• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:16
CEST 08:16
KST 15:16
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Serral wins EWC 202529Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 20259Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15
Community News
[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder4EWC 2025 - Replay Pack4Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced38BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Serral wins EWC 2025 EWC 2025 - Replay Pack #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update
Tourneys
Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond) TaeJa vs Creator Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $10,000 live event Esports World Cup 2025
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL [BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder BW General Discussion Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced Shield Battery Server New Patch
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL] Non-Korean Championship - Final weekend [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Beyond All Reason Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Flash @ Namkraft Laddernet …
namkraft
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 537 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 303

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 301 302 303 304 305 5132 Next
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
Ayaz2810
Profile Joined September 2011
United States2763 Posts
June 18 2018 14:35 GMT
#6041
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.

"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."
Vrtra Vanquisher/Tiamat Trouncer/World Serpent Slayer
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 18 2018 14:42 GMT
#6042
I would also like the regulations barring the consolidation of media organizations to come back. American citizens liked them a lot and there were good for the public discourse. The current path is terrible and going to lead to some Brave New World non-sense very soon. Or maybe we are there already? That is sort of how these terrible systems creep up on you.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
June 18 2018 14:50 GMT
#6043
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.

"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."

This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case.

You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing.

It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah.
Also, fuck you Scalia.

Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 18 2018 14:55 GMT
#6044
On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.

"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."

This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case.

You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing.

It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah.
Show nested quote +
Also, fuck you Scalia.

Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy.

That is the problem. Liberals have these networks, conservatives have their own. We can all get manipulated by billionaires willing to feed us exact what we want to hear. While they make money pitting Americans against each other. Your objection is the argument why the current media landscape is harmful for democracy. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all need their feet held to the fire.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
June 18 2018 15:10 GMT
#6045
I don't get the line of argument there. "The lack of a fairness doctrine is worse than you are claiming" doesn't really setup a good rebuttal.
Logo
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-06-18 15:18:21
June 18 2018 15:14 GMT
#6046
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.

"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."

It seems doubtful we could bring it back; the changing media landscape makes the legal basis for applying it harder to use iirc, even if it were reimplemented, since less of the conversation goes over public airwaves. And free speech rules would limit the ability to force balance in other cases.

I also suspect those people would miss out on the truth even if they did hear it, though perhaps it would help some in the long run.
i'ts not against the rules to try to destroy democracy; and it's easy to convince fools that you're not doing so but are actually trying to help, which makes it hard to police against anyways.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 18 2018 15:24 GMT
#6047
On June 19 2018 00:10 Logo wrote:
I don't get the line of argument there. "The lack of a fairness doctrine is worse than you are claiming" doesn't really setup a good rebuttal.

Unregulated news media driven entirely by profit margins isn’t healthy for democracy. It won’t end it, but it isn’t good for a function democracy. News networks the peddle conspiracy theories(Seth Rich, for example) should be dragged before congress to justify why they are lying to the US public.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
IgnE
Profile Joined November 2010
United States7681 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-06-18 15:41:54
June 18 2018 15:38 GMT
#6048
On June 18 2018 14:25 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 18 2018 14:14 IgnE wrote:
Well Krugman specifically said "local elites" didn't he? Did not some leaders of the Gauls capitulate and accept Roman rule? Did not client kings in the Greek speaking east find Roman rule tolerable? It's a bit reductive to say, "well the east didn't speak Latin so they didn't take much from Roman culture," when Krugman's argument was precisely that Rome exercised "soft power."

It's not really clear which period you're referring to when you say Client Kings. Krugman seemed to be implying the Imperial period but Client Kings in the Greek east were largely a feature of the Republican era. There's always Armenia which is a bit of an odd one out, but I don't think you meant them.

In any case, I'm certainly not suggesting that there was no cultural interchange between Rome and the east. Rather that to suggest that the east was romanized would require an awful lot of very big exceptions, such as language as you point out.

And not to state the obvious but when the barbarians in the west were able to retain strong cultural identities under their own elites there was a pattern of acts that would suggest they were not fully romanized, such as sacking Rome.


What does it mean to be "a feature" though? why do you feel the need to divide it up like that? Yeah much of the Balkan peninsula and the shores of Turkey were conquered under the republic but what makes their conquering particularly important, or "a feature?" Some of the first to really embrace Roman imperial rule culturally were Asian peoples. Pergamon quickly had a neocorate under Augustus. The Greek cities had revolted the generation before Caesar, having to be put down by Sulla. But by the time of the empire, the Romans were building massive structures there, attending Olympic games, and plucking the educated out for use back in Rome or in the provinces. Maybe you are taking issue with my use of "client kings," but this list seems to have quite a few after Caesar, and my intention was mostly to refer to a way of ruling through the local elites, rather than any particular title.

