What is the current time on the Doomsday Clock?

[Buckleymanor]

I disagree with a lot, but in particular the last part. We do have ways of converting the subjective into the objective or at least the quantifiable. As the eye test goes, this is a case that demands it: the output is a number. Possible ways to do it are by asking questions such as these:

So how do you quantify a risk situation.
Lets suppose a certain rogue nation is trying to develop nuclear weapons.Sanctions are then imposed on that nation to stop them, after years of dispute the rogue nation complies and stops development and sanctions are liftted.Suddenly a new leader is elected to the country which originaly imposed the sanctions and more draconian sanctions are imposed once again on the rogue nation for no apparent reason.
So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them.

 

[gleem]

1. How fearful are you that there will be a nuclear war in the next year? (rate 1-10)
2. What do you think the odds are of a nuclear war in the next year? (rate by %)

Garbage. I completely disregard any question that asks me to quantify my feelings on some scale. It was silly of me to mention a public poll you cannot even trust political polls. What does anybody's perception have to do with reality except perhaps lead to irrational behavior.

.

Scientists are smart enough people and the reading on the clock so far removed from historical reality that I simply don't believe they've made any effort to make the readings on the clock meaningful/consistent with respect to each other over time. Yes, if a scientist or anyone else told me he was refurbishing his bomb shelter because he was *actually* much more afraid of a nuclear war today than in the 1960s, I think I would indeed laugh if I wasn't able to stifle it before it came out.

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe? You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible? .

I could understand you saying that you do not understand how they made their assessment. I don't fully myself But they have access information that we do not. Do you have access to relevant information? Please tell us.

Just because it does not align with your preconceived notion of how you would assess current global threats does not invalidate theirs. The original clock was set to seven minutes to midnight. Why not 30 minutes? I haven't a clues accept it was perhaps a desire to indicate the gut wrenching immediacy of feeling you only had that amount of time to live. OK since then it has ebbed and flowed back and forth as fears were allayed or strengthened. It reach 2minutes in 1953. as the US announce its intent to test the H-bomb. In 2007 global warming took up a significant position in pending threats. Except for 2010, the initiation of the START talks, the clock has moved closer to midnight. The half minute adjustment does not seem unreasonable. Would you have left it at three minutes? Keep in mind that this does not mean anything is necessarily going to happen in any specified time period.

Should we ignore it because it isn't/can't be objective? Yes, we should ignore it because it should be and because they clearly made no effort for it to be objective

Clearly made no effort? You were there?

Anyway this clock was not made for the ordinary person but for those in leadership roles who have the power to change things. Let us hope they do not ignore it.

 

[russ_watters]

So how do you quantify a risk situation.
Lets suppose a certain rogue nation is trying to develop nuclear weapons(1).Sanctions are then imposed on that nation to stop them, after years of dispute the rogue nation complies and stops development and sanctions are liftted(2).Suddenly a new leader is elected to the country which originaly imposed the sanctions and more draconian sanctions are imposed once again on the rogue nation for no apparent reason.(3)
So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them.(4)
[numbers added]

Like this:
Situation 1: 5
Situation 2: 2
Situation 3: 4
Situation 4: Does not exist yet.

 

[russ_watters]

Garbage. I completely disregard any question that asks me to quantify my feelings on some scale.

Well then you should be completely disregarding the Doomsday Clock, which purports to do exactly that. It least I don't think the whole exercise is a fools-errand, I just know it can be done better. Again: risk management is a critical part of business and engineering. It may cause you to short-circuit, but others actually do it. But beyond that:

I mean, really: do you really agree with them that the risk today is a lot worse than it was in the 1960s? Do you think that opinion is common?

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe?

What I know is what they have told me of their logic. I have no reason to believe they have done anything better, or they would have told me. But even if I didn't know what they've told me about how the decision was made, I also know a little bit about history.

You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible? .

No such people are involved in the Doomsday Clock. (edit: well, maybe one, see below)

But they have access information that we do not. Do you have access to relevant information? Please tell us.

Whaaaa? That's bordering on conspiracy theory. Who do you actually think the people who make the Doomsday Clock are? They are a committee formed by the editorial board of a science magazine! All but one are university science professors, and the other one is a Washington think-tank member. No, they don't have information we don't.

