|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 26 2018 07:41 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 07:18 Plansix wrote:
I still don’t understand the complaint. Why does “conservative” media need to be shared in the thread? And what prevents it from being shared? How is this thread not welcoming of others viewpoints? Politics has never been for the faint of heart, even among the soft hearted left.
And blue got lit up by folks for posting Salon articles, by right and left leaning posters. When the articles were bad. So again, I don’t see the reason for the complaint. point of clarity: is it that you don't understand the basis or theory behind the complaint, or is that you understand it, but believe it to be unsound?
His argument hinges on the unproven theory that the current posters in the thread would object to articles from conservative outlets simply because they are from conservative outlets. That conservatives are not welcome for reasons he does not expand on. I am challenging the self fulfilling prophecy of conservatism being repressed that conservatives push and people parrot. Because it does not reflect reality.
GOP accuses Facebook of censorship but conservative media flourishes online
...According to a 2017 report from social media analysis company NewsWhip, conservative news organizations and commentators have done extremely well on Facebook. There are more than three times as many conservative publishers than liberal publishers on Facebook, and they receive more than 2.5 times the engagement on the social media platform than those who push opposing viewpoint.
"The organizations that are doing more sensationalist headlines are suffering on Facebook, but more conservative organizations like Breitbart and the Daily Wire have really passionate audiences who are sharing their content and that’s bearing out in the data," said Gabriele Boland, NewsWhip's manager of content strategy and communications.
NewsWhip data shows that Breitbart, the Independent Journal Review (IJR), TheBlaze, Daily Caller, Daily Wire and Gateway Pundit — all conservative outlets — get significant engagement returns through their use of Facebook, often dwarfing similar liberal sites.
Many right-wing commentators have increased their personal brands most successfully on Facebook: more than 2.5 million people follow alt-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos on the platform and 1.7 million people liked the page belonging to InfoWars publisher Alex Jones.
They are crushing it in online media. They are in control of both chambers, the executive, have a majority of the Supreme court control more state governments. But they are somehow repressed in this thread none of the conservative posters can be bothered to post an article for discussion.
|
I don't understand, how you can combart breitbart and fox with forbes. Capitalist is not the same as conservative, is not the same as being a Trump mouthpiece. By all means, you can post whatever you like from those as sources, but if it is a poor source, it should rightfully not be posted.
|
On April 26 2018 07:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 07:06 Plansix wrote:On April 26 2018 07:01 Wegandi wrote:On April 26 2018 06:50 NewSunshine wrote:On April 26 2018 00:59 iamthedave wrote:On April 26 2018 00:51 zlefin wrote:On April 26 2018 00:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 25 2018 15:32 Lmui wrote:On April 25 2018 14:37 Mohdoo wrote:On April 25 2018 14:05 KwarK wrote:
Trump on his non overnight stay in Moscow
[quote] Where he "met oligarchs and other very high level government officials", as he said. Edit: why can't I find this source now The thread is pretty quiet nowadays. It feels a lot like there's a consensus on what's happening, and I just come here to nod and say, yep, that's happening. Well I think it's also because posting news just for the news itself can get you banned now. So there's just a lot less input of talking points to discuss. it should be noted that that rule applies to posts that are mostly just an article; but if you instead simply describe a bit of news in your own words in just a couple of lines without linking to an article it's fine. at any rate; there are indeed several factors that resulted in the thread being quiet. Now you mention that... Stealthblue actually was a big motivator in introducing talking points into the thread. It's why I thought it was a bad idea to ban people for doing that. Sure, he wasn't adding much himself, but I never took that as the point. In fact, when I first came to the thread I assumed he was staff, just posting random news bits he saw to keep the discussion going. I think of all the threadbans his was the most nonsensical, and the reason for it likewise. I don't recall him ever being rude or really getting into arguments with anybody, and I don't think anyone wanted him gone, either. On April 26 2018 04:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:
