|
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 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.
Incognito browsing fixes the article limit thing, just fyi
|
I knew I liked Kanye all along.
She ain’t messin with no broke—
|
I need George W. Bush to blurt our that Kanye hates black people, then the cycle can be complete.
|
On April 26 2018 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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 JournalismThis 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.
I'm sort of astonished by your insistence on this. It's fairly common knowledge (or so I thought) that news organizations maintain at least the loose direction of their owners, and that owners have influence. Everyone knows that the owners of the New Republic are lefties. The Murdochs are righties. WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos... who reportedly leans libertarian. WaPo is also likely the most pro-immigration of the papers, and Jeff B's (non-biological) father from whom his surname comes from was a Cuban immigrant.
The NYT is primarily controlled by the (Jewish) Ochs-Sulzberger family despite owning a minority of the corporate stock due to a a dual-class share structure. You do the math.
|
That is absolutely not what you implied. You implied some sort of oligarchical attempt to shift culture through the paper, rather than a tone of the editorial staff at the paper. Those are vastly different things.
And is it important that the NYT owner is a Jewish family? Can you please show the work to that math for me? Thanks.
|
I implied that the news organizations may have personal or political beef with Trump, and that affects how they cover him. It's basically stated in that article that the NYT thinks Trump is an existential threat to the US and they have some obligation to save America from him. If the NYT believes this and that belief is repeatedly expressed in their content, then they would indeed play a role in shaping American political views/culture.
It's easier to play by your beliefs, rather than $$$, when playing by your beliefs isn't demonstrably going to hurt your $$$. And even easier when the owners have a controlling stake and aren't necessarily bound by traditional capitalist incentives... which the organization's established position in an oligopoly already shields it from to an extent anyway.
By the way, what you described is exactly what Fox News is doing. That the NYT would respond in kind doesn't seem far-fetched to me at all, though even if it is the case for the NYT, I'll concede the NYT is doing it to lesser extent... though perhaps more impactful, as the the readers of the NYT and WaPo have a lot more influence on the world than the watchers of Fox News.
And is it important that the NYT owner is a Jewish family? Can you please show the work to that math for me? Thanks.
You can chill out on your virtue signalling Plansix. I'm not an anti-Semitic. Jews vote heavily Democratic was the point.
|
Just say what you mean. It’s fast and leads to people not wondering stuff like that. Saves time.
That is literally one article, written by one guy and it did not say the things you just claim. It does not talk about saving American from Trump. Why do you keep claiming things that are false and I can confirm by reading the article I linked in the thread?
|
That is literally one article, written by one guy and it did not say the things you just claim.
From the first two paragraphs of the article:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable.
I'm done here. You haven't made a point worth reading in several posts now. It's just vague/false denials, attempts at misdirection, and zero actual substance. It doesn't take a published study to observe that the NYT, WaPo, and The Economist have an adversarial relationship with Trump. I have speculated on reasons for this that may be concerning for society. People can assess the value of the claims on their own.
|
On April 26 2018 13:42 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +That is literally one article, written by one guy and it did not say the things you just claim. From the first two paragraphs of the article: Show nested quote +If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional. That’s uncomfortable and uncharted territory for every mainstream, nonopinion journalist I’ve ever known, and by normal standards, untenable. I'm done here. You haven't made a point worth reading in several posts now. It's just vague/false denials, attempts at misdirection, and zero actual substance. It doesn't take a published study to observe that the NYT, WaPo, and The Economist have an adversarial relationship with Trump. I have speculated on reasons for this that may be concerning for society. People can assess the value of the claims on their own.
Sure. And then other places have an adversarial relationship with reality, but we call them on their bullshit too even if you don't want to listen.
I don't claim to agree with everything NYT and so on post, but they're a damn sight closer to being objective/reality than many other sources.
Other funny things too, like how facts don't change, even if people view them through a different lens with different writers bias's. Omission is one way to bias things for example, but if you get more of the facts you can make your own observations on happenings.
|
5930 Posts
The byline matters a lot and that's especially the case with the New York Times' Whitehouse reporting. A lot of New York Times reporters who do a lot of Whitehouse specific content are Politico's alumni, like Maggie Haberman, and they very clearly put out a lot of puff/softball articles plus controlled messages/leaks to maintain insider access. They were like this when they worked for Politico, they're still like this while working for the New York Times.
|
I never made the claim they weren't a lot better than other sources. In fact I acknowledged the opposite. I do believe they wield too much power in society though, and that they aren't really the benevolent truth-seekers/dispersers that they're often made out to be.
This applies to WaPo and The Economist as well. Everything I've said does. I've mostly left out the WSJ, not because I think they're some shining example of unparalleled reporting, but imo they do do a much better job of providing articles on a wider range of topics--which doesn't lend itself as much potential for mass public opinion distortion.
Of course, everyone thinks their news source is the best. I'm well aware of the selection bias. And I should also note that I read all editorials with the assumption that it is an attempt to sway public opinion and likely leaves out important facts of the issue to suit a narrative.
|
Trump has an adversarial relationship with reality. Anyone trying to stick to reality is going to have an adversarial relationship with Trump, and I'm not blaming them for that.
