions of people who didn’t watch this heard that Trump threw a Hispanic journalist out of his press conference for trying to ask a tough question about Trump’s moronic immigration plans. Ramos won big time.
Hey whatever gets you through the night buddy.
Right back atcha, bub.
Keep in mind that “Louise” claims Stephen Hawking is also stupid and that Max Boot is brilliant.
There are so many things wrong with your statement, it’s not worth pointing all of them out. But I’ll point out the most glaring error: immigration laws are part of a civil code and not a criminal code. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “criminal” illegal. An undocumented person in this country is no more a “criminal” than the guy who didn’t pay his parking ticket (also a civil infraction).
“Therefore, there is no such thing as a “criminal” illegal.”
LOL. You obviously suffer from some serious reading comprehension issues, and you didn’t actually inform yourself about the topic before you decided to jump in.
The simple language of my post “He was really left looking stupid there when Trump cornered him, asking him whether he agrees or not that criminal illegals coming from Mexico should be returned to Mexico” referred to this part of the Trump-Ramos exchange:
“Listen, we have tremendous crime, we have tremendously, we have some very bad ones and I you would agree with that, right? There’s a lot of bad ones. Real bad ones. Excuse me. They looked at some of the gangs in Baltimore, they looked at some of the gangs in Chicago, they looked even in Ferguson. They got some rough, illegal immigrants in those gangs.
They’re getting out. You mind if i send them out? Now, if they come from Mexico, do you mind if I send them back to Mexico. No, no, do you mind if I send them back to Mexico? Okay. Those people are out. They’ll be out so fast your head will spin.”
realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/25/trump_vs_jorge_ramos_on_birthright_citizenship_wall_building_a_building_thats_95_stories_tall_more_difficult.html
Or to put it in really simple terms compatible with your obviously very limited capabilities of understanding: yes, there most certainly *are* “criminal illegals”, and they are the ones that will be deported first.
That’s great. That ought to take care of what, maybe 1000 “criminal illegals”? Now, how are you going to identify, detain, and deport the other 10,999,000? Mr. Trump’s brilliant plan doesn’t say.
Even using your laughably low estimate, what really tells us all that we need to know about you is that you think the fact that 1000 criminal illegals would be removed from American society is something to mockingly sneer at.
As for the others, every journey starts with a single step. Only complete morons would argue that the inability to physically make all 10,999,000 steps *at the same time* is somehow making the journey impossible.
All your silly uninformed objections to the feasibility of this are answered here https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform
Improper Entry Is a Crime
To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:
* Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
* Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
* Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.
Read the rest at http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html
A “misdemeanor” is not a “felony.”
“Misdemeanors” are:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/misdemeanor
“Offenses lower than felonies and generally those punishable by fine, penalty, Forfeiture, or imprisonment other than in a penitentiary. Under federal law, and most state laws, any offense other than a felony is classified as a misdemeanor. Certain states also have various classes of misdemeanors (e.g., Class A, B, etc.).”
While “felonies” are:
“A serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.”
This distinction is lost on most laypeople, however, who tend to view all “crimes” as felonies deserving of jail time, especially “illegal immigration.”
The claim was made that illegal entry isn’t a crime.
A misdemeanor is a crime. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor. It is also, therefore, a crime. QED
If most laypeople regard illegal entry to be a crime, as you say, then they are correct in their understanding of the law.
Unlike your own.
What I’m saying is that most people believe that for an act to be labeled as “crime” it must necessarily be a felony, mandating harsher punishments like jail time and deportation. They consider misdemeanors to be sub-criminal behavior, naughty acts that deserve fines and community service at worst. So when the claim is made that illegal entry isn’t a crime, it’s probably coming from that misunderstanding of just what constitutes a “crime.”
In this case, the claim stems from a misunderstanding of the division between civil law and criminal law. They don’t believe violation of civil law is a “crime.” That’s why they said they believe illegal entry isn’t a crime just as they believe not paying your parking ticket isn’t a crime. Both are crimes.
I’m pretty sure my understanding of the law is just fine in this instance.
You know, I’ve gotta be honest – I’ve no clear determined position when it comes to these things and I was reading these comments to see the arguments and yours – especially since they seem to be dissenting ones – were a go to to see a differing perspective until all the weird personal attacks and such. If you’re a super smart genius person, you are very effective in your attempts at polarizing. If you are not, you’re really not getting anyone to understand and/or join you as I have now no more desire to have to wade through your immature weirdnesses to understand a view I wasn’t quite clear on.
The most acclaimed interviewers have always been those who do not shirk to ask the really tough questions, and state the obvious, however inconvenient it may be to their subject. Robin Day, David Frost and Jeremy Paxman spring to mind. They are both feared and desired by politicians, because to do a round with one of these chaps and still be standing is to win immense public approval.
The sycophantic sophomores of lap-dog journalism, on the other hand, whose only questions are masked affirmations, are a blight to the profession and a menace to society.
” to ask the really tough questions”
Um, this whining baby wasn’t asking any questions before he was ejected by security. He was emoting, and making a dumb pro-illegal-immigration speech.
After he ceased and desisted with his temper tantrums, he came back and asked some really dumb questions which Trump answered perfectly, demolishing the entire deceitful foundation of his sort of “thinking”: conflation of *illegal immigration* with *all immigration*.
Trump answered moronically, which is no surprise since he is a moron. He said he’d “start with the gangs.” OK. How many of those 11 million illegals are gang members? What about the gang members that AREN’T illegals, you can’t deport those. You can’t even arrest them unless they’ve committed a crime. So “start with the gangs” is just something that sounds good but in practice does practically nothing to identify and deport the 11 million people. It’s a moronic, feel-good sound bite answer, the answer of a marketer, which is what Trump is. He’s a huckster.
Trump said he’d have Mexico pay to build the wall. That’s laughable; Mexico is not going to do any such thing and he knows it. He has no way to force Mexico to do it, either. He just spewed it out there because it sounds like a great idea: “the wall won’t cost us anything because I’ll get Mexico to pay for it!” Really, how will you get Mexico to pay for it? That’s left unstated. I assume Mexico will simply capitulate due to his Trumpness. It’s just words, just marketing-speak. He’s a huckster, always has been.
The MSM falls short again, just like they did preceding the invasion of Iraq. Professional jealousy in some cases, no doubt, as Jorge’s viewership is larger than that of ABC, CBS and NBC combined. Another Trump lie was exposed when he denied knowing who Jorge is. Maybe those of you who call for the expulsion of 11 million people might want to take a poll of farmers in Alabama. They saw millions of dollars of crops die in the fields when the state did their draconian act. I am wondering if the goons who travel with Trump are packing. Scary thought.
Caputo’s “we have to fend off phony bias” response is interesting in that it exposes his need to keep appearances. ‘Objectivity’ is a form of advertising, and Ramos decided not to sell. This is troublesome to Caputo because Ramos ‘hurt the brand.’ The view from nowhere brand. Rosen’s remedy for this is still fascinating to me.
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
Calling the better part of 11 million people culled rapists and felons deserves sensitive, neutral questioning to protect the sacred role of journalists? May the doorkeeper to the Great Journalism Hall of Fame prove to be Hunter S. Thompson!
Exceptional article…
I guess he was lucky he wasn’t screaming “Don’t Taze me Bro!”.. Press conferences are scripted to fit the narrative defined limits.
To paraphrase Noam Chomsky – the “political debates inside America are very lively as long as they are confined to scripted topics” or just “confine the debate”.
I heard the other day that people are amazed at how smart Trump is. Who said that? I wish I could remember. Oh yeah. It was Trump that started that rumor. Comedy at its best.
LOL. It’s *truly* pathetic that this person’s post
https://twitter.com/ASerignese/status/636413544502722560
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNT-vwFU8AIcZ-5.png
and the ensuing conversation – pointing out that it demonstrates that Mexico government is smart while USA Government is dumb – were removed from here and then retweeted putting the author in the line of fire obviously hoping for some more of that Caputo treatment. #Journalism
Louise, you claim Stephen Hawking is as dumb as a box of rocks, so why should anyone take your judgments seriously?
Oh oh oh oh, I got my hand up Mona pick me, pick me, pick me!
A: They shouldn’t.
Assume that’s right. Do I win a prize? Please, please, please. How about a framed picture of Louise Cypher taking it in the tailpipe from her lover the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan. I mean I’m sure there’s got to be a few of those lying around somewhere that nobody wants. I want to put it at the bottom of the cat’s litter box so I can laugh every time I see it.
And Noam Chomsky. Being called dumb by Louise can only be taken as a compliment.
Yes: Louise, lenk, a number of others ratify one’s intelligence when they attack it.
and you are still a Dumb Ass!!
Typical Greenwald’s bull shit:
“A Good Journalist must pretend they have no opinions, feign utter indifference to the outcome of political debates, never take any sides, be utterly devoid of any human connection to or passion for the issues they cover, and most of all, have no role to play whatsoever in opposing even the most extreme injustices.”
