Iran War Live Updates: U.S. and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I think that's the story that should dominate.
When the history of this era is written, possibly on a cave wall, the media will bear a heavy portion of responsibility.
I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it?
But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."
"Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran"
NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff.
It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.
> President Trump told reporters that the United States and Iran were engaging in “very strong talks” toward resolving the war that began on Feb. 28, which had produced “many, like 15 points,” of agreement. He said he was postponing until Friday his threat to attack Iranian power plants while talks take place.
They're hiding the president's actual words on the subjects (yes, he wrote in all-caps):
> I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [1]
And the NYT doesn't feel the need to comment on how unhinged the president is acting, or how this whole story is a complete, transparent lie. This is either extreme journalistic imcompetence or straight up malice. The NYT and the rest of the media share a large part of the blame in Trump's success story and the slow fall of the American Republic.
[1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1162782323629...
Compare this headline to recent statements he's made about the war. Have we won the war? Or will be sending troops to Kharg? Is Iran's military 100% obliterated? Or do we need NATO to help patrol Hormuz? Is this a war or an "excursion"? He has said the war is winding down but also intensifying. He's made all of these conflicting statements and more, sometimes one right after the other.
https://www.publicnotice.co/p/mark-jacob-interview-trump-cov...
I believed Trump was insane/an idiot during his 1st mandate. I no longer believe so.
I firmly believe he is an ingenious antagonist with ulterior motives using advanced manipulation and destabilization techniques. He moved the Overton window so far and fast that the world doesn't know how to react, and any reaction will be too little too late.
Trump is taking the USA's economical/social structure apart at a frightening pace, and unfortunately a lot hinge on the USA elsewhere.
He should not be seen as incompetent/unfit for office, he should be seen as a hostile entity to get rid of yesterday.
And I fear it's too late, the USA won't react until he's made the "necessary constitution changes" and been elected for his 3rd mandate.
Getting rid of Europe's ties with the USA will be arduous but I don't see any alternative
Trump will go on TV and say "somali immigrants are running mass fraud rings to fund terrorism and democrats are covering this up" and the media will run a headline like "Trump expresses concern about childcare fraud."
There was an interesting example recently where national media printed an AOC quote that left in the "uhs" and "ums", making her seem less competent and clear. But you'll regularly see this stuff removed from any direct quotes from Trump.
I don't even mean to be political, but one of the two parties here is notorious for lying, so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods they have come out with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
First line:
> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
Is there something preventing this?
Not detracting from the merits of your statement, but Wikipedia is not neutral, it is biased politically/ideologically, so it should not be used as a fair "measure" of things.
Calling it biased/ideological is a recent trend pushed by certain billionaires who didn't like their DOGE corruption being exposed.
With respect to ideological bias, I strongly doubt that other Presidents never made "false or misleading statements" but I can't seem to find, for example, the page of "False or misleading statements made by Joe Biden". It seems a stretch to say he made none, to the point one might wonder about the discrepancy.
Why is there no wikipedia page about basketball points scored by Lionel Messi?
I bet he made some in his life?
The problem is that anyone reporting honestly on Trump would be excessively negative, there's not that many people who want to suffer through reading that (or through verbatim quotes of the things he says!).
My mental health wouldn't stand a chance if I actually stared into the abyss.
create exhaustion and disbelief in the consumer and they eventually give up on consuming, and will eventually choose to cherry pick factoids that confirm their preexisting beliefs
There's really no trouble getting factual information in the US. The main source of actual information is the wire services, such as Reuters and AP. It's dull, tedious, factual reporting.
News shows, web sites, etc. all get their news from there. They add various levels of commentary, entertainment, and ideology to make it more engaging.
Some are worse than others; you can get fairly decent reporting from most mainstream news sources. The more biased a news source is, the more time it devotes to attacking those sources as being biased.
It doesn't require a news source. It requires looking at news for news rather than entertainment.
This is made somewhat more complicated in the last few years. Since real news is boring, reliable news sources are less profitable, and many are failing. That leaves them open to being bought out by highly partisan owners, who leverage their reputation while betraying it.
The wire services remain reliable, so far, and have the advantage of being primary reporting. It's not hard to find reality if you want it. It's just that not a lot of people want it.