| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 24 2017 04:32 Nebuchad wrote: There's a label for people who can't be contained in leftist or liberal labels. They are called centrists. I will not bow to your pejorative middle of the road label. It is to dull for me. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On August 24 2017 04:33 Nyxisto wrote: The guy who re-tweeted Hillary Clinton on a David star and a pile of money fuels anti-semitsm? Shocker That's just fake news from liberal educated elites, it was totally a sherriff's star. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 24 2017 04:41 Falling wrote: Ha. Yeah, certain elements will see this as all good- international Jewry on the run or some such. @Wolf You must not be a hardline NDP voter, as I doubt many would think that  I meant from a US perspective we're probably all dirty liberals. But no, I'm not a hardline anyone voter in general. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
On August 24 2017 04:45 Plansix wrote: I will not bow to your pejorative middle of the road label. It is to dull for me. I have used centrist pejoratively in the past cause on the US scale centrism is quite out there (so I can see why you got this impression and I apologize for that), but in this case that wasn't meant pejoratively at all, that's just how they're called. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24134 Posts
A staggering 5 million incidents of stop and frisk took place in New York since 2002. Nearly 90% of those stops were of people who were found to be completely innocent. The overwhelming majority of stops, of course, were done against black and Latino residents of the city. When the practice was formally disbanded in New York City after Judge Scheindlin’s decision, it was seen as an enormous victory for police reforms. And it was, but something that is perhaps even more nefarious than stop and frisk unofficially rose up within the NYPD to take its place — a crisis of false arrests driven by an unwritten quota system being overseen by precincts across the city. Just three days after Donald Trump was inaugurated, New York City agreed to something that is so scandalous, so huge, that only the incoming presidency of Donald Trump could’ve outshined it. New York City agreed to pay $75 million (that’s $75,000,000) out in a police corruption case that should’ve rocked the city and the nation to its core. They likely chose that date and time on purpose. The case had been in litigation for years and years, but the city chose one of the most fragile, news heavy times in the history of modern American media to drop an absolute bomb. The city admitted that it was forced to dismiss over 900,000 arrests and summonses because they simply didn’t have the evidence to back them. These weren’t 900,000 stops that were made, but 900,000 legal actions accusing people of crimes that they did not commit. They were all bogus. Not 9,000. Not 90,000 — which seems like an outrageous number, but 900,000. Not only that, but the case actually had its very own deleted email scandal, where almost every single email Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly ever sent was deleted — never to be found again. Yeah, really. Source | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
It's only the good Nazis that are oppressed, not the bad ones. Gotta remember to be nuanced. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
Nor is it necessarily journalists' fault, but the system is clearly broken imo. And a lot of what oBlade said is fairly true (journalists wield a massive amount of power in society by nature of their position, there's no real implicit or explicit checks on them to ensure they use it vaguely in society's interest, and journalism is arguably the largest contributor to the current federal government's dysfunction). I'd love to see some public debate on how to fix journalism. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
More White House leaks! Anonymous “aides” have rushed, right on cue, to disavow Donald Trump’s fiery speech in Phoenix, Arizona Monday night and tell establishment reporters that they had nothing to do with the red meat the president served up to his Deplorable supporters. From Politico: President Donald Trump spent much of last week hearing from friends, donors and aides that he needed to dial back some of his rhetoric in the wake of Charlottesville. He gave his response on Tuesday night in Phoenix, with an angry, meandering and frequently disingenuous 75-minute rally address designed to soothe his ego, rev up his base, and remind the naysayers in Washington and New York that he can still command love from his crowd. Aides said he had a carefully vetted message on a TelePrompTer, but his eyes quickly wandered away for a discursive, meandering torching of the news media —who he said didn’t care about the country. www.breitbart.com | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The debate should not be about journalist, but the people who own the stations they work for and the types of programs put on those networks. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12475 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:10 mozoku wrote: I'm pretty surprised that so many people are defending the journalism status quo. I think the current echo chamber flavor of journalism is quite self-evidently destructive for society. That isn't really a partisan issue at all. Nor is it necessarily journalists' fault, but the system is clearly broken imo. And a lot of what oBlade said is fairly true (journalists wield a massive amount of power in society by nature of their position, there's no real implicit or explicit checks on them to ensure they use it vaguely in society's interest, and journalism is arguably the largest contributor to the current federal government's dysfunction). I'd love to see some public debate on how to fix journalism. I'm not a fan of american journalism, I agree with GH that it has procorporatist bias and I think you should be able to deduce that it might have procorporatist bias from the fact that it is produced by giant corporations. If I had power for myself I would change it. That being said it's being attacked from the right, which is ludicrous and means that some more neutrality bias would be added on top of its already existent bias, so I can't help but defend the model in those circumstances. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
EDIT: also, the more biased you are, the more biased you will find any press that goes against your own bias. What is different during this decade as opposed to the 60s-70s is that the media platforms are far more diverse and micro-channels of mass liking circle jerks are more common. If you go back a few decades there were only something like 10 TV news channels, and then only 3 mattered. Now anyone can go join 'Anti-SJW Pinochet's Beach Party' on Facebook and find a fascist take on the news. There are less gatekeepers now that would keep that kind of nonsense off the air. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1836320003314964/ EDIT2: to below, what kind of systemic changes? Cable News lives or dies on viewership. Clickbait rags need clicks. Conservative spinsters rely on billionaire bailouts to exist (Brietbart and the Mercers, NRO/Heritage/Federalist and their patrons). Local print media is just dead, no way it can compete in internet era. All of these models rely on some sort of viewership/patronage. I am not seeing what we can do here. However, contrast this with WaPo and NYT. NYT is making more money than ever. WaPo found itself a billionaire patron who will accept a reality based newspaper as long is stays away from Amazon. There are bright spots out there. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
