|
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 October 05 2019 05:20 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon? Are you implying Nixon wasn't popular? Or using popular in its sense of "of the people"? In either case it doesn't seem factual.
by popular i mean a perceived popularity that has enabled him to control the entire republican party in a way that nixon couldn’t quite do, despite all the revisionist history going on in think pieces about how partisanship goes back before nixon. fact is, the republicans turned on nixon after a point to preserve their future. here it seems that republicans see trump as the only future, and likely think that turning on him would only implode the party
|
With Bill Barr's involvement in all this, is anyone remembering that he was given the unusual authority to declassify intel info? Doesn't this look all the more corrupt now? (It already did look corrupt)
www.newsweek.com
|
On October 05 2019 05:39 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 05:20 Acrofales wrote:On October 05 2019 02:13 IgnE wrote:
Is Trump a more popular version of Nixon? Are you implying Nixon wasn't popular? Or using popular in its sense of "of the people"? In either case it doesn't seem factual. by popular i mean a perceived popularity that has enabled him to control the entire republican party in a way that nixon couldn’t quite do, despite all the revisionist history going on in think pieces about how partisanship goes back before nixon. fact is, the republicans turned on nixon after a point to preserve their future. here it seems that republicans see trump as the only future, and likely think that turning on him would only implode the party
Indeed. In Nixon's case, as evidence (the tapes) came out, his level of support became shaky before finally completely dropping out from under him altogether. With how things are right now with Trump, it seems like no evidence, no matter how damning it could be, would be enough to shake some of his supporters, both in Congress and in the general public. It has seemed for a little while now we are at the "I could walk out onto 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and people would still support me" stage of this presidency.
It certainly doesn't help that he has an entire arm of media groups running defence for him.
|
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though?
|
White House formally subpoena'd. Now the real fireworks start.
|
On October 05 2019 08:25 Artisreal wrote:
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though? Depends on how deep into facebook ect his supporters are. And that also hooks back into the talk about Nixon. The ability to isolate a group of people to your selected media and then feed them disinformation is so much more powerful now thanks to social media. If Nixon had had the same infrastructure behind him his popularity probably wouldn't have dropped either and he might not have had to step down at all.
|
On October 05 2019 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:
White House formally subpoena'd. Now the real fireworks start.
For? Information? To have certain personnel testify? Link?
|
On October 05 2019 08:25 Artisreal wrote:
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though?
This is the ultimate question. There have been rumours of Fox, and more specifically Murdoch's sons, becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what has happened with Fox essentially being a propaganda arm of the administration. We've already seen several of the hosts start to slightly shift away from purely defending Trump, especially in the last week or two with all of this Ukraine news. And despite having strong viewership numbers, Fox has been having issues with advertisers, especially on some of their more controversial shows like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. I would imagine there is a breaking point for Fox where either ethically or from a business perspective, supporting Trump no longer can be justified.
This Vanity Fair piece sheds a bit of light on the issue. Interestingly, Paul Ryan is on the board for Fox, and he has been apparently suggesting they move away from Trump.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26003 Posts
On October 05 2019 09:35 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 08:57 Ben... wrote:On October 05 2019 08:25 Artisreal wrote:
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though? This is the ultimate question. There have been rumours of Fox, and more specifically Murdoch's sons, becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what has happened with Fox essentially being a propaganda arm of the administration. We've already seen several of the hosts start to slightly shift away from purely defending Trump, especially in the last week or two with all of this Ukraine news. And despite having strong viewership numbers, Fox has been having issues with advertisers, especially on some of their more controversial shows like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. I would imagine there is a breaking point for Fox where either ethically or from a business perspective, supporting Trump no longer can be justified. This Vanity Fair piece sheds a bit of light on the issue. Interestingly, Paul Ryan is on the board for Fox, and he has been apparently suggesting they move away from Trump. I think they will be able to be "ok" with the ethics as long as the advertisers keep shelling out. They will be able to tell themselves they are just being the other voice to the Dem owned news media or whatever. If the money stops flowing, and the share prices start to drop that is when their "ethics" will kick in and they will claim it was their choice and had nothing to do with the $$$$.
They can absolutely do that, and arguably it’s an important alternative stance to have, people do have other moral stances and believe other things.
Of late they’ve been a Trump mouthpiece, not even critical of him when his actions go against their ostensible positions.
There should be an openly conversative leaning mainstream outlet in the States, for there not to be would be strange. What is strange is a slavish devotion to Trump in particular, even when he goes against stock conservative ideals.
If Fox operates as an open conservative media outlet, that holds public officials to account on that basis then that’s one thing. That they just don’t when it comes to Trump is the main problem I have with them.
|
On October 04 2019 16:58 Taelshin wrote:
@Biff, I looked at that link, its literally just the clip from ABC news with Pelosi and Stephanopoulos as described in NettleS post. What exactly is your issue with it? You can find clips from every main stream media source on random YT channels, if there's no added commentary I'm unsure why it matters.
Feels like a desperate deflection to avoid actually addressing what Nettle's wrote in his post. Also I tried to find the full interview from ABC's YT channel but it seem's they themselves have clipped it, Perhaps in time they will release the full thing.
