|
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 17 2020 13:47 Nevuk wrote:The AP isn't even a news organization in the traditional sense. They're a not for profit conglomeration of various media outlets, and set many of the journalistic standards regarding which terminology should be used in the US. They allow any paper to republish their articles with the paper's own editing. This helps cut down on duplicate work on bog standard stories about things like sports scores - if a story needs nothing but the plain facts, the AP is the group who writes it. The quoted part, where they say "critics of the plan reference it as court packing" is a factual statement. It expresses no opinion whatsoever. The truth is that court packing is such a new topic that its style guide probably hasn't been updated to deal with the terminology. There are definitely conservatives on their board of directors, which includes explicitly non-political media organizations such as ESPN. Basically, it's the hardest news org you could have picked to try to smear as being biased on a partisan basis. NPR is required due to their funding to be non-partisan and it would be easier to make the case for them than it is for the AP. Show nested quote +On October 17 2020 12:55 Introvert wrote:On October 17 2020 12:06 Danglars wrote:Also like how that AP story described the NY Post as a "tabloid." It would appear that AP is another anti-Trump outlet. More in its dictionary definition style. Not in the pejorative sense. It’s a top-5 newspaper in the United States. Which is one of the reasons why its censorship on twitter was the stupidest battle to pick. Joe Biden was asked for comment for the NY Post Hunter Biden story at the center of the censorship discussion and it wasn’t so good: I don’t expect a lot of the typical posters to also note how awful it is for Biden to go after the media for just doing their jobs. Biden responds to any hard, or even fair, question the same way Pelosi does. They always atteck the person asking or just get angry. These people are so used to having the media on their side they can't handle anything moderately difficult. Even for all Hillary's excuse making, I don't know that I ever saw her respond the way some of these other Democrats do. Prob her experience in the 90s. As for the story , we'll see. Seems totally plausible and the statements coming from the Biden side seem carefully worded? The big tech blackout is certainly making this worse too. The irony here is staggering, considering that this is EXACTLY the way conservatives respond to their sources being questioned, especially if said sources have massive issues.
it doesnt even seem like we are talking about quite the same thing, but every elected GOP pol has to put up with a hostile press. Someone asks pelosi a hard question she accuses them of working for Republicans. You'd think they could at least pretend that they don't expect the media to be on their team.
|
On October 17 2020 12:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Also like how that AP story described the NY Post as a "tabloid." It would appear that AP is another anti-Trump outlet. More in its dictionary definition style. Not in the pejorative sense. It’s a top-5 newspaper in the United States. Which is one of the reasons why its censorship on twitter was the stupidest battle to pick. Joe Biden was asked for comment for the NY Post Hunter Biden story at the center of the censorship discussion and it wasn’t so good: https://twitter.com/boknowsnews/status/1317275294194085888I don’t expect a lot of the typical posters to also note how awful it is for Biden to go after the media for just doing their jobs.
Are you being hypocritical?
|
Pelosi and Biden are awful at fielding even slightly confrontational questions because they are used to being in the power position with anyone they are talking to and being surrounded with obsequious sycophants.
Hillary was noticeably better (but not great) because she got housed in the 90's over much tougher stuff. Feinstein is awful too. She had that video trying to belittle children confronting her over leaving them an uninhabitable planet.
Democrats have really internalized the 'better than the worst Republican I can think of' metric to rationalize supporting a party that treats their own supporters with such contempt.
|
On October 17 2020 15:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
Pelosi and Biden are awful at fielding even slightly confrontational questions because they are used to being in the power position with anyone they are talking to and being surrounded with obsequious sycophants.
Hillary was noticeably better (but not great) because she got housed in the 90's over much tougher stuff. Feinstein is awful too. She had that video trying to belittle a children confronting her over leaving them an uninhabitable planet.
Democrats have really internalized the 'better than the worst Republican I can think of' metric to rationalize supporting a party that treats their own supporters with such contempt.
That Feinstein video inspired an intense rage in me. What an awful, shitty old fuck of a human being. Shes emblematic of one of the most grotesque attitudes in this country.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 17 2020 12:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +Also like how that AP story described the NY Post as a "tabloid." It would appear that AP is another anti-Trump outlet. More in its dictionary definition style. Not in the pejorative sense. It’s a top-5 newspaper in the United States. Which is one of the reasons why its censorship on twitter was the stupidest battle to pick. Joe Biden was asked for comment for the NY Post Hunter Biden story at the center of the censorship discussion and it wasn’t so good: I don’t expect a lot of the typical posters to also note how awful it is for Biden to go after the media for just doing their jobs.
This did get a good laugh, have been in short supply since we locked down again over here so cheers for that.
