In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote: In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time
Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway).
Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
I don't know why you'd say people here get their news from Fox, when we've already established they don't.
C-Span isn't trying to shape the narrative, just cover what's happening. But I'd say c-spans coverage is pretty high on the political relevance scale, rather by definition of what it covers. Not sure how that interacts with your what doesn't make it to regular news qualifier.
I think you misunderstand. I said the regulars don't. I can't tell from people who don't post much/haven't explicitly said they don't so I can't say one way or the other that no one who posts here would use fox as a place to get news.
Maybe 'electoral relevance/influence' would better convey the message? I mean that that practically no one is going to say something they saw on c-span is why they voted one way or the other.
That might be the case, on the other hand, most people who watch fox news already have their mind made up; I'm not sure what the distribution is on c-span people.
But I could certainly imagine people changing votes by what they see on c-span, since c-span is covering the actual stuff that counts.
PS I reread your statement " But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway). " and I don't see how that meant people here don't watch it, must be some sentence parsing issue.
On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote: In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time
Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway).
Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
I don't know why you'd say people here get their news from Fox, when we've already established they don't.
C-Span isn't trying to shape the narrative, just cover what's happening. But I'd say c-spans coverage is pretty high on the political relevance scale, rather by definition of what it covers. Not sure how that interacts with your what doesn't make it to regular news qualifier.
I think you misunderstand. I said the regulars don't. I can't tell from people who don't post much/haven't explicitly said they don't so I can't say one way or the other that no one who posts here would use fox as a place to get news.
Maybe 'electoral relevance/influence' would better convey the message? I mean that that practically no one is going to say something they saw on c-span is why they voted one way or the other.
I'm not aware of hardly anyone on TL who gets their news from Fox (and this goes for the so-called 'right leaning' folks on the board). All you've done is build up walls and knock them down and haven't meaningfully interacted on a conversational basis with hardly anyone on this point. All the people you're going after are pretty much in consensus about things like Drug War, institutionalized militarism, etc. etc. The problem is, you're taking our argument that it isn't only institutional and Governmental problems that needs to be addressed and calling us racists and painting it like that's our entire argument or we're saying that the black community brought it entirely on themselves or something. I think people like MLK's niece is much more informed than you are, quite frankly.
Go ahead though and argue that wanton violence and rioting is justified which accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want, by isolating and pushing away the exact people that are needed for public pressure against the abuses. This why people like Cop Block are a million times more productive than these so-called 'rioters'.
On April 29 2015 11:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I think it's admirable that so many in this thread still believe the US News media operates to inform people.
I literally only listen to NPR and the BBC at this point. If people are out to make a profit on news, I don't need what they are selling. The good old days when the News was non-profit in the US.
Even the BBC isn't perfect. A pretty large amount of their funding comes from advertising.
I agree they're better than Fox, but I don't know if they're all that much better than CNN or MSNBC.
I actually think TL might be the best source I use for news, which is really sad. A forum founded on watching people click really fast provides better news than actual news networks.
Which BBC are you talking about here?
Is there more than one? I think I'm talking about the British Broadcasting Company.
I know they're funded by the crown, but 25% of their revenue comes from advertising. And if they don't pull in the ratings, their commercial breaks aren't worth as much.
They're not funded by the crown. They're funded by the British public with funds raised through a license fee rather than government, or crown, grants in order to ensure independence from the government. They are held accountable by an independent committee. They don't have commercial breaks. They therefore don't need to pull in ratings to get people to watch the advertisements they don't have.
On April 29 2015 13:07 zlefin wrote: That might be the case, on the other hand, most people who watch fox news already have their mind made up; I'm not sure what the distribution is on c-span people.
But I could certainly imagine people changing votes by what they see on c-span, since c-span is covering the actual stuff that counts.
PS I reread your statement " But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway). " and I don't see how that meant people here don't watch it, must be some sentence parsing issue.
Yeah I've mentioned elsewhere I have crappy grammar skills so it's probably my fault. But that's not what I meant so you know.
If you think people vote on 'what counts' that's covered by C-Span that's even more quaint than thinking the news isn't politicalish entertainment first.
As for Fox you'd be surprised how many independents actually watch Fox (just usually not in isolation). But I'm mostly talking about their ability to influence the republican primary which I think we both agree they have?
Oh btw someone (I think mili) talked about losing satellite feeds or whatever when someone says something they don't like. Well a reporter just got interrupted mid sentence with a rerun of another show because he kept talking positively about the people of Baltimore (on Fox News). Or whatever reason they will eventually give lol.
