The 2017 White House correspondents’ dinner
… a notable quote from a correspondent who knew how to sniff things out.
Follow the money, but also follow the lies.Carl Bernstein white house correspondants dinner 2017
← 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”
We laughed our ass off !
rather degrading that media.
but there is lots more, even #BetterTruth’s which can better be #shared with others.
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?”.
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.
Do you even know specifically what i am talking about?
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.
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.seth
a double edged sword …
- the less you are involved, the more objective you can be.
- the more you are involved, the more pertinent your grasping regarding your identity group.
maybe that is part of the paradoxes
which makes our subject here so difficult to tackel.
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.
and never in relationship to fighting with a sword or survival.
sorry, perhaps you were not familiar with previous usages of that term.
… and a lot of grasping of what journalism aspires to be.
“White House official says ’we’ve looked at’ changes to libel laws that would restrict press freedom” ~ ABCNEWS
A good overview of free speech & the CONSTITUTION is in
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).