As per this current story, I’ll wait to see what comes out in the wash.
As long as info is true and in the public interest I’m not too fussy about how it was obtained (within reason), wouldn’t be particularly consistent of me as I think leaks are sometimes the only way of obtaining such information.
|
On October 17 2020 12:37 Doodsmack wrote:
Yeah I didn't realize the dictionary definition of tabloid. Clearly the AP used that term in order to bring to discredit the NYP by bringing to mind an outlet like the enquirer (celebrity grocery store tabloids). Bottom line though is that if an outlet has the documents in its possession, then that outlet has news. E.g. I credit the NYT fred trump story because of the documents (proof). For that story the NYT actually revealed and published the documents.
they used it because the new york post is literally a tabloid. have you ever seen an edition? are you confusing it with some other newspaper?
it is one of the most popular tabloids. refer to DPBs post if you still have any confusion. if you familiarize yourself with what you’re talking about just long enough to look at it, it is very clearly a tabloid.
On October 17 2020 12:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2020 12:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2020 12:06 Danglars wrote:Also like how that AP story described the NY Post as a "tabloid." It would appear that AP is another anti-Trump outlet. More in its dictionary definition style. Not in the pejorative sense. It’s a top-5 newspaper in the United States. Which is one of the reasons why its censorship on twitter was the stupidest battle to pick. Readership does not make something less of a tabloid. I mean, are you saying Daily Mail isn't a tabloid? It's the most read newspaper in the UK. I know a little of the Daily Mail, but the NY Post has a ton of great writers and investigative journalism alongside the big photos and short stories. Maybe this is more of a US thing, but there’s a pejorative sense of the word as well as a more literal sense. Which is why Doodsmack’s comment makes sense, since it’s natural that some people only hear it to demean (for example) accurate reporting that you want to insult and diminish. New York Times, in that sense, has a lot of tabloid trash masquerading as serious news articles by poor excuses for journalists.
it’s not a US thing. it’s just that the post is clearly a tabloid. it is sold next to all the other tabloids. the post does not try to sell itself as anything different. it’s probably just harder to know if you’re not familiar with its print circulation.
stolen from DPB for anyone else who may not be familiar with it in print.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/EW4XZKf.jpg)
|
On October 17 2020 12:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2020 12:12 Danglars wrote:On October 17 2020 12:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 17 2020 12:06 Danglars wrote:Also like how that AP story described the NY Post as a "tabloid." It would appear that AP is another anti-Trump outlet. More in its dictionary definition style. Not in the pejorative sense. It’s a top-5 newspaper in the United States. Which is one of the reasons why its censorship on twitter was the stupidest battle to pick. Readership does not make something less of a tabloid. I mean, are you saying Daily Mail isn't a tabloid? It's the most read newspaper in the UK. I know a little of the Daily Mail, but the NY Post has a ton of great writers and investigative journalism alongside the big photos and short stories. Maybe this is more of a US thing, but there’s a pejorative sense of the word as well as a more literal sense. Which is why Doodsmack’s comment makes sense, since it’s natural that some people only hear it to demean (for example) accurate reporting that you want to insult and diminish. New York Times, in that sense, has a lot of tabloid trash masquerading as serious news articles by poor excuses for journalists. They also have a track record of having to settle defamation lawsuits for falsely accusing (sometimes even flat out stating) brown people for being terrorists, so their "investigative journalism" is to be taken with a healthy dose of salt. There's no bias if someone calls the NYP a tabloid. Calling it just "newspaper" is actually much more misleading. Of course, the fact that it's also rated the least-credible major news outlet in NY is.. not helping. What you could call it is "YAMT", or yet another murdoch tabloid. It's not a secret that since murdoch took over, it's a sensationalist tabloid riddled with advocacy. What you and Doodsmack are talking about is "yellow press". I'm not sure you should expect people to twist their (correct) definition of Tabloid because you feel offended by it, especially considering that yellow press is an american term. TMZ is a great example for that. But wait, there's more. Show nested quote +Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate, well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. + Show Spoiler +Yeah.. It's a murdoch paper. Nothing else.
Looking at those NYP front pages, i really have to wonder what kind of person looks at that and thinks "Yeah, this is where i want to get my news from. This is surely high quality journalism". I really wonder who the kind of people are who read that kind of trash. Doesn't this set off peoples bullshit detectors? Because mine is going into overdrive just looking at those pages.
|
I have wondered that myself for a very long time. I don't know who the target audience is for this trash, but it's not me.
