Posted on 09/11/2015 5:33:43 PM PDT by Whenifhow
This Rolling Stone controversy is a brilliant opportunity to highlight how subtle, yet brutally obvious, presented broadcast media bias can be when combined with ideological opportunism.
Donald Trump said on Thursday the author of the interview, Paul Solotaroff, called to apologize for the way it was edited:
“The writer actually called me and said, ‘I’m so upset, I wrote this great story and [publisher] Jann Wenner screwed it up’ — he told me that,” Trump said on CNN’s “New Day.” “They added a lot of stuff, a lot of garish stuff, that I think is disgusting.” (link) The author of the article, Solotaroff, appeared on CNN with Anderson Cooper and was questioned about this assertion by Trump. The author appears to deny the assertion, however if you really listen to his answer, and accept his situation, you recognize there’s validity and affirmation to what Trump is claiming – you just need to understand the context.
In order to appreciate how the MSM constructs these expositions you have to understand he position of the interview. Anderson Cooper is questioning the author by putting him in a lose/lose interview position. Cooper is forcing answers against a backdrop of the person being questioned facing “statements against interest“; a reputable journalist would never do this.
Affirm a “Statement Against Your Interest” – Meaning the author is being questioned about the claims by Trump that the authors writing -as stated to him- was controlled/manipulated by the Rolling Stone editor who is also unbelievably the magazine publisher, Jann Wenner.
How does the writer answer that question affirmatively and retain his financial livelihood or career interest? He can’t – that’s why a reasonable journalist would never ask a question like that under those conditions.
Judge for yourself – Watch, and listen closely, at 03:54 of the interview:
Rolling Stone: Trump was not talking about her persona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=233&v=F2lpAovKeMk
Anderson Cooper put Solotaroff in a position where his affirmative response would be against his own interest – Jann Wenner is not only the editor of this article, he’s the publisher of the magazine – therefore he has only one option to reply and not face a devastating result from his employer.
This questioning approach is one way you can tell when a media entity, in this case CNN, is framing a specific narrative.
However, what does slip out is Solotaroff’s admission that Wenner took full control of the editing of the article and had never done that before. The writer stated in the career of this publisher at Rolling Stone he’d never done that before, and never done that with Solotaroff’s lengthy career writing for Rolling Stone – Ever.
Solotaroff also uses the term “marching orders”, meaning he was given instructions by Wenner for information to change the angle, and Solotaroff not necessarily agreeing with the instructions. This indicates publisher Jann Wenner had a unusually vested interest in this specific article, which easily implies the publisher had an ideological intention.
However, again as with all things crafted carefully, and with layers of plausible deniability, it’s an almost impossible thing to prove, hence the value in it.
But given the structure of the interview, the inherent inability of Solotaroff to affirm, and the fact-based evidence that Wenner had never edited material before, the weight of Trump’s claim carries much more validity than a Rolling Stone denial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=233&v=F2lpAovKeMk
"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable."
George Orwell
Rolling Stone: Trump was not talking about her persona
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=233&v=F2lpAovKeMk
As Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O’Hara - “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” I’m sick of hearing about this and besides tomorrow will bring us a whole new stack of anti-Trump ads to relish.
“The author appears to deny the assertion, however if you really listen to his answer, and accept his situation, you recognize there’s validity and affirmation to what Trump is claiming – you just need to understand the context.”
So if you ignore that the author explicitly denied saying what Trump said he said, and squint really hard, then you can make it look like Trump was right. Well OK then.
She looks like an ugly Caitlin Jenner. Plastic surgery massacre.
Anderson Cooper is Gloria Vanderbuilt’s son. In 1930 the Vanderbuilt family was the Sixth richest family in America.
Anderson also worked for the CIA. These are the perfect type of people that can be trusted completely and given important high profile jobs.
She wasn't a ravishing beauty in her teens, but at least authentic.
I don’t care what she looks like. I don’t care what Hitlery looks like. I don’t care what Trump looks like.
I care about what they stand for, what their principles are, what they believe in.
Jann Wenner is a prick and a hypocrite.
The point of my posting the picture in response to the poster was to illustrate that if Donald was, in fact, commenting on her face, he did have a point.
Which you essentially confirmed.
Carly Farina has unfortunate looks under any circumstances, and a RINO besides. She should just retire gracefully to a cabin in the boonies and chop wood with her mug to keep her warm in the winter.
Fiorina worked for Mccain when he ran for prez. She worked as spokeswoman for Romney when he ran for prez.
She worked for two losers who are screwing up the country.
You are nasty, and not even correct. For one thing, you can see the marks of age on her face. The more important thing, are you seriously criticizing her looks when this country is going to hell in a hand basket?
Make a 100 car freight train take a dirt road.
That is an unnecessary comment. She can’t help how she looks...can you?
That being said...I don’t think she looks so bad...to me she looks like a normal, non-supermodel, woman.
Carly sounds so good and can play a good defense and offense. I was very disappointed to learn recently of her past associations with frauds and phoneys of the first degree. I know now to be very skeptical—and doubt I could ever look on her as I would have so wished.
NEXT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.