I personally liked when people posted the news links, it felt better getting articles from TL than let's say reddit. Seconded to both posts. While most of the noise in the thread, due to arguments with a select few, is gone, putting a clamp on the free posting of articles has meant a lot of the real discussion is gone too. I understand if they're experimenting with the rules to see what happens, but I don't think that rule change has produced a positive outcome. Things are a bit quieter here than I would like. It's quieter because this thread is an echo chamber, not because StealthBlue isn't posting multiple articles a day. No one complained because he validated the all ready held belief system of 98% of the users here. If Danglars was spamming articles from Breitbart, Fox, Forbes, etc. all the time, I doubt the same sentiment would be shared. I'll post every now and then, but this thread and its posters aren't exactly entirely welcoming of a diverse range of view points. No one shares Breitbart because they know how quickly that article would be eviscerated. The reporting quality of that website is National Enquirer tier. And frankly, I don't understand this complaint. Why do you need articles with "conservative views" to be shared in the thread to discuss things? Is there some minimum level of validation of world view necessary? If you are try go avoid an echo chamber, shouldn't you be in here with us discussing left leaning views and expanding your point of view? I'm not conservative, so not sure the point of directing this to me. My point was that it's quieter because the accepted range of ideological viewpoints in this thread is quite small and isolated. It's not up to me to tolerate this, it's up to the posters in the thread to be more welcoming of views outside their own. There are few arguments in good faith that goes on in this thread, and it's not isolated to just one segment of people (xDaunt is not exactly immune from this criticism, and I've been known to be coarse more than once myself). By the way, if I want to engage with socialists and communists I can do that to my hearts content where I live (and I do, but that's neither here nor there). Also, your first paragraph is part of the problem. Blue shares stuff from MotherJones, Salon, etc. Not exactly the epitome of quality journalism there. Plus, most of the things he posts isn't exactly news, but editorials. It's obvious the posters who share his ideological spectra aren't pushing to be rid of him (the opposite in fact), but as a probabilistic conjecture, I'd imagine quite a difference of opinion if the thread was getting 3+ editorials/articles a day from places like Breitbart. Or If I was posting stuff like The Independent (http://www.independent.org/), Mises Institute, Reason all the time.
I wish you'd stop saying 'places like Breitbart'. Linking 3+ articles a day from Breitbart is essentially just 3 shit posts a day. Breitbart is a horrible, horrible, horrible source.
surely there are better, more legitimate conservative sources you could be pointing to? Ones that aren't trying to be state media?
I for one wouldn't mind in the slightest links to decent Conservative articles. Would anyone else actually mind that?
For a UK comparison, no, I wouldn't want people linking articles from the Daily Fail; it's terribad journalism, everyone knows it, and someone using stories from it in a forum that's attempting to be somewhat serious should be ashamed. That isn't trying to censor 'acceptable viewpoints' its trying to shut out awful journalists from sources that create news if they can't find actual news that supports their political bias.
And no, leftwing sources that do the same thing shouldn't be considered, either.
|
There is plenty of "right leaning" or central media that can be posted, as long as the article themselves can be said to be a good source. Would I be considered left or right wing I wonder as according to you as I would be pushing to be rid of stealthblue article posting, therefore I must be on the right. Wedangi, perhaps it is your own bias that leads you to beleive that all sources are equal, whether on the left or right, that for whatever reason, there is a bias against your own political favour.
Heck I would say that Breitbart articles can be posted as long as they aren't inciting hatred, and it has taken care to verifiy the accuracy of the reporting and generally following logical thoughts. Unfortunately I can't say that the few times xdaunt posted said articles from such a source that they can be held to such basic standards of journalism.
Also The Independent, I would say is not left leaning anyways. Not sure how you got that impression. Practically every working day it proclaims a capitalistic message. To which I have to ask what exactly constitutes left and right to you?
