|
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 |
Norway28667 Posts
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/
it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/01/PJ_2020.01.24_media-polarization_1-01.png?resize=420,514) (Trust in different media outlets) ![[image loading]](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/01/PJ_2020.01.24_media-polarization_1-02.png?resize=420,412) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: ![[image loading]](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2020/01/PJ_2020.01.24_media-polarization_1-04-1.png?resize=420,856) That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it.
I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same.
|
On September 17 2021 00:03 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2021 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Illinois will start requiring Media Literacy classes, with an emphasis on learning how to do proper research and assessing accuracy and bias from news sources, and in the least surprising statement of all time, the Republicans came out against this. Illinois Becomes the First State to Require Media Literacy Classes for High School Students
To encourage students to develop their research skills, the Prairie State is requiring classes that will teach teenagers how to discern facts from fiction. https://progressive.org/latest/illinois-first-state-media-literacy-albano-210831/ I think this has the capacity to do enormous good for our future generations, just like having Financial Literacy high school classes would. Of course, this also plays perfectly into the conservative narrative that education is liberal indoctrination and that all the teachers will say MSNBC is perfect and Fox News is always wrong, or whatever. "Among them was state Representative Adam Niemerg, who told the media that the bill was “anti-Trump, anti-conservative” Appearently even GOP are willing to admit that learning proper research and critical thinking is anti-Trump and counter productive to the their party. I dont know if I should be shocked over his honesty or amused by him not realizing what he actually just said - I think I'll be both.
I'm definitely both, although I'm sure his intention was to mean that criticism of Trump or conservativism isn't fair and can't be accurate.
On September 17 2021 00:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:Nice. I have to admit that teaching that class in the US (I already essentially do, here in Norway, more on that in the spoiler) sounds pretty difficult. I mean, there's generic stuff you can, and should, teach, of course, but it would be a lot easier if you actually had media outlets that were considered trustworthy by a significant majority. + Show Spoiler +The Norwegian framework for education, which is the tome of guidance for all Norwegian teachers in defining what we are supposed to teach the youth and children, (it actually specifically grants us quite a bit of autonomy so that's a bit exaggerated  ) specifies that there are three interdisciplinary topics ( health and life skills, democracy and citizenship, sustainable development), six core values ( human dignity, identity and cultural diversity, critical thinking and ethical awareness, the joy of creating, engagement and the urge to explore, respect for nature and environmental awareness, democracy and participation), and five basic skills ( knowing to read, speak, write, do math, and digital skills). Digital skills, critical thinking, democracy and participation, life skills, democracy and citizenship, all of those 5 - of 14 total - have media literacy as a partial focus. At the high school I teach, we spent the first two weeks of the school year on an interdisciplinary project on democracy and citizenship. (Largely chosen as the first interdisciplinary topic because we just had elections in Norway.) It's a bit of a challenge to include it into every subject, but I know that one of our math teachers chose to spend this period on understanding graphs and statistics that could be relevant for understanding election related stuff.) It's hugely important, of course. Here's the funny thing tho which makes for a nice contrast to the US. Those interdisciplinary topics and the six core values were defined by a conservative government. (Which was just ousted in the aforementioned election! Hooray! Although while I am happy to change rulers, they were mostly a highly competent bunch, and I'm happy that even if we don't agree on how to make society better, we actually can agree on stuff like 'core values'. )
That Norwegian framework for education sounds really great and fundamental to a high-functioning society. Very well-rounded, too  Very different from the United States 
|
On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same.
Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 17 2021 02:16 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same. Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel
It's not particularly good either, despite the fact that a lot of folks are on the "Buzzfeed News is not like the other Buzzfeed" train. Really just so-so overall.
|
On September 17 2021 03:06 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2021 02:16 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same. Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel It's not particularly good either, despite the fact that a lot of folks are on the "Buzzfeed News is not like the other Buzzfeed" train. Really just so-so overall.