BS!
A Good Journalist must “differentiate between opinion and impartial news coverage” “shall not suppress essential information”.
Many believe you are a Bad Journalist full of shit, not because of your opinions or because you take sides but because you carefully blur the line between your opinion and news coverage and continuously avoid context. For instance, you do not consider the fact that the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have requested military support to the US government as “essential information” when stating that Obama is bombing “Muslim countries”.
Trump is a citizen running for office. He is not under any obligations to listen to Ramos’ opinions about his policy. Those who disagree with Trump’s policies will have a choice to reject them in what is called an election in the USA. Ramos has a duty as a journalist to obtain clarifications on Trump’s policies to inform the public. A shouting match does not provide clarifications to the public. Trump’s policies (or lack of policies) regarding several matters have been obtained by journalists who asked him proper questions to which he answered or he could not answer.
“proper questions” is a phrase which plainly reveals your bias.
I think it’s proper to be rude and disobedient to the little rules of decorum when confronting an insane oligarch who is whipping up 1930’s-style race paranoia, nativism, and nationalism.
That journalists would rather take helicopter rides, Trump-selfies, and legitimize his fringe nonsense says a lot about the true function of mainstream media. To serve power.
P.S. I guess since the governments we established in 2 countries we invaded asked for more bombing means that bombing 7+ Muslim countries is just a quaint post 9/11 hobby, hardly worth mentioning.
“1930’s-style race paranoia, nativism, and nationalism.”
*chuckle*
You think 1930’s-style race paranoia, nativism, and nationalism is funny? It amuses you? Nazi Germany was a laugh riot? Hitler was a funny clown?
Um, you silly-billy, what is not only funny but is absolutely *hilarious* is people like “Ted” making these dumb comparisons between Nazi Germany and American politicians they oppose for the last half century. “OMG” Governer Reagan what a Nazi!!” “OMG President Reagan what a Nazi!!” “OMG Bush what a Nazi!!” “OMG!! Trump what a Nazi!!”
Please. You folks sound *utterly* ridiculous.
People like Ted, or Ted?
I don’t call politicians the N word, they’re all far to banal. But Trump is blowing that dog-whistle pretty hard, and some people with genuinely disgusting mentality are responding.
@ Louise Cypher
Actually Louise the conservatives in this country have been using the same race baiting dog whistles and often outright exact same language and ideas since Reconstruction if you want a real chuckle about reality. That’s how unoriginal they are.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/08/racism-reconstruction-homestead-act-black-suffrage/
But I’m sure you won’t bother to read an actual scholar on the topic because they are all just pinko commies by definition in your book peddling liberal propaganda.
“proper questions” is a phrase which plainly reveals your bias.”
bias against whom?
“I guess since the governments we established in 2 countries we invaded asked for more bombing means that bombing 7+ Muslim countries is just a quaint post 9/11 hobby, hardly worth mentioning.”
Is that what the Shia told you in Iraq when you visited them? They told you they did not elect their leaders, but the US put them in power? Is that what the Pashtuns and the elders told you in Afghanistan?
Who cares? Doesn’t stop him any. In fact, it’s only seemed to help having the Serious Journalists hating on him.
Are you saying the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have requested drone bombings of their citizens? Any links? Is this also the case for Yemen and Pakistan?
Jorge Ramos is a journalist who accepts his obligation to be adversarial to power and hold it accountable. The United States designed by the Founders is predicated on the press functioning in that manner. Jorge Ramos is behaving as a citizen who is also journalist should.
Dumb Ass Mona. I have noticed you are still on your knees mouth wide open for Greenwald!
“Who cares? Doesn’t stop him any.”
That is funny. Lol Lol. After you swallow everything Greenwald gives you, then read his article again. Then, you will notice he is the one whining about who are “good journalists”.
“Are you saying the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have requested drone bombings of their citizens? Any links?”
Lol lol. Stay on the TI website. Do not check any other news network, any governments’ press release. Keep doing this, so I can keep calling you a dumb ass.
“Jorge Ramos is a journalist who accepts his obligation to be adversarial to power and hold it accountable.”
And?
Dumb Ass!
“Do not check any other news network”
It is truly stunning, she was *completely* unaware that Trump answered all the idiotic questions by this whining illegal-immigration-supporting Univision baby, and even asked for someone on here to summarize it all for her, bless her silly little illogical cotton socks.
While we’re on the subject of bad journalism and their cult-like groupies, look at this:
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/636593643265097728
Taibbi, a miserable failure at First Look Media, is falsely depicting what went on: if you only read Taibbi, you’d have no idea that Ramos was in fact not “sitting mute and letting Trump duck questions” before he valiantly decided to step in and defend his oppressed people, but was instead making a dumb emotive speech out of line and was ejected by security with complete justification.
Oh, yes, this is true. So would you, Louise, please summarize how Donald Trump answered Jorge Ramos’ inquiries? Thanks in advance.
You seem to be under the gross misapprehension that Glenn Greenwald and I never disagree on the matters he writes about. Is that the hilarious thing you are claiming here, lenk? Anyway, and as I said, your opinion of Glenn’s journalism has not only failed to stop his shot to the top, he’s staying well up there perhaps in part because of the Establishment idjits who snipe at him,and with whom he somewhat regularly mops up the floor.
Translation: “No, I have no documentation for my implication that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan have requested drone bombings of their citizens.”
That’s what I thought.
That’s only “essential information” on the false presumption that the “elected governments” that were propped up by an occupying army are legitimate to begin with.
“That’s only “essential information” on the false presumption that the “elected governments” that were propped up by an occupying army are legitimate to begin with.”
The majority of the Shias, the Kurds who went to vote in Iraq believe so as well as EVERY SINGLE government around the world. Now, you can share the information you got that proved the opposite thanks to your own investigation during your visit there. The majority of Pashtuns, Uzbeks, the elders believe their government is legitimate. You can elaborate more about the Taliban’s view of the Afghan government. I am impatient to learn your expert opinion regarding their reasons to kill voters instead of participating in elections.
Except in very rare circumstances, all governments around the world recognize all other governments, so that says nothing about legitimacy. I think it’s perfectly valid to have some kind of standard. In this case, if a government emerges in an environment of military occupation where all meaningful opposition gets eliminated, then it’s not legitimate. That seems perfectly reasonable to me. Were there any parties in these elections whose platform was expelling the occupiers?
Interestingly, the same people who would tell us that the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are democratically elected, are probably the same ones who would tell us that Muslims are so barbaric that you can’t open the polls to them.
So, I put the question on you. What would have made the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan legitimate for you? I am sure that you are aware that in the last election in Iraq there was NO military occupation in the country and the opposition (Sunnis, Kurds, secular) did participate and won seats in the parliament. You are definitely aware that the Taliban in Afghanistan has been invited to participate in elections, but they chose to kill voters instead.
“proper questions” clearly shows you missed the entire point of the article…
and your reply clearly shows that you are unable to understand my comment.
Don’t be surprised by that, “rene” also “thinks” that no illegal immigrants can be criminals.
Enforce the laws we have or change it.
That’s racist of you.
Since it would destroy the lives of millions of people who are from a single scapegoated race, it is a bit racist.
Aww, those poor oppressed brutalized marginalized illegal immigrants, through no fault of their own forced to break the law by the big bad USA. It is indeed the case that the very idea of expecting them to abide by the law is nothing but Punching Down™ on them.
Obviously the only non-racist solution is to let the Lawbreaking continue.
That’s right. It wasn’t racist to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act . Moreover, these jurisdictions and people were all that dread scourge: LAWBREAKERS:
@ megatonone
Sounds good. Can we start with your life? Mind if I follow you around for a week during every waking hour and look through your financial records and every cash transaction you’ve engaged in over the same period?
Bet you’d have no problem with that–never broken a law ever in your life, amirite?
Of course laws can be enforced — within the constraints of the legal system. To spell it out, each and every person is entitled to presumption of innocence, representation and due process.
There’s nothing funnier and more pathetic than a Mexican American speaking down on undocumented immigrants, you all are only legal because someone in your family decided to cross over therefore you all started from the same place you hypocrite people & as for all those supporting trump, you are all the same people who supported hitler thinking a race was at fault for a countries downfall, why don’t you all try to make a change yourselves and do something good for this country instead of pointing fingers or trying to attack the ones you so call- responsible behind the suppose conflicts you all seem to talk about even tho you all never really pinpoint what they are exactly ha. There’s good people in all countries, Mexicos the biggest target only because they’re on the border or their people are the ones who come illegally, but it saddens me to see that no one awknowleges that most come for a better life, there are many who take advantage and are just as worse as criminals here but there’s also a lot who work their asses off for their family, I have seen Mexicans take a month to finish a house whereas I’ve seen “Americans” take a whole year or more to finish a sidewalk & im not trying to say Americans are lazy workers because there are also a lot of white “Americans” who are very hardworking so it’s vice versa. And with that’s said, Why don’t you all take a moment to see what the real conflicts are in this country & not be brainwashed by all political heads, think for yourselves & be humble because the real problem in American is racism & discrimination.
