Obama tore down Robin's Nest with video

[308GUY]

Jesse Stone: "The truth is out there...you just have to let it in."

HAGO!

[Pahonu]

I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)

BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.

NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.

Realistically, a separation has to be made between three things, news, analysis, and op-ed. These are much more clearly delineated in print journalism, which many never read unfortunately. The WSJ front page news is still very well done, while it’s op-ed has shifted it seems. Long form analysis in print like Newsweek is dying a slow death from lack of readers attention spans.

For those who asked about reputable sources, I would say Reuters and the Associated Press, with their still sizable foreign bureaus of reporters are both excellent. I also think The Economist does an incredible job delineating these three areas of journalism and I have been a subscriber for almost two decades. Steer clear of the many sources that have no original reporting whatsoever and simply cite other agencies work and add commentary.

What is the multi-source data collection you reference in calling the Allsides methodology a joke?

[Styles Bitchley]

Take the politics to the KKC or, better yet, some other forum.

[Pahonu]

Take the politics to the KKC or, better yet, some other forum.

Hey Styles,

I completely understand your sentiment. I enjoy the conversations but they do belong elsewhere. I would like to point out that I personally do not bring up political topics here, my preference is for Pahonu itself as many know, but I do absolutely choose to respond to those who do bring up such topics. Clearly this leads to engagement and sometimes pages of comments. This is a new thread that can be moved to KKC perhaps?

[MagnumsLeftShoulder]

BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now.

I have no doubt that he knows. I can't stand the guy, but I don't think he bought the estate to stick it to MPI fans. He bought it because it was in such a state of disrepair that the state could not prevent him from tearing it down and building whatever he and Marty want.

[Rands]

I, like so many others, am happy, I spent several afternoons on Robin Master's beach. I had planned to spend some time there this fall, on my annual trip to Oahu. But, if Punahou is no longer, I think the Pali may be a better bet.

[Pahonu]

BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now.

I have no doubt that he knows. I can't stand the guy, but I don't think he bought the estate to stick it to MPI fans. He bought it because it was in such a state of disrepair that the state could not prevent him from tearing it down and building whatever he and Marty want.

I agree. No matter how you feel about Obama or Nesbitt, or whomever could have purchased the property, it had been allowed to fall in to such a state of disrepair that it was purchased for property location alone. When potential buyers toured the property, they were not even allowed to enter the main house because it was unsafe. I know this from conversations with a former member with photos of a tour of the property. I stated this before the purchase ever happened and I was heartbroken before it was sold because it was almost inevitable. Myself and a few other forum members speculated accurately that it would be sold, razed, and subdivided into multiple properties. Not surprisingly, it happened, and those unfamiliar with the details are rightly surprised, but wrongly begin assigning blame.

[Pahonu]

The only other realistic alternate to what has happened was for the property to remain in trust, with Eve Anderson unable to maintain it financially, and its continual tragic decay until her death. At that point it would have been sold, razed, and subdivided just the same.

Longtime members of the forum know that essentially every person who posted about visiting the estate in the last 10-15 years, commented on its growing disrepair. It is a sad story but not all that unusual for these types of homes, as I have explained in other posts.

It reminds of several years ago when some commenters were convinced that the beach erosion caused by the combination of the sea walls and sea level rise was somehow a conspiracy by Eve Anderson to keep fans away by having the beach dredged! I explained that I had personally witnessed such sand loss through “scouring” in a matter of weeks in Southern California after winter storms. Many were unconvinced and saw some kind of shadowy wrong-doing as the cause. They were wrong about that and many are equally as wrong in their conclusions about Pahonu’s demise.

[Mark de Croix]

I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)

BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.

NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.

Realistically, a separation has to be made between three things, news, analysis, and op-ed. These are much more clearly delineated in print journalism, which many never read unfortunately. The WSJ front page news is still very well done, while it’s op-ed has shifted it seems. Long form analysis in print like Newsweek is dying a slow death from lack of readers attention spans.

For those who asked about reputable sources, I would say Reuters and the Associated Press, with their still sizable foreign bureaus of reporters are both excellent. I also think The Economist does an incredible job delineating these three areas of journalism and I have been a subscriber for almost two decades. Steer clear of the many sources that have no original reporting whatsoever and simply cite other agencies work and add commentary.