Not going to pretend I regularly visit the site or anything, but they have had some quite ground-breaking articles over there, based on actual journalism and extensive investigations
How the rest 99% of the articles look like, I frankly have no clue
|
On September 17 2021 06:02 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2021 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 17 2021 02:16 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same. Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel It's not particularly good either, despite the fact that a lot of folks are on the "Buzzfeed News is not like the other Buzzfeed" train. Really just so-so overall. Not going to pretend I regularly visit the site or anything, but they have had some quite ground-breaking articles over there, based on actual journalism and extensive investigations How the rest 99% of the articles look like, I frankly have no clue
If you only go to a news site for 1% of the articles when you hear from the grapevine that they produced something good they're a crappy news site no? "I almost never get my news from this site" isn't an endorsement to quality.
|
On September 17 2021 07:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2021 06:02 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 17 2021 02:16 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same. Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel It's not particularly good either, despite the fact that a lot of folks are on the "Buzzfeed News is not like the other Buzzfeed" train. Really just so-so overall. Not going to pretend I regularly visit the site or anything, but they have had some quite ground-breaking articles over there, based on actual journalism and extensive investigations How the rest 99% of the articles look like, I frankly have no clue If you only go to a news site for 1% of the articles when you hear from the grapevine that they produced something good they're a crappy news site no? "I almost never get my news from this site" isn't an endorsement to quality.
I don't go to any American news sites with any frequency. I don't live there after all
|
On September 17 2021 16:13 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2021 07:03 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On September 17 2021 06:02 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 03:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 17 2021 02:16 Excludos wrote:On September 17 2021 00:56 Liquid`Drone wrote:https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/it's a year and a half old, so I'm sure some things might have changed, but based on my very quick skimming of the first few pages, it's basically CNN for democrats/lean dem and Fox for republicans/lean republicans. + Show Spoiler +(Trust in different media outlets) (Distrust instead) NPR (which I am partial to myself) end up winning in one category: That is, least distrusted by Democrat voters. But I think they fall short in the overall equation because a lot of people just don't know about it. I'm guessing by now Fox might have taken a hit among lean republican voters, but CNN I imagine is much the same. Man, Buzzfeed has really gotten an undeserved bad rep. But I guess they made their bed when they named it the same as their unrelated clickbait Youtube channel It's not particularly good either, despite the fact that a lot of folks are on the "Buzzfeed News is not like the other Buzzfeed" train. Really just so-so overall. Not going to pretend I regularly visit the site or anything, but they have had some quite ground-breaking articles over there, based on actual journalism and extensive investigations How the rest 99% of the articles look like, I frankly have no clue If you only go to a news site for 1% of the articles when you hear from the grapevine that they produced something good they're a crappy news site no? "I almost never get my news from this site" isn't an endorsement to quality. I don't go to any American news sites with any frequency. I don't live there after all
The most trusted news from the study that was linked are also the ones with the most market share. This isn't a coincidence was my point. Most Americans don't get their news from buzzfeed either.
|
|
|
We know that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women; out of curiosity, is there any evidence that covid caused the miscarriages/stillbirths? One way to be reasonably confident of this would be if covid-infected pregnant women were miscarrying at higher rates than whatever the normal probability is.
|
United States42689 Posts
On September 18 2021 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:We know that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women; out of curiosity, is there any evidence that covid caused the miscarriages/stillbirths? One way to be reasonably confident of this would be if covid-infected pregnant women were miscarrying at higher rates than whatever the normal probability is.
I believe that medical stress on the body is a common cause of spontaneous abortions as an evolutionary adaptation. Pregnancy is very resource intensive and places the body under considerable strain. If something else happens during the pregnancy the body will abort the fetus to save itself so that it can try again under better conditions. It’s not COVID specific, sick women just have spontaneous abortions as an evolutionary advantage.
|
On September 18 2021 02:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:We know that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women; out of curiosity, is there any evidence that covid caused the miscarriages/stillbirths? One way to be reasonably confident of this would be if covid-infected pregnant women were miscarrying at higher rates than whatever the normal probability is. I believe that medical stress on the body is a common cause of spontaneous abortions as an evolutionary adaptation. Pregnancy is very resource intensive and places the body under considerable strain. If something else happens during the pregnancy the body will abort the fetus to save itself so that it can try again under better conditions. It’s not COVID specific, sick women just have spontaneous abortions as an evolutionary advantage.
That makes a lot of sense; thanks!
|
|
|
US has finally admitted one of its "final acts" (the US intends to continue bombing people) in Afghanistan was to kill an aid worker and his family (a bunch of them being children).