Jon claims:
Yes, he did. Activist journalists are the rule (historically) in the U.S.; Ramos is squarely within a quite noble journalistic tradition.
The society of journalists, of which I am one, continue to contradict ourselves. Targeting Ramos is virtually similar to the treatment of Ed Kennedy, the AP’s WW II Paris bureau chief who broke the German surrender story only to be black balled because he also broke a politically-enforced embargo — otherwise called censorship.
Did the news anchor from Univision act like a baby? I don’t think so, which is why all this talk about revoking citizenship for anchor babies is a bit over the top. Trump was only seeking to ban journalists from press conferences – not revoke their citizenship – but as usual the Mainstream Media attempts to paint him as an extremist.
Out loud laughs yesterday and today, Benito, thank you! Perhaps I’m a bit more cynical than usual lately without any fresh Stewart or Colbert – and you are greatly appreciated!
Slightly off topic, except to the extent Trump is involved and the topic is media. But someone might be interested to read Andrew O’Hehir’s newest piece. Generally find the guy to have some good insights and I like his writing:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/26/the_empire_strikes_back_the_media_political_elites_campaign_to_destroy_bernie_and_trump_and_restore_order/
Krugman, today: “The point is that Trump isn’t a diversion, he’s a revelation, bringing the real motivations of the movement out into the open.”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/the-reactionary-soul/
Yep. Prof. Robin refers to them as reactionary. Irredentism/irredentists is equally accurate. Revanchism/revanchists somewhat applicable.
I usually don’t gussy it all up with all that professorial jargon and just refer to them as backward bigoted know-nothings.
While I overall applaud the gist of this article, I must take issue with both the characterizations of Murrow (some sort of icon to the presstitutes) and Cronkite: Murrow went after McCarthy once McCarthy targeted a member of the ultra-powerful Business Advisory Council (today renamed to the Business Council and still as powerful), and Cronkite never, ever really gave us any original news — as an adult I would have to research on my own, as thousands of other Americans have, important details about the JFK assassination, RFK assassination and MLK assassination that highly-paid nimrods like Cronkite and Dan Rather were too incompetent or inconsequential to provide or ferret out!
Doesn’t take all that much to look into th backgrounds of the couple who first rented Lee Oswald and his family living space, and were supposed to have helped him to obtain a job at the Texas School Book Depository (Ruth Paine’s sister and brother-in-law were career CIA types, and she was related to the wife of John Foster Dulles, brother to then CIA director, Allen Dulles). Why did I have to look this simple stuff up as an adult; where were all the so-called newsies back then? (Exceptions: Dorothy Kilgallen and Larry Stern, who both evidently did real reportage and were murdered for their efforts!)
And Michael Paine, then still Ruth Paine’s husband, was related to Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the ambassador to Vietnam that President Kennedy was just about to fire (he was promoting war, when JFK ordered him to seek peace) as Paine was related to the Cabot, Forbes and Dudley families.
And when I began research into the murder of Sen. Bobby Kennedy, it wasn’t all that difficult to unearth the family background of the so-called mysterious witness (identified by a number of others as olive-skinned brunette lady in her late 20s or early 30s, who spoke with a foreign accent), Valerie Schulte, a young blonde college student. (Both her aunt and uncle worked at the same classified area at Lockheed as Eugene Thane Cesar, the part-time security guard on duty the night RFK was shot; Schulte’s father worked at the Technicolor COrporation on a classified contract with Lockheed; Lockheed at that time had a contract not only with the CIA, but specifically with the CIA’s MK ULTRA program; and, the chief of security at Lockheed was VP Richard Nixon’s former personal Secret Service bodyguard, who left the SS once Nixon lost his presidential bid, but would return to Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign after the murder of Sen. Bobby Kennedy.
Yet none of these so-called newsies back then could find any of this out?????
Sorry, Murrow and Cronkite never earned their reputations from doing Real Reportage, sir!
Who knew that neo-populist nationalism would be so popular in the nation?
Oh well. Although I am personally east coast elite and liberal on social issues, I’m 100% lockstep with American exceptionalism, militarism, and patriotism.
Trump is a legit candidate now and his ideas are to be seriously considered and NOT MOCKED, challenged, or even examined in a less-than-respectful way by so-called Journalists. Go back to Telemundo, you immigrating opinion-haver!
Mr. Ramos’ daughter works for Hillary Clinton. So, the obvious is self evident. Mr. Ramos is in bed with Democrats. He is an agent for an agenda.
Actually, your obviousness seems the more self evident.
I love that sentence.
The oblivious is self evident
Does that have anything to do with the known unknowns?
It’s the same but different.
Nah it’s a Yogi Berraism.
You got it in one.
A pathetic activist was trying to provoke Trump with his dumb and uncivil stunt, talking nonsense out of line, not actually posing any questions, but making a whiny speech disregarding all others in that room. The ultimate goal was the production of articles such as the one we are commenting under.
Security was *completely* justified in ejecting him until the “journalist” decided to become civil; he was readmitted, and then Trump utterly destroyed his kindergarten illegality-appeasing “logic” as you can read here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/25/trump_vs_jorge_ramos_on_birthright_citizenship_wall_building_a_building_thats_95_stories_tall_more_difficult.html
Money quote:
“Listen, we have tremendous crime, we have tremendously, we have some very bad ones and I you would agree with that, right? There’s a lot of bad ones. Real bad ones. Excuse me. They looked at some of the gangs in Baltimore, they looked at some of the gangs in Chicago, they looked even in Ferguson. They got some rough, illegal immigrants in those gangs.
They’re getting out. You mind if i send them out? Now, if they come from Mexico, do you mind if I send them back to Mexico. No, no, do you mind if I send them back to Mexico? Okay. Those people are out. They’ll be out so fast your head will spin.”
How is he going to deport gang members exactly? Is he going to go into the gang lair and ask, “ok — who here is from Mexico?” That makes no sense. Obviously, the only way he could do anything on the scale he’s talking about is go into Hispanic neighborhoods, force people out of their homes and load them into buses — without due process. It can’t possibly be just “gang members”, unless it’s done on a case-by-case basis.
Oh no, an agenda! Plus a family member who is political? Plus he was rude!
Everyone knows REAL journalists don’t have an agenda. Agendas are for people like Trump, who wish to wash the homeland clean of the unwanted ethnic scapegoat people. And rudeness, why, that’s only for Trump to deploy.
They merely neutrally report news that serves the interests of power elites within private industry and government. That’s true fairness.
Well…. seem you do not follow Jorge Ramos very much, he is passionate about his job he called on Mexico’s president in a public forum a lot harder than on Trump. He is right the last thing we need at this time is more useless use of money. A wall??? please read history, China built a great wall that served for nothing but to become a wonder of the world Trump is in to building maybe that’s his hope :). The problem can be solved by passing laws that protect migrant workers and their family and secures the payment of taxes and so on so they are not a burden as to drugs lets get real we need to clean up our act if there were not so many addicts in the country there would be no drug dealers :( ????. So lets get to work on real issues and not be taken in by big words and promises We are living now with enough broken promises.
This article and interaction of Glenn’s from 2008 when he was writing at Salon remains one of my favorite all time articles and interactions that I’ve read from him, and about media. A day or two before this article, Glenn had written another one which referenced John King and quoted copiously from John King. John King didn’t like that, and he tells us why in an email he wrote and sent to Glenn in order to excoriate the rank amateur he had never heard for daring to write about him.
I’m posting it in this thread to this article because I think it directly applies to the subject content of the article we’re responding to today about journalism and journalists.
This is a flavor of King’s writings to Glenn:
*I don’t read biased uninformed drivel so I’m a little late to the game.
But a friend who understands how my business works and knows a little something about my 20 plus years in it sent me the link to your ramblings.
Since the site suggests you have law training, maybe you forgot that good lawyers to a little research before they spit out words.
Did you think to ask me or anyone who works with me whether that was the entire interview? No. (It was not; just a portion used by one of the many CNN programs.)
Did you reach out to ask the purpose of that specific interview? No.
Or how it might have fit in with other questions being asked of other candidates that day? No.
Or anything that might have put facts or context or fairness into your critique. No.–John King
*Poor writing skills, typos and misspellings by the Professional Journalist, John King, in the original
Short snip of Glenn’s response:
Most of this speaks for itself, but it’s worth noting how often journalists’ responses to criticisms contain so many of the same elements which King’s email contains. They always want you to know that they never read what you write and that you’re an Unserious, biased, partisan amateur (without any recognition of the glaring contradiction between those two claims).