Anyway this clock was not made for the ordinary person but for those in leadership roles who have the power to change things.

No, it wasn't. It was made to sell science magazines.

 

[Vanadium 50]

So how do you quantify a risk situation.

You were the one who said it was quantifiable in Message #17. Why don't you tell us?

I think Russ is right - they have painted themselves in a corner, and whether they would like to admit it our not, their rationale shows a preference for left-wing politics.

• They were not bothered by Russia stating that they would upgrade its nuclear arsenal, but they were bothered by the US saying it would follow suit.
• They are concerned about a lack of supranational authorities with the power to address climate change, but do not see the actual reductions from fracking as positive.
• They are concerned about the 'rise of nationalism', but not about Russia's annexation of Crimea. To remind everyone, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal based on Russian (and US) guarantees of its territorial integrity. After the nukes were gone, so was the agreement with Russia. No country is going to make that mistake again! You'd think that the Bulletin would see this as a threat to anti-proliferation. Nope. Because Russia.

As an organization, they can set the clock anywhere they feel like it. And we can all evaluate how seriously to take it. However, by looking at the positions they have taken over time, one can see that this is not some unbiased empirical judgement.

 

[DiracPool]

What do you know of their effort, why don't you believe? You do not believe those who spend a great deal of their time assessing the threats to our civilization are not credible?

Again, I have to say that I agree with gleem's argument. This was always my problem with the climate change issue. Here we have the vast number of geologists, atmospheric scientists and climatologists claiming that human activity is causing likely deleterious changes in the ecological "balance." So, what are we blue-collar folk supposed to do about this? Yes, we'll contest this on the fact that we don't know our ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to scientific investigation but we'll overcome that technicality because "don't underestimate the power of dumb people in large numbers..."

If we're not going to take heed of the consensus of 97 out of a 100 climatologists on the impact of human endeavors on climate change, then why is our governments funding these individuals? That's their job to make that determination, not your's, or your ignorant congressman, or your grandma, or brother-in law, or pet hamster. If you're not going to trust a consensus of 90+ percent of climatologists in their assessment of climate change then it's your civic duty to work to get their funding removed. Why are we paying them to do schlock research?

Similarly, if you don't believe that a 70 year institution of notable physicists along with a current advisory board of 15 Nobel prize laureates has the authority to advance a consensus opinion on the very charter of what their institution seeks to address, then I think it is your duty to actively protest this institution and seek to strip these Nobel laureates of their medals. Otherwise, you're just talking through your..Hat.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Situation 4: Does not exist yet.

I think it does.http://www.aol.co.uk/video/white-ho...d-ballistic-missile-58900f377ca57647ea74e757/

 

[Buckleymanor]

You were the one who said it was quantifiable in Message #17. Why don't you tell us?

I did not I said others.

 

[russ_watters]

I think it does.http://www.aol.co.uk/video/white-ho...d-ballistic-missile-58900f377ca57647ea74e757/

In the set of hypothetical scenarios you provided me, you described it as a future scenario.

You asked how risk assessments are done and provided some scenarios. I answered the question you asked according to what you provided.

 

[Rubidium_71]

A lot of variables being discussed here. I've watched them play with that clock for decades, it never seemed to directly influence any government or leader as far as I could tell. What it brings to mind for me is Dr. Manhattan's quote - "I would only agree that a symbolic clock is as nourishing to the intellect as a photograph of oxygen is to a drowning man."

 

[Buckleymanor]

In the set of hypothetical scenarios you provided me, you described it as a future scenario.

You asked how risk assessments are done and provided some scenarios. I answered the question you asked according to what you provided.

I did not describe a future scenario, I described a scenario and to be honest I had Iran in mind and the US.

 

[russ_watters]

I did not describe a future scenario, I described a scenario...

This is what you said:
"So how do you put a number on the likely event that the rogue nation will start up it's weapons program and use them."

I could have just considered that the description of what would have had to happen to turn the other scenarios into a nuclear war, but instead I called it a fourth scenario to highlight that a future event [you used future tense] does not get rated. If you want to change it to past tense, e.g., "has started up", then it can be rated.