What is the multi-source data collection you reference in calling the Allsides methodology a joke?

It was less in reference to Allsides than to your own perspective. In fact I must admit, and do admire, Allsides attempt to conceptualize systematically the array of media in terms of politics. However you seem less cognizant of how bias impacts human perception while too eager to claim others are too subjective when maybe you yourself are most guilty of it. For example let's look at your comment:
>>NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their >>many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being >>dull. LOL!
First as far as I know, no one related to our discussion has failed to make a distinction between straight news and opinion pieces. You imply otherwise which is a strawman argument. I myself never stated nor implied that my statement was based on NPR opinion pieces. Next, you suggest having multiple news offices by NPR ensures reliable news coverage. Hardly does that suffice because whether it's a hundred or a thousand news bureaus they likely follow the same management directives. Moreover straight news simply because it may be shorn of opinion or emotion (thus possibly "dull" in your terms) can still be motivated by politics or bias. Bias can creep in at least by four ways:
1 certain details excluded or slanted
2 topics or news stories avoided
3 the language of reporting itself (e.g., use of active/passive constructions according to race)
4 lack of investigative reporting or reporting from one side only of an issue or event
Finally, you should be more respectful of others here in discussion by not laughing at them. Regardless whether you agree or not is not reason to laugh a

[Pahonu]

I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke. For example no way NPR is centered--it's left learning. Oppositely, The Hill is not centered but right-leaning. Evidently their methodology was skewed in certain ways. (My view here is based on multi-source data collection.)

BTW, someone on this thread suggested that Obama wouldn't know the historical significance of the estate he bought??? Come on now. I agree it was unbecoming of him to disregard the welfare of the construction workers by his being maskless, but surely he would not be naive nor uninformed about a purchase as huge as that, surely.

NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being dull. LOL! I’m thinking of Nina Totenberg reporting on The Supreme Court for example. She recites the justices questions and responses verbatim in oral arguments. It can’t get more straight news than that. One has to separate news reporting from op-ed, and sadly many can’t or don’t want to.

Realistically, a separation has to be made between three things, news, analysis, and op-ed. These are much more clearly delineated in print journalism, which many never read unfortunately. The WSJ front page news is still very well done, while it’s op-ed has shifted it seems. Long form analysis in print like Newsweek is dying a slow death from lack of readers attention spans.

For those who asked about reputable sources, I would say Reuters and the Associated Press, with their still sizable foreign bureaus of reporters are both excellent. I also think The Economist does an incredible job delineating these three areas of journalism and I have been a subscriber for almost two decades. Steer clear of the many sources that have no original reporting whatsoever and simply cite other agencies work and add commentary.

What is the multi-source data collection you reference in calling the Allsides methodology a joke?

It was less in reference to Allsides than to your own perspective. In fact I must admit, and do admire, Allsides attempt to conceptualize systematically the array of media in terms of politics. However you seem less cognizant of how bias impacts human perception while too eager to claim others are too subjective when maybe you yourself are most guilty of it. For example let's look at your comment:
>>NPR opinion is definitely left, but their straight news stories from journalists reporting from their >>many bureaus is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently, almost to the point of being >>dull. LOL!
First as far as I know, no one related to our discussion has failed to make a distinction between straight news and opinion pieces. You imply otherwise which is a strawman argument. I myself never stated nor implied that my statement was based on NPR opinion pieces. Next, you suggest having multiple news offices by NPR ensures reliable news coverage. Hardly does that suffice because whether it's a hundred or a thousand news bureaus they likely follow the same management directives. Moreover straight news simply because it may be shorn of opinion or emotion (thus possibly "dull" in your terms) can still be motivated by politics or bias. Bias can creep in at least by four ways:
1 certain details excluded or slanted
2 topics or news stories avoided
3 the language of reporting itself (e.g., use of active/passive constructions according to race)
4 lack of investigative reporting or reporting from one side only of an issue or event
Finally, you should be more respectful of others here in discussion by not laughing at them. Regardless whether you agree or not is not reason to laugh a

I wasn’t laughing at others, I was thinking of the nature of Nina Totenberg’s verbatim reading of court transcripts as being so dry. Sorry if you thought that it might be directed at you.