You are criticizing Krugman for being too simplistic, but then you do the same thing from the opposite end. Like I'm not sure what "fully Romanized" means in the context of "soft power." I'd also point out that Rome wasn't sacked for 400 years after the birth of the empire, and it was never sacked by a directly conquered and incorporated people. So I'm not really sure what your point is there.

[image loading]
The unrealistic sound of these propositions is indicative, not of their utopian character, but of the strength of the forces which prevent their realization.
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9647 Posts
June 18 2018 15:43 GMT
#6049
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.
RIP Meatloaf <3
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
June 18 2018 15:48 GMT
#6050
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 18 2018 15:48 GMT
#6051
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

As an American, I envy the UK and the BBC. They provide quality news coverage and seem to give a shit about reporting on smaller stories people might not hear about. We have NPR here in the states, but it doesn’t have the reach of the BBC. But the UK is also very very small.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9647 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-06-18 15:56:48
June 18 2018 15:54 GMT
#6052
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.


People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth.

Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power.

On June 19 2018 00:48 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

As an American, I envy the UK and the BBC. They provide quality news coverage and seem to give a shit about reporting on smaller stories people might not hear about. We have NPR here in the states, but it doesn’t have the reach of the BBC. But the UK is also very very small.


They certainly do make quality TV.
They are biased as anyone when they want to be though.
When our government was proposing massive funding cuts a few years ago, the BBC were running a huge amount of pro government news.
RIP Meatloaf <3
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
June 18 2018 15:58 GMT
#6053
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.


People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth.

Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power.


ok, thanks for clarifying your claim.

I disagree that people's perception of bias in news is 100% based on political opinions; in my experience it's more like 85% based on political opinions. There's a small amount by which the actual bias or lack thereof in news affects people's perception of it.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
ShoCkeyy
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
7815 Posts
June 18 2018 15:58 GMT
#6054
BBC report better on the US than the US media reports on themselves, and that's a fact.
Life?
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-06-18 16:12:00
June 18 2018 16:00 GMT
#6055
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.


People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth.

Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power.


This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts.

On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:48 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

As an American, I envy the UK and the BBC. They provide quality news coverage and seem to give a shit about reporting on smaller stories people might not hear about. We have NPR here in the states, but it doesn’t have the reach of the BBC. But the UK is also very very small.


They certainly do make quality TV.
They are biased as anyone when they want to be though.
When our government was proposing massive funding cuts a few years ago, the BBC were running a huge amount of pro government news.

This right here is a problem, but one that the citizenship has to address, not the BBC. Government officials using funding to try to get better coverage of their policies should be blamed on the goverment. The BBC is trying to secure its ability to report for the future, which means they have to please the people who pay the bills. And the government knows this. If politicians are trying to cut the BBC’s funding, they need to make it clear that positive coverage will not impact that decision. Or hold public hearings on cutting the funding and have the BBC make its case to the people.

https://www.fredrogers.org/frc/news/mister-rogers-goes-washington-may-1-1969

I present the greatest case of public broadcasting makings it case before the government for its continued existence. This was back when the US congress gave a shit about Americans and did things.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Jockmcplop
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
United Kingdom9647 Posts
June 18 2018 16:20 GMT
#6056
On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.


People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth.

Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power.


This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts.



When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen.

One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem.
RIP Meatloaf <3
Ayaz2810
Profile Joined September 2011
United States2763 Posts
Last Edited: 2018-06-18 16:26:58
June 18 2018 16:23 GMT
#6057
On June 18 2018 23:50 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 18 2018 23:35 Ayaz2810 wrote:
Can we bring back the fairness doctrine please? I'm so tired of 40% of America missing out on the truth because right-wing media won't report it. This is bullshit. Fox is actively participating in the downfall of American democracy. Also, fuck you Scalia.

"The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011."

This had more pull when there were only 3 broadcast television networks and people regarded the radio airwaves as a scarce resource. Both are no longer the case.

You're just using political rhetoric in a very slanted way to try to enforce your will on others. Fox is a big participant in the downfall of American democracy? Hardly. Liberals have their MSNBC and CNN. You can pick the echo chamber of your choosing if you like that sort of thing.

It's eternally hilarious how much talking is done out of both sides of the mouth. Oh Trump is this ridiculous authoritarian and media is under threat. By the way, let's force right wing media to report what I call truth. Because I say they won't report it. Of course my left wing media is fairly reporting the truth. Oh yeah.
Show nested quote +
Also, fuck you Scalia.

Rest in peace, Scalia. Your opinions and dissents greatly furthered the cause of democracy.