In the end you argue that there is a left/right wing bias towards newspapers that are considered reputable, but in actuality, you are just arguing that you should be able to shitpost breitbart articles.
|
Having been following Jordan Peterson for a few weeks, I have gained a new appreciation for post-factual content like Breitbart. The entire conservatosphere is going through a big transition from stodgy pretend-factual outlets like the Economist and towards true Feels Before Reals outlets like Breitbart. FOX has fully embraced Feels Before Reals and committed to giving The Truth that its viewers wish were true that is in line with the heroic myths they have embraced. If you say "post factual content is off limits, we are empirical rationalists here", you really hard saying you can't post conservative stuff anymore. Conservatism isn't grounded in facts you can cite. Mere suspicions and feelings are enough. Check out the insane caravan story from last week, or SethRich, or Uranium One, or PizzaGate, etc etc. All that crap is true enough to be useful to the broader right, so under a Jordan Peterson standard of truth it is The Truth. If the bible is great and useful even though it doesn't map back to empirical facts, why does our media have to be? Once you muzzle out stuff that isn't empirically verifiable, then yes, you really are shutting down the vast majority of conservative sources.
EDIT: if you go back like 30 years, there was an argument that the Right in this country was still within the broadly liberal enlightenment paradigm of having to map back empirical assertions to something that actually happened. But the Trumpian movement (which is best explained by Jordan Peterson) is actually a fundamental challenge to enlightenment empiricism. Trump and Peterson really are forcing the question of whether or not things have to verifiably true to be The Truth to people. As a liberal myself, I am all about empiricism and enlightenment values. I do think that reality does have to come in for something to be the truth. But a whole lot of people don't think that way.
|
Wulfeyla, isn't it just the case like wegandi, that you have just redefined the right, or conservative to breitbart and FOX? Those aren't conservative/right news outlets. They are not news outlets at all.
There are plenty of conservative or right leaning news outlets I can consider to be broadly reputable, but breitbart and FOX aren't those. The problem is that Wegandi is arguing that somehow, there is a left/right bias, on the basis that his favoured news sources which don't actually post factual news are on the right.
In anycase I am throughly confused by the American interchangable usage of "conservative" and "right". They are not one and the same thing at all.
|
On April 26 2018 09:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wulfeyla, isn't it just the case like wegandi, that you have just redefined the right, or conservative to breitbart and FOX? Those aren't conservative/right news outlets. They are not news outlets at all.
There are plenty of conservative or right leaning news outlets I can consider to be broadly reputable, but breitbart and FOX aren't those. The problem is that Wegandi is arguing that somehow, there is a left/right bias, on the basis that his favoured news sources which don't actually post factual news are on the right.
In anycase I am throughly confused by the American interchangable usage of "conservative" and "right". They are not one and the same thing at all.
in american political parlance (which is the relevant standard for this thread) they pretty much are. haven't we been over this before? I know I went over it with someone.
|
On April 26 2018 09:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wulfeyla, isn't it just the case like wegandi, that you have just redefined the right, or conservative to breitbart and FOX? Those aren't conservative/right news outlets. They are not news outlets at all.
There are plenty of conservative or right leaning news outlets I can consider to be broadly reputable, but breitbart and FOX aren't those. The problem is that Wegandi is arguing that somehow, there is a left/right bias, on the basis that his favoured news sources which don't actually post factual news are on the right.
In anycase I am throughly confused by the American interchangable usage of "conservative" and "right". They are not one and the same thing at all.
Rush Limbaugh would call those organizations the "drive by media". The non-opinion pages of the WSJ still reflect reality. But check out the opinion page. Right-leaning means accepting useful myth as reality. I guess you have National Review Online if you want whataboutism and a phony emphasis on process violations by Democrats. But anything that is one degree of separation from FOX has accepted the idea that a useful lie can be The Truth.
|
I don't read Breitbart and wouldn't say it's a quality news source by any means, but I get the impression that most of you are regurgitating whatever you heard about the website and exaggerating how bad it is relative to e.g. the Huffington Post or Mother Jones. The site isn't uniquely bad if you're comparing it to sensible peers. And there's definitely at least as many Mother Jones and HuffPost articles flying around here as there are Breitbart.