All four of your examples of bias certainly can and do exist in news reporting. They cannot be eliminated entirely. However, it is far less biased than op-ed which has no intention of being unbiased, rather specifically taking a position. As far as distinguishing the difference, there have been numerous times on this forum when a poster cited an op-ed as a news report and didn’t seem to understand the difference. It’s not a straw man argument as it relates to discussions on this forum. I have pointed out this exact circumstance many times over the years.

My point about having bureaus is that they are producing original reporting such as interviews from the State Department or Capitol, for example. It’s not about 10 or 20 or 100, it’s about any. Several online “news” sources have no original reporting, but rather source other reporting agencies to create their stories. Again, many such stories are presented by posters as original news. I would trust the original source more highly than the other. It can’t be less reliable if it is the source of the latter.

I don’t understand your comment about Allsides being based on my perspective about it. You wrote, “ I agree with Eagle about the Allsides chart. It's a joke.”. This was before I commented on Allsides. Sorry again if it felt like I was disrespectful or laughing at you and others. I have been posting here for many years and have had many respectful conversations or debates, if you will, over the years.

[Gorilla Mask]

"If you differ from me, my brother, far from harming me, you enrich me." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in 'Citadelle'.

[Mark de Croix]

Hi guys, Hi Pahonu,

>>"Sorry again if it felt like I was disrespectful or laughing at you and others."
Thank you for that.
>>“I have been posting here for many years and have had many respectful conversations or debates”
I believe that. This website seems very civil and I’m sure you have helped make it so. Sometimes of course anywhere differences can occur. That is to be expected.

Going back to my comment about “Founding Fathers” your response seemed to substitute a regretful reply for something substantive. And your later comment about another member being subjective seemed to suggest—seemed—possibly superficial. This was echoed by your statement,
>>“straight news stories from journalists … is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently,
>>almost to the point of being dull.”
Such wouldn’t have been said if you really were cognizant of the ways bias can and does occur even in straight news reporting. People generally do not realize how much ideology/propaganda they absorb each day via media. I am not referencing op-ed journalism, as you so much do, but garden variety straight news.

People do not know for example that the US has one of most economic protected markets in the world. Does mainstream media inform us about it? No. Instead they trumpet political posturing that pushes for “free markets” while ignoring the economic barriers by their own country that result in losses of billions to consumers. Such is hardly ever investigated by mainstream journalists. On the political front, mainstream media tend—tend-- to ignore matters that would badly reflect on the present administration ideology. All of this is a result of journalistic choices at least some of which are made to drive media financial profit—not to objectively inform the public.

I don’t want to provide the groundwork for someone’s dissertation. Suffice it for me to recommend that you reassess your view of straight news journalism because you seem to underestimate the bias plain to see if you look deep enough. I appreciate your many fine postings to MM and look forward to sharing with you our esteem for one of the finest TV programs ever.

[Pahonu]

Hi guys, Hi Pahonu,

>>"Sorry again if it felt like I was disrespectful or laughing at you and others."
Thank you for that.
>>“I have been posting here for many years and have had many respectful conversations or debates”
I believe that. This website seems very civil and I’m sure you have helped make it so. Sometimes of course anywhere differences can occur. That is to be expected.

Going back to my comment about “Founding Fathers” your response seemed to substitute a regretful reply for something substantive. And your later comment about another member being subjective seemed to suggest—seemed—possibly superficial. This was echoed by your statement,
>>“straight news stories from journalists … is as non-opinion based as I’ve heard any time recently,
>>almost to the point of being dull.”
Such wouldn’t have been said if you really were cognizant of the ways bias can and does occur even in straight news reporting. People generally do not realize how much ideology/propaganda they absorb each day via media. I am not referencing op-ed journalism, as you so much do, but garden variety straight news.

