Question for everyone: We made fun of Trump for saying merely that he hoped Pakistan and India would stop fighting soon, and that they've been fighting for centuries (which is obviously impossible). Now that the two countries agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the Trump Administration (at least as reported on WINS this morning), should we…
Question for everyone: We made fun of Trump for saying merely that he hoped Pakistan and India would stop fighting soon, and that they've been fighting for centuries (which is obviously impossible). Now that the two countries agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the Trump Administration (at least as reported on WINS this morning), should we give them any credit for that? My reaction: I guess so, if that's really true.
He will take credit for anything he thinks of as good. He habitually shoves his name into association with something and then says the good thing is because of him.
If anyone wants me to believe he deserves credit for something, I want evidence that his involvement improved things and that the outcome we saw would not have happened otherwise. Not the generic name association that he is so wont to do.
There are conflicting accounts as to who really helped broker the deal. Most sources outside the Trump administration aren't giving it much credit; I think Rubio had a minor role and Trump none at all. Diplomats from many countries are being credited.
I object to both. When I used to watch CNN, I was always annoyed that instead of covering more news, including very important things happening in Africa, they covered the same stuff over and over ever hour.
Precisely! That said, Christiane Amanpour, and the two later-joiners Fareed Zakaria and Anderson Cooper at their best, were stellar. And I miss the CNN of old – before Ted Turner sold it.
Turner sold CNN in 1996, but even before then some of their coverage choices seemed dubious from anything but a ratings perspective. A key development may have been the gavel to gavel coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in 1994-95--as if it were the single most important news story in the world for over a year.
Of course it was mostly downhill from there, with some good moments and reverses. I think it really became a shitshow under Jeff Zucker.
I occasionally stream Amanpour. I vaguely recall some good reporting and interviews by Cooper, but more than a decade ago, so this is based on old recollections. Haven’t owned a TV in many years; these days we find stuff to stream – and I largely prefer to read my news.
I saw some Indian news reporting, they say that it's out of protocol to claim success or announce decisions after any backdoor or unofficial contacts or indirect negotiations, we might have participated in. It makes sense.
Question for everyone: We made fun of Trump for saying merely that he hoped Pakistan and India would stop fighting soon, and that they've been fighting for centuries (which is obviously impossible). Now that the two countries agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the Trump Administration (at least as reported on WINS this morning), should we give them any credit for that? My reaction: I guess so, if that's really true.
They have conflicts all the time that end shortly after. I wouldn't give Trump my credit for that.
Not Trump, but maybe someone in his administration?
He will take credit for anything he thinks of as good. He habitually shoves his name into association with something and then says the good thing is because of him.
If anyone wants me to believe he deserves credit for something, I want evidence that his involvement improved things and that the outcome we saw would not have happened otherwise. Not the generic name association that he is so wont to do.
There are conflicting accounts as to who really helped broker the deal. Most sources outside the Trump administration aren't giving it much credit; I think Rubio had a minor role and Trump none at all. Diplomats from many countries are being credited.
So undue U.S.-centeredness on the part of U.S. media. So typical!
My objection is not to US-centeredness, but to the MSM repeating what Trump and his appointees say as if it were truth.
I object to both. When I used to watch CNN, I was always annoyed that instead of covering more news, including very important things happening in Africa, they covered the same stuff over and over ever hour.
Precisely! That said, Christiane Amanpour, and the two later-joiners Fareed Zakaria and Anderson Cooper at their best, were stellar. And I miss the CNN of old – before Ted Turner sold it.
Turner sold CNN in 1996, but even before then some of their coverage choices seemed dubious from anything but a ratings perspective. A key development may have been the gavel to gavel coverage of the OJ Simpson trial in 1994-95--as if it were the single most important news story in the world for over a year.
Of course it was mostly downhill from there, with some good moments and reverses. I think it really became a shitshow under Jeff Zucker.
Definitely Amanpour. Should I be more impressed with Cooper than I am?
I occasionally stream Amanpour. I vaguely recall some good reporting and interviews by Cooper, but more than a decade ago, so this is based on old recollections. Haven’t owned a TV in many years; these days we find stuff to stream – and I largely prefer to read my news.
I, too, haven't had a TV or a cable subscription for many years.
Cooper also does good stuff as part of CBS' 60 Minutes team, and that's about the only non-local TV news I watch regularly.
I saw some Indian news reporting, they say that it's out of protocol to claim success or announce decisions after any backdoor or unofficial contacts or indirect negotiations, we might have participated in. It makes sense.
Never expect Trump to observe any kind of protocol.