The point is, you evaluate the risk based on which step you are on, even while recognizing that the next step is more dangerous than the last. For the sake of example, say there are 4 steps in a process, each with a 50% probability of happening. If you are on step 2 but evaluate the odds as if you are on step 3, then you get a 25% probability instead of a 12.5% probability of the bad thing happening. It overstates the current risk.

Maybe I should have just ignore that issue as obvious, but in a bizarre coincidence I just so happened to be in a risk assessment meeting yesterday (I only do half a dozen a year) where someone improperly suggested evaluating a future risk as a basis for changes to the current project.

Applied here, what I think I see is people evaluating Trump's statements as if they were actions that have already happened (in addition to weighting them above all other factors). That would make the rated risk about as meaningful as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

...and to be honest I had Iran in mind and the US.

Fair enough, but I am, of course, not in your mind.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Applied here, what I think I see is people evaluating Trump's statements as if they were actions that have already happened (in addition to weighting them above all other factors). That would make the rated risk about as meaningful as Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.

No I think you are ignoring the obviouse.
As for evaluating Trumps statements as actions which have already happened.What makes makes you so confident that they won't.
I hope you are not insinuating he could be telling porkies.

 

[russ_watters]

As for evaluating Trumps statements as actions which have already happened.What makes makes you so confident that they won't.

You are missing the point: an event that has already happened has a 100% probability. An event that is speculated to happen - no matter how likely one thinks it is - has a probability of less than 100% of happening.

I hope you are not insinuating he could be telling porkies.

It's not even about whether Trump is lying or not. People have ascribed all sorts of potential future actions to him, many of them mutually exclusive. Right now in this thread he is being accused of planning to start WWIII against Russia while simultaneously in another thread he is being accused of having too close of a relationship with Russia, for mutual enrichment. These two actions cannot simultaneously be true, so between them they cannot both be above 50% likelihood of occurring.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

The Cuban Missile Crisis has been referenced a few times for comparison. The year was 1962, and The Bulletin set the clock at 7 minutes compared to the current 2 1/2 minutes. Also in 1962, there were 140 nuclear weapons tests, and the global nuclear warhead stockpile was seven times what it is today. President Kennedy urged citizens to build fall out shelters, saying "the time to start is now".

The following year The Bulletin set the clock back to 12 minutes with the advent of the partial test ban, though the USSR would go on to multiply it's nuclear stockpile eight fold.

I watched this video last night. It is called "Power of Decision." It was made in 1958. The topic is an anticipated nuclear war with the Soviet Union, which they predicted could happen in 1960. Therefore I think it's relevant to your remarks about the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was made by the USAF, and is now unclassified and in the public domain. It's fascinating because it is clearly made for a select audience, not for the general population.

 

[Evo]

You are missing the point: an event that has already happened has a 100% probability. An event that is speculated to happen - no matter how likely one thinks it is - has a probability of less than 100% of happening.

It's not even about whether Trump is lying or not. People have ascribed all sorts of potential future actions to him, many of them mutually exclusive. Right now in this thread he is being accused of planning to start WWIII against Russia while simultaneously in another thread he is being accused of having too close of a relationship with Russia, for mutual enrichment. These two actions cannot simultaneously be true, so between them they cannot both be above 50% likelihood of occurring.

What do you think of this?

Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable
Trump’s top adviser thinks we’re in “the great Fourth Turning in American history.”

Kaiser didn’t believe global war was preordained, so he demurred. The line of questioning didn’t make it into the documentary — a polemical piece, released in 2010, called “Generation Zero.”

Bannon, who’s now ensconced in the West Wing as President Donald Trump’s closest adviser, has been portrayed as Trump’s main ideas guy. But in interviews, speeches and writing — and especially in his embrace of Strauss and Howe — he has made clear that he is, first and foremost, an apocalypticist.

In Bannon’s view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

“What we are witnessing,” Bannon told The Washington Post last month, “is the birth of a new political order.”

It’s war. It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, 2015“You have an expansionist Islam and you have an expansionist China,” he said during a 2016 radio appearance. “They are motivated. They’re arrogant. They’re on the march. And they think the Judeo-Christian West is on the retreat.”