There isn't that much that is technically false on Breitbart (though there is more often than your standard mainstream sources). The slant is comes more from tone and editorial choices than blatant falsehoods.
Speaking of editorial choices, I find it extremely interesting to check what's on the front page of the WSJ, NYT, and WaPo regularly and compare the differences.
I'm curious what your guys' feelings on this is. I hear "WSJ is a trash paper" not uncommonly in my liberal social media bubble, but I rarely hear a reason. My guess, judging from the editorial differences I observe, is that the WSJ is perceived as "soft on Trump." Is that the case here?
I have a bit of a pet theory that much of the current state of politics can be boiled down to a shift in coverage from the NYT, WaPo, The Economist to take a more active role in promoting the political views of the organization. Most people are poor critical thinkers and don't look outside their bubble, so I suspect that daily negative coverage of any topic from a supposed authority for prolonged period of time (i.e. 2 years) will drastically influence the views of the population. There's also an enormous positive feedback loop there, where once people's social circle holds the same belief as the authority they interpret it as independent confirmation and believe the authority's message even more (even though the social circle is only regurgitating the authority's message, so it really ends up being an authority governing a large and obedient herd).
Much of my suspicion comes from the fact that it's quite obvious that the marginal "Generic Negative Front Page Trump Article # 1,xyz" provides no real informational value to anyone who already reads the news regularly. In addition, the number of articles written involving racial issues (a real winner from a Democratic political perspective) has risen disproportionately compared to the actual number of newsworthy racial news stories (by the old standard)-- which, as far as I can tell, has been mostly unchanged. Yes there's the NFL and Charlottesville, but there was Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, etc before as well.
The two obvious potential causes for the shift on editorial decisions since 2016 are: a) for whatever reason, a more actively political media on the left became more profitable; and/or b) these organizations actually do just really hate Trump for whatever reason. I find neither scenario comforting.
To be clear, I'm not making the argument that Trump should be covered like Obama was in terms of article volume and tone. I'm no fan of Trump, and there's a hundred legitimate reason why Trump has "earned" increased media scrutiny/attention relative to a typical president. My concern is that the current level is obviously past the point (beyond reasonable argument) where the marginal informational value of "Generic Negative Front Page Trump Article # 1,xyz" justifies it's front-page inclusion over other topics that are passed on daily. Especially considering everyone, especially readers of these papers, already have a hardened opinion of Trump. This is a net negative for society overall.
Granted, right-wing media has been doing this for decades now and they're deserving of equal or greater scorn.
Obviously Twitter and Facebook are large contributors as well.
|
Most of the people in this thread learned about Breitbart by reading its poorly written articles and learning the stories history of Steve Bannon, the lead editor and craftor of its message. But feel free to assume more things about why people feel the way they feel about a publication.
Edit: The WSJ is fine. Fox News reporters are fine too. Just not their night talk shows.
|
re: mozoku
I don't hear people saying WSJ is a trash paper. I dunno why the group you describe calls it such; I have heard that the WSJ editorial board isn't so good; but tha'ts quite separate from the reporting branch.
while huffpo and mother jones do have considerable issues (or so I hear, i'm not that familiar with them myself); they still seem to be markedly better than the likes of breitbart. What sources do you have that indicate they're not?
that there isn't much technically false in breitbart doesn't count for much; as you can easily be terrible while avoiding that, that's kinda how propaganda works.
that pet theory about the reasons for the current state of politics sounds false, and is likely a result of taking too narrow a view of things. the forces that cause these shifts are far wider in scope, and often largely beyond anyone's control.
basing a suspicion on the informational value being low is a terrible basis; given the vast amount of existing knowledge on how newspapers (and other news sources) operate. newspaper headlines were never about informational value; they're purpose is to be sensational and get people to buy the paper.
on your a/b choice; I wouldn't call the media more actively political; at any rate it's definitely A: response to profitability (and there's ample documentation of that).