Bullshit. MSNBC and CNN are not the bastions of the liberal media agenda that you claim they are (nor is WaPo, the Times, or any of the other major papers). They report factual information that Fox does not. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and rotten oranges. The only reasons Trump supporters hate MSNBC and CNN are because A. he tells them to and they're easily manipulated and B. those networks call out the blatant lies and hypocrisy that Fox won't. Fox is essentially state media at this point. Is truth and fact somehow part of the "liberal agenda"? Because if it is, I'll be a liberal forever.

Claiming that those networks are somehow an echo chamber is also false. I can recall dozens of occasions in which anchors and guests on those networks have explored the possible benefits of Trump policy, international diplomacy, EOs, and other things. Of course, that fades quickly because most, if not all, of his decisions are fucking awful. I've even heard them give credit for the state of the stock market and economy.

This kind of shit is why I hardly ever debate people anymore. You falsely accuse "the left" or "liberals" of doing the things that Trump and Republicans are doing. You clearly don't watch either of those channels. If more right-wingers did, and weren't brainwashed by the "fake news" mantra, Trump would be out on his ass.

There are few things I hate more than when people go "the other side is just as bad!". Because that's just not fucking true.

Years in office/Criminal Indictments/Convictions/Prison Sentences

Barack Obama
Democratic 8 0 0 0

George W. Bush
Republican 8 16 16 9

Bill Clinton
Democratic 8 2 1 1

George H. W. Bush
Republican 4 1 1 1

Ronald Reagan
Republican 8 26 16 8

Jimmy Carter
Democratic 4 1 0 0

Gerald Ford
Republican 2.4 1 1 1

Richard Nixon
Republican 5.6 76 55 15

The one valid criticism of "the liberal media" is that they are like a cat chasing a laser pointer when it comes to making stories out of Trump's bullshit. They are so easily distracted it's not even funny.
Vrtra Vanquisher/Tiamat Trouncer/World Serpent Slayer
Broetchenholer
Profile Joined March 2011
Germany1934 Posts
June 18 2018 16:26 GMT
#6058
On June 19 2018 00:38 IgnE wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 18 2018 14:25 KwarK wrote:
On June 18 2018 14:14 IgnE wrote:
Well Krugman specifically said "local elites" didn't he? Did not some leaders of the Gauls capitulate and accept Roman rule? Did not client kings in the Greek speaking east find Roman rule tolerable? It's a bit reductive to say, "well the east didn't speak Latin so they didn't take much from Roman culture," when Krugman's argument was precisely that Rome exercised "soft power."

It's not really clear which period you're referring to when you say Client Kings. Krugman seemed to be implying the Imperial period but Client Kings in the Greek east were largely a feature of the Republican era. There's always Armenia which is a bit of an odd one out, but I don't think you meant them.

In any case, I'm certainly not suggesting that there was no cultural interchange between Rome and the east. Rather that to suggest that the east was romanized would require an awful lot of very big exceptions, such as language as you point out.

And not to state the obvious but when the barbarians in the west were able to retain strong cultural identities under their own elites there was a pattern of acts that would suggest they were not fully romanized, such as sacking Rome.


What does it mean to be "a feature" though? why do you feel the need to divide it up like that? Yeah much of the Balkan peninsula and the shores of Turkey were conquered under the republic but what makes their conquering particularly important, or "a feature?" Some of the first to really embrace Roman imperial rule culturally were Asian peoples. Pergamon quickly had a neocorate under Augustus. The Greek cities had revolted the generation before Caesar, having to be put down by Sulla. But by the time of the empire, the Romans were building massive structures there, attending Olympic games, and plucking the educated out for use back in Rome or in the provinces. Maybe you are taking issue with my use of "client kings," but this list seems to have quite a few after Caesar, and my intention was mostly to refer to a way of ruling through the local elites, rather than any particular title.

You are criticizing Krugman for being too simplistic, but then you do the same thing from the opposite end. Like I'm not sure what "fully Romanized" means in the context of "soft power." I'd also point out that Rome wasn't sacked for 400 years after the birth of the empire, and it was never sacked by a directly conquered and incorporated people. So I'm not really sure what your point is there.

[image loading]


Rome was sacked by client kings. In the last century of the western empire, Rome did not have the power to defeat the germanic invasions by themselves and gave the attackers concessions. Most famously the francs were a tribe of people that were allowed reign the area of modern belgium and northern france in exchange for them defending roman borders against other "barbarians". And Rome tries the same with the goths but they sacked rome and made one of them Caesar. When they conquered the eastern mediteranean, they did let those countries more or less rule themselves and some of them remained more or less autonomous for a long time but this was only due to them being culturally similar. The conquest of France was something entirely different and those people did not rebel against roe because they were largely subdued or slaved after the conquest.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
June 18 2018 16:30 GMT
#6059
On June 19 2018 01:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 19 2018 01:00 Plansix wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:54 Jockmcplop wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:48 zlefin wrote:
On June 19 2018 00:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I for one am furious about the lack of fair media on the right and left. I'll take the totally fair unbiased BBC any time.