“Against radical Islam, we’re in a 100-year war,” he told Political Vindication Radio in 2011.

“We’re going to war in the South China Seas in the next five to 10 years, aren’t we?” Bannon asked during a 2016 interview with Reagan biographer Lee Edwards.

“We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism,” he said in a speech to a Vatican conference in 2014. “And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.”

In a 2015 radio appearance, Bannon described how he ran Breitbart, the far-right news site he chaired at the time. “It’s war,” he said. “It’s war. Every day, we put up: America’s at war, America’s at war. We’re at war.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

Well, I can't quote it all. You read it and tell me what you think of this guy.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I took just a few minutes to see what this "Gray Champion" legend is all about. I'm descended from one of the original Puritan families, like in Hawthorne's stories. I never heard of this "Gray Champion" guy and I don't care. I don't believe in legends or messiahs. I believe in common sense. I don't need any strongman. As far as war, yes we certainly are at war in this country. It's a war against stupidity and ignorance. I don't believe in prophecy or historical cycles. We make our own fate.

On the math and physics front, if I wasn't doing what I'm doing now, I would like to help develop weapons, maybe space-based, which could quickly neutralize any nuclear threat from any aggressor nation. We need an alternative to the scenario in the video I posted earlier. This means a quantum leap in weapons, and also some kind of truly effective shield.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's some more Bannonism from a different article:

The fourth great civilizational showdown—a “global existential war,” as Bannon describes it in July 2016—pits the “Judeo-Christian West” against “Islamic fascism”—especially ISIL. But the threat isn’t necessarily limited to ISIL.

Bannon’s remarks and his affiliations with anti-Muslim activists like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer leave the impression that the enemy might well be Islam in general. As Breitbart notes in 2014, the “erudite Bannon” entertains the argument that Islam’s “war” against Christianity “originated almost from [Islam’s] inception.” He endorses the view that, in the lead-up to World War II, Islam was a “much darker” force facing Europe than fascism. Other ideas he has supportedinclude: a US nonprofit focused on promoting a favorable image of Muslims is a terrorist front; the Islamic Society of Boston mosque was behind the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing; and Muslim-Americans are trying to supplant the US constitution with Shariah law.

Because Islam is rooted in anti-Christian violence, goes the logic, the only way to ensure that Muslims in America don’t pose a terrorist threat is to make sure they honor the US constitution as the rule of law and accept Judeo-Christian values.

https://qz.com/898134/what-steve-bannon-really-wants/

and,

But this cosmic avenger role Bannon seems to claim as voice-giver to the “forgotten” middle-classes hints at a deeper relish of conflict. A fascination with warfare and violence emerges in, for instance, his frequent allusion to the glory of the amphibious invasion at Normandy, or his taking the time out of his duties as Breitbart’s CEO to pen anobituary for Vo Nguyen Giap, a Vietnamese general who led a war for independence that Bannon described as “one of the bloodiest and hardest fought by all combatants.” In particular, the aesthetic of his documentaries can be nauseatingly violent. Torchbearer is a tour de force of gore. (There are at least six separate shots of falling guillotines, as well as lingering footage of nuclear radiation victims, mass burials from Nazi gas chambers, and various ISIL atrocities.)

He's a crusader (just about literally: Christianity vs Islam), the man with the plan, the guy whose got it all figured out; an elaborately developed political crackpot with an academic bent, not unlike Karl Marx or the Unabomber.

In the video here, Bannon says, sounding like something between an 18th Century French Revolutionary and a 20th Century Russian Bolshevik:

"...and this is going to be a very long, protracted fight. There is a permanent political class in this city (Washington) that dominates it and by that dominates the country. And there is a dedicated group of libertarians, and grass roots conservatives, and tea party conservatives, and limited government conservatives, that are here to destroy that. And that is going to be ugly, tough work. That's just the reality of it. People are not going to give up an aristocracy willingly. And we're on the right side of history and victory begets victory." https://egbertowillies.com/.../trump-steve-bannon-roadmap/

 

[russ_watters]

What do you think of this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

Well, I can't quote it all. You read it and tell me what you think of this guy.

