Trump accuses Facebook of bias, collusion with his least favourite newspapers United States president Donald Trump has declared that Facebook was always against him and tossed it into the same bucket as The New York Times, which he regards as fake news, and The Washington Post, which he says is biased against him because it's owned by Amazon's Jeff Bezos. Facebook was always anti-Trump.The Networks were …
"As is Trump's habit, his allegation of collusion was offered without a shred of evidence."
So that Trending News scandal never happened, just because Trump failed to provide a "shred" of it in his tweet? Okay, technically the author's statement is correct, Trump didn't mention that embarrassing revelation. But it's a bit sleazy for the author to insinuate slyly that evidence is lacking when clearly there's plenty.
We don't know if it happened because (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't follow this obsessively) these allegations are still anonymous and unsubstantiated. If I believed every unsubstantiated rumour on the internet I would conclude that Trump intends to remake "Escape from New York" in Chicago as reality TV.
More generally, FarceBorg is global and the majority of content is user generated. Trump has negative approval ratings almost everywhere (including the USA) so it is axiomatic that coverage will be biased against him. If FB coverage was fair and balanced then *that* would be prima facie evidence of corporate meddling because it would be demonstrably incompatible with the views of the majority of posters.
"Trump has negative approval ratings almost everywhere (including the USA) so it is axiomatic that coverage will be biased against him."
You're absolutely sure that is the correct sequence? It couldn't be that his ratings are low because of biased coverage against him? ;-/
@Big John
You're absolutely sure that is the correct sequence? It couldn't be that his ratings are low because of biased coverage against him?
I entirely agree that there's a feedback loop there, but he started that himself when he first put on the faux gold painted clown shoes back in the 1990's. Then, when he decided to go into politics, he dithered ideologically for years before deciding (correctly) that the way to short circuit the Republicrat duopoly was to appeal directly to the Freeper demographic and that is invariably a Faustian pact.
Most of the world (we're discussing FB remember) is *way* to the left of the Democrats, so even a cookie cutter Republican is on a sticky wicket with a global audience, let alone a someone making a hard right turn into FreeperVille.
So, to answer your question: yes, the sequence is correct and inevitable. There is no level of spin or sycophantic coverage that could detoxify Freeper approved policies with the rest of the world. Trump is President of the USA because the American people voted for him. The rest of the world (i.e. the FB majority) never did, never would and can never be influenced to treat him as anything other than a negative aberration.
A Freeper is a denizen of the freerepublic.com forum, currently popular with members of the Trump "base" (in both senses of that word). Their primary policy objectives are deportation of all ILLEGALS! (the caps and compulsory), end birthright citizenship, repeal of all gun legislation, legalisation of discrimination against homosexualists [sic], muslims, ethnic minorities ("ferals") and foreigners in general (but not Jews), Bibles in schools, expel and leave the UN, ignore climate change etc. .... You get the idea.
Yeah, I get the idea. They are just as fringe as BLM, the laughably named Antifa, and much of the remaining Democrat Party.
Still, not ALL their ideas are bad. That birthright citizenship thing really doesn't belong, and they haven't been sucked into the whole CAGW swindle like so many others. But then again, an arch-leftist may occasionally come up with a reasonable idea too. Can't think of any off hand, but there must be some...
> "I entirely agree that there's a feedback loop there, but he started that himself..."
Your stance is that Trump is justly attacked with extreme bias by the supposedly objective media, because of what he did years ago? Then why was he considered an okay guy by people like Howard Stern and others on the left, right up until it became clear Trump was running? No one had much of a problem with him back then, so for you to say he brought this on himself is just CYA for the media and their blatant, partisan bias, on display since the start of the campaign.
My stance is that FB is not "objective media" and it isn't intended to be. It is a lightly moderated blogging and chat platform aimed at a global audience with all the network effects and shoaling behaviour that implies. Trump was never considered an OK guy by the "Left". The USA doesn't have a "Left" at party level. The closest it has come is running a centrist (Saunders) in a primary. You can't win a FB popularity contest to the right of Obama and you can't (currently) win the Presidency in the USA to his left. If you think FB is hard on Trump, imagine what they would do to Cruz.
> "Tell us that you have suddenly started to boycott the silly USA football..."
To do that I would first need to be a fan.
Wait, don't tell me you still watch fully grown adults playing kids' games on TV!? Like that strange "football" thing where they chase each other around the field interminably for 90 minutes, and on the rare occasion that the ball actually enters the goal they conduct near-orgies right there on the field? When they're not tearing holes in the turf with their knees, that is.
They should perform proper dance routines, like the American football players do!