LOL.

what's the "LOL" part about? i.e. I don't get what you mean by it in this context.


People's perception of bias in the news media relies 100% on their political opinions. All new media outlets have established parameters of what they will call 'fair' and 'unbiased', but it rarely has anything to do with actually being fair and unbiased, it just sticks within those parameters and anything outside it is ridiculed. Look at Corbyn for the first year of his reign of the Labour party. The BBC was basically an anti-Corbyn news outlet, because his views fell outside what the BBC would call established political truth.

Most people don't notice it as much with the major news outlets because they are living life within a mythology that aligns with the news they are consuming. To pretend that this is a complete, fair and balanced view of politics, or anything else, is a complete joke. Every day that you read the BBC you are being conditioned to believe in a set of basic assumptions that are really only there to protect those in power.


This can be easily counter balanced by reading a couple news sources. News agencies don’t report in an unbiased nature. They just report on sets of facts and stories they hear, while trying to make their potential biases known to the viewer. As an American who listens to BBC radio its world coverage, I’ve never heard the network push that it is reporting on all the facts or that its coverage with the “truth”. It has mostly been the opposite of that, with reporters being careful in saying they do not have all the facts.



When it comes to the ind of 'establishment bias' that I believe affects the BBC, reading multiple news sources to get a fair, balanced view of current events is actually counter productive. The truth isn't determined by the majority, and the majority of news outlets will report a very similar, and very narrow interpretation of events. If you are reading multiple sources these are the facts that you will assume are true, but often you will find all the major news outlets failing to report stuff, and I've seen it argued many times on here that if there's no major news source, its probably a conspiracy theory or it didn't happen.

One news outlet like the BBC reporting in the way they do isn't a problem, as you've said they try and do their best to be balanced within their parameters, but when these parameters are identical in all the major news outlets you have a problem.

Personally, i think having a better understanding of the journalism profession is the solution to this problem. Because when people understand that there is no truth, only information from a specific point of view, they understand that no journalist can provide them with complete information. So when I want more information on a specific story, I might read the local coverage of the story, rather than go to another national paper. And the vast majority of news worthy events in the world do not get reported on.

The rise of false or misleading information being peddled through social media sites have made people reluctant to believe stories from unknown sources. Which is just the nature of anonymous internet forums leaking into the wider public discourse. I didn't believe random people on the internet is the last 1990s and I don't think its a good idea to start now. Again, I think people would be well served to find a specific reporter covering a story they are interested in and follow that person on social media. Reporters are generally pretty good a sniffing out a conspiracy theory or when someone is overselling a story that might not have a lot of verifiable information surrounding it. You can learn a lot about a story just by who is covering.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13926 Posts
June 18 2018 16:33 GMT
#6060
The idea of barbarians wanting roman things comes from the post roman world after they migrated into the area and found these amazing things to them. Everything rome was was stamped out and eterminated in kind as the romans would. But the foundations such as roads and mile markers paved the way for germanic tribes such as the Goths saxons franks and who nots to ideolize the romans for hundreds of years after.

Its correct that rome offered soft power over its conquered lands but they still demanded taxs and soilders from everyone. The prosperity of rome was seeded in its ability to leverage Phoenician ideals such as colonies and a Reliance on trade for revenues to gain power in new areas.

Also best pr empires ever go to the Byzantines my boy justinian started out as a farmers son and retook rome from the franks and Goths. But then Muslims happen and what can you do.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Prev 1 301 302 303 304 305 5132 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
DaveTesta Events
01:00
Kirktown Chat Brawl #7
davetesta63
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 260
ProTech68
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 154
TY 86
Bale 34
Backho 28
Yoon 27
Icarus 8
Hm[arnc] 5
ivOry 3
ggaemo 1
League of Legends
JimRising 697
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K918
Super Smash Bros
Westballz59
Other Games
summit1g10183
shahzam608
NeuroSwarm24
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1267
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 14
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH313
• Hupsaiya 67
• practicex 51
• Sammyuel 8
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1196
• Stunt442
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
3h 44m
Online Event
9h 44m
Korean StarCraft League
1d 20h
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
Online Event
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs TBD
OSC
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 20 Non-Korean Championship
FEL Cracow 2025
Underdog Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
CC Div. A S7
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025

Upcoming

BSL 21 Qualifiers
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
Roobet Cup 2025
Yuqilin POB S2
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.