They boast of what they believe to be their reputation, assuring you that they are widely respected and admired by the People Who Count. Even though they never read you, they’re repulsed by the idea that you would dare to critique their work because you know absolutely nothing about the High Art of Journalism and never get any messages on your Blackberry from Ed Gillespie or Karl Rove or Anyone.
They invariably point to criticisms from both Left and Right as proof that they’re unbiased straight-shooters. They chide you for being unaware of the secret, concealed information (interview questions that weren’t broadcast, paragraphs that were edited out) which somehow disproves your critique of what they did broadcast or publish. –Glenn Greenwald
John King–“Journalist” to Glenn Greenwald– Interloper Smart Ass
That. Is. Awesome.
AND it’s from 2008 — how could John King not know who Glenn Greenwald is in _2008_?
Who Glenn Greenwald “was” in 2008 is irrelevant. An utter non sequitur.
So funny! So great.
Even funnier, I had to look up John King.
I love every piece of this. Thank you.
“Objectivity” is essential in the journalist profession. A reporter while doing his or her JOB should remain objective and fair. That’s it. No bull, no emotional outbursts or obnoxious predispositions based on personal opinions. I am American of Mexican parents, one of which was an illegal and is now a citizen. My other parent came with a Visa. Both my parents disagree with the muddying of the waters when defining immigration. People seem to forget that Immigrants and ILLEGAL immigrants are two different groups. I have personally known illegal immigrants who come to the United States, make money, and send it ALL back to Mexico, women who come for one day to have their babies and then run back, only to send the kid when it is an adult. Of all the people I have met, the illegal Mexican immigrants, not all, come here to take advantage, make money, talk badly about the United States, are predators of young teenager Mexican-Americans, and then go back to Mexico when they feel threatened, yet they feel like they have as many rights to the benefits given to U.S. citizens. There are exceptions, like my parents for instance: Came here, worked hard, own three homes, pay their property and self employed taxes since they got here. They don’t like trump, but they see a necessity of having stricter laws for those who come here to commit crimes and take advantage of the system only to run back. My father would often tell me, “YOU ARE AMERICAN, Mexico is trash, they offer no opportunities for it’s people, the government steals and cheats, I will never go back, be proud of being American.”
I’m a proud American myself.Congrats.
Jorge Ramos;Never heard of him,prior to this,and I’ve perused the web every day for years,although I’m just American speaking and non bilingual.Isn’t Univision just a Hispanic member of our MSM,spewing BS 24-7-365?So to me this guy is suspect.
And Mr.Greenwald is a little close to the immigration issue is he not?
Until we have a world utopia,lets keep our borders intact,please.
The prime directive is our salvation,and our interference worldwide,everywhere is the cause of all these migrations,but I can’t agree with cultural seppeku because our leadership,whom I oppose fervently,are criminals and morons.
Trumps language was harsh,but he is totally correct on illegal immigration,it makes slaves of the migrants,and destroys our national cohesion.
The latest,it’s in boys and girls,the Zionists are opening their borders to illegals!blech.
Which leads to that the MSM loves illegals,so their alleged pushback on Ramos is just responding to the national mood,for a millisecond.They hate Trumps candor.
Glenn, small nit to pick, Rosen adopted this from Thomas Nagel. Talks about it here.
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
Here’s the excellent GeneDemby talking about the difference between “objectivity” (the fallacy of no subject), vs. truthfulness and fairness (specifically re: BLM, but generally applied).
https://twitter.com/GeeDee215/status/635821149474168837?lang=en
I think most people intuit objectivity to mean fairness. But “corporate fairness” has been so thoroughly internalized people have forgotten we’re bound to a prism. Light bends one way or the other. Once that’s understood, we might understand what we’re really seeking, or resisting, when we speak of “truth”. That which enlarges our sensitivity to the spectrum.
Also, Tom Scocca’s disquisition ‘On Smarm’ is worth everyone’s time. Explode the phony “center” within any political spectrum, and what you find is the will to power. The politic of apolitics.
http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977
This may be the first time in history that I have disagreed with Glenn. I watched the confrontation live on MSNBC last night and then saw it with sub-titles this morning. Until this morning, it was unclear what Mr. Ramos had said. Now, having watched with the sub-titles, it is clear that he was making a speech and clearly did not intend to ask a question. Therefore, he was being disruptive.
Thereafter, at least two reporters asked Trump direct questions about the appropriateness of the removal and he permitted Mr. Ramos back into the room. He then conducted a lengthy exchange with him in which Mr. Ramos again did not ask a question until prompted by Trump. This did not happen after the press conference. It occurred within minutes of Mr. Ramos’ removal and the exchange occurred as part of the press conference.
I also happened to be watching Scarborough and the bobble-head this morning and am sorry to report that this is also the first time in history that I ever found myself agreeing with that Fascist Bastard about anything. Scarborough rightfully noted that the guy never asked a question and this continued when he was allowed back into the press conference. Even so, trump did address his issues more than he addresses most and gave the guy way more time than he deserved.
Scarborough also noted that these two guys had been going at each other behind the scenes prior to this exchange and that Trump had recently pulled the same stunt he did on Lindsey Graham by posting Mr. Ramos’ private cell phone number on line, which led me to do a little more research.
This brought me to the story that Trump had recently discovered that, besides canceling his Miss America Pageant, Univision had issued an internal memo forbidding its employees from using Trump Facilities for any other their business travel. In retaliation, Trump had then sent an email to the head of Univision advising him that the Trump Golf Resort, which is adjacent to the Univision Headquarters in Miami, is now off-limits to all Univision Employees.
Therefore, it might very well be that Mr. Ramos exchange with Mr. Trump was less about speaking truth to power and more about confronting Trump—perhaps for good reason in regard to his cell phone number, but not necessarily because of the very important issue of Trump’s crazy deportation plan. Trump did promise him an interview in the future and it might very well be that Ramos will get that interview.
As for protesting Trump’s outrageous proposals and bombast, I would have had no problem with a group of protesters taking over his press conference or speech, as was done to Bernie and Martin O’Malley, and as was later attempted with Billary. That day may yet come and, short of injuring the great man, I wouldn’t care what they did.
As for reporters speaking truth to power, Jorge Ramos is no Helen Thomas. However, he could take some instruction from some of her better moments. She would have stripped Trump naked with a first question that pierced through the bombast and then made her protest speech as part of her follow-up questions. That’s how it is done and it would have been much more effective than to make a speech that no one in the room and no one watching on National TV could hear.
This may be the first time in history that a comment here is *hands down* better than the article. Kudos!
See that comment people ?
Now THAT’s journalism.
I love that Glenn’s example of the greatness of activist-journalism, the Shafer piece, is an article primarily about Glenn himself. Yeah, who says journalists have to be humble either?
Been waiting since 1984 to find out what it sounds like Whendovescry
so, Prince predicted thread trolling way back then? Genius.
No it’s not. Shafer takes some people’s criticism of Greenwald as his launching point for an extensive historical analysis of activist journalism.
I support Trump 1000% ! There are many “American” Latinos like me who understand full well where Trump is coming from and who firmly believe that the chronic invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere is a most definate “real” threat to America.
Many of us America loving patriotic Latinos seldom have a public voice because it is unwise or even unsafe to show that we are anti illegal immigrant and related issues like chain migration, dreamer Bs, and anchor babies. We silent ones are intimately aware that street and prison gangs are fearsome realities. We understand well how illegals undercut our wages, take our jobs, blight our neighborhood into 3rd world barrios, ruin our schools, etc, etc. We understand the bloody links between Mexican narco cartels and crime, ruined lives, poverty, in our neighborhoods and barrios. Trump seems to understand this when he says that Mexico sends bad people to the US.
Many of you who live in safe comfortable enviroments probably would not understand how DIVIDED , conflicted, and fractured Latinos are over immigration issues. I have no idea how many Latinos agree with me, but I do know that many in my large extended family sick and tired of what liberal jerks and greedy entities have done to America. I think there is a silent subpopulation of patriotic Latinos siding with Trumps positions on illegal immigration.
About Jorge Ramos, this biased ingrate regularly champions pro illegal immigrant policies on Univision which I watch periodically. He is the equivalent of Chris Matthews, or a polished Ed Brown. What can you expect from a mostly Spanish speaking audience of legal and illegal immigrants? Follow the money … see the links between corporate traitor sponsors on all Spanish language TV. Then, you might better understand what a Joge Ramos robot is.
“If” you don’t get where I am coming from, find a patriotic America Latino living in a illegal immigrant infested barrio to explain it to you.
BTW: I explicitly avoid using the flawed and misleading term, “Hispanic” and prefer Latino …. long story I don’t want to bore you with.
I’ll give you an idea. See this chart. Pretty clear, isn’t it?
So, no, you’re not representative (assuming you are for real.) More importantly, you seem to be concerned about issues that don’t exist. For one, net immigration from Mexico is negative or around zero. Additionally, there’s no evidence that “anchor babies” exist in any significant sense.