The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
It was one of the US military's final acts in Afghanistan, before ending its 20-year operation in the country.
Relatives of the victims told the BBC the day after the strike that they had applied to be evacuated to the US, and had been waiting for a phone call telling them to go to the airport.
One of those killed, Ahmad Naser, had been a translator with US forces. Other victims had previously worked for international organisations and held visas allowing them entry to the US.
www.bbc.com
I'm reminded of Obama's drone campaign where 9 out of 10 people killed weren't the targets.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Pretty fitting cherry on top of the 20-year Afghanistan adventure. Something definitely seemed a little too convenient about how clean they claimed the drone strike to be, almost as if it wasn't real.
No excuses to be had on this one akin to "it was a lost cause" - this is one that Biden definitely gets to own wholesale.
|
I'm not really a fan of the meme that national leaders will start/escalate conflicts or bomb someone to distract from bad news, but that is pretty much exactly what happened. There was a terrorist attack, and the government was so anxious to "answer" it that they bombed a family. They must have known they screwed up pretty early too, because in the days immediately following the attack they refused to name the supposed terrorists they had a taken out. In a sad way, there was no more fitting end for the Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal.
|
On September 18 2021 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:US has finally admitted one of its "final acts" (the US intends to continue bombing people) in Afghanistan was to kill an aid worker and his family (a bunch of them being children). Show nested quote +The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
It was one of the US military's final acts in Afghanistan, before ending its 20-year operation in the country.
Relatives of the victims told the BBC the day after the strike that they had applied to be evacuated to the US, and had been waiting for a phone call telling them to go to the airport.
One of those killed, Ahmad Naser, had been a translator with US forces. Other victims had previously worked for international organisations and held visas allowing them entry to the US. www.bbc.comI'm reminded of Obama's drone campaign where 9 out of 10 people killed weren't the targets.
And to think the Trump Administration somehow managed to commit more Drone strikes in its first 2 years than the Obama Administration did in 8. And to top it off, the Trump Administration stopped reporting the number of Drone strikes and the casualties they caused in 2019 so the number is even higher than we know. We're bombing innocent civilians to death in droves and the government doesn't give a shit.
|
Northern Ireland25331 Posts
On September 18 2021 13:24 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2021 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:US has finally admitted one of its "final acts" (the US intends to continue bombing people) in Afghanistan was to kill an aid worker and his family (a bunch of them being children). The US has admitted that a drone strike in Kabul days before its military pullout killed 10 innocent people.
A US Central Command investigation found that an aid worker and nine members of his family, including seven children, died in the 29 August strike.
The youngest child, Sumaya, was just two years old.
It was one of the US military's final acts in Afghanistan, before ending its 20-year operation in the country.
Relatives of the victims told the BBC the day after the strike that they had applied to be evacuated to the US, and had been waiting for a phone call telling them to go to the airport.
One of those killed, Ahmad Naser, had been a translator with US forces. Other victims had previously worked for international organisations and held visas allowing them entry to the US. www.bbc.comI'm reminded of Obama's drone campaign where 9 out of 10 people killed weren't the targets. And to think the Trump Administration somehow managed to commit more Drone strikes in its first 2 years than the Obama Administration did in 8. And to top it off, the Trump Administration stopped reporting the number of Drone strikes and the casualties they caused in 2019 so the number is even higher than we know. We're bombing innocent civilians to death in droves and the government doesn't give a shit.
Worse still, the populace at large don’t really give a shit either. I mean sure when pressed people will say such things are terrible, but it’s not something that exactly riles folks up.
|
|
|
On September 18 2021 02:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:We know that the vaccine is safe for pregnant women; out of curiosity, is there any evidence that covid caused the miscarriages/stillbirths? One way to be reasonably confident of this would be if covid-infected pregnant women were miscarrying at higher rates than whatever the normal probability is.
I haven't read any studies on the effects COVID specifically might have on pregnancies, but most moderate to severe illnesses have been shown to increase odds of miscarriage, with severity of the disease generally correlating with odds of miscarriages / early births etc. Regular pneumonia is very dangerous during pregnancy, so I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that COVID would pose extra risks, too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