People do not know for example that the US has one of most economic protected markets in the world. Does mainstream media inform us about it? No. Instead they trumpet political posturing that pushes for “free markets” while ignoring the economic barriers by their own country that result in losses of billions to consumers. Such is hardly ever investigated by mainstream journalists. On the political front, mainstream media tend—tend-- to ignore matters that would badly reflect on the present administration ideology. All of this is a result of journalistic choices at least some of which are made to drive media financial profit—not to objectively inform the public.

I don’t want to provide the groundwork for someone’s dissertation. Suffice it for me to recommend that you reassess your view of straight news journalism because you seem to underestimate the bias plain to see if you look deep enough. I appreciate your many fine postings to MM and look forward to sharing with you our esteem for one of the finest TV programs ever.

I’m very interested in your views about American protectionism in its markets, largely because I agree, and many Americans have no clue about it. I think most Americans have no idea, for example, that the price of beef in the US is highly subsidized by the free or significantly reduced cost of grazing and water rights provided by the federal government on their land to cattle farmers. The fact that chicken and ground beef are relatively similar in cost here versus everywhere else in the world is evidence of it. There are also price supports for grains and particularly corn that have affected not only food cost, but also fuel prices, as corn ethanol has increased in the market in the last few decades. Many are also stunned to learn that zero produce production is similarly subsidized, while until a few years ago, tobacco was! None of this even references the increasing tariffs from the Trump administration protectionism of the steel market that still largely remain under the Biden administration.

I would very much like to hear your thoughts on such things. I would add, however, that NPR, does report on such things. I have been a listener for over 30 years and stand by my original statement about their original reporting. I also understand that bias exists in all media and it is a matter of level not a black and white issue. News reporting is less biased as it quotes original sources and data, than analysis which looks to assess that reporting, and even less so than op-ed which takes a clear political position on that same information.

I would also like to add that I may have mistook your founding fathers comment as sarcasm. Again, I’m sorry if that was not the case, as recognizing such comments is much more difficult via written text than in speech.

Did you happen to catch my response to your question about TM’s name in the other thread?

[Mark de Croix]

Hi Pahonu

“Did you happen to catch my response to your question about TM’s name in the other thread?

Very interesting response, truly. I answered it, thank you.

You might know I’m a newbie here and so it’s not recommended that I mix it up with veterans especially. It’s the fault of this website—it’s so welcoming and has so many interesting topics for talk that I couldn’t help it Seriously, your friendship and good will is much appreciated.

I’m surprised truly by the high, high quality of discussion. It seems many members are literate or have literary backgrounds. Or at least are well informed. And just as amazing even more so is the longevity of this interest. Now more than ten years. I’m pleased because at first arrival here I thought things fizzled out by 2008. I hope I can make a small contribution to the collective discussions.

Sadly in the US we live in a divisive time, which plays out in the media. I don’t think media—mainstream that is—is playing a responsible role. I might be unrealistic because the powers to be will always be trying to maintain or increase their power even at the expense of all. We see that in how corporate America has known only one siren—that of the almighty dollar. It doesn’t matter that national security has been put at much risk by the huge outsourcing of manufacturing done over recent decades. “Oh, if we can shave off a few pennies on those brooms at Walmart or have the Chinese produce our tanks, too, why not? And let them corner the market for rare earths, as well. As long as we enjoy the largest income ratio in history between CEO and average worker, we’re making progress! So what if folks are having to work two or three jobs to get by, if we didn’t do it, someone else would.”

So we have the American public end up subsidizing the US auto industry without knowing it. Huge tariffs and hidden barriers jack up the prices on imported vehicles. (Look up the famed “chicken tax” on truck imports.) Thus Detroit can be protected who in turn “manufacture” false claims about protectionism in foreign lands, keeping politicians in their corner while Detroit fleeces consumers. If you own a truck whether foreign or domestic branded you paid thousands of dollars in excess of the real price.

Do mainstream media “journalists” report on this dynamic—no, no, no. Although the auto industry is no longer the single core of the national economy, it surely remains an important segment as it helps support a myriad of other industries. Everything flows from economic well being—without it social and civic unrest results. Continually for national elections, pundits have a common refrain, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

When I look at the demise of the free press (the reduction of multiple independent news outlets to just a few majors today) and how mainstream mass media seems to favor special or corporate interests it is discouraging. What happened to the bonus expected from the end of the USSR? None came. The country seems to have gone backwards. Could it be only coincidental that not only a free press has eroded but also the ethics of journalism—the fourth estate? Thank God we have the estate of Robin’s Nest for respite anytime we watch our favorite program.