Worse, he never had to face the consequences of his own actions, there has always been others to blame or family money to bail him out. Granted, that is not a unique condition amongst those who deem themselves the ruling elite but in Trump's case it combines in a fairly lethal fashion with his habit of not informing himself (he doesn't read) and not taking any advice.
The US ought to remove this Putin puppet as soon as possible - the infestation has already taken too well.
"A senile old idiot. What a dick!"
TL;DR "Dotard"
And despite the recent media frenzy over the word, no, it's not some unused word the Little Rocket Man excavated from the depths of history. I'd not say it was in especially common use, but I've certainly heard and read that word a of number times over the last few decades and I would say I was a little surprised at that recent use, but certainly not astonished as the media seem to be.
Trump is a player and a very good one at that.
The only way anyone is going to get him to either calm down or stop what he is doing is by not attacking him and presenting facts and evidence in a very clear and concise manner.
The facts are that someone bought ad space on Facebook that was pro-trump and this could be but not yet proven to be the Russians. Trump has now gone on the defensive labelling Facebook as anti-Trump. This now leaves the press in a no-win situation. People that support Trump now see this as a "liberal" media attack therefore it is useless even if the Russians supported Trump it doesn't matter.
The American press need to step back and stop reporting these things before actual evidence is available because all they are doing is aiding his position. They also need to stop attacking him for things that are inconsequential such as his staff using personal email addresses for business as that is nothing compared to having an insecure server of your own.
Cheers for the downvotes I really don't care.
I think some wise ass once said that if you keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results you are an idiot. I think that applies here.
What you are saying by down voting is that it's ok for the press to go for him without evidence or before evidence is presented so that he can then deflect by saying the press is out to get him where I'm saying they need to be a little more intelligent in their presentation of the facts and not give him the chance to deflect.
Good luck with that.
"What you are saying by down voting is that it's ok for the press to go for him without evidence or before evidence is presented so that he can then deflect by saying the press is out to get him where I'm saying they need to be a little more intelligent in their presentation of the facts and not give him the chance to deflect."
I don't know about anyone else, but I downvoted you because I think that Trump is going to ignore every shred of evidence he doesn't agree with, such as actual photographs of crowd sizes, if it doesn't agree with what he wants to do, and then smear everybody else with fake news when they point out that he's a complete bumbling fool. And you just don't see it.
So why not try a different approach?
Clearly by calling him a bumbling fool plays right into his hands, he uses any negative as a positive.
That's the point I am making. I just don't understand why people can't see that.
The guy is clearly using the press as his tool, he has done some very shady and dodgy stuff yet every time they attack him he spins it round so I say stop attacking him, just present what you have when you have it all and let people decide whether what he has done is wrong or immoral rather than sensationalising it because right now I think he could hire a bunch of prostitutes to piss on a bed and get away with it.
I do actually.
I care that we have a world leader that is taking the piss out of everyone and leading us down the path to war while the stupid main stream press allow him to do it. I also care that I make a valid point which everyone seems to disagree with though that is your right to do so however I'm not going to change my mind because carrying on down the same path we are going is not going to change anything. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall. Trump is clearly a master at playing negative press and turning it into a positive.
My name is Rumpelstiltskin btw, I post AC because I value the opinion of others without the baggage of previous comments. I have opinions and I like to see other peoples true opinions of mine so I can learn because sometimes I'm wrong (actually quite often) but if someone determines what I think based on some previous comment it then it changes the outcome.
"I care that we have a world leader that is taking the piss out of everyone and leading us down the path to war while the stupid main stream press allow him to do it. I also care that I make a valid point which everyone seems to disagree with though that is your right to do so however I'm not going to change my mind because carrying on down the same path we are going is not going to change anything. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall. Trump is clearly a master at playing negative press and turning it into a positive."
I actually agree with your initial point, which seems to me not to be a case of "don't keep attacking Trump" (which invites downvotes) but the rather more subtle "attacking Trump isn't working, so let's try something different."
Trump may not be quite suited to the Presidential role, but as a businessman he knows exactly how to deal with an attack, which is shout loudly so nobody can hear what his opponent is saying, and then punch back.
The problem is, as you say, that attacking him in the way everyone has...simply doesn't work. People have been trying it for the last year and it's not affected him one bit. Trump has contradicted himself, gone back on promises, and even shown evidence of being a deplorable human being with misogynistic, xeonphobic, sexist and racist tendencies. All these things he has done publicly, and yet still manages to successfully deflect any criticism. So yeah I agree that everything everyone has tried just bounces off him. But I don't think changing tack is going to work either. Trump's too clever for that (we're talking animal cunning here, not IQ). Frankly I believe there are only two things that will see Trump off. The first is a changing tide of public opinion, and the other is simply time. He's only got two terms, and if the vote doesn't get rid of him after his first term, you'll have to wait 8 years to finally see the back of him.