On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote: In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time
Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway).
Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
I don't know why you'd say people here get their news from Fox, when we've already established they don't.
C-Span isn't trying to shape the narrative, just cover what's happening. But I'd say c-spans coverage is pretty high on the political relevance scale, rather by definition of what it covers. Not sure how that interacts with your what doesn't make it to regular news qualifier.
I think you misunderstand. I said the regulars don't. I can't tell from people who don't post much/haven't explicitly said they don't so I can't say one way or the other that no one who posts here would use fox as a place to get news.
Maybe 'electoral relevance/influence' would better convey the message? I mean that that practically no one is going to say something they saw on c-span is why they voted one way or the other.
I'm not aware of hardly anyone on TL who gets their news from Fox (and this goes for the so-called 'right leaning' folks on the board). All you've done is build up walls and knock them down and haven't meaningfully interacted on a conversational basis with hardly anyone on this point. All the people you're going after are pretty much in consensus about things like Drug War, institutionalized militarism, etc. etc. The problem is, you're taking our argument that it isn't only institutional and Governmental problems that needs to be addressed and calling us racists and painting it like that's our entire argument or we're saying that the black community brought it entirely on themselves or something. I think people like MLK's niece is much more informed than you are, quite frankly.
Go ahead though and argue that wanton violence and rioting is justified which accomplishes exactly the opposite of what you want, by isolating and pushing away the exact people that are needed for public pressure against the abuses. This why people like Cop Block are a million times more productive than these so-called 'rioters'.
For not watching Fox News you guys are doing a good job of projecting like they were today.
On April 29 2015 13:48 zlefin wrote: Some people do vote on what counts how much c-span have you watched?
It kinda sounds like you underestimate the importance of the stuff c-span covers.
also, you really shouldn't do that response to the other people, because you also constantly attributed to them things they didn't say.
Like?
EDIT: Also you seem to really be struggling to understand me. In the PM I said that I watch 'too much' C-span because it's a lot easier for me to watch than read...If that's what everyone is watching I'll talk about that stuff more. Of course Fox is still going to come up with a republican primary on the horizon though.
EDIT2: Case in point. I mean 'like?' what have I said others said but they had actually said the opposite (repeatedly)?
Congress; I dunno about you, but I consider Congress to be important and have a significant impact on the nation, for good or ill (mostly ill of late )
WASHINGTON — Since his first homily in 2013, Pope Francis has preached about the need to protect the earth and all of creation as part of a broad message on the environment. It has caused little controversy so far.
But now, as Francis prepares to deliver what is likely to be a highly influential encyclical this summer on environmental degradation and the effects of human-caused climate change on the poor, he is alarming some conservatives in the United States who are loath to see the Catholic Church reposition itself as a mighty voice in a cause they do not believe in.
As part of the effort for the encyclical, top Vatican officials will hold a summit meeting Tuesday to build momentum for a campaign by Francis to urge world leaders to enact a sweeping United Nations climate change accord in Paris in December. The accord would for the first time commit every nation to enact tough new laws to cut the emissions that cause global warming.
The Vatican summit meeting will focus on the links between poverty, economic development and climate change, with speeches and panel discussions by climate scientists and religious leaders, and economists like Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who is leading efforts to forge the Paris accord, will deliver the opening address.
Vatican officials, who have spent more than a year helping Francis prepare his message, have convened several meetings already on the topic. Last month, they met with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy.
In the United States, the encyclical will be accompanied by a 12-week campaign, now being prepared with the participation of some Catholic bishops, to raise the issue of climate change and environmental stewardship in sermons, homilies, news media interviews and letters to newspaper editors, said Dan Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant in Washington.
But the effort is already angering a number of American conservatives, among them members of the Heartland Institute, a libertarian group partly funded by the Charles G. Koch Foundation, run by the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, who oppose climate policy.
This has been lost in all the Baltimore discussion, but i still find it incredibly funny that the US right has now managed to be more conservative than the catholic church.
EDIT: In fact most of the major newspapers focus on the relatively silent night combined with bringing interviews of peaceful protesters, videos of the mother who pulled her son off the street, pictures of the little kid providing police officers with water.... In fact, pieces with a (rightfully) positive focus on the protests as well as pieces focusing on the root causes of the protests are the vast majority of articles that have been brought as of 15:00 CEST.
At what point is the media coverage to your liking?
CNN's coverage is also pretty garbage. That network has gone down hill over the last 15 years. Maybe it was shit earlier, but I didn't notice in my youth. Local news is passable, but not great. Most modern news networks are more interested in raking in viewers, rather than informing the public.
