|
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 January 24 2022 01:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2022 05:59 Starlightsun wrote:On January 23 2022 05:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 23 2022 04:12 Starlightsun wrote:
the more insidious harms of undermining trust in journalism I won't speak to any of the other ones, but if Trump really is right to be credited with undermining trust in journalism (or specifically, mainstream US-based journalism), then that should be notched down as one of his best achievements. The trust worthiness of US media evaporated long ago, its conflicts of interests become more painfully obvious by the day (look who owns these outlets), and the only item that was in doubt was when public opinion would catch up to the fact. Maybe when Trump got into a spat with CNN and called it fake news, even if he did this out of petty self-interest, it got people to realize that maybe CNN and the outlets like it really are pretty bad when it comes to overall journalistic integrity. I don't doubt that the press would objectively interpret even a well-founded attack on their own journalistic integrity as anything other than the most evilest thing that has to be stopped. So the coverage would naturally gravitate towards looking like that. I don't disagree that journalism is in a bad state. If instead of just trashing journalism in general he had advanced some reforms on that front then it would be to his credit. As bad as much journalism is though, I think most of the time it is from misleading framing, emphasis or omission rather than just making stuff up. So it is still an important source of fact for us all. The idea that facts about current events cannot be known or verified, because the press only lies, is incredibly damaging imo. It should be noted, there are a fair number of major stories that turn out to be false, and thus cannot be relied on as a source of fact. Two examples are Russian bounties and the early 2017 NYT story saying there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials (which Jim Comey described during congressional testimony as "fiction").
That 2017 story was proven true and accounted for many connections between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign. The report was GOP led and showed numerous attempts to aid the russians in order to interfere with the election. Papadopoulos went to jail for lying about it. One of Trumps Aids was famous for being a Russian funded operative in Ukraine. The number of outright lies and hoaxes on right and far right sources that have gotten people killed is nothing compared to the hit and miss reporting by the NYT.
|
United States24690 Posts
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported.
|
On January 24 2022 01:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2022 05:59 Starlightsun wrote:On January 23 2022 05:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 23 2022 04:12 Starlightsun wrote:
the more insidious harms of undermining trust in journalism I won't speak to any of the other ones, but if Trump really is right to be credited with undermining trust in journalism (or specifically, mainstream US-based journalism), then that should be notched down as one of his best achievements. The trust worthiness of US media evaporated long ago, its conflicts of interests become more painfully obvious by the day (look who owns these outlets), and the only item that was in doubt was when public opinion would catch up to the fact. Maybe when Trump got into a spat with CNN and called it fake news, even if he did this out of petty self-interest, it got people to realize that maybe CNN and the outlets like it really are pretty bad when it comes to overall journalistic integrity. I don't doubt that the press would objectively interpret even a well-founded attack on their own journalistic integrity as anything other than the most evilest thing that has to be stopped. So the coverage would naturally gravitate towards looking like that. I don't disagree that journalism is in a bad state. If instead of just trashing journalism in general he had advanced some reforms on that front then it would be to his credit. As bad as much journalism is though, I think most of the time it is from misleading framing, emphasis or omission rather than just making stuff up. So it is still an important source of fact for us all. The idea that facts about current events cannot be known or verified, because the press only lies, is incredibly damaging imo. It should be noted, there are a fair number of major stories that turn out to be false, and thus cannot be relied on as a source of fact. Two examples are Russian bounties and the early 2017 NYT story saying there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials (which Jim Comey described during congressional testimony as "fiction").
I don't know about Russian bounties, but this latter story is true.
On January 24 2022 01:59 micronesia wrote:
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported.
Agreed. Misreporting or leaving out a few minor details does not necessarily mean the overarching story isn't generally true, or that we have to disregard everything else being reported.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 23 2022 20:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2022 17:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 23 2022 06:54 Belisarius wrote:
Yeah that's an incredibly dumb opinion. There are plenty of places still doing reliable journalism, and they are not the publications Trump was friendly with.
The baseline media standard in the US might not be high, but the idea that Trump was somehow working to raise it is absurd and dangerous. The idea that Trump undermining traditional journalism is a good thing is really puzzling to me too, considering that the alternative is fringe media, conspiracy theorists and plain old online lies. Trump attacks the traditional media not because they are bad or biaised, but because they expose his lies. I agree with this. He calls anyone/anything that disagrees with him "fake news", regardless of whether the news is objective and/or factual. He doesn't actually critically examine different sources or pieces for accuracy and decide that some things are good, reliable journalism while other things aren't worthy of a Pulitzer Prize.
Keep in mind that the other side of this coin is not level-headed consideration of the reliability of journalism or the lack thereof, but tabloid-tier garbage that parades around banners like "democracy dies in darkness" and other self-serving rhetoric that lacks nuance and is really trying to say "we are the good guys so buy our newspapers." Sure, Trump's own criticisms might have been self-serving and petty, but better to come on strong than to start by offering so many qualifiers to avoid offending the few good journalists such that it's easy to ignore the overall message.
