Obama tore down Robin's Nest with video

[Mark de Croix]

Hi Pahonu,
Thank you for the post. You obviously are not a casual observer but a trained one by virtue of your academic work and background. We happen to converge in various ways with the topic. It is not surprising we might differ in some way though. I would like to point out your comment,

>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.

Although you must freely admit that mainstream media is biased in some way, you completely avoid the fact that mainstream media choose topics/news stories according to their perspective (ideology). That's human nature! You cannot deny this happens. However you focus not on my central point but on peripheral ones. While Americans are duped into thinking their country has an open market for automobiles, it is quite contrary to the facts.* [see note below]. And US mainstream media is largely responsible because they do not report on it and if they do, the reports almost never admit the US has trade barriers on vehicles both direct and hidden. In similar way, mainstream press tends to ignore events/issues that shed negatively light on the present administration. It is plain to see if you look. Choosing is a matter of bias. Choices come from values or perspectives held.

*Note: The US tends to have an "open" market for low cost items, maybe even the most open in the world. However for high-end items it is quite different. For autos comparatively speaking, the US market is one of the most closed in the world. Mainstream media tends not to distinguish these two types of markets--rather they give voice to the "free trader" pols without ever informing the public that the US practices in protectionism, something long done even before recent time.

[Pahonu]

Hi Pahonu,
Thank you for the post. You obviously are not a casual observer but a trained one by virtue of your academic work and background. We happen to converge in various ways with the topic. It is not surprising we might differ in some way though. I would like to point out your comment,

>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.

Although you must freely admit that mainstream media is biased in some way, you completely avoid the fact that mainstream media choose topics/news stories according to their perspective (ideology). That's human nature! You cannot deny this happens. However you focus not on my central point but on peripheral ones. While Americans are duped into thinking their country has an open market for automobiles, it is quite contrary to the facts.* [see note below]. And US mainstream media is largely responsible because they do not report on it and if they do, the reports almost never admit the US has trade barriers on vehicles both direct and hidden. In similar way, mainstream press tends to ignore events/issues that shed negatively light on the present administration. It is plain to see if you look. Choosing is a matter of bias. Choices come from values or perspectives held.

*Note: The US tends to have an "open" market for low cost items, maybe even the most open in the world. However for high-end items it is quite different. For autos comparatively speaking, the US market is one of the most closed in the world. Mainstream media tends not to distinguish these two types of markets--rather they give voice to the "free trader" pols without ever informing the public that the US practices in protectionism, something long done even before recent time.

I don’t really disagree with any of your comments above, including the nature of US protectionism for advanced manufactured products versus low tech items. I have read about these policies in many places, which is to say, they have been reported on. Otherwise, awareness of them wouldn’t exist.

Also, as you stated, the very nature of reporting news requires selecting the stories to report on. Bias cannot be eliminated entirely. My point was that traditional media have policies for such gatekeeping to attempt to minimize bias. Something to consider, and this can be true in print or electronic media, is the confluence of leading stories when a truly newsworthy event occurs such as a significant natural disaster, for example. When you view the various outlets’ leading stories, the news sources all seem to converge on that major newsworthy story. If a random media outlet leads with another story, that seems to be an indication of increased or even deliberate bias. Many like to believe that the outlier has some special revealed truth that the others have all missed, but logic suggests otherwise. If multiple datapoints indicate a certain outcome, how wise is it to put all your trust in the outlying datapoint?

[Mark de Croix]

We agree much about outlier/non-mainstream media. Surely some of them are highly biased. But my main point is that you seem not to fully appreciate truly how biased mainstream media are. I brought up the economic matter of protectionism as pertinent that clearly shows this bias. You however do not seem to recognize it, if you don't mind me saying. Your comment is case in point:

>I don’t really disagree with any of your comments above, including the nature of US >protectionism for advanced manufactured products versus low tech items. I have read about >these policies in many places, which is to say, they have been reported on.
> Otherwise, awareness of them wouldn’t exist.

1 If you did read about the issues I identified then it was not by mainstream media but the outlier media
2 You mean that the general public knows about the chicken tax and etc.? I spoke with a couple of US car sales managers that didn't! If some people well placed in the car industry do not know about it, then how likely will common people be aware?

Please show me mainstream media (i.e., news journalism) reporting that the US is guilty of protectionism in the car trade, specifically pointing out the chicken tax and other barriers in place. I say you won't find it. (One or two possibly might note the chicken tax but not any other barriers and not in the context of US protectionism.) Thank you.

