|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 January 13 2017 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Some may argue that Obama selling himself as an outsider but delivering the status quo is a betrayal of what he was elected to do. He clearly went for incremental changes rather than a true reform of the government as many may have desired.
Being that he sold himself as wanting to reach out across the aisle to unite America; I think it was surprising for many Democrats that he kept his promise and actually reached across the aisle looking for middle ground.
Remember his speech replayed over and over "we are not red states, or blue states, but the united states of america" and all the many variations of that.
|
I'd be happy to run on a platform of radical reform! but of course I wouldn't have the power to do that if I won, so it'd be kinda pointless.
but if people want to hear that 
I've got a nice collection of semi-silly platforms to run on for President if I get to be a Representative or Senator. (obviously right now i'm a total nobody)
of course my idea of radical reform is probably too thoughtful and very different from what other people would see as radical reform.
|
Lol isolationism is status quo. That's a new one to me, and to say, 80% of the world. Magpie you're funny.
|
In order for major reforms to take place Hyper-Capitalism has to be dead and buried for that to happen, and oddly enough trump might just be the man to do it.
|
On January 13 2017 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Some may argue that Obama selling himself as an outsider but delivering the status quo is a betrayal of what he was elected to do. He clearly went for incremental changes rather than a true reform of the government as many may have desired.
The ACA is an example of a major reform (and it's also a very successful one, since it resulted in 20 million more Americans being insured). Let's not confuse his inability to have Congress pass what he wanted to pass with betrayal.
|
On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:39 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot? No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging. People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that. I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you." In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate. You just said HRC was an outsider because she was Obama-lite. And also that she was an outsider because she is a woman, although I'm guessing GWB's family values is just the fake appearance of an outsider, right? Meanwhile she's running with entitlements and welfare, doesn't that mean people are voting to protect themselves? I'm having trouble navigating this landscape you're constructed. Obviously the opposite of outsider is insider. Obama won 2004 as an outsider by being the "Hope and Change" candidate. As such, calling someone just another Obama is calling them an outsider. However, since Bernie supporters twisted the social media impression of Obama into a warmonger, being similar to Obama stopped being an outsider narrative and shifted to that of a status quo narrative. Do you recall what Hillary ran on? Minimum Wage hikes--with details Education reform--with details Banking Reform--with details Proactively attacking a supreme court decision Proactively pushing for an increase in women's rights akin to the civil rights movement Proactively taking a bigger stance on Russia Proactive management of globalization These are not things that the DEMs had been pushing for in prior elections. Even Romney was ridiculed by DEMs for even pointing at Russia.
Maybe, many of them have definitely been either policy or rhetoric of the current administration, though. On Russia in particular you're switching to a narrative based argument, saying Romney had shit flung at him therefore HRC's Russia stance was a departure from the status quo rather than moving further in that direction.
On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What did her opponent run on?
The Mexican border? Status quo.
Isolationism? Status quo.
You must be kidding around.
On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Repeal the ACA? Status quo.
Trump had the same message as everyone else did. So he sold the Trump name instead of the Trump policy. In the end it didn't matter what Hillary's policy stances were, or how different they were from previous elections, how innovative their goals were--she was branded as the status quo despite the content of her message.
You see, it's super simple: How a candidate is sold defines if people see them as outsiders no matter what their actual policy stances are.
Trump's policies are Status Quo for the GOP, but he sold his identity as an outsider
Hillary's policies are outsider for the DEMs, but her identity got sold as status quo
I see what you're doing now, in addition to waffling between facts and people's perception of them, you're dividing and looking through party lenses so you can have two people running against each other, one from the party in power and one from the party not in power, and say they're both the status quo because they're pretty close to where their specific party's platform was.
|
On January 13 2017 10:17 Wegandi wrote:
Lol isolationism is status quo. That's a new one to me, and to say, 80% of the world. Magpie you're funny.
Much apologies.