Thank you, yes.It was literally just a 30 second ABC clip no commentary.I chose that one since it was just 30 seconds as opposed to two-three minutes that others had - I thought people with short attention spans could watch it.Perhaps not.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26003 Posts
On October 05 2019 11:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 10:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 05 2019 09:35 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2019 08:57 Ben... wrote:On October 05 2019 08:25 Artisreal wrote:
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though? This is the ultimate question. There have been rumours of Fox, and more specifically Murdoch's sons, becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what has happened with Fox essentially being a propaganda arm of the administration. We've already seen several of the hosts start to slightly shift away from purely defending Trump, especially in the last week or two with all of this Ukraine news. And despite having strong viewership numbers, Fox has been having issues with advertisers, especially on some of their more controversial shows like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. I would imagine there is a breaking point for Fox where either ethically or from a business perspective, supporting Trump no longer can be justified. This Vanity Fair piece sheds a bit of light on the issue. Interestingly, Paul Ryan is on the board for Fox, and he has been apparently suggesting they move away from Trump. I think they will be able to be "ok" with the ethics as long as the advertisers keep shelling out. They will be able to tell themselves they are just being the other voice to the Dem owned news media or whatever. If the money stops flowing, and the share prices start to drop that is when their "ethics" will kick in and they will claim it was their choice and had nothing to do with the $$$$. They can absolutely do that, and arguably it’s an important alternative stance to have, people do have other moral stances and believe other things. Of late they’ve been a Trump mouthpiece, not even critical of him when his actions go against their ostensible positions. There should be an openly conversative leaning mainstream outlet in the States, for there not to be would be strange. What is strange is a slavish devotion to Trump in particular, even when he goes against stock conservative ideals. If Fox operates as an open conservative media outlet, that holds public officials to account on that basis then that’s one thing. That they just don’t when it comes to Trump is the main problem I have with them. I'm ok with the opinion shows, however it would be nice if they were somewhat balanced. But that goes for CNN MSNBC and whatever else. News should be unbiased and the issue America is having is that a lot of people still think it is, so they don't realize they are getting what amounts to propaganda down their throat, they think they are getting unbiased reporting. Which leads to people on both sides thinking the other one is bat shit because they are getting completely different news. There used to be rules that if you were giving the news you had to be unbiased and those rules still exist here in Canada and much of the rest of the world. Sadly in 87 the states got rid of that rule. Now it is questionable if it would apply to cable channels as at the time it was only the main stations but I think as Cable became the norm I'm not sure. Basically I think that they should not be called news stations but opinion stations and then I would have less of an issue. And fuck Reagan for using his Veto to keep the doctrine from being codified so the FCC couldn't cancel it. And also fuck the FCC for wasting all it's time chasing howard Stern instead of ensuring that news was the news.
I do agree it just feels like a genie that doesn’t want to go back into its bottle.
I mean I knew as a 15/16 year old at the other side of the Atlantic what Fox’s news slant was, but I do realise others for whatever reason do not, and don’t see it as that ideologically biased.
My (additional) issue with them lately is not that they’re ideologically slanted, but that they’re pro-Trump, uncritically.
If they had an ideological angle and critiqued the world through that lens, yes I don’t think it’s ideal for the reasons you outlined, but it is what it is, at least If one is aware of the slant you can treat the output accordingly. They don’t really even do that, they critique everything else through that lens and if it’s Trump they cover it outside of that angle and basically just cheerlead, regardless of if his behaviour and actions go against their other stances.
|
|
|
On October 05 2019 13:10 JimmiC wrote:
Completely agree on both, it is not going back in the bottle and it has gotten to the full propaganda stage instead of just the slant stage. Hell Trump is hiring his staff from their and hos ex staff that does not hate him all end up there. I eould like it to go back but I would settle for a disclaimer kind of like how they have to say who paid for the political ads. I think Americans need a news source that both sides trust so tgey can agree on some facts.
There was one once; Politifact.
Now it's been labelled a liberal organisation because it keeps pointing out how often right wingers lie (it does it to lefties too, but they just generally lie less).
That's exactly what would happen to any source that 'both sides trust'. As soon as it gets critical of one side or the other it'd be slandered by all the others until it ended up in one corner or the other.
|
On October 05 2019 11:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2019 16:58 Taelshin wrote:
@Biff, I looked at that link, its literally just the clip from ABC news with Pelosi and Stephanopoulos as described in NettleS post. What exactly is your issue with it? You can find clips from every main stream media source on random YT channels, if there's no added commentary I'm unsure why it matters.
Feels like a desperate deflection to avoid actually addressing what Nettle's wrote in his post. Also I tried to find the full interview from ABC's YT channel but it seem's they themselves have clipped it, Perhaps in time they will release the full thing. Thank you, yes.It was literally just a 30 second ABC clip no commentary.I chose that one since it was just 30 seconds as opposed to two-three minutes that others had - I thought people with short attention spans could watch it.Perhaps not.