Also, to sort of create a parallel between "liberal" and "conservative" media, RealClearPolitics aggregates articles from a variety of sources. On the "liberal" side, common sources include CNN, WaPo, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, The Guardian, and sometimes Politico, Slate or The American Prospect, which is definitely the farthest left source I've seen them use and is unabashedly liberal. On the "conservative" side, common sources include Breitbart, National Review, American Spectator, The Federalist, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and PJ media (which I have never heard of except on RCP), sometimes the Wall Street Journal's or Bloomberg's editorial section or The Daily Caller.
There are some generally more open sources like The Hill, which hosts fairly out there content on both sides, but there is a clear qualitative difference between the common sources from the sides.
Admittedly, RPC tends to share editorials more than breaking news, but still.
The only source I've found that has a probable conservative bias that also doesn't include ad hominem attacks is Fox News' website. Somewhat related, I am really sick of reading about how liberals are deranged and unhinged. Those two adjectives have become hilariously common on the usual right wing media outlets.
|
The issue is less "fact-checking" and more the choice of articles that you see on a typical NYT paper--as well as the spin on those articles. I don't think I've ever seen a positive headline about Trump (though I don't check daily) in the NYT. Even in two years of button-mashing, he's got to have done at least one thing right. Even Dubya did something right at one point (e.g. letting the adults handle the financial crisis in 2008).
It's reminiscent of the same subtle propaganda strategy, albeit at a lesser extent, that's sort of at work in places where propaganda is actually employed, which is part of the reason I've particularly noticed it and am sort of alarmed by it.
Here's an example of the NYT right now of unnecessary and useless headlines that serve mostly as partisan diatribe:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/DFsx5Ij.png)
The opinion expressed by the NYT is right there in the headlines. Even before presenting any facts, they're framing all three headlines in loaded language. This isn't editorial, and it's a "top story" somehow as well. Strange stuff like this is sort of the norm I've come to expect from them. Who cares what NFL owners said about Trump months ago? How is that a top story?
EDIT note: Apologies that screenshot showed up gigantic on desktop. Did not know that would happen. Hopefully a mod knows can fix it or something, though it seems unlikely.
|
On April 26 2018 14:50 mozoku wrote:
The issue is less "fact-checking" and more the choice of articles that you see on a typical NYT paper--as well as the spin on those articles. I don't think I've ever seen a positive headline about Trump (though I don't check daily) in the NYT. Even in two years of button-mashing, he's got to have done at least one thing right. Even Dubya did something right at one point (e.g. letting the adults handle the financial crisis in 2008).
It's reminiscent of the same subtle propaganda strategy, albeit at a lesser extent, that's sort of at work in places where propaganda is actually employed, which is part of the reason I've particularly noticed it and am sort of alarmed by it.
Well, maybe provide us with an example about a positive thing Trump did that you think gone undeservedly unreported by the NYT.
I think this is not a huge ask if this really is a serious problem, is it?
|
On April 26 2018 14:50 mozoku wrote:
The issue is less "fact-checking" and more the choice of articles that you see on a typical NYT paper--as well as the spin on those articles. I don't think I've ever seen a positive headline about Trump (though I don't check daily) in the NYT. Even in two years of button-mashing, he's got to have done at least one thing right. Even Dubya did something right at one point (e.g. letting the adults handle the financial crisis in 2008).
It's the same subtle propaganda strategy, to a lesser extent, that's sort of at work in places where propaganda is actually employed, which is part of the reason I've particularly noticed it and am sort of alarmed by it.
I definitely saw some headlines approving of him scrapping the TPP, although probably for different reasons than he did it.
But other than that, I disagree with basically everything Republicans have gotten done over the last couple of years, and I think that Trump has almost universally picked the extremely bad people to head the various departments of the executive branch. I think that Republican policy on any issue I can think of is bad for the country and the majority of its citizens. A good example is that article I shared earlier about Carson pushing to make housing assistance less useful for the poorest people and people with dependents or medical expenses. My thoughts on everything Trump's cabinet has been doing and everything Republicans have been doing is more or less the same, adjusted for the topic.
So no, I don't really think of constant negative headlines about Trump as propaganda. I think of it as reporting on Trump, his cabinet, and Republicans in Congress doing yet another thing that I think is making this country a worse place to live by someone who seems to agree with me.
|
Most of his accomplishments thus far seem pretty controversial. To name a few:
The tax bill
Inhibiting new government regulations
Pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord
Pulling out of the TPP
Trying to renegotiate NAFTA
Stoking trade wars
Stacking the courts
There is no single "Yay for America!" victory in all that. The TPP comes closest, but even that is looking more and more skeptical these days. For anyone you can find that is happy about one of those, you can find someone else who is equally unhappy. What are his uniting moments that the NYT is going to praise him for that their readers could agree on?
|
On April 26 2018 13:03 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +And is it important that the NYT owner is a Jewish family? Can you please show the work to that math for me? Thanks. You can chill out on your virtue signalling Plansix. I'm not an anti-Semitic. Jews vote heavily Democratic was the point.