what would you have media do instead? while the result is unfortunate; it's also a logical outcome of a set of pressures; and changing those underlying pressures isn't feasible. so there isn't really a good alternative.
|
As somebody who checks Breitbart when I'm bored at work to lul at the comments, I can attest to how God awful their articles are. Stick to the WSJ and Fox
|
On April 26 2018 10:46 zlefin wrote:
re: mozoku
basing a suspicion on the informational value being low is a terrible basis; given the vast amount of existing knowledge on how newspapers (and other news sources) operate. newspaper headlines were never about informational value; they're purpose is to be sensational and get people to buy the paper.
on your a/b choice; I wouldn't call the media more actively political; at any rate it's definitely A: response to profitability (and there's ample documentation of that).
what would you have media do instead? while the result is unfortunate; it's also a logical outcome of a set of pressures; and changing those underlying pressures isn't feasible. so there isn't really a good alternative.
I don't have time for a full response, but I think you're greatly underestimating the agency that well-established oligolipolic news organizations have in long-term strategic shifts in editorial direction. Sure, they might be optimizing headlines on a day-to-day level where there's lots of data available to drive to decisions, but in a decision like "do we become adversarial to a presidential candidate in an unprecedented manner?", anyone who's spent any time involved in executive decision-making understands those are judgement calls where the data doesn't provide clear direction and (in part consequently) it's extremely common that personal motivating factors play a huge role.
|
On April 26 2018 10:58 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 10:46 zlefin wrote:
re: mozoku
basing a suspicion on the informational value being low is a terrible basis; given the vast amount of existing knowledge on how newspapers (and other news sources) operate. newspaper headlines were never about informational value; they're purpose is to be sensational and get people to buy the paper.
on your a/b choice; I wouldn't call the media more actively political; at any rate it's definitely A: response to profitability (and there's ample documentation of that).
what would you have media do instead? while the result is unfortunate; it's also a logical outcome of a set of pressures; and changing those underlying pressures isn't feasible. so there isn't really a good alternative. I don't have time for a full response, but I think you're greatly underestimating the agency that well-established oligolipolic news organizations have in long-term strategic shifts in editorial direction. Sure, they might be optimizing headlines on a day-to-day level where there's lots of data available to drive to decisions, but in a decision like "do we become adversarial to a presidential candidate in an unprecedented manner?", anyone whose spent any time involved in executive decision-making understands those are judgement calls where the data doesn't provide clear direction and (in part consequently) it's extremely common that personal motivating factors play a huge role.
Citation needed. News papers editorial staff and reporting staff don't even interact with each other. Reporters don't write their own head lines. The claim that there is some master plan coming out of any news organization that isn't "sell more papers" or "get more people to tune in" needs some evidence to back it up.
|
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-attorney-to-plead-fifth-in-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-1524697573
LOS ANGELES—President Donald Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen told a federal court here Wednesday he will assert his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination in a civil case because of a continuing criminal investigation against him in New York.
Edit:: Using WSJ since it's a better written source with more info.
Cohen looks like he's going to roast for this.
It seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation since he seems to be just a fixer. He's just going to eat the Civil judgements, and hope that the criminal ones get pardoned I guess.
|
In other news:
Michael Cohen, the longtime attorney of President Trump, told a federal judge on Wednesday that he will invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself in a lawsuit brought by adult entertainer Stormy Daniels.
Cohen’s declaration, in support of his request to pause proceedings in the civil case, cited an “ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI and U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.”
Earlier this month, the FBI raided Cohen’s home, office and a hotel room where he had been staying. That investigation includes looking into the effort to quash embarrassing stories about Trump during the 2016 campaign, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Daniels, who alleges she had an affair with Trump years ago, is seeking to void a confidentiality agreement she signed just days before the 2016 presidential election in exchange for $130,000. Cohen has said he facilitated the payment using his own money from a home-equity line of credit.
The suit, filed last month, named the president and Essential Consultants, a company Cohen created as a vehicle for the payment, as defendants. Daniels later added Cohen as a defendant.