Now, you should hope that an authoritarian strongman like Trump stops at illegal immigrants. No one can guarantee this will be the case. In fact, I’d recommend you listen to his Phoenix speech, particularly the part where he mentions his conversation with the CEO of Macy’s.
I caught that in his Phoenix speech too. Trump is something out of 1930s Germany.
Oh,so all the Central Americans that Mexico facilitates to our borders as pressure relief,don’t count huh?And I highly highly doubt the native Mexican net is even or negative.
Who’d you quote,the Mexican illegal immigrant associations data?
Politifact, among others. The data is pretty clear. Basically, the population of US persons born in Mexico is static or declining a bit. That was not always the case.
Apparently, including Central America doesn’t change things. I found this Census Bureau document. See page 6.
In essence, Trump is riding a wave of ignorance, with a dash of xenophobia.
I completely agree with you. I am Mexican-American. You did not miss a point, you are right on track.
Not necessarily directly related but interesting to point this tangential fact out: several years ago, former president of Mexico (who signed NAFTA), Ernesto Zedillo, was the target of an extradition attempt by the Mexican government.
Zedillo had received a memo from Chase Bank when he was president, suggesting he get rid of the Zapatistas, and he pretty quickly dispatched the Mexican army on a mission of slaughter!
Zedillo is presently at Yale University at some global institute position, and on the global advisory board of the Gates Foundation and, of course, a member of the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org).
I doubt that Univision was for Obrador eh?The guy who had the election stolen probably with Univisions help.Jeez.What a nest of corruption,Mexico.No wonder we don’t learn about in in school(non College?).(same with Canada,we are taught nada about).Strange.
Univision, like any other corporate network, is basically center-right and pro-establishment. When it comes to Hispanic issues, obviously they are not going to be anti-Hispanic, but generally they do carry water for the powerful.
Look, it’s one thing to insult the man, but comparing him to Tweety — the guy who swoons over George W Bush’s codpiece — is depraved.
Missing the point. Ramos wasn’t ejected for lack of objectivity, no one considers Univision objective on immigration issues, Ramos was ejected for shouting down Trump at his own press conference.
@ Whendovescry
Except Ramos didn’t “shout down” Trump.
You are exactly right, but you should know that most of us here are engaged in pretend time and insist this is a real debate about adversarial journalism. Just a heads up.
“Louise Cypher”:
Well, it certainly seems to, er, arouse you. But then, we can know that “Louise” would have obeyed the Fugitive Slave Act, and, had the nice Gestapo agent come to “her” door asking if she knew where any Jews were hiding, she would have told the truth about the ones in her neighbor’s attic. In 2002, Louise would have refused to let a gay couple rent a room in her Michigan B&B because sodomy was illegal.
Yes, our Louise hears “it’s the law” and smartly clicks her heels and (excitedly) shouts: “Ja vol!”
This article is very confused. A good journalist certainly must not present their opinions or allow their opinions to influence their professional practice. In short: good journalism is objective. But that’s not the same thing as the current faux-standard of neutrality, where whenever a conflict is encountered, we pretend like there are two equally valid sides.
The problem is that we do not understand what opinions are. We seem to believe that “opinion” is synonymous with a particular understanding or interpretation of a collection of facts or issues. But this isn’t true. For example, the fact that “enhanced interrogation techniques” was government double-speak for “torture” is an objective fact, not an opinion. A good journalist must report as objective fact that the government lied about their use of torture.
Similarly, reporting that HUAC was a witch-hunt, or that the government lied about Vietnam, were instances of reporting facts, not reporting opinions. Indeed, the victory of journalism in those instances was recognizing that the evidence was there to qualify those understandings as facts. It took a long time doing hard journalism to get to that point of having enough evidence and understanding that a clear and objective view of McCarthyism was in place. If Murrow had just stood up as soon as he had ever heard of McCarthy, and given a denunciation of McCarthy as opinion, it wouldn’t have been a victory of journalism, it would have been a failure.
Opinions are interpretations of facts and issues, viewpoints or hypotheses which have not, as of yet, been proven by evidence. Sometimes this is because the nature of the issue at question does not lend itself to evidence or proof. But other times, the gap between fact and opinion can be closed, by finding conclusive evidence to support one viewpoint and reject others. This is journalism. And failing to recognize when the evidence has stacked up and points to one decisive interpretation is just as much a failure of journalism as reporting an opinion as objective before the evidence is there.
“In short: good journalism is objective.” – Fenn
An article exploring the idea of journalistic objectivity. An excerpt:
@ Fenn
That was a fine and incisive comment with which I agree. With one exception for the sake of clarity.
Opinions can be had on facts that have been sufficiently established or once proved by evidence. But those “opinions” would be in the nature of a fact’s meaning, import, value, relevance, magnitude or effect. Doesn’t make them any less “opinions,” or viewpoints, because the subject or object of the opinion is an established fact.
I completely disagree. Fenn’s argument (wrongly) presupposes that activist journalism can’t be dedicated to factual accuracy.
@ Mona
Already retracted my approval below. Was a little hasty focusing what I took issue with immediately. But I agree with your exceptions, so the comment isn’t all that good on balance. Though it’s not all bad.
Agreed. The false equivalency plague in journalism drives me batshit.
Actually, there are:
a) facts (“gravity make things/including us go down in free fall if we believe in it or not”, “we humans are basically monkeys (who talk lots of sh!t)” ;-), genes from father and mother create the genetic make up of a baby);
b) falsifiable statements (or “judgments”): those opinions which can be undeniably verified (“Ramos works for Univision”, “All kinds of people cross the U.S. border, any border; usually the borders of the countries who have messed with them one way or the other”), and
c) opinions
Considering the meaning of statements as one of those three options would differentiate opinions with a verifiable factual import (“plate tectonics”) from those who are just “I say/like it/believe so” opinions (“Latin Jazz is the best kind of music” (-to me-), to someone else may be Elvis’ songs …)
RCL
No, it’s not. It’s quite clear.
Says who?
Again, says who? And what do you mean by “objective?”
The problems are entirely related. Only your bias determines when neutrality is “faux.” (That is, when it is uncalled for.)
@ Fenn
Okay and the two exceptions Mona points out. Little hasty in my approval.
It’s easy to find facts to support totally opposing arguments, so facts don’t seal the deal. But what you have here wouldn’t qualify anyway. Nope, sorry Fenn, what you describe as “facts” here are arguments. Generally good arguments, arguments with which I agree, but not “facts.” Here’s two:
Murrow was not “clear and objective”; he made a good argument about McCarthyism. One could not actually be “objective” about “McCarthyism” because it was is not really a “thing” – the word McCarthyism is a rhetorical construction. To say that what McCarthy was doing represented an ideology that deserved to be named after him? That’s an argument – a rhetorical construction. There are no “facts” associated with McCarthyism other than those built around tracing the use of the word.
Calling practices “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “torture” are also arguments via labeling; they can’t be facts because they are circularly, linguistically defined. You’ll need something a bit more sophisticated than the mere notion of facts to fight such a deviously embedded linguistic arguments as renaming (what I would agree with you is ) torture.
Arguments – rhetoric. That’s what we have in human affairs. The best we can do is hope that what we believe are better arguments will be convincing. Facts do exist, they can help with arguments, no substitute.
Good comment. There is something to be said for objectivity as an ideal, but I don’t think it really occurs that much in practice:) Certain opinions tend to gather inertia, and as they do, they act frame the methods people use to investigate things.
The idea of neutrality (objectivity, etc.) seems to be that it is periodically necessary to set aside one’s opinions and let things fall where they may in order to advance one’s understanding of a problem. Afterwards, facts are assimilated, opinions are amended, and something new can emerge. Rinse, and repeat.
What the article seems to be objecting to is that the media is flatlined on the neutrality stage, and acts like it never has to assimilate the data it gathers or form any kind of judgement that would appear to favor one side or another. All this leads to is a sort of gravitation toward the center of popular opinion, which is good for business, but not much else. Maybe in some future world, a robot could do it.
I believe that what was revealed with this exchange and the media’s reaction to it was more than an adherence to journalistic decorum; it was a visceral contempt for someone from the outside (figuratively, literally, geographically, whatever) to disobey the status quo. The reactions, from Trump on down, have been alarmingly paternalistic and condescending. It is about a guy like Ramos knowing his place and never forgetting it.
But for a guy like Trump, he gets rewarded by doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Many consider this from him as leadership.
This article spends some time criticizing US journalists for being too objective. LOL. infuriating!
As a news junkie myself who never misses the american evening news. I can assure you the journalists at CBSNEWS , ABCNEWS, NBCNEWS, PBS and CNN are far from objective or neutral when they are reporting about police violence.. They go out of their way to justify, excuse, and use the most passive words and phrases such as ” Suspect Passed Away During Police interaction” to describe a scene of cold blooded killing by a violent, unstable police officer.