[Mark de Croix]

We agree much about outlier/non-mainstream media. Surely some of them are highly biased. But my main point is that you seem not to fully appreciate truly how biased mainstream media are. I brought up the economic matter of protectionism as pertinent that clearly shows this bias. You however do not seem to recognize it, if you don't mind me saying. Your comment is case in point:

>I don’t really disagree with any of your comments above, including the nature
> of US protectionism for advanced manufactured products versus low tech
> items. I have read about these policies in many places, which is to say,
> they have been reported on. Otherwise, awareness of them wouldn’t exist.

1 If you did read about the issues I identified then it was not by mainstream media but the outlier media
2 You mean that the general public knows about the chicken tax and etc.? I spoke with a couple of US car sales managers that didn't! If some people well placed in the car industry do not know about it, then how likely will common people be aware?

Please show me mainstream media (i.e., news journalism) reporting that the US is guilty of protectionism in the car trade, specifically pointing out the chicken tax and other barriers in place. I say you won't find it. (One or two possibly might note the chicken tax but not any other barriers and not in the context of US protectionism.) Thank you.

[Pahonu]

We agree much about outlier/non-mainstream media. Surely some of them are highly biased. But my main point is that you seem not to fully appreciate truly how biased mainstream media are. I brought up the economic matter of protectionism as pertinent that clearly shows this bias. You however do not seem to recognize it, if you don't mind me saying. Your comment is case in point:

>I don’t really disagree with any of your comments above, including the nature
> of US protectionism for advanced manufactured products versus low tech
> items. I have read about these policies in many places, which is to say,
> they have been reported on. Otherwise, awareness of them wouldn’t exist.

1 If you did read about the issues I identified then it was not by mainstream media but the outlier media
2 You mean that the general public knows about the chicken tax and etc.? I spoke with a couple of US car sales managers that didn't! If some people well placed in the car industry do not know about it, then how likely will common people be aware?

Please show me mainstream media (i.e., news journalism) reporting that the US is guilty of protectionism in the car trade, specifically pointing out the chicken tax and other barriers in place. I say you won't find it. (One or two possibly might note the chicken tax but not any other barriers and not in the context of US protectionism.) Thank you.

I have two thoughts that come to mind immediately.

One is that there is a difference between saying that most Americans, including car dealers (who are focused on profits, not trade policy), are aware of the “chicken tax”, versus saying that such things are not reported on. They are reported on, even if the majority do not read and understand such policies as you and I do. This speaks tragically to the decline in American news literacy.

The second point is that such reporting is not even limited to the mainstream media. For example, an online newsfeed I often read called Jalopnik, has had many stories on US trade policy in the automobile industry, which is part of its focus, including several over the years about the “chicken tax”. I also recently read an article about the incredible and increasing complexity of US “federalization” laws allowing foreign cars into the market. It has grown purposefully progressively more difficult over the years, keeping many foreign makes out, and also essentially eliminating even the grey market import process.

Another source I have subscribed to is The Economist, and that’s been for about 25 years. While I understand it is a British publication, it is certainly available in the US (though little read I fear), and is a great source concerning US economic policy from a foreign perspective. I have several colleagues who also subscribe and we often have great discussions (not unlike ours ) about such issues. Again there is a difference between your assertion that such issues go unreported, and the reality that such policy issues are reported on, but largely ignored by most of the populace.

[Mark de Croix]

You proved my point. You have been informed not by mainstream media. Rather you rely on outlier media, for the media you reference are not chosen even for the Allsides Chart. Your pubs are not widely consumed by the US population. Again show me mainstream media reports that have informed the US public about the country's protectionism for its cars (including not only the chicken tax but hidden barriers as well.) You can't do it.

[308GUY]

Advertising "works".....perspective is everything!

Figure it out.

[Pahonu]

You proved my point. You have been informed not by mainstream media. Rather you rely on outlier media, for the media you reference are not chosen even for the Allsides Chart. Your pubs are not widely consumed by the US population. Again show me mainstream media reports that have informed the US public about the country's protectionism for its cars (including not only the chicken tax but hidden barriers as well.) You can't do it.

I have referenced The Economist, NPR, and Newsweek, multiple times in my posts as sources. These are present in the Allsides Media chart. Are you dismissing them as mainstream media because fewer and fewer Americans seem to use them? My understanding is that mainstream media includes all traditional news sources, print and broadcast that have peen reporting for decades, as opposed to newer outlets that are largely digital with some broadcasting. Is your definition different?

So… If your point is to say that most Americans don’t get their news from such traditional sources, then I agree… sadly.

If you are arguing that the news topics we have discussed are not present in those sources, then I very much disagree. I have learned much of what I have posted here from them over many years.

Those are two very different points. You seem to want proof that Americans are learning about these things from traditional media sources. They aren’t much any more, BUT that doesn’t mean those news sources never cover such topics, as you assert. Again, two very different points.