Considering the dumpster fire your previous video on Biden was, I didn't bother watching. I make a point to always look at the source before reading / watching anything, and I made a rule of never bothering with any material that comes from sources with names such as "GOP war room" (and it would be the same with a channel with a name as dumb but from the left) because I know the intentions are pure propaganda. It's in the name of your source that they won't give you anything fair or balanced.
Even simple clips from this kind of channels don't interest me because I don't trust it will be cut in a way that reflects honestly the context or the meaning of what is said. I know for certain that if Pelosi said anything before or after that gave more precisions over what she says here that would give a more favourable light upon it, they would cut it out.
Those sources are made by people and for people who don't care about the truth. They just want to convince / confirmation of their opinions.
I admit this clip seems neutral, and just because I decided to react I should have had the patience to watch it, but my point stands. Find better sources. The consistency with which you post stuff from absolute garbage propaganda channels also make me wonder if that's where you get your information. That would explain why you stick to narratives as crazy as the notion that the really problematic stuff in the Ukraine scandal is some conspiracy about Joe Biden being corrupt rather than the POTUS leveraging military might for electoral gains (among others).
Tl;dr: Watch the source before the content and if the source is effing garbage, find a source that is not. And again, if you want us to think that you are worth taking seriously, don't systematically post stuff from propaganda media spreading conspiracy theories.
|
On October 05 2019 10:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 09:35 JimmiC wrote:On October 05 2019 08:57 Ben... wrote:On October 05 2019 08:25 Artisreal wrote:
If fox should drop him, is that still the case though? This is the ultimate question. There have been rumours of Fox, and more specifically Murdoch's sons, becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what has happened with Fox essentially being a propaganda arm of the administration. We've already seen several of the hosts start to slightly shift away from purely defending Trump, especially in the last week or two with all of this Ukraine news. And despite having strong viewership numbers, Fox has been having issues with advertisers, especially on some of their more controversial shows like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. I would imagine there is a breaking point for Fox where either ethically or from a business perspective, supporting Trump no longer can be justified. This Vanity Fair piece sheds a bit of light on the issue. Interestingly, Paul Ryan is on the board for Fox, and he has been apparently suggesting they move away from Trump. I think they will be able to be "ok" with the ethics as long as the advertisers keep shelling out. They will be able to tell themselves they are just being the other voice to the Dem owned news media or whatever. If the money stops flowing, and the share prices start to drop that is when their "ethics" will kick in and they will claim it was their choice and had nothing to do with the $$$$. They can absolutely do that, and arguably it’s an important alternative stance to have, people do have other moral stances and believe other things. Of late they’ve been a Trump mouthpiece, not even critical of him when his actions go against their ostensible positions. There should be an openly conversative leaning mainstream outlet in the States, for there not to be would be strange. What is strange is a slavish devotion to Trump in particular, even when he goes against stock conservative ideals. If Fox operates as an open conservative media outlet, that holds public officials to account on that basis then that’s one thing. That they just don’t when it comes to Trump is the main problem I have with them.
They are COMMERCIAL institutions, they ponder to their audience for money, and vast majority of their audience voted for trump and want to be validated.
It's the same what CNN does - both are worthless for actual unbiased information.
If the station has viewerships there's no way they will struggle to find advertisers. They drop specific faces for obvious most advertiser unfriendly behavior (O'Reilly).
It's the US media model and will remain to be - for normal people ignoring CNN+FOX and/or watching them purely for entertainment is the way to go
|
On October 05 2019 19:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2019 11:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 04 2019 16:58 Taelshin wrote:
@Biff, I looked at that link, its literally just the clip from ABC news with Pelosi and Stephanopoulos as described in NettleS post. What exactly is your issue with it? You can find clips from every main stream media source on random YT channels, if there's no added commentary I'm unsure why it matters.
Feels like a desperate deflection to avoid actually addressing what Nettle's wrote in his post. Also I tried to find the full interview from ABC's YT channel but it seem's they themselves have clipped it, Perhaps in time they will release the full thing. Thank you, yes.It was literally just a 30 second ABC clip no commentary.I chose that one since it was just 30 seconds as opposed to two-three minutes that others had - I thought people with short attention spans could watch it.Perhaps not. Tl;dr: Watch the source before the content and if the source is effing garbage, find a source that is not. And again, if you want us to think that you are worth taking seriously, don't systematically post stuff from propaganda media spreading conspiracy theories.
What is a reliable source in the US I'd like to know
It certainly isn't any of the big cable news
https://www.adfontesmedia.com
They say AP + reuters is up there but still reliability rating of 56 which I assume is out of a 100?
It's really difficult to get reliable sources on anything
Even that White house transcript seemed way too polished like Trump's doctor note, agencies have biases too
|
|
|
Since 40 is the start point of "most reliable for news" and 22 for "reliable for news but high in analysis/opinion content" I would assume it is not out of 100.
The methodology of your source is not clear at all. From what I can tell from what they have written, quality is scored out of 42, which is clearly wrong. The previous year, the quality range from 0 for info wars and 64 for AP, but even though the general shape and positions of each media is the same this year, they seem to be normalised to 12 and 52 this year. The previous year also looks more clear and realistic. https://adfontesmedia-demo.ehspook.com/home/ So whatever that website is doing, it is doing some sort of fixing the figures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