There are dozens of these rags in every country, though, so that audience clearly exists.
|
I didn't even think it was a contested idea that the NYPost was a tabloid ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism
Publications engaging in tabloid journalism are known as rag newspapers. Notable tabloid publications include the National Enquirer, New York Post, and Globe in North America; and the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Mirror, Daily Star, Daily Record, Sunday Mail, The Sun, and the former News of the World in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post
The New York Post (sometimes abbreviated as NY Post) is a daily tabloid newspaper in New York City.
|
The watering down of critical standards such that the NY Post could be anything other than a tabloid is an intended side-effect of the now routine cries of librul media.
It's worth noting that Trump has had a cozy relationship with the NY Post for many years, he is and was a good readership pusher.
|
I love that the same people criticize the New York Times for being bad journalism / biaised and defend the New York Post for being legit and totally not a piece of shit tabloid.
You would think one head would just explode from all the cognitive dissonances but apparently some people brain is made of steel.
|
that the post is a tabloid is not a contested idea for anyone who is actually familiar with the magazine. anyone who thinks otherwise has just never actually seen the new york post.
referencing circulation numbers further supports this notion, as the post included within other local papers as the filler. it is widely distributed just as are your local supermarkets coupons.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On October 17 2020 21:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I love that the same people criticize the New York Times for being bad journalism / biaised and defend the New York Post for being legit and totally not a piece of shit tabloid.
You would think one head would just explode from all the cognitive dissonances but apparently some people brain is made of steel.
In fairness it’s still possible for tabloids to produce almost nothing but gossipy trash and still break the odd actual story with actual journalism.
Like the actor who pays the bills with absolute schlock blockbusters but occasional puts in a considered performance in an art house flick.
|
yes, to doods point about not discrediting the news due to the source, it is certainly possible for a tabloid to break actual news. but we are also all about discrediting sources as far as i’m aware.
|
I think scenarios like this implicate a sliding scale of the general to the specific that moves based on the circumstances. In the general case, sure, tabloids and media outlets with a reputation for yellow journalism can break a legit new story, but oftentimes will run stories that other media will not because readership driven by sensational headlines and splashy puddle reporting doesn't care about dubious sources.
As we get more specific in looking into this scenario in particular, there are numerous good reasons to suppose that this story and its ilk are not a good fit for the one-off legit news broken by a tabloid conclusion, including what's known about the story's providence, the role of Giuliani in pushing the story and his association with foreign influence, the timing relative to the election, and the publication attitudes of other outlets.
|
Sometimes I wonder how far astray you guys are from the average joe when talking in here.
Things like
On October 17 2020 21:01 Belisarius wrote:
I have wondered that myself for a very long time. I don't know who the target audience is for this trash, but it's not me.
There are dozens of these rags in every country, though, so that audience clearly exists.
and
On October 17 2020 19:46 Simberto wrote:
Looking at those NYP front pages, i really have to wonder what kind of person looks at that and thinks "Yeah, this is where i want to get my news from. This is surely high quality journalism". I really wonder who the kind of people are who read that kind of trash. Doesn't this set off peoples bullshit detectors? Because mine is going into overdrive just looking at those pages.
At least 50% of people are not trained in critical thought. It's a skill that's developed. Sure, there's some innate critical thought you might have before cultivating it, but when you're locked into an echo chamber microcosm (parents, peers, teachers, colleagues, ..) that can be quickly stifled.
It seems like there's a HUGE market for these tabloid things and pop bs journalism, because that's clearly a market that's profitable or people wouldn't consume it like they do.
You're overestimating the general population because of confirmation bias in your own social sphere.
|
Do people remember The Guardian was a tabloid when it ran that fictional Manafort meets Assange story that Democrats didn't immediately write off as tabloid trash?
|
United Kingdom10012 Posts
On October 17 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do people remember The Guardian was a tabloid when it ran that fictional Manafort meets Assange story that Democrats didn't immediately write off as tabloid trash?
That's nothing to do with whether or not the Guardian is tabloid though (it isn't)
|
On October 17 2020 23:51 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do people remember The Guardian was a tabloid when it ran that fictional Manafort meets Assange story that Democrats didn't immediately write off as tabloid trash? That's nothing to do with whether or not the Guardian is tabloid though (it isn't) It does/is? The Guardian newspaper adopts tabloid format
|
United Kingdom10012 Posts
On October 17 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2020 23:51 Jockmcplop wrote:On October 17 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do people remember The Guardian was a tabloid when it ran that fictional Manafort meets Assange story that Democrats didn't immediately write off as tabloid trash? That's nothing to do with whether or not the Guardian is tabloid though (it isn't) It does/is? The Guardian newspaper adopts tabloid format
Shows what I know lol.
I guess that's how dead the newspaper industry is. The last time I saw a Guardian newspaper it was a broadsheet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