In the filing Wednesday, Cohen said the FBI had seized “various electronic devices and documents” that contained information relating to the payment to Daniels, as well as related communications with Cohen’s lawyer, Brent Blakely.
“This is a stunning development,” Michael Avenatti, a lawyer for Daniels, said in a tweet. “Never before in our nation’s history has the attorney for the sitting President invoked the 5th Amend in connection with issues surrounding the President. It is esp. stunning seeing as MC served as the ‘fixer’ for Mr. Trump for over 10 yrs.”
It is not uncommon for defendants facing both civil liability and criminal prosecution to request a pause in civil proceedings to avoid giving sworn testimony and producing documents that could prove incriminating.
Even so, in 2016, Trump sneered at Hillary Clinton aides for exercising their right not to self-incriminate during a congressional investigation into her private email server.
“The mob takes the Fifth,” Trump said at one campaign rally. “If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”
Yet in 1990, Trump himself took the Fifth to avoid answering 97 questions in a divorce deposition.
Source
This is especially rich coming from Trump's attorney and given Trumps love of declaring people guilty long before the case is over. This ongoing with the back drop of them continuing to fight over Cohen's legal documents and wanting a first bite at the apple before the FBI.
|
@P6
You realize that both editorial staff (which wasn't even what I meant by editorial decisions but w/e) and journalists get strategic direction from ownership and executives, right?
I mean the NYT literally posted a front-page article during the 2016 election season (outside of the editorial section) making the case that Trump was a cause worth throwing out the usual standards of "objective journalism" over. Do you think that that was a org-wide democratic decision or something?
Is your hypothesis that all NYT staff independently and simultaneously came to the same decisions on how to report on Trump during the 2016 election?
I'm not saying anyone's leaving huge and certain sums of money on the table. I'm saying executives have personal agendas and a lot of leeway/agency to influence long-term strategy when it's difficult to quantify which of paths A, B, or C will be most profitable. Especially in oligolipolies where organizations are relatively insulated from market forces. And even more especially when they're surrounded almost entirely by coworkers with the same personal agenda. This is basic organizational dynamics P6. People matter in strategic business decisions. Hence why management consultants and executives haven't all been replaced with math nerds (and I'm saying this as likely as big a math nerd as anyone reading).
|
Can you please cite this article that you are referencing? Because if it is the one I am thinking about, it was the NYT addressing the problem of reporting on someone who lies all the time. That directly quoting him presented the problem that the reporters had to correct his inaccuracies or be part of propagating false information.
And my guy, I taught government and US history. I do not need news papers and the free press explained to me. If you are going to make these claims, back them up with citations or some sort of evidence.
|
I've already hit my NYT article limit for the month and I don't remember the name, sorry.
On April 26 2018 11:41 Plansix wrote:
And my guy, I taught government and US history. I do not need news papers and the free press explained to me. If you are going to make these claims, back them up with citations or some sort of evidence.
This isn't an issue unique to media, this is about the observed role of executive agency in certain types of business decisions. You acknowledged that this comes down to a business framing yourself in your last post.
|
On April 26 2018 11:44 mozoku wrote:I've already hit my NYT article limit for the month and I don't remember the name, sorry. Show nested quote +On April 26 2018 11:41 Plansix wrote:
And my guy, I taught government and US history. I do not need news papers and the free press explained to me. If you are going to make these claims, back them up with citations or some sort of evidence. This isn't an issue unique to media, this is about the observed role of executive agency in certain types of business decisions. You acknowledged that this comes down to a business framing yourself in your last post.
Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism
This is the article you are talking about, which took me 20 seconds to find on google, and you can view it for free.
This is not a front page article as far as I can tell and it clearly about the struggles of remaining objective in an era where the presidential candidate can soak up so much screen time. And it is from their media section, which is not their political reporting department.
And you can cite buisness as much as you want, that doesn't change the nature of news rooms. Reporters are their own brand and buisness and can leave publication for competitors. Especially if they think their publication is trying to control their reporting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
