US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2756

On October 17 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
It does/is? The Guardian newspaper adopts tabloid format

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?

On October 17 2020 23:57 Jockmcplop wrote:

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.

On October 18 2020 00:07 Nevuk wrote:

I do recall it being pointed out at the time, that the guardian wasn't quite as reputable as, say, the NYT or your average local paper. Especially once other papers started refusing to confirm the story.

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?

On October 17 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
It does/is? The Guardian newspaper adopts tabloid format

On October 18 2020 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
I was just reading on about the definition of tabloid and their audience and I thought it of note. Aside from the literal definition of tabloid I think cable/broadcast news is largely of the same ilk. It's sensationalist yellow journalism. Russiagate is a fair example of Democrats falling for the same sensationalism washed through a format that makes them feel like intelligent discerning people.

Note how C-Span fired the guy for lying about being hacked whereas MSNBC gave Joy Reid a promotion after her time traveling Russian hackers nonsense.

On October 17 2020 22:53 Uldridge wrote:
Sometimes I wonder how far astray you guys are from the average joe when talking in here.

Things like


and



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.

On October 18 2020 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:

There was usually a "if true" when other outlets ran their clickbait headlines about it. That was partially because the story had no credibility to begin with but fit a narrative.

I was just reading on about the definition of tabloid and their audience and I thought it of note. Aside from the literal definition of tabloid I think cable/broadcast news is largely of the same ilk. It's sensationalist yellow journalism. Russiagate is a fair example of Democrats falling for the same sensationalism washed through a format that makes them feel like intelligent discerning people.

Note how C-Span fired (I guess he was "suspended indefinitely", so we'll see if it sticks) the guy for lying about being hacked whereas MSNBC gave Joy Reid a promotion after her time traveling Russian hackers nonsense.

On October 18 2020 00:10 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Like you said shows what you know. I doubt the last time you saw a newspaper was 2 years ago, so surely some cognitive dissonance should have occured when you read what Gh wrote. It's tabloid format, as in the newspaper is physically printed on smaller pages, whereas broadsheets are printed on large pages. The Guardian is not regarded as tabloid trash. You'll think you would have learnt not to take GH at face value anymore, but apparently not.

On October 18 2020 00:50 Nevuk wrote:

Russiagate got sensationalized, sure, but it is a thing that definitely happened. Russia really did hack the DNC and release Podesta's emails in order to influence the election. Trump Jr definitely tried to arrange for collusion, but failed at it due to his own incompetence.

It wasn't just democrats who thought that, btw. Remember when Kevin Mccarthy, house GOP leader, was caught on hot mic saying he thought two people were on Putin's payroll - Trump and Dana Rohrbacher?

With all the facts we have now, it's far stranger that Trump really was ignorant of it all, given his open deference to Putin. It's probably explained by some of his mysterious financing instead of any quid pro quo in the campaign, or by his preference for strongman dictators.


We're definitely in agreement here. C-Span is quite possibly the only 24/7 network worth watching, and that's partially because it's boring as hell.

I'd call all the others entertainment masquerading as news. MSNBC is awful, with a huge pro-corporate bias. I do like a couple of their personalities, but their historical record as a channel is pretty bad. CNN was possibly Trump's largest campaign contributor in 2015 and 2016. Fox is well, entertainment, not news, by their own admission (a couple hours a day they pretend to be news, but even then they'll report on the things said by their opinion shows as items of import).

On October 18 2020 01:47 Doodsmack wrote:
The real danger for biden here is if he engaged in profit sharing with hunter while he was VP. Hunter's people are apparently starting to turn on him, so more could come out. For all we know the FBI has an active investigation on this, considering the FBI seized the contents of the computer shop laptop.