In short, even if the messenger has other flaws, I don't altogether see it as a bad thing if someone "undermined faith in journalism" when said journalism has long since lacked the quality that warranted faith. It certainly isn't a more insidious harm as was originally claimed. Merely a situation with both upside and downside and an imperfect legacy.
|
On January 24 2022 01:49 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2022 01:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 23 2022 05:59 Starlightsun wrote:On January 23 2022 05:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 23 2022 04:12 Starlightsun wrote:
the more insidious harms of undermining trust in journalism I won't speak to any of the other ones, but if Trump really is right to be credited with undermining trust in journalism (or specifically, mainstream US-based journalism), then that should be notched down as one of his best achievements. The trust worthiness of US media evaporated long ago, its conflicts of interests become more painfully obvious by the day (look who owns these outlets), and the only item that was in doubt was when public opinion would catch up to the fact. Maybe when Trump got into a spat with CNN and called it fake news, even if he did this out of petty self-interest, it got people to realize that maybe CNN and the outlets like it really are pretty bad when it comes to overall journalistic integrity. I don't doubt that the press would objectively interpret even a well-founded attack on their own journalistic integrity as anything other than the most evilest thing that has to be stopped. So the coverage would naturally gravitate towards looking like that. I don't disagree that journalism is in a bad state. If instead of just trashing journalism in general he had advanced some reforms on that front then it would be to his credit. As bad as much journalism is though, I think most of the time it is from misleading framing, emphasis or omission rather than just making stuff up. So it is still an important source of fact for us all. The idea that facts about current events cannot be known or verified, because the press only lies, is incredibly damaging imo. It should be noted, there are a fair number of major stories that turn out to be false, and thus cannot be relied on as a source of fact. Two examples are Russian bounties and the early 2017 NYT story saying there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials (which Jim Comey described during congressional testimony as "fiction"). That 2017 story was proven true and accounted for many connections between Russian intelligence and the Trump campaign. The report was GOP led and showed numerous attempts to aid the russians in order to interfere with the election. Papadopoulos went to jail for lying about it. One of Trumps Aids was famous for being a Russian funded operative in Ukraine. The number of outright lies and hoaxes on right and far right sources that have gotten people killed is nothing compared to the hit and miss reporting by the NYT.
Most of the claims in this post are not supported by the facts. For example the post likely assumes that all persons of significance in Ukraine and Russia are "Russian intelligence officials." The NYT story was likely not relying on that assumption (though the media certainly transitioned to that assumption later), which is why Comey called it fiction.
On January 24 2022 01:59 micronesia wrote:
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported.
I agree that outright dismissal is not supported (including for media sources associated with the right), but a great degree of caution/skepticism is.
|
I mean they're supported by facts and they're from the GOP run investigation but okay.
|
United States42778 Posts
On January 24 2022 01:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2022 05:59 Starlightsun wrote:On January 23 2022 05:07 LegalLord wrote:On January 23 2022 04:12 Starlightsun wrote:
the more insidious harms of undermining trust in journalism I won't speak to any of the other ones, but if Trump really is right to be credited with undermining trust in journalism (or specifically, mainstream US-based journalism), then that should be notched down as one of his best achievements. The trust worthiness of US media evaporated long ago, its conflicts of interests become more painfully obvious by the day (look who owns these outlets), and the only item that was in doubt was when public opinion would catch up to the fact. Maybe when Trump got into a spat with CNN and called it fake news, even if he did this out of petty self-interest, it got people to realize that maybe CNN and the outlets like it really are pretty bad when it comes to overall journalistic integrity. I don't doubt that the press would objectively interpret even a well-founded attack on their own journalistic integrity as anything other than the most evilest thing that has to be stopped. So the coverage would naturally gravitate towards looking like that. I don't disagree that journalism is in a bad state. If instead of just trashing journalism in general he had advanced some reforms on that front then it would be to his credit. As bad as much journalism is though, I think most of the time it is from misleading framing, emphasis or omission rather than just making stuff up. So it is still an important source of fact for us all. The idea that facts about current events cannot be known or verified, because the press only lies, is incredibly damaging imo. It should be noted, there are a fair number of major stories that turn out to be false, and thus cannot be relied on as a source of fact. Two examples are Russian bounties and the early 2017 NYT story saying there were numerous contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials (which Jim Comey described during congressional testimony as "fiction").
Those contacts did happen, wtf are you talking about.
|
On January 24 2022 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
I mean they're supported by facts and they're from the GOP run investigation but okay.
If you can convince people that the whole MSM is corrupt and lying and only select, hard right news sources are trustworthy, you can convince them that literally anything is true or false.
|
On January 24 2022 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
I mean they're supported by facts and they're from the GOP run investigation but okay.
The senate Intel report (vol. 5) describes contact (by Manafort) with a single (alleged) "Russian intelligence officer," Konstantin Kilimnik (a person who cooperated with the US state dept for years by informing on Ukraine & Russia). The two had a prior relationship of consulting dealings. By contrast, the NYT story alleged that "phone records and intercepted calls show that members of trump's campaign and other trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials."
|
On January 24 2022 01:59 micronesia wrote:
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported.
It is a fact that apart from Fox News, basically every other major news organization is tilted to the left to some extent.
Fox has their problems of course, but if you don't agree politically with the left, where do you even go?
|
United States24690 Posts
I would suggest going to multiple sources and separating out in your mind facts from commentary. Only watching Fox News for all information is nuts to me, but it's also a bad idea to only watch MSNBC even though I don't think that would be as bad. Rely on more than one tv station if you use the tv to get news, read online news, and maintain a bit of healthy skepticism, and you are ahead of the bulk of people at this point.
|
|
|
Feels pertinent to point out there is an incontrovertible heavy bias in all major US news organizations toward perpetuating capitalism. I don't believe people can have a serious discussion about news media in the US without consideration for what that particular bias means to the integrity/quality of news reporting.
|
United States42778 Posts
On January 24 2022 