Though I'm not quite as quick to absolve journalists of blame as Plansix, I think. It was a little striking to see how confident journalists' were of HRC's impending victory when her national polling advantage was within a fairly standard presidential election polling error, and I find it hard to believe it has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of journalists at such organizations are liberals/leftists. Not sure how to fix that issue though, and I think it's far less of a problem than the misaligned incentives of news media organizations combined with modern day internet technology. On August 24 2017 05:23 Wulfey_LA wrote: Biased press is the status quo since forever. There were yellow journalism rags in the 1900s and the printing presses throughout history were used to pump out the views of their owners. It is on the viewer to balance out the perspectives and weigh the alleged facts presented against the strength of the sources for those facts. Objective reality does exist and it is possible to ascertain its nature, but it requires significant effort and skepticism. In a perfect world, I agree with you. But I think the status quo (along with propaganda experiments since forever) indicates that the general populace is either not intelligent enough or doesn't care enough to do what you're asking of it. Hence the need for some systemic changes. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It is cool, they can regulate themselves. And the local politicians will totally handle that too, they weren't the ones pushing for higher numbers. If is fucked up that the Wire looks overly optimistic in 2017. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:24 mozoku wrote: I was using "journalism" rather loosely to mean the news media organizations in general. I was under the impression oBlade was doing something similar. Though I'm not quite as quick to absolve journalists of blame as Plansix, I think. It was a little striking to see how confident journalists' were of HRC's impending victory when her national polling advantage was within a fairly standard presidential election polling error, and I find it hard to believe it has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of journalists at such organizations are liberals/leftists. Not sure how to fix that issue though, and I think it's far less of a problem than the misaligned incentives of news media organizations combined with modern day internet technology. Are you talking about the hosts of cable news networks, like CNN and MSNBC? Those are not journalists. Wolf Blizter is not a journalist, is an anchorman. The people who the hosts talk to on NPR are journalists. The people writing stories for the Times and WSJ are journalists. And we do not need to litigate the election again. Its 2017. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:26 Plansix wrote: Are you talking about the hosts of cable news networks, like CNN and MSNBC? I'm talking about the entire mainstream industry--TV and print/internet--(ignoring HuffPo, Breitbart, Infowars, etc.). I'm pretty sure even the WSJ was declaring an inevitable HRC victory. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:28 mozoku wrote: I'm talking about the entire mainstream industry--TV and print/internet--(ignoring HuffPo, Breitbart, Infowars, etc.). I'm pretty sure even the WSJ was declaring an inevitable HRC victory. Yes, that is because the polling data said it was likely. There were 90000000 stories about how the data changed in the week leading up to the election. They literally wrote stories about what they and the polling missed. They wrote stories about their own mistake. On August 24 2017 05:30 Nevuk wrote: I will always recall some journalists blasting 538 for saying Trump had a 30% chance to win. Yeah, that was pretty dumb. NPR didn't do it, but there were some from CNN and MSNBC that were really grump with him. Man did they look stupid. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:10 mozoku wrote: I'm pretty surprised that so many people are defending the journalism status quo. I think the current echo chamber flavor of journalism is quite self-evidently destructive for society. That isn't really a partisan issue at all. Nor is it necessarily journalists' fault, but the system is clearly broken imo. And a lot of what oBlade said is fairly true (journalists wield a massive amount of power in society by nature of their position, there's no real implicit or explicit checks on them to ensure they use it vaguely in society's interest, and journalism is arguably the largest contributor to the current federal government's dysfunction). I'd love to see some public debate on how to fix journalism. public debate is itself driven by journalism. it's also in general useless, as the public has NO idea how to do such things competently; they have a complete lack of expertise in such, and the people who do know how to fix such things do talk about it, it just doens't filter down to the public much because the public doesn't actaully care/want to read/hear about it. because it's really complicated, and it's work to fix things like that, and the subtleties involved aren't that interesting (and most people can't parse them well anyways). it's kind of hard to have checks on journalism unless you change first amendment jurisprudence. people aren't defending the journalism status quo as being great or amazing, they're calling the BS partisanship claims of the right for what they are: BS. journalism doesn't seem remotely like the largest contributor to the current federal gov't dysfunction. I see no reason to claim that; far simpler and more direct to say that the politicians themselves are responsible for that, throguh their own choices and actions. PS the shorenstein report in my sig is a good place to start if you want some reading on the topic; it's a good read, and probably links to other good sources. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:30 Plansix wrote: Yes, that is because the polling data said it was likely. There were 90000000 stories about how the data changed in the week leading up to the election. They literally wrote stories about what they and the polling missed. They wrote stories about their own mistake. I don't recall any election day stories writing about the changing poll numbers giving Trump a realistic shot though (besides 538). Shouldn't that have been newsworthy? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 24 2017 05:36 mozoku wrote: I don't recall any election day stories writing about the changing poll numbers giving Trump a realistic shot though (besides 538). Shouldn't that have been newsworthy? Most of them were giving him a 30%ish. NPR doesn't even give odds. What more do you want exactly? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby4211 tarik_tv2704 Liquid`RaSZi1516 Beastyqt735 XaKoH  693byalli331 ArmadaUGS149 ToD110 Chillindude25 |
|
OSC
GSL
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