So then Fox, breitbart, washington post, WSJ, are all republican journals, as they are all owned by old white men, who are the main demographic voting republican? Also I wonder why more jewish people don't vote for the party who spreads conspiracy theories about how the evil jews rule the world and pay evil ruffians to protest the good ol' republican events.Oh and fox CEO roger ailes used to work for CNBC, and according to many republicans, NBC news can't be trusted as they're liberal propaganda and fake news, and since the fox news CEO used to be an executive for CNBC, therefore fox news is really just democrat propaganda and can't be trusted by republicans, right?
|
Spain17989 Posts
On April 26 2018 13:03 mozoku wrote:
I implied that the news organizations may have personal or political beef with Trump, and that affects how they cover him. It's basically stated in that article that the NYT thinks Trump is an existential threat to the US and they have some obligation to save America from him. If the NYT believes this and that belief is repeatedly expressed in their content, then they would indeed play a role in shaping American political views/culture.
It's easier to play by your beliefs, rather than $$$, when playing by your beliefs isn't demonstrably going to hurt your $$$. And even easier when the owners have a controlling stake and aren't necessarily bound by traditional capitalist incentives... which the organization's established position in an oligopoly already shields it from to an extent anyway.
By the way, what you described is exactly what Fox News is doing. That the NYT would respond in kind doesn't seem far-fetched to me at all, though even if it is the case for the NYT, I'll concede the NYT is doing it to lesser extent... though perhaps more impactful, as the the readers of the NYT and WaPo have a lot more influence on the world than the watchers of Fox News.
The only world-influencing person I can think of who appears to rely solely on a single source of media, is Trump. So this claim seems to be false
Show nested quote +And is it important that the NYT owner is a Jewish family? Can you please show the work to that math for me? Thanks. You can chill out on your virtue signalling Plansix. I'm not an anti-Semitic. Jews vote heavily Democratic was the point.
So what? You think the nyt tried to cater to a Jewish demographic? The owner of the nyt is also a middle-aged white man, and they vote heavily Republican. Does that mean the nyt has a republican message?
|
Considering my argument rested exactly zero on the Ochs-Sulzberger being Jewish (hence the parentheses), I'm sort of amused that you all have completely ignored the possible avenues for substantive discussion and instead have chosen lambast me for a making a conclusion (Jew = Democrat) that I neither said nor believe. The much stronger evidence for the family's political beliefs, of course, comes from the fact that they own the NYT, and the political beliefs of owners of news media organizations almost always align with the organisation's own editorial bias. Something I demonstrated earlier in that very post.
I see zero issue with posting an independent strong predictor (i.e. that the family is Jewish) of one's political beliefs in parentheses as additional support to an implied probabilistic claim I've already implicitly made (i.e. that the family leans left politically). More importantly, seeing as absolutely nobody doubts the political beliefs of the family in question anyway, the better question is, of all things in my posts why bother focusing on this?
|
5930 Posts
On April 26 2018 14:50 mozoku wrote:
The issue is less "fact-checking" and more the choice of articles that you see on a typical NYT paper--as well as the spin on those articles. I don't think I've ever seen a positive headline about Trump (though I don't check daily) in the NYT. Even in two years of button-mashing, he's got to have done at least one thing right. Even Dubya did something right at one point (e.g. letting the adults handle the financial crisis in 2008).
It's reminiscent of the same subtle propaganda strategy, albeit at a lesser extent, that's sort of at work in places where propaganda is actually employed, which is part of the reason I've particularly noticed it and am sort of alarmed by it.
Here's an example of the NYT right now of unnecessary and useless headlines that serve mostly as partisan diatribe:
The opinion expressed by the NYT is right there in the headlines. Even before presenting any facts, they're framing all three headlines in loaded language. This isn't editorial, and it's a "top story" somehow as well. Strange stuff like this is sort of the norm I've come to expect from them. Who cares what NFL owners said about Trump months ago? How is that a top story?
EDIT note: Apologies that screenshot showed up gigantic on desktop. Did not know that would happen. Hopefully a mod knows can fix it or something, though it seems unlikely.
That's the front page of the Sports section. No shit the Sports section of the New York Times is going to be reporting on these leaks. The Sports section of broadsheets have always been more serious than, say, ESPN reporting on LeBron's big game winning shot from today.
How an organisation deals with problems, like the recent sexual harassment allegations against the Dallas Mavericks, are important because its really a microcosm of American organisations, businesses and life. If Mark Cuban ran the Dallas Mavericks without doing anything to stop rampant long term sexual harassment in its front office, it goes without saying that this attitude is probably also a problem in his other ventures.
People report on the NFL because the NFL, as an organisation, has been hit recently with image problems. The most recent being allegations of widespread workplace sexism and league-wide censorship by freezing out Kaepernick despite him being analytically better than the average league quarterback. How they deal with these issues is a representation of the values of the organisation and their non-sports businesses.
While the title itself is click-baity, the meeting gives us an inside view of how the NFL aims to deal with its image problems. Which, unlike the NBA, is to essentially do nothing at all or, in the case of conservative owners, find a way to shut down means for people to express themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