Realistically, the most read publications in the US include titles like AARP Magazine, Game Informer, Readers Digest, and People Magazine. I very large part of the electorate is not politically engaged at all and has likely never read the Economist or listened to NPR.

[Mark de Croix]

You keep changing the goalpost midstream so we can't come to a resolution. I made it very simple: I say you can't provide reportage from mainstream US media about the protectionism of the US, particularly the auto industry. But you avoid it by going off on tangents.

Fine, look at the Allsides Chart media, the more the merrier. However they do not include the two media--The Economist and the car site, Jalalog (sp?)--your retort saying you were informed about the chicken tax. If you cannot back up your claim that mainstream media has informed well the US public about US protectionism then let's drop the discussion.

Already you proved my point by saying the chicken tax info for you came from those two non-mainstream sources. (Note that the chicken tax is only the tip of the iceberg pertaining to the great mass of the issue long ignored--for years--by mainstream media. Also if even mentioned by mainstream media, are they merely report a legislative action or more importantly point out the protectionist intent)

Give us the goods how mainstream media has supposedly informed the public about US protectionism. Again: low-value items find the US very open; but not for high-end goods, esp. auto vehicles. This causes confusion: US Americans are deceived into thinking the US has the most open market in the world. It is not true for auto vehicles and the failure of mainstream media to do their journalistic job accounts for this deception. Thank you.

[Pahonu]

Fine, look at the Allsides Chart media, the more the merrier. However they do not include the two media--The Economist and the car site, Jalalog (sp?)--your retort saying you were informed about the chicken tax. If you cannot back up your claim that mainstream media has informed well the US public about US protectionism then let's drop the discussion.

You are incorrect about The Economist not being on the Allsides Media Bias chart. I highlighted it below for you.

https://ibb.co/4JSKbVT

I have also mentioned hearing about protectionism in the US auto industry on NPR over many years of listening, which is also on the list. The Jalopnik example was just the most recently I had read about the issue. It is a news source specializing in the auto industry.

I noticed in this post you added to your statement that the media has not informed “well” the public. You have changed your original statement that mainstream media doesn’t inform on such stories at all. I never claimed these stories are front page or even frequent but that they are reported on based on my reading. It’s not I that have moved the goalposts.

If you don’t think they are well reported on, then that’s an absolutely fine opinion. I probably agree. You’re original statement of fact that they are not reported on, is incorrect. That’s all I have been trying to point out.

[Mark de Croix]

Protectionism is a complex matter involving not only the chicken tax which you heard about primarily due to your reading a car trade media, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. By that you are more informed than even the two car sales managers I mentioned. Most people do not know this information. Mainstream media have failed us. You don't agree which is fine but as someone who teaches social studies, surely you can appreciate the importance of the fourth estate in a democracy. I recommend you at least consider the possibility. Best wishes.

[Pahonu]

Protectionism is a complex matter involving not only the chicken tax which you heard about primarily due to your reading a car trade media, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. By that you are more informed than even the two car sales managers I mentioned. Most people do not know this information. Mainstream media have failed us. You don't agree which is fine but as someone who teaches social studies, surely you can appreciate the importance of the fourth estate in a democracy. I recommend you at least consider the possibility. Best wishes.

Here’s a WSJ article on the topic just to add an example. It’s definitely mainstream media and definitely about auto industry protectionism. Perhaps it is of interest to you.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-looks- ... 1523037752

I fully understand the importance of the fourth estate. I don’t believe that mainstream media’s limited reporting on a particular issue like auto industry protectionism, which is of interest to mainly those in the industry and perhaps economists, is justification to cry failure. Most people don’t know most of the details related to a particular career or industry unless they are in it. That’s why trade journals are still so widely published. They provide the level of coverage appropriate to their audience.

Can I ask why the particular interest in auto industry protectionism? I think the vast majority of people have little interest in such topics and wouldn’t read articles about it even if there were daily news stories. People in the industry on the other hand probably keep pretty close tabs on such details. The news source Jalopnik, that I referenced earlier is geared toward those with interest in automobiles and the auto industry as well. Still, I imagine many readers pass over the economic ramifications of protectionism to read about the latest vehicle design.

[FigNewtons&Milk]

Obama has always been good at tearing things down that he didn’t build.

[Pahonu]

Obama has always been good at tearing things down that he didn’t build.

Nothing meaningful to contribute?

[Aloha Friday]

I was there a couple years ago...sad to see it tore down, but in all honesty it was pretty worn out even when the original series was being filmed. Moss and mold were very evident in the exterior as well as interior walls in many screen shots. The few scenes where you see the inside if the garage, it hardly looks the part of a stately manor. I would imagine to restore the place would have been astronomical. I'm no fan of Obama, but can't say I can blame them. It is cool they appear to be saving the gate house and boat/guest house.