There was an era in the US where the News was a requirement by the government for free use of the airwaves. It was a place where networks lost money and was considered a public service. People watched it to be informed, not have their personal beliefs confirmed. Then CNN came along and proved you could make money off the News and our coverage has gone steadily down hill over the years.
Now we have a series of echo chambers, one for every political leaning. Its sad, because the News used to be about making the world a better and more informed place.
Ghostcom: You are correct that a lot of the local news coverage and newspapers have been doing a better job of showing both sides of the issue. The nation wide news networks is where a lot of the terrible coverage is coming. A guy on CNN said "these riots are causing the protests to lose legitimacy" like it was somehow the same group up people. Just garbage coverage.
On April 29 2015 12:20 zlefin wrote: In terms of bashing fox news, you're a little late to the club, we've all been bashing fox news for a loooong time
Also, I do recommend watching C-Span. It's informative, albeit dreadfully boring at times.
Well it's nice to think C-Span matters, I suppose it does if being informed about a lot of minutia is what you're after from tv 'news'? (who does that?). But I figured it would be obvious I don't watch or comment on Fox News because that's where people here get their news (the regulars anyway).
Fox's influence on the republican primary is undeniable. As such their content probably has more political relevance and influence than C-Span (whatever doesn't make it to cable/network news). That's why I comment on them. This particular instance was a perfect storm of sorts and is c-span on the ground in Baltimore?
I don't know why you'd say people here get their news from Fox, when we've already established they don't.
C-Span isn't trying to shape the narrative, just cover what's happening. But I'd say c-spans coverage is pretty high on the political relevance scale, rather by definition of what it covers. Not sure how that interacts with your what doesn't make it to regular news qualifier.
I think you misunderstand. I said the regulars don't. I can't tell from people who don't post much/haven't explicitly said they don't so I can't say one way or the other that no one who posts here would use fox as a place to get news.
Maybe 'electoral relevance/influence' would better convey the message? I mean that that practically no one is going to say something they saw on c-span is why they voted one way or the other.
I think people like MLK's niece is much more informed than you are, quite frankly.
you are talking about Alveda King, right? if so, lol
On April 29 2015 22:10 Plansix wrote: CNN's coverage is also pretty garbage. That network has gone down hill over the last 15 years. Maybe it was shit earlier, but I didn't notice in my youth. Local news is passable, but not great. Most modern news networks are more interested in raking in viewers, rather than informing the public.
There was an era in the US where the News was a requirement by the government for free use of the airwaves. It was a place where networks lost money and was considered a public service. People watched it to be informed, not have their personal beliefs confirmed. Then CNN came along and proved you could make money off the News and our coverage has gone steadily down hill over the years.
CNN got a lot worse after the Time-Warner "merger" with Turner. It ended up not being a "merger" by a hostile takeover by Time-Warner upon Turner Broadcasting.
On April 29 2015 22:02 Ghostcom wrote: Fox News still does not constitute all media...
EDIT: In fact most of the major newspapers focus on the relatively silent night combined with bringing interviews of peaceful protesters, videos of the mother who pulled her son off the street, pictures of the little kid providing police officers with water.... In fact, pieces with a (rightfully) positive focus on the protests as well as pieces focusing on the root causes of the protests are the vast majority of articles that have been brought as of 15:00 CEST.
At what point is the media coverage to your liking?
What did you think of the video?
Either way Republican leadership on this has been impressive. After constantly complaining about what Obama should do in every situation it's nice to see the potential Republican nominees really take the lead on this.
It appears Evangelical Christians are also planning to have nation wide protests. Are the protests about police brutality? No. Are they about children starving to death while we throw away food by the tons? No. Are they protesting general poverty? No. Are they protesting about a fair wage, a functional government, sexism, racism, war? No, No, No, No, No.
So what are they doing....? Sending a 'warning' to the supreme court. "Rule the way we want or else!" (paraphrasing)
“We will not obey.”
That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.
“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”
“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.
The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.
The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.
“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.
He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”
“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”
Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.
“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”
And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”
That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.
“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”
Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.
“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”
Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.
You have one group in Baltimore and elsewhere protesting against a racist,abusive, criminal justice system and economic peril after a young man was crippled and killed while in police custody, but weeks later police still can't tell the people how or why (or even probable cause for the arrest in the first place).
Then you have evangelical Christians taking on the real threat to America which is obviously the redefining of a 5,000 year old institution. It's only logical that it would be the "beginning of the end of western civilization" if they can't protect the word marriage.
EPT