Yes, because deference to the status quo and the oligarchy is “unbiased,” just like white private and POV is “neutral,” unchecked capitalism is “smart,”… insert your favorite aspect of the system and it’s unexamined euphemism here.
It’s pretend objectivity and the article does go over this.
Yup, and the major shareholders in all those so-called news organizations you cited (with the exception of PBS, that’s the Koch brothers through WGBH Educational Foundation) are the Big Four: Vanguard Group, Blackrock, State Street Corp. and FMR LLC (also called Fidelity).
What a “coincidence” . . . .
“You’re gonna love your potential fascist hellscape. We’re gonna have golden swasticas, just gorgeous. I’m a big tough daddy.”
It’s a legitimate vision for our future, and the media should treat it with respect.
You know you’re in trouble when you have a candidate who negates Godwin’s Law negative aspect by drawing so many parallels between him and Hitler that making the comparison isn’t entirely unreasonable, and people demand his views be treated with respect.
Ramos is not a journalist; he’s an immigration activist. He did not commit an act of journalism. He was rude. Trump has a right to call on whomever he wants,, whenever he wants, and no one in attendance has a right to violate that right. Ramos said in an interview that he never expected to be ejected. Well, maybe he’ll think twice next time. Journalists are just not used to anyone refusing to kowtow to them.
Fuck decorum.
Decorum, protocol, in-crowd behavior, and little dolly tea party frills are what’s important for the media in this election.
The candidates, of course, are free to use anything short of the N word at reporters and activists if that’s what they wanna do.
Courtseys for us, xenocidal rage for them. It’s the established order!
Fuck decorum in the face of injustice, purposeful lies, intolerance and violence. But decorum does have its place in other contexts.
Obama, for instance. He drones children and we should give him all possible reverence? The dissonance is unbearable!
Spot on.
Not really
Yes really. On every single count.
Incidentally, you can witness what it looks like when the uncouth, ghastly, lawless, classless, hate-filled, dumb and *utterly* worthless rabble of Greenwald Twittergroupies unloads their lefteous venom on someone who has committed the gravest of crimes – disagreeing with their Cult Leader on what Journalism is all about – here:
https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo
Trigger Warning: Contains Sexual Imagery Involving Donald Trump’s Private Parts
Everyone is 100% responsible for their fans, other people in their ethnic or religious group, etc. ABC – Always be condemning! That goes double if you’re Muslim.
Which is why Trump tearfully apologized to hispanics after his fans in boston stomped a sleeping homeless man.
That is so bogus! Those were derelict human beings and would have laid their craft of perversion and evil on any one in their path! Promise you they have affected their abuse on many before and if allowed many more to come.
Exactly right.
Among all the idiotic anti-Trump nonsense the attempt to pin the Boston beating on him is surely the dumbest.
Caputo has 15.9K followers. Hee hee.
A small amount of people want wages as close to zero as possible. These same people have a very large amount of influence.
Region encoding is for when the surfs want to buy–not sell.
I think the most logical way to talk about this obvious truth is to divide this sucker one more time. It has worked so many times before–although at this point the thumb on the scale is being sliced so thin that even I can’t complain about the transparency of it all.
Has there ever been more clarity in the air? I didn’t say honesty, I said clarity.
The terrible truth–“Love” may be even easier to manipulate than “Hate”. I think it comes down to which one is more selfish–it’s hard to tell.
Cultural division once again is used to distract from the fact that everyone (minus a precious few) is getting their asses handed to them sodomized and starving.
Humanity has been hacked. Division is the exploit. It is too fucking easy. You won’t update and you keep opening the same the fucking email.
This is the best thing I’ve read today. Thank you.
Trump has a point. How can we make American great again with all these ethnic types sucking our lifeblood and doing crimes, such as rape?
It’s now acceptable to discuss this with no white hood, because Trump said it in public. That’s how journalism works – it’s only crazy if you poll below 5%.
A professional journalists will keep in check their own bias as it obscures their ability to be objective! Neither Ramos or Kelly showed this capability of recent. Cronkite was a top deck professional and would never have showed personal bias, ever.
If a candidate says that Chinese babies are causing the drought in California, it’s my duty to present the debate without taking sides.
Cronkite would spin in his grave if he could see Ramos, that uppity crusading activist! And rude, too!
I don’t know how you define “bias” and what it is that you find so abhorrent about it how it, in your opinion, “obscures ability” of a journalist to do their job as a journalist.
Was Cronkite showing any “personal bias” when he said this:
“We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi’s winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that — negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms.”
No, I think not. It was elegant and with great thought, and with wisdom. It was not tabloid “I gotcha.”
What does “tabloid “I gotcha”” have to do with this:
I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase about “moving the goal post” in discussions such as this one we’re having? Well, that is clearly what you have done by going from your quote above, to your ‘tabloid–gotcha’ comment in what you pretended was a reply or response to what I asked.
Try again, if you’d care to. But if you do, please try to stay within the originally established distance between one goal post to the other.
Is this a stand your ground situation? What would have happened if George Ramos had defended himself? They looked menacing and threatening to me. And everyone is a tough guy until the victim pulls a weapon.
Not satire.
Now in the sphere of acceptable political debate:
“How do you plan to cleanse the homeland: by deporting minor US citizens who are racially undesirable WITH their families, or ripping them from their mother’s arms at the Racial Purity Export Camp?”
Let’s ask Ted Cruz next. (Just please wait until he calls on you.)
just want to ask a question……is it the reporter or the editor of the publication or owner of the network who is determining the importance of the story and the direction of the newspaper or show as to what the viewer will see or hear?
In the case of The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar is deciding on that whilst stroking a fluffy white pussycat in his underground lair.
Ahem: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/26/jorge-ramos-commits-journalism-gets-immediately-attacked-journalists/?comments=1#comment-160768
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/26/jorge-ramos-commits-journalism-gets-immediately-attacked-journalists/?comments=1#comment-160797
I’m usually with you on 90% of things Glenn, but you are dead wrong on this one. The problem I have with people like this Ramos guy is that they think that what they have to say is so much more important than everyone else, that they can just interrupt and barge in whenever they feel like it. Its a complete disregard for the rights of others. Bernie Sanders became unelectable after he let the Black Lives matter people take over his speech and Trump is well aware of that. Ramos just handed Trump a major victory by acting in the way that he did. Much respect to you, your column and everything you are trying to do :-).
Firstly, very disrespectful to say “this Ramos guy”. He is a professional journalist. Also, Trump didn’t want to answer his questions and he should have. It WAS a press conference right? Lastly, Sen. Sanders isn’t unelectable after the BLM incident. Why would he be. How someone treats a candidate determines THEIR electability? Utter nonsense.
“didn’t want to answer his questions and he should have. ”
*sigh*
He answered every single dumb question this clown posed:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/25/trump_vs_jorge_ramos_on_birthright_citizenship_wall_building_a_building_thats_95_stories_tall_more_difficult.html
I agree with you. It’s a press conference. Reporters talk over each other all the time. Reporters yell out their questions while the speaker decides on who to point to/call on. It’s a “shame” Trump did not have the courage to let someone from Univision ask a question. Or how about blame everyone that happens to work there for Univision’s top brass decisions. He seems to want to blame whole groups , instead of individuals.
Sanders became unelectable because he showed zero leadership ability. If he cant even handle two people at an event, how could he handle diplomacy with other nations? That was a projection of weakness and not strength because he completely lost control of that event. Like it or not, that is how most people have interpreted what happened. I will continue to call that journalist “this Ramos Guy”. He is no more important than any of the other journalists that were WAITING THEIR TURN TO BE CALLED ON.
I don’t think Ramos thinks he is more important. But he knows Trump will never call on him simply because he works for Univision. As for waiting for their turn…have you ever been at a press conference? I have family members who were reporters. They talk over each other to get their questions in. It’s only when the person points at or says the “designated” name do the other reporters stop talking.
That’s certainly a possibility Mary, but after watching the video, it looks to me like he’s begging for a confrontation with Trump and trying to set him up to say something stupid. Thnx for being civil and not resorting to namecalling. :-)
I think everyone deserves to have their opinion heard. Name calling doesn’t get one anywhere. I try to see it from different views. We obviously don’t really know what is going through Ramos or Trump’s heads. I look at Ramos(I’ve seen some of his work) & understand that yes this is part personal. But then again I don’t think there really is a journalist out there who is objective at all times. There’s always going to be a subject matter that hits close to home. And for me, that’s part of what a journalist should be. Asking the questions that matter, especially for someone who wants to be our next president. And you fight for the answers.
Bernie unelectable?
Not by where he stands on the issues, bubba!
http://www.picturingpolitics.com/sen-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues/#infographic
Democracy requires an adversarial Press or we do not have a Democracy, which seems to be the case.