I didn't realize that conservatives in america no longer wanted closed borders, higher tarifs to encourage "buying american", and a tougher stance on china. Silly me. I must have confused them with whoever the majority was these past 6 years.
|
On January 13 2017 10:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:39 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot? No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging. People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that. I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you." In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate. You just said HRC was an outsider because she was Obama-lite. And also that she was an outsider because she is a woman, although I'm guessing GWB's family values is just the fake appearance of an outsider, right? Meanwhile she's running with entitlements and welfare, doesn't that mean people are voting to protect themselves? I'm having trouble navigating this landscape you're constructed. Obviously the opposite of outsider is insider. Obama won 2004 as an outsider by being the "Hope and Change" candidate. As such, calling someone just another Obama is calling them an outsider. However, since Bernie supporters twisted the social media impression of Obama into a warmonger, being similar to Obama stopped being an outsider narrative and shifted to that of a status quo narrative. Do you recall what Hillary ran on? Minimum Wage hikes--with details Education reform--with details Banking Reform--with details Proactively attacking a supreme court decision Proactively pushing for an increase in women's rights akin to the civil rights movement Proactively taking a bigger stance on Russia Proactive management of globalization These are not things that the DEMs had been pushing for in prior elections. Even Romney was ridiculed by DEMs for even pointing at Russia. Maybe, many of them have definitely been either policy or rhetoric of the current administration, though. On Russia in particular you're switching to a narrative based argument, saying Romney had shit flung at him therefore HRC's Russia stance was a departure from the status quo rather than moving further in that direction. Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What did her opponent run on?
The Mexican border? Status quo.
Isolationism? Status quo. You must be kidding around. Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Repeal the ACA? Status quo.
Trump had the same message as everyone else did. So he sold the Trump name instead of the Trump policy. In the end it didn't matter what Hillary's policy stances were, or how different they were from previous elections, how innovative their goals were--she was branded as the status quo despite the content of her message.
You see, it's super simple: How a candidate is sold defines if people see them as outsiders no matter what their actual policy stances are.
Trump's policies are Status Quo for the GOP, but he sold his identity as an outsider
Hillary's policies are outsider for the DEMs, but her identity got sold as status quo I see what you're doing now, in addition to waffling between facts and people's perception of them, you're dividing and looking through party lenses so you can have two people running against each other, one from the party in power and one from the party not in power, and say they're both the status quo because they're pretty close to where their specific party's platform was.
Its not complicated.
Trump ran on the same things the other candidates ran on. His policies were status quo.
Hillary ran on similar things that only Bernie Sanders has run on among democrats, but then pushed a little further, wanting lighter versions of Bernie's education and healthcare reform to afford an increase in women's civil rights and a tougher stance on a formerly republican message. She was literally trying to change what the party's primary platform was.
However, Trump was marketed as the anti-establishment giving people the sense that he was an outsider. Hillary was unable to present herself as an outsider despite the specific policies she had.
Similar things happened in the past as well. Its not new, and its fairly pedestrian when it comes to politics.
|
So Israel apparently just bombed a Syrian military base. Looks like Trump is going to have to hit the ground running.
|
On January 13 2017 10:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Some may argue that Obama selling himself as an outsider but delivering the status quo is a betrayal of what he was elected to do. He clearly went for incremental changes rather than a true reform of the government as many may have desired. The ACA is an example of a major reform (and it's also a very successful one, since it resulted in 20 million more Americans being insured). Let's not confuse his inability to have Congress pass what he wanted to pass with betrayal.
If your measurement of success is the Government fining people for not having insurance, that's a low bar you've set. Of course more people are going to get XYZ when the Government mandates its purchase by law lol. Who cares about the cost, quality of care, and efficiency of service - as long as you can say more people today are covered than yesterday that's what matters most! By your measurement the VA is the most successful Government ran program - dat 100% coverage mang. (as a veteran, please just let me laugh some here).
|
On January 13 2017 10:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 10:17 Wegandi wrote:
Lol isolationism is status quo. That's a new one to me, and to say, 80% of the world. Magpie you're funny. Much apologies. I didn't realize that conservatives in america no longer wanted closed borders, higher tarifs to encourage "buying american", and a tougher stance on china. Silly me. I must have confused them with whoever the majority was these past 6 years.
Dude, Trump was never the conservative candidate and he only had a plurality of the vote in the primary. Beyond that, the definition of status quo or not has nothing to do with a particular party, but the Governance of the Federal Government writ large. If for sake of argument one party had zero power, and the other all the power for 20 years, but the former parties nominee that ended up winning was 100% in line with their views (the 20 year losers), you'd say that was the status-quo candidate? LMAO. Why do I even bother here?
My point is; the ruling view in DC is internationalism and interventionism. To say isolationism is US status-quo policy is fucking hilarious. Carry on though.
|
On January 13 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:
The US is a country where the often prohibitive cost of healthcare and the disincentives to reduce costs for medical practitioners make medical conditions fester and grow until they become significantly more expensive than they had to be. Simple, low-cost coverage of such cheap yet highly effective measures like a physical every year and vaccines for all would substantially reduce overall health costs.