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...but I'm not sure what that has to do with what you were responding to...

 

[collinsmark]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...but I'm not sure what that has to do with what you were responding to...

 

[russ_watters]

@collinsmark, I guess at this point I don't have much of an idea of what this thread is about anymore, but I'll respond to your post anyway:

I am not a fan of comedy treated as news, but I am a huuuuuge fan of irony, which appears lost on its purveyors who complain about our figurative joke of a President on their literal joke news programs...not to mention the rise of joke news over the past few years leading to today when its purveyors and consumers complain about fake news! That's pure deliciousness squared.

 

[collinsmark]

@collinsmark, I guess at this point I don't have much of an idea of what this thread is about anymore, but I'll respond to your post anyway:

I am not a fan of comedy treated as news, but I am a huuuuuge fan of irony, which appears lost on its purveyors who complain about our figurative joke of a President on their literal joke news programs...not to mention the rise of joke news over the past few years leading to today when its purveyors and consumers complain about fake news! That's pure deliciousness squared.

The sentiment that Bannon, a warring conspiracy theorist, is positioning himself as behind-the-scenes leader of the nation (USA) is not limited to comedy news programs.

Here's something from the editorial board of the New York Times:

But a new executive order, politicizing the process for national security decisions, suggests Mr. Bannon is positioning himself not merely as a Svengali but as the de facto president.​

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/president-bannon.html

Things like this explain the recent updates to the doomsday clock -- the point of this thread.

 

[russ_watters]

The sentiment that Bannon, a warring conspiracy theorist, is positioning himself as behind-the-scenes leader of the nation (USA) is not limited to comedy news programs.

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

Things like this explain the recent updates to the doomsday clock...

Not unless the Bulletin has a time machine they don't.

But since we're on the subject of joke/fake news, that NYT article on the executive order putting Bannon on the NSC contains a key falsehood in that it is not true that the CJCS and NSA were demoted.

[copied from a pm conversation I recently had]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-national-security-council-shakeup/

Yes, Trump added someone who wasn't previously an attendee, but he didn't remove anyone who previously was an attendee from either the NSC meetings or the NSC Principals meetings - he didn't remove the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or the national security advisor. CJCS himself appears to think the controversy is a nothingburger.

So for additional irony, the media is responding to Trump's blathering don't-care-about-facts style by mirroring it.

Sorrynotsorry about my tone, but my basic point in this thread has been this: the general tone of the national dialog is unserious discussion of what are supposed to be serious issues. If people want others to take these issues seriously, when reporting them they have to be reported/analyzed seriously. Two negatives make a positive, but two jokes don't equate to serious analysis.

 

[collinsmark]

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

I chose the comedy central link because it's less depressing.

 

[collinsmark]

Ok...so given that you had other options, do you think the choice to use a joke news site increases or decreases the irony?

Not unless the Bulletin has a time machine they don't.

But since we're on the subject of joke/fake news, that NYT article on the executive order putting Bannon on the NSC contains a key falsehood in that it is not true that the CJCS and NSA were demoted.

[copied from a pm conversation I recently had]
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...fact-sheet-national-security-council-shakeup/

This is a quote from your link that you provided:

"As PolitiFact has reported, the Trump administration https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Intelligence (or the CIA director, the position’s pre-2004 equivalent) as regular members of the principals committee, and also gave Trump’s chief strategist, Bannon, a seat on the council and principals committee."​

Also, the link within that link (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-misleading-claim-trumps-national-security-/) rates Sean Spicer's take on the controversy as "mostly false."

Sure, the link does say that much of negative reaction to the security council shakeup might be overblown. But I don't see any falsehoods in the New York Times article that I linked to in 57.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Bannon is at the steering wheel of the US right now. That merits pushing the clock closer to doomsday.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, the link does say that much of negative reaction to the security council shakeup might be overblown. But I don't see any falsehoods in the New York Times article that I linked to in 57.