[Pahonu]

Sadly in the US we live in a divisive time, which plays out in the media. I don’t think media—mainstream that is—is playing a responsible role. I might be unrealistic because the powers to be will always be trying to maintain or increase their power even at the expense of all. We see that in how corporate America has known only one siren—that of the almighty dollar. It doesn’t matter that national security has been put at much risk by the huge outsourcing of manufacturing done over recent decades. “Oh, if we can shave off a few pennies on those brooms at Walmart or have the Chinese produce our tanks, too, why not? And let them corner the market for rare earths, as well. As long as we enjoy the largest income ratio in history between CEO and average worker, we’re making progress! So what if folks are having to work two or three jobs to get by, if we didn’t do it, someone else would.”

So we have the American public end up subsidizing the US auto industry without knowing it. Huge tariffs and hidden barriers jack up the prices on imported vehicles. (Look up the famed “chicken tax” on truck imports.) Thus Detroit can be protected who in turn “manufacture” false claims about protectionism in foreign lands, keeping politicians in their corner while Detroit fleeces consumers. If you own a truck whether foreign or domestic branded you paid thousands of dollars in excess of the real price.

Do mainstream media “journalists” report on this dynamic—no, no, no. Although the auto industry is no longer the single core of the national economy, it surely remains an important segment as it helps support a myriad of other industries. Everything flows from economic well being—without it social and civic unrest results. Continually for national elections, pundits have a common refrain, “it’s the economy, stupid.”

When I look at the demise of the free press (the reduction of multiple independent news outlets to just a few majors today) and how mainstream mass media seems to favor special or corporate interests it is discouraging. What happened to the bonus expected from the end of the USSR? None came. The country seems to have gone backwards. Could it be only coincidental that not only a free press has eroded but also the ethics of journalism—the fourth estate? Thank God we have the estate of Robin’s Nest for respite anytime we watch our favorite program.

I think we actually hold many of the same positions on the role of the economy in US politics. I think we mostly disagree about the media and its complicity or not.

I agree that income inequality is a highly destabilizing force. It’s currently at the highest rate since before the Great Depression. That’s getting dangerously close to the Gilded Age era before anti-trust laws when it was at its highest.

Also, outsourcing has dramatically shifted the US manufacturing sector and economy in general, but I take the position that historically low fuel costs in the US have played a huge role in that phenomenon. These low costs are a form of subsidy maintained by US military intervention to stabilize oil production regions. I also think changes to fuel taxes (unpopular I know), raising transportation costs from China or across the US, for example, would discourage continued outsourcing in the future.

The merging of news outlets is also highly troubling. I’m particularly concerned to see long-form journalistic analysis such as The Economist or Newsweek being read by fewer and fewer Americans. My point her is that these issues are being reported on. Perhaps not in the soundbites of the 24 hour TV news cycle or even in the disappearing daily newspapers, but they are being reported on, and not just by non-mainstream media. I read stories on such topics frequently.

As a full time high school social studies teacher and part-time history professor, these things fascinate me and are part of my career. I personally seek out this long-form analysis to try and understand a topic more fully, but I believe most Americans do not. I try to encourage my students to look for in-depth analysis as well. The problem I have is that many of the outlier media outlets are more politically motivated, left or right, than traditional sources. As problematic as many believe these traditional sources to be, they are less biased than most of the outlier sources in my view.

It reminds me of the Congressional Budget Office when they analyze potential legislation for economic impact. Is the CBO perfect, not even close, and legislators from all sides complain about its inaccuracies if it isn’t to their liking. However, there is nothing less biased to choose from, and legislators refer to it constantly when it does fit their narrative. To take any singular other view then is inherently more biased.

I forgot, the “chicken tax” has actually been discussed somewhere here before! I believe in the thread about forum member’s cars. I have an old VW Westphalia camper van, but not a VW truck. TC is more my vehicle guy than TM I suppose.