Funnily enough, one of the components of the ACA that rarely gets mentioned is ensuring some preventative services (including some core vaccinations) are covered at no copayment or deductible for the enrollee:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/american-health-benefit-exchanges-b.aspx#15
While physicals don't appear on the list, it does prevent charging people on the floor additional money for e.g. taking their blood pressure or cholesterol screening as an additional add-on.
Expect this to disappear even if 'repeal and replace' does somehow materialize, because I genuinely don't think Congressional Republicans are aware this is in the bill.
|
On January 13 2017 10:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 10:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 10:17 Wegandi wrote:
Lol isolationism is status quo. That's a new one to me, and to say, 80% of the world. Magpie you're funny. Much apologies. I didn't realize that conservatives in america no longer wanted closed borders, higher tarifs to encourage "buying american", and a tougher stance on china. Silly me. I must have confused them with whoever the majority was these past 6 years. Dude, Trump was never the conservative candidate and he only had a plurality of the vote in the primary. Beyond that, the definition of status quo or not has nothing to do with a particular party, but the Governance of the Federal Government writ large. If for sake of argument one party had zero power, and the other all the power for 20 years, but the former parties nominee that ended up winning was 100% in line with their views (the 20 year losers), you'd say that was the status-quo candidate? LMAO. Why do I even bother here? My point is; the ruling view in DC is internationalism and interventionism. To say isolationism is US status-quo policy is fucking hilarious. Carry on though.
I agree with you that Trump does not have the same policies as the Obama administration, simply the same policies as the republican platform. Hence making him a status quo republican--I'm glad we are in agreement.
|
On January 13 2017 10:40 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 10:21 kwizach wrote:On January 13 2017 09:58 LegalLord wrote:
Some may argue that Obama selling himself as an outsider but delivering the status quo is a betrayal of what he was elected to do. He clearly went for incremental changes rather than a true reform of the government as many may have desired. The ACA is an example of a major reform (and it's also a very successful one, since it resulted in 20 million more Americans being insured). Let's not confuse his inability to have Congress pass what he wanted to pass with betrayal. If your measurement of success is the Government fining people for not having insurance, that's a low bar you've set. No, the government fining people is not my measurement of success. The proportion and number of people insured is a measure of success if one of the goals is to expand coverage. But I'm glad we've established your intention is to misrepresent and caricature my position rather than discuss the issue honestly.
+ Show Spoiler [Replying to the rest of the snark] +On January 13 2017 10:40 Wegandi wrote:
Of course more people are going to get XYZ when the Government mandates its purchase by law lol. Indeed. On January 13 2017 10:40 Wegandi wrote:
Who cares about the cost, quality of care, and efficiency of service I do. The Obama administration did. On January 13 2017 10:40 Wegandi wrote:
as long as you can say more people today are covered than yesterday that's what matters most! It matters a lot. I didn't say it was the only thing that mattered.
|
On January 13 2017 10:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:
The US is a country where the often prohibitive cost of healthcare and the disincentives to reduce costs for medical practitioners make medical conditions fester and grow until they become significantly more expensive than they had to be. Simple, low-cost coverage of such cheap yet highly effective measures like a physical every year and vaccines for all would substantially reduce overall health costs. Funnily enough, one of the components of the ACA that rarely gets mentioned is ensuring some preventative services (including some core vaccinations) are covered at no copayment or deductible for the enrollee: http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/american-health-benefit-exchanges-b.aspx#15While physicals don't appear on the list, it does prevent charging people on the floor additional money for e.g. taking their blood pressure or cholesterol screening as an additional add-on. Expect this to disappear even if 'repeal and replace' does somehow materialize, because I genuinely don't think Congressional Republicans are aware this is in the bill.
If not for the fact that it's a political failure I'd say the ACA did more harm than good. But looking at how it single-handedly became the selling point of the Republican runs in Congress I'd say it failed overall.
|
On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What did her opponent run on?
The Mexican border? Status quo.
Isolationism? Status quo.