The falsehood is what makes it overblown: it's the implication that they won't be in meetings they should be in and were in under Obama - that they were "demoted" - their role reduced. Saying "regular members" is a relatively meaningless distinction (which is why removing it makes sense): They didn't go to meetings they weren't needed for and did go to meetings they were needed for under Obama and that will be true under Trump as well.

The title "role usually reserved for generals" is also, at best, sensationalism if not an outright falsehood (not specific enough to be an explicit falsehood).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House. You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

 

[Buckleymanor]

No I think you are ignoring the obviouse.

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ seems to do that.
It has been noted.

What "obviouse", specifically, am I ignoring? I'll address it. I may disagree about what is important and what isn't or how to interpret certain facts, but I do try pretty hard to address - and not ignore - all issues.

I also think it should be noteworthy and respected that I am willing to criticize my own side of the fence, like I have done here. In my experience, people tend to try to avoid that.

[edit] If you're referring to my lack of overall "Doomsday Clock" concern, I'll be blunt: I think that many people think they are being serious about their fears when they really aren't being serious. How can a person not know that they aren't being serious? It really isn't hard if people don't know what "serious" looks like. So I'll provide the benchmark: do you have or are you building yourself a bomb shelter? If not, then your fear of Trump starting a nuclear war is not serious. Because that's what "serious" fear of nuclear war looks like.

 

[russ_watters]

The problem I have with your corrections of the media slant is that they don't correct Steve Bannon out of the NSC or out of the White House.

Ok...nor does anyone else criticizing Bannon here either. Do I have a power to exercise here that I'm not aware of (I'll have to check the mod control panel...)? Or are you suggesting that no tactics are out of line when fighting a righteous cause? Because I've heard that from liberals here too -- that lying is ok if your cause is just (which the liberal cause, of course, always is).

You have a chronic bent for focusing hard and doggedly on the wrong problem.

There are at least two different problems, which you seem to accidentally acknowledge here: Bannon tells things from a right-leaning perspective and the "media slant" from a left-leaning perspective. These are not equivalent perspectives, as the media is supposed to be informing us about reality, not telling a story from a certain slanted perspective. Bannon is one person, one problem -- as are Trump, Clinton and Obama. What is common to all of them is that they have been interpreted through "the media slant". E.G., right leaning stories filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a distorted - but at least balanced - view. But a left leaning story filtered through a left leaning perspective gives a double-left "slant". So I suppose in that way, the slant is a bigger problem when the Democrats are in power. Anyway...

The fact - which you seem to agree with - that all of our news is filtered through a certain "slant" means everything we hear is potentially being manipulated, not just certain things from certain individuals. Perhaps you consider that "the wrong problem" because you agree with "the media slant", but I think everyone should consider the more pervasive problem to be the bigger problem.

Either way, what it means is that if someone doesn't pursue a right-leaning angle to the story, it won't be reported. That's why Fox News serves such a critical purpose, in opposing the rest of the "media slant". You can't get a balanced picture without viewing the news through both filters.

And again: you can't fight fire with gasoline. So even if I were to agree that Bannon is "the right problem", attacking false with false is still the wrong approach.

 

[mheslep]

I think he's a conspiracy theory nut who shouldn't have a job in the white house...

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

 

[russ_watters]

Also, he is a former Navy Lieutenant (7 yrs, destroyer), with a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown and a Havard MBA, and who became a Goldman Sachs VP before going on to produce more than a dozen Hollywood films. Compare that bio to, say, Obama's former "Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications" Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter with an MFA in creative writing, who sold the public version of the Iran Nuclear deal, and whose brother David is President of CBS News.

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

 

[mheslep]

... I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Granted -- I'm aware that on credentials he's actually relatively good - despite the misleading picture painted by the media. I'm more concerned by his beliefs/temperament...and yeah, I'm also aware that those aren't disqualifying factors. Indeed, the list of actual required job qualifications is rather short (for President too).

Well that let's him of the hook a relatively nice guy all round "obviously".
Especially when you take this into consideration.

Yes, and I would look to gain that kind of insight from reporters that go beyond the HuffPo schlock, "I talked to a guy and the guy said", and actually call the primary for an interview or at least to confirm the assertions of the story.

Obviously a huge mistake the man is a kitten being portrayed as a extremist monster how dare they!