But the rudeness of asking unwanted questions! Trump was only explaining how he would sweep the homeland clean of all the dirty people and restore ultimate glory.
…I remember hearing of a man during the 1930’s in Germany who wanted to rid his country of “dirty people” by first taking away their ability to make a living, then sending those people to “camps” so they could be safe and happy living there. That same behavior soon became very popular in other European countries. The excuse for that behavior was to just make Germany “pure”. Sound familiar?
Shhh! I’m supposed to be unbiased, and a fascist regime is now on the table. It’s my job to not be rude to this legitimate political debate.
The fact that trump is talking about rounding people up by race and deporting them is a very scary picture….that’s all I can think about now when he starts talking.
I am embarrassed for out country that he is running for president and people like him…do people want a police state, or what?
Fortunately, he is handing the election to the very competent Hillary Clinton……that is the ray of shining light in this horrible picture he is painting.
The use of thugs and shutting down journalists…perhaps he should take a tip from our very eloquent President Obama as he answered Major with a thoughtful response when questioned about the Iran reporters in prison.
How will we know, as the public and voters, what is going on if the reporters are not allowed to ask him questions he does not like…..this is terrible and I am glad he will not win.
chloe louise….Hillary girl forever
You admit this? In public?
“Hillary girl forever”?
I mean that’s just wrong on a whole bunch of levels. Irrational fandom of a politician. Gender diminution. Rigidity in thought. Weird.
“rounding people up by race”
Sheer nonsense.
Well trump did say he was going to start by “gang affiliation” first. It could be inferred he meant gangs composed of those individuals from Mexico. Although he didn’t specifically preclude any and all gang members. Do you think he’ll try and find a way to deport to somewhere, anywhere for all I care, White Supremacist gang members? Maybe dump them on Russia?
“shutting down journalists”
LOL.
Trump answered *every single dumb question* this whining Univision baby asked – once he stopped acting like a temper-tantrum-throwing toddler and agreed to act like a civilized person – and *completely* dismantled his entire illegality-appeasing “logic”.
Here read it for yourself:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/25/trump_vs_jorge_ramos_on_birthright_citizenship_wall_building_a_building_thats_95_stories_tall_more_difficult.html
@ Louise
Trump really must not know much about the engineering of his own buildings. If thinks it is less difficult to build a 2000 mile wall that could prevent being tunneled under, gone around by sea, or over by any means AND the diversity of geological terrain obstacles that cover that 2000 miles, he’s living in fantasy land. Build a 95 story building is not in anyway as complicated except possibly regarding some of the internal systems that heat and cool for example. But the physical engineering of the structure is fairly straight forward compared to actually build a viable wall that would actual fulfill its nominal function to “keep people out”. Never gonna happen. Even the Great Wall of China didn’t keep people out perfectly.
Oh, lookey lookey there! Neocon Louise — who feels that Max Boot is an intellectual giant — managed to get the appeasement word into an immigration post. So, like, who are the Hitlers, Chamberlains and Churchills of American immigration policy Louise?
Best of luck with Mona Louise……give someone anonymity, a keyboard and a little information and they become a modern-day Socrates.
“Fortunately, he is handing the election to the very competent Hillary Clinton……that is the ray of shining light in this horrible picture he is painting.”
Your comment seemed to be coming from a sane, thoughtful person until that part. Then the very last line convinced me you were immensely incompetent.
So, maybe we should just maintain the status quo. Mam , we need some one who can do some thing. Trump is an imperfect character, but is competent on many levels. Our country is no longer sovereign, it is pretty much like a Walmart on Sunday Night. Picked over, run over and trashed. Getting our Boarder under our control is first. Stopping this thoroughfare and the anchor babies has to be brought under control. The illegal immigrants are going to need to go. Our country can not support them, it is simply that. They need to return to their land of subjugation. The USA needs to get its’ own house in order first!
I would have liked to see all other journalists present get up and leave immediately. But no such luck.
How does Ramos’s speaking out of turn in any away equate to Murrow’s and Cronkite’s moments of activist journalism where they chose to be critical of the otherwise status quo? Ramos was no Cronkite nor Murrow in that room. He was an activist. Time and time again was have seen activists who attempt to control a press conference by shouting statements, and what happens to them? They get kicked out. The same happened to Ramos.
Cronkite and Murrow were activists, too. Respectively, against the Vietnam war and McCarthyism. Ramos was asking urgent questions a powerful man didn’t care to address — just a journalist should. The correct response would have been for Trump to state a substantive reply.
The greater I see, I suppose, is that Murrow and Cronkite knew their activism would be more powerful from the platform they had — the newsroom. Ramos has this platform. Ramos, I don’t doubt, would even be able to make the rounds all over English newsrooms, not just the Spanish-speaking newsroom where I know him from.
And what does this say to other reporters — you, too, can and should speak up, comment, ask away, despite decorum because you must be heard? Yeah, let’s have more reporters just shout out of turn. That’ll get substantive replies.
Yes! YES! A gazillion times: Y-E-S! The best thing (or one of them) that could happen to this country is that tomorrow the press corps woke up, chucked the corporate bullshit, and decided their jobs were to demand that power answer hard and serious questions. Let these preening candidates know no one in media is cooperating in the theater of pretend democracy any more. Get mad as hell and scream they aren’t gonna take it any more.
Ditto….
President Nixon, during a press conference, once asked CBS reporter Dan Rather, after the reporter had asked a question, if Rather was running for something. Rather curtly replied, “no, Mr. President, are you?” That exchange was more revealing of character than hundreds of other press conferences that President Nixon gave over his career. It caused quite a dust up at the time. Good.
Tossing shoes should get you kicked out of a press conference. Throwing words at a candidate, especially in the arena of a national presidential campaign, is fair behavior. The most bizarre exchanges, the ones that most insult the audience, are the “debates”. The overly-orchestrated press conferences and other TV events we get to see serve only the interests of the candidates. I am not concerned about their interests.
George didnt act like a journalist, he acted like an illegal immigrant. He wouldnt wait his turn, so he jumped the line. He has a massive sense of entitlement.
You’re the first and only person to make this hack observation, which is odd since it’s probably the first thing to pop into the average xenophobe’s head. I guess it just took courage.
He is a whining demagogue baby, an emoting toddler incapable of critical thought who thinks that babbling about “11 million humans” is somehow an acceptable substitution for a rational discussion of how to make the Law actually work.
Now Louise, for us to assess your credibility and judgment, the readers are entitled to know the answer to this question that you have been avoiding (and did so again below today): Louise, are Junot Diaz, Stevie Wonder, Alice Walker and above all, Stephen Hawking, dumber than a BOX of rocks?
You have strongly indicated you must believe that they are, and this would cast significant light on your other judgments.
Oh, wow, is that analogy original with you? Cuz it’s like super creative ‘n stuff.
@ bobloblaw
You are aware that Jorge Ramos is an American citizen correct? He entered American legally as a student and became a naturalized citizen in 2008. He’s also got a Master’s from the Univ. of Miami in International Studies. I don’t think it is fair to say he has a “sense of entitlement” in any respect or that he is acting like anyone other than himself.
I’m on the fence on this one. I don’t think he should expect to get an answer when he doesn’t follow the order of things laid out at these press conferences. He should have waited and hoped he would get a chance to ask the questions because this way no one takes the questions seriously and no one gets an answer.
Here’s the pullquote from my new book “Servicing Power”:
“It’s very insulting to interrupt a genius who is explaining his plan to ethically cleanse the homeland.”
@ Unbiased Journalist
I think you meant to type “ethnically” cleanse rather than “ethically”. I don’t think there is an ethical way to ethnically cleanse any group of people from the homeland. I’m sure it was just a typo, just having fun, enjoy your comments.
“to ethically cleanse”
Loving this, it is truly magnificent in its deceitfulness – almost Greenwaldian.
Yes, ejecting illegals is “ethnically cleansing” America. Because every single Hispanic person in America is an illegal, right? And Trump is proposing to eject *every single Hispanic person*, right?
Here have a Pulitzer Prize-shaped cookie, you truly deserve it.
@ Louise Cypher
Out curiosity how do you think all the “illegal” people in America should be identified and deported? Presumably you do. You willing to have your taxes upped to pay something on the order of two to three hundred billion dollars to identify and deport those so identified.
You all in favor of every “non-illegal” being forced to show their “papers” on command? How about house to house searches all over this nation of 300+ million to see who is where and what their legal status is? Because that’s what it will take-literally.
I AGREE with you, Louise. What could possibly sound sinister about rounding up millions of dirty rapist people to be banished from the homeland?
“alleged rapist people”
I mean if 11 million people (5.5 million men let’s say) were “rapist people” you’d think we’d have a lot of extra rape anchor babies dotting the American landscape.