On January 13 2017 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 10:25 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:39 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 09:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 09:16 oBlade wrote:On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 13 2017 08:40 oBlade wrote:
18.9% of people did not vote for an independent billionaire in 1992 because the other two choices weren't white enough or male enough. People have wanted a political outsider at the top for a long time. This parallel narrative is what focusing on someone's identity does to you. Trump is pejoratively a "rich old white guy" and despite that 75% of that applies to HRC, who is a Clinton (how could you be more establishment?), she was born as a woman so she was the change candidate. "People" as an abstract plurality only want two things: Outsiders or Protectionists. Perot foiled the Republican vote more than the Democratic vote. On January 13 2017 08:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Either they are scared for their lives and vote for the guy they think will protect them. Or they vote for the person they feel "understands" them or don't seem like "a politician."
You know why they voted for Bill Clinton? Because he promised to completely change the Democratic party by shifting the conversation away from identity politics into economics. You know why they voted for Bush? Because politics was too focused on economics and so "family values" became the outsider stance; hence the "I can have a beer with him" quote. Then Obama came in and shifted into the academic. Casual humanity was now the status quo and so someone more eloquent, plan driven, and inspiring became the new outsider.
And and on the idea of the outsider will always be the thing that allows people to swallow the normalcy of all presidential candidates. It's the "he/she might be ____, but at least _____" internal argument all voters must have.
Now, these traits are not actually things that makes them outsiders; what makes them outsiders is how these traits are marketed and sold to the consumer. So you're saying the last three presidents were real outsiders, not fake ones, and also HRC was a real outsider, but not Trump and I presume not Perot? No, I'm saying that all candidates can be sold as outsiders with the right messaging. People can also be actual outsiders in their policy, plans, or how the affect the overall narrative of American history--but voters don't give a fuck about that. I also said that people vote for either outsiders or protectionists. GWB's 2nd run was on protectionism, ie "Vote for me or the Terrorists kill you." In 2008, for example, I would say that McCain had a better history of being an outsider than Obama when it came to policies they support and how they argue their cases. But being that he was the old guy without music videos he was just seen as status quo--even with them force feeding a beauty queen as his running mate. You just said HRC was an outsider because she was Obama-lite. And also that she was an outsider because she is a woman, although I'm guessing GWB's family values is just the fake appearance of an outsider, right? Meanwhile she's running with entitlements and welfare, doesn't that mean people are voting to protect themselves? I'm having trouble navigating this landscape you're constructed. Obviously the opposite of outsider is insider. Obama won 2004 as an outsider by being the "Hope and Change" candidate. As such, calling someone just another Obama is calling them an outsider. However, since Bernie supporters twisted the social media impression of Obama into a warmonger, being similar to Obama stopped being an outsider narrative and shifted to that of a status quo narrative. Do you recall what Hillary ran on? Minimum Wage hikes--with details Education reform--with details Banking Reform--with details Proactively attacking a supreme court decision Proactively pushing for an increase in women's rights akin to the civil rights movement Proactively taking a bigger stance on Russia Proactive management of globalization These are not things that the DEMs had been pushing for in prior elections. Even Romney was ridiculed by DEMs for even pointing at Russia. Maybe, many of them have definitely been either policy or rhetoric of the current administration, though. On Russia in particular you're switching to a narrative based argument, saying Romney had shit flung at him therefore HRC's Russia stance was a departure from the status quo rather than moving further in that direction. On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
What did her opponent run on?
The Mexican border? Status quo.
Isolationism? Status quo. You must be kidding around. On January 13 2017 09:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Repeal the ACA? Status quo.
Trump had the same message as everyone else did. So he sold the Trump name instead of the Trump policy. In the end it didn't matter what Hillary's policy stances were, or how different they were from previous elections, how innovative their goals were--she was branded as the status quo despite the content of her message.
You see, it's super simple: How a candidate is sold defines if people see them as outsiders no matter what their actual policy stances are.
Trump's policies are Status Quo for the GOP, but he sold his identity as an outsider
Hillary's policies are outsider for the DEMs, but her identity got sold as status quo I see what you're doing now, in addition to waffling between facts and people's perception of them, you're dividing and looking through party lenses so you can have two people running against each other, one from the party in power and one from the party not in power, and say they're both the status quo because they're pretty close to where their specific party's platform was. Its not complicated. Trump ran on the same things the other candidates ran on. His policies were status quo.
Trump ran on the status quo on the Mexican border and the status quo on isolationism? This is some serious fake news CNN shit.
