The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner

Follow the money, but also follow the lies.

Carl Bernstein white house correspondants dinner 2017
… a notable quote from a correspondent who knew how to sniff things out. 

Hasan Minhaj of “The Daily Show”
comedy with a poignant energy
at the White House Correspondant’s dinner
which #Trump strangely decided not to attend.

see also “Hasan Minhaj’s Trump-bashing comedy routine at the White House correspondents’ dinner, annotated”

null null We laughed our ass off !


No content – empty quote – innuendo maybe

Personally, if I were looking for truth I wouldn’t follow lies. null

The press has to do something to try & boost their own sagging ratings.  Maybe some more #PotusBashing for the minions.

me, i am on the side of those practicing honest journalism in the press,
rather degrading that media. 

but i understand why those wanting complete freedom of their own thought
would not care about the practice of honest journalists attempting to #share  “the best truth obtainable”.

All innuendo aside – what is your example of “honest” journalism?

Well the quotes were from Carl Bernstein …

he provided a great example in the 70s. 

that’s one way … there is lots of truth that my friend can make himself ….
but there is lots more, even #BetterTruth’s which can better be #shared with others.

Looking for truth by following lies is a missmatcher’s strategy; like looking for peace while chasing wars.
For all the Nixon bashing he at least had the integrity to resign; Hillary OTOH, decided to continue to run for president in spite thousands of erased emails etc.  Where are the W&B documentaries on that.  Still missing!
Follow the money was reputed to be Deep Throats’s suggestion – however not.  The Latin Qui Bono has been around a lot longer as “who benefits?”. null

well it is a strategy which fquently works …
tease out the assumptions that allow a person to speak something you think is false …
trace those beliefs to their source …
form a gestalt that explains all that sans contradiction.


Works like #ClickBait & dishonesty sells M$M though. Mostly it is #GotchaJournalism.

I prefer the Zen of Heinlein’s Fair Witnesses over the trickery you describe.

well i have done it myself,  and have seen it done, have you ever?  
Do you even know specifically what i am talking about?

Yep already described or jousting at windmills for flavor. null

facts are great edges to report on … much better than selfserving opinons.

Strangely enough at the dinner a lady reported on a project of creating a database of just the facts of what happens re the white house as reported by the pool reporters … she came on right after the president of the association … that might be very similar to what you have been looking for.

maybe find archives of white house pool reports …

talked about at about 1:38 minutes into this video.

I like the thought.  Facts require full context to qualify as facts. Headlines are not facts. Hearsay is not facts. Unsourced statements & quotes are not facts.   Jokes & shifting context (essentially  what makes something funny to some people) may & probably don’t qualify as facts.  The ran into the point-of-view thingy as well. One wonders if people would really ever want the facts. The penchant for beliefs says otherwise; most people are too busy to chase facts & would prefer to create beliefs which yields meaning to them.   Nexis presumably has a handle on a database of news here.

Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don’t be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

one definition of “facts” might be:  propositions that can be verified and #shared by the largest pool of individuals practical … as distinguished from opinions or beliefs which anybody can just make up, or choose, in the pursuit of their own joy.


Facts are like truth they must agree in language with what’s so – it is not a vote of the most people that creates one (nathan who makes up his own notwithstanding) Climate change is a good example. 
Free yourself & get rid of beliefs ! Don't be a BELIEF robot - M.R.

yeah but (again) who can ever report on “what is so”  when every report necessarily is provided by some individual.   so whereas getting at “what is so” is certainly an ideal … we must deal with how to get at it in a practical way.   I did it here above in my definition,The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner (comment 76756) , by pinning it to “that which can be verified and #shared by the largest pool of individuals practical”.

That’s where trained fair-witnesses are a better pool than reporters. Anyway Ferguson, Mo. was an example where some witnesses #MakeShitUp

That’s why it is better to not know – The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner (comment 76758) notwithstanding. If it involves you you will most likely able to determine its importance to you.

well if you delve into it, i think you will find that the training of journalist, at it’s best,  is actually that what one would give to Heinlein’s “far-witnessess”. 