I'd like to say thank God he's not my President, but unfortunately our UK Government isn't much better.
What you are saying by down voting is that it's ok for the press to go for him without evidence or before evidence is presented so that he can then deflect by saying the press is out to get him where I'm saying they need to be a little more intelligent in their presentation of the facts and not give him the chance to deflect.
If facts had any bearing on him, he would have never become President, the Russians understood that very well when they rigged the election campaign to help him win - none of that was done through straight facts. The only facts that will help in the matter Trump are discovery of criminal activity to a degree that even the usual BS and deflection won't work, which is what I expect from the Mueller investigation - he's far too nervous about that for there not to be dodgy facts he doesn't want discovered.
That said, I reckon that's when he'll start a war, because then he will really need a more major deflection. That that will get a lot of people killed and could potentially go nuclear is of no real interest to him as he expects, as always, to be able to hide from the consequences.
You're right, this is the reason why I changed my tactic when discussing certain matters with Trump fans.
Presenting Trump with facts will server little purpose, as he will dismiss them outright, even when the truth is staring him in the face, many of his not so fanatical supporters ARE quite easily convinced when presented with real evidence though and that's where victory against Trump lies.
I first dismissed his supporters As racists, bigots and idiots, but that simply doesn't work. Engaging them with facts and showing you understand why they supported them in the first place seems to be having MUCH better results though.
I'm hoping that's what you meant to say?
@big john
Oh ffs, you don't answer questions about what trump has actually done to make America Great Again and attack any comment that can be turned round.
Come on, this is the last time I'm going to ask this but what exactly has Trump done to make America great in his time in office.
I would also like you to defend his actions with regards to healthcare, foreigners and his mythical wall that won't actually make any difference. I'm sure you can justify his reduction of corporation tax that helps everyone as well.
I await your response to these issues, no deflection, otherwise stfu.
Edit: missed off the smiley face :)
This post has been deleted by its author
It is interesting that in digging into this more and more over the past few weeks they've found Russia sponsoring ads in the UK related to Brexit, in Spain related to Catalan, and various other places. But they weren't taking just one side in those cases like they appeared to do in the US election, they're taking ads on both sides. Their goal seems to be to create division - basically since Russia can no longer be as powerful as they were back in the USSR's glory days, Putin appears to be hoping to divide the rest of the world and make his opponents smaller.
They've also found Russians were placing a lot of pro Bernie ads - especially after Clinton won the nomination - trying to divide the democratic party. It seems to have worked at least to some degree, I know some hardcore liberals who sat out the election in protest because they thought Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie (which given what the DNC emails showed, may well have been the case)
The question is, now that we know the game Putin is playing, is there anything we can even do to counter it?
Watch Secrets of Silicon Valley (BBC) to see how in all its glory. Basically Facebook worked out of Trump HQ! The larger issue here is how FB itself 'plays the game'. Basically Zuk does whatever he wants because he can....
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n16/john-lanchester/you-are-the-product
strikes again.
It is a centuries old tradition that people and the press question the actions of those in power.
A good leader listens to criticism and reacts to it or proves it is wrong and ignores trolling. A bad leader denounces the messenger and has his head mounted on a pike at the door of his isolation chamber.
"Don't argue with an idiot, onlookers can't tell you apart" *
If there is a lesson here the debate needs to be directed not at Trump, that's a waste of energy, but to those amongst his apologists who actually would respond to reason.
*impossible to properly attribute before someone tries, but the idea seems to come from Proverbs 26.
Personally I prefer "Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience", but it's not in line with my point!
Nothing which comes out of the tRUMP camp is anything other than deflection.
He's a paranoid micro-manager,...
There's substantiated reports of his listening into staff calls from the 90's.
His whole "My communications are being tapped" tantrum was based on what he would do.... and most likely has done. Most of the negative behaviours he accuses his opponents of doing,... he's already done, and probably continues to do.
The "Russia thing" is what tRUMP fears .... that's why Mueller should continue to "follow the money".
It's an old journalist's trick. You go thru a video of your victim frame by frame, until you find the one that looks the worst and use that. It's just about impossible for anyone to avoid an embarrassing body position or facial expression during a long video session.
Years ago this sort of dirty attack was considered unethical, and so was confined to the sleazier publications, but not any more. Only the most pretentious news orgs still eschew such tricks. The rest do it routinely, El Reg among them, sadly.
> "Trump is a businessman whose followers think he will make money for them."
If you mean by that that he will not damage the economy like Obama did, and we recognize that, you are correct.
FYI, a swindler only pretends he will make things better, a description that suits Obama perfectly, considering the 8 year "great recession" we just went thru.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