He ran as an outsider mixing things up in a primary with other outsiders. The other candidates had similar positions on some because they also were running as outsiders. It's not complicated. Despite what you wish was true about your beautiful Clinton, she embodied establishment politics, ran as an establishment candidate hoping to play off Obama's general likeability, and in so much as she departed from establishment positions ("Hey, about that TPP, well I'm against it now don't worry we're all Bernie-bros now") she wasn't believable.
Trump's going to do a lot of twisting with a populist core, a conservative VP, crazy Bannon, and a mixed establishment/conservative candidate. I think he will never surpass your twisting to call Trump a status quo candidate on the border and foreign policy. And I'm one that thinks he's very establishment on things like government spending, such as his positions on entitlements and spending that are in line with past Rino & Bush-era policies. You have got to be the last Hillary zealot to defend her failed platform and campaign on grounds that, if you were right, would've won her the election.
|
On January 13 2017 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
So Israel apparently just bombed a Syrian military base. Looks like Trump is going to have to hit the ground running.
The logic of doing that is beyond me, unless they're trying to provoke a response.
|
On January 13 2017 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
So Israel apparently just bombed a Syrian military base. Looks like Trump is going to have to hit the ground running.
I see they also attacked the same airbase back in December. Obama's left a pretty mess to deal with and very little options open, so I can only wonder what Netanyahu and Trump will aim to do on that front.
|
Two California lawmakers have proposed bills to fight “fake news” by teaching high school students how to detect misleading, fabricated or inaccurate reports in the waves of information flooding into their daily lives.
In northern California, state senator Bill Dodd proposed a measure that would ask the state education board to create a “media literacy” curriculum. His proposal would incorporate training in social science courses from first through 12th grade and try to teach students critical thinking, independent research and “digital citizenship”.
“The rise of fake and misleading news is deeply concerning,” Dodd said in a statement. “Even more concerning is the lack of education provided to ensure people can distinguish what is fact and what’s not.”
“By giving students the proper tools to analyze the media they consume, we can empower them to make informed decisions,” he added.
In Los Angeles, assemblyman Jimmy Gomez introduced a separate but similar bill that would bring “civic online reasoning” into student curriculums. His bill would incorporate critical thinking skills into a range of courses, including English, science, math and history, for grades seven through 12.
Gomez warned that the 2016 election showed “the corrupting effects of a deliberate propaganda campaign driven by fake news”.
“When fake news is repeated, it becomes difficult for the public to discern what’s real,” he said in a statement. “These attempts to mislead readers pose a direct threat to our democracy.”
He said he hoped his measure would help young Californians discern “between news intended to inform and fake news intended to mislead”.
In November, a Stanford University study found that 82% of high school students surveyed could not distinguish between a reported news story and an advertisement. During last year’s election, rumors and false reports spread widely, and in the aftermath of the vote partisans began to accuse each other of propagating “fake news”.
President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump have both denounced “fake news” in recent weeks, to different purposes. In November, Obama warned that democracies would be threatened by the spread of misinformation and false reports, and by the discrediting of once trusted news sources. This week, Trump seized on the phrase “fake news” to characterize unsubstantiated allegations about him, blaming BuzzFeed and CNN in particular.
Tessa Jolls, president of the nonprofit and nonpartisan Center for Media Literacy, said that such measures were long overdue. “Now that powers have shifted, with citizens as producers [of information], people are suddenly saying, ‘Oh wow, this is something we need.’”
Jolls said that no single curriculum was perfect but that Americans should start thinking about “core questions” when they consume any kind of media, whether it’s news stories, viral videos or social media rants. She suggested that an ideal curriculum would teach students to ask about the motives behind a posted clip and what effects it might have on others. “Do they decide this is gossipy and great, so I’m going to share it on social media, or do they think this could hurt somebody, so I’m not going to share it? We really need to consciously address these decisions.”
Jolls added that in recent years, many Americans had lurched from trusting the news too much toward distrusting everything. The goal of objectivity had created “an impossible standard”, she added.
“What we want is skepticism, not cynicism,” she said. “Cynicism is when you don’t believe anything. Skepticism is when you have discernment, judgment you can rely on.”
Source
|
On January 13 2017 11:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2017 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
So Israel apparently just bombed a Syrian military base. Looks like Trump is going to have to hit the ground running. I see they also attacked the same airbase back in December. Obama's left a pretty mess to deal with and very little options open, so I can only wonder what Netanyahu and Trump will aim to do on that front.
Lol it's Obama's fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