That’s ass-backwards.  I would give journalists the fair witness training.  How to observe without embellishing according to one’s own prejudice – i.e. Zen.

a double edged sword …
  1. the less you are involved, the more objective you can be. 
  2. the more you are involved, the more pertinent your grasping regarding your identity group.
we actually need both views.

maybe that is part of the paradoxes
which makes our subject here so difficult to tackel.

… er, i think that is what i implied too null

That’s for #selfies. Zen says go beyond your survival – ignore the swords.

i do not know how to use that composition of associations in any practical way.

a double edged sword is associated
in The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner (comment 76763) with a paradox
not with something that is best avoided …
rather with something that is best to see/use from 2 points of view.

Playdumb, OK . If you are thinking of swords metaphorical or other you are implying survival. Anyway, I am #done with this shit. I never have watched   the whole whitehouse correspondants dinner & probably never will.  It is usually a bunch of clowns seeing what they can get away with saying about Potus. They are not my #monkeys & it is not my circus.  

well i always think of the term “double edged sword” in relationship to a paradox of use …
and never in relationship to fighting with a sword or survival.  
sorry, perhaps you were not familiar with previous usages of that term.

well then you miss a lot of side splitting humor.  
… and a lot of grasping of what journalism aspires to be.

Nah .. partisan laughter & leftist commedians are a dime a dozen – usually better ones get the evening shows on NBCCBSABCCNN . null

and in the news from the other side of the battle …
“White House official says ’we’ve looked at’ changes to libel laws that would restrict press freedom” ~ ABCNEWS

Yeah! libel laws – LYING – null how much lying & slander is OK along side the 1st amendment?
A good overview of free speech & the CONSTITUTION is in!/amendments/1/essays/140/freedom-of-speech-and-of-the-press
Lately, imho, the line on incitement has stretched to its limits.

7. There is, however, a small set of rather narrow exceptions to free speech protection:

a. Incitement: Speech may be restricted if it is (i) intended to persuade people to engage in (ii) imminent unlawful conduct, and is (iii) likely to cause such imminent unlawful conduct. Outside this narrow zone, even speech that advocates lawbreaking is constitutionally protected. Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

b. False statements of fact: False statements of fact may generally be punished if they are knowing lies, though generally not if they are honest mistakes (even unreasonable mistakes). There are, however, some situations where even honest mistakes can be punished, and a few where even intentional lies are protected. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974).

c. Obscenity: Hard-core pornography is punishable if (i) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to a shameful or morbid interest in sex or excretion; (ii) the work depicts or describes, in a way that is patently offensive under contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (iii) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Miller v. California (1973).

d. Child pornography: Sexually themed live performances, photographs, and movies that were made using actual children may be punished even if they do not fit within the obscenity test. This does not cover digitized pictures, drawings, or text materials, which are constitutionally protected unless they are obscene. The Court has reasoned that child pornography is unprotected because it hurts the children involved in its making, so the exception only covers cases where actual children were indeed involved. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002).

e. Threats: Speech that is reasonably perceived as a threat of violence (and not just rhetorical hyperbole) can be punished. Virginia v. Black (2003).

f. Fighting words: Face-to-face insults that are addressed to a particular person and are likely to cause an imminent fight can be punished. More generalized offensive speech that is not addressed to a particular person cannot be punished even if it is profane or deeply insulting. Cohen v. California (1971).

9. Finally, all of the preceding rules apply to restrictions that are imposed by the government acting as sovereign and backed by the threat of jail terms, fines, or civil liability. They also apply to the government controlling what is said in "traditional public fora," such as parks, streets, sidewalks, or the post office. But when the government is acting as, for instance, (a) employer, (b) K–12 educator, (c) proprietor of government property other than traditional public fora, (d) subsidizer, (e) speaker, or (f) regulator of the airwaves, it has broader (though not unlimited) authority. The rules for that, unfortunately, are too elaborate to set forth here. Connick v. Myers (1983); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969); ISKCON v. Lee (1992); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995); FCC v. League of Women Voters of California (1984).