Trump is a fucking lunatic and it says an awful lot about American society 2015 that anyone is actually taking that fuckstick’s bloviating seriously other than as reality TV entertainment. Says we have a very long way to go before this nation lives up to much if any of its “ideals”. Makes me really fear for my country on some days and in a way fear some of my fellow citizens (I don’t really fear them too much because most of it is impotent rage, but a few have the anger, will and the guns to make a run at some very nasty shit–it’ll be fun to put them down if they try).
Donald has a right to be there and so does Ramos! Why weren’t the police called in to arrest the security guards for their illegal behaviour? They have no right forcing a lega l citizen out or they should shoot and kill them.
Donald Dump thinks “Latinos love him”. Not! Nor will they ever love him. Let’s remember that there are several Hispanics/Latinos that can vote and will vote when the time comes. With his actions yesterday, Donald Dump did not only sound idiotic and childish, but also made Hispanics/Latinos hate him even more. He’s promoting an utopian country that cannot be created at this point in time. If Dump can’t even answer the questions of a journalist imagine how well he’s going to be able to deal with foreign affairs. Donald if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen. JORGE RAMOS is the real MVP. He insisted on asking the question that most Hispanics/Latinos want answered. May God bless America if people actually decide to make Donald Dump president.
“Let’s remember that there are several Hispanics/Latinos that can vote and will vote when the time comes. ”
If *all* Hispanics choose to side with and condone illegal actions of *some* Hispanics – illegal immigrants – that’s their business.
We’ll see whether there are enough Law-abiding Patriots to outvote the Illegality-Appeasing crowd.
“Law-abiding Patriots” Hilarious!
And how did your immigrant ancestors arrive in their adopted country as Law-abiding Patriots (sic) that was any different from those damn, dirty “illegals”?
ALL of the immigrants to the United States – including your ancestor immigrants – came here the exact same way – they simply SHOWED UP!
The idea that once the vast white European immigration ended and changed over to dark-skinned immigration (and thereby became “illegals”) meant the same people who arrived without any red-tape involved, IMPOSED red tape on those who followed and called themselves “legal immigrants”
The rightwing canard that you and Trump’s ancestors arrived the “legal way” when there was no such red tape in place, is the utter bullshit at the heart of the immigration debate that for some reason is never mentioned. The only “crisis” appears to be the skin color of the new immigrants that offence white supremacists and nothing more.
The words your immigrant ancestors likely first saw upon arriving in the US were the following:
“”Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
So, spare us all your “Law-abiding Patriots”, bullshit.
It’s good to see that the very idea of Law Abiding angers you so much.
No wonder you worship Greenwald and cheer illegal immigration.
The idea of law abiding doesn’t anger anyone what angers people is the method in which Trump spreads xenophobia and hatred. He is dividing this country even more than what it has been. There’s no quick fix to political issues.
“Illegal” is a complete bullshit term, as I just explained, made up by the same people who arrived here IDENTICALLY to the way “illegal” Mexicans arrived only with white skin.
Since you’re a Trumpet, you no doubt believe it’s your “lawfulness” that stops cops from profiling, targeting, and murdering you when you walk or drive through the streets of America.
“If only those colored people did what they were told when harassed by the police (for things you will NEVER be stopped for, let alone harassed for) there would be no problems!”
In this country, you’re either appalled that the system of white privilege is intrinsically corrupt, or you (like Trump) pretend you’ve earned it due to your awesomeness.
@ Luther Brixton
As a historical legal matter it was actually much easier to come to America than today’s immigrants have it. You know when most of the “white” immigrants to America arrived. Nothing like pulling the ladder up behind you to preserve your place of unearned privilege though.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/08/children-and-immigration-in-the-19th-century
Good read too if your interested in debunking the stupidity that Trump was spouting about some scholars thinking “birthright citizenship” is bogus. The issue has long been decided over and over again.
You’re right, and it’s astonishing the free pass white supremacists in the US media get to throw around the “illegal” nonsense when EVERYONE other than the indigenous people of America arrived to the USA exactly the same – they simply showed up.
For people that thought Reagan was awesome when he said , “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” they simultaneously believe governmental red tape is SACROSANCT when it means keeping non-whites from entering the US.
You must be an American Indian, yes? That’s part of the point Luther Brixton was saying. How many of our parents, grandparents, great grandparents came here, was to just walk, drive, fly? The term “illegal” is a relatively new term in America’s history. When did we forget that America is made up of immigrants from all countries? I understand the “criminal”/”terrorist” aspect of it. But the way Trump seems to be looking at it, is if you are of Latino descent, you must be illegal. That’s dangerous territory.
You’re right that “Illegal” is a relatively new term and it flies in the face of the very words on the Statue of Liberty that the self-proclaimed “Law-abiding Patriots” would prefer were erased and forgotten.
As with everyone on the right opposed to Mexican immigration (and let’s be clear, the legal or illegal moniker actually makes no difference to people like Louise since you’ll NEVER hear them EMBRACING with open, welcoming arms “legal” Mexican immigrants) they can never refute the basic fact that ALL Americans non-indigenous are immigrants whose ancestors simply showed up.
Once Trump led more than 2 polls, it’s important to treat him as seriously as you’d treat an intellectual and career public servant like a Biden or Clinton or Romney.
By pointing at Trumps insane xenophobia and pandering, you’re just exposing your bias.
Look, he’s the frontrunner, so all his ideas have been converted from nonsense into the realm of acceptable debate, conventional and acceptable and worth respect, and NOT SUBJECT TO MEXICAN YELLING, which is tacky and crass and just so lowdown, also rude!
It’s very insulting to interrupt a genius who is explaining his plan to ethically cleanse the homeland.
Jorge Ramos is a naturalized U.S. citizen so that makes him a Mexican AMERICAN. Keyword AMERICAN!
None of Biden, Clinton, or Romney are remotely “intellectual”. They are each thugs, in the service of, and pursuing, plutocracy and power. Public servants do not require $2 billion dollar war chests.
Trump was being far too lenient on this whining activist baby.
The first form of activism is journalism.
Even when a news agency chooses what stories to lead up with it’s a form of bias. You choose to report impending danger over cute animals, that’s a bias for what matters.
This was a great article.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNT-vwFU8AIcZ-5.png
This is all the proof you need that Trump is 100% right when he says that Mexican leaders are smart while American politicians are dumb.
This article conveniently leaves out that the owner of Univision is a big Hillary supporter and Ramos’s DAUGHTER works for Hillary.
And?
And recess is over, time for you to go back to the classroom for naptime.
Translation: “I, Al Kaseler, cannot think of any good reasons for my whine about the owner of Univision or Jorge Ramos’s daughter.”
Which is something you know because he disclosed it, and of course, Trump donated to Hillary, so she’s really working for Trump in a way, and since anyone in your family controls you by association, Trump controls Ramos. So we’re all friends, enjoy the oligarchy.
Deploying an unfunny hack mariachi joke is a great way to win arguments!
Actually, anything racist (short of the N word) is just a fabulous way to spruce up a boring comment section. We need to engage our news consumers at a gut level, so thanks!
“conveniently leaves out”
*chuckle*
You must be new here. “Conveniently Left Out” is the author’s middle name.
When considering Louise’s commentary and judgment it is good to know how poor it can be: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/26/jorge-ramos-commits-journalism-gets-immediately-attacked-journalists/?comments=1#comment-160768
So that means only reporters who support Trump are allowed to speak?
Ramos, Like Illegal Immigrants, Can’t Wait His Turn – Gets ‘Deported’ from Trump Event.
Love it!!
And then, when he stopped breaking rules and started being civil, gets admitted back – just like illegal immigrants will be under Trump plan.
First of all you don’t stand up for Mexicans in America. You stand up for americans. I’d love to see your mexican ass come to my town. There would be nothing left to deport…
Andrea’s typical liberal response to a differing view: threats and accusations. Michael Davidson is right: Ramos was out of order, not called on in a press conference and (as usual) trying to jump ahead of others who respected the process
“ass-hurt, dumb ass, shit, dumb ass.” Is your vocabulary really that limited?
Somewhere, over the rainbow, there is a view from nowhere …
*David Gregory called, Glenn, and wants to know why you ain’t in jail … or at least stuck in Russia!
The Rude Pundit weighs in with thoughtful meditations on Roger Ailes and Donald Trump.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
He is suitably unimpressed with the state of journalism over there.
(BTW, the 8/25 story about Ailes is at the top of the page. The TI comments algo would probably delete the exact hyperlink as unsuitable for a family audience like ours.)
Jorge Ramos is an award-winning journalist and he was doing exactly what journalists should do- pushing people like Trump to answer hard questions. The people deserve truth and that is what Ramos works to do- uncover truth. Trump has repeatedly been rude, racist, and condescending to different groups of people that make up this country. His comment, “Go Back to Univision,” is a clear example of why Ramos and others like him should continue to push Trump to answer questions. More journalists should be like Ramos.
Again Ramos was not asking question he pushing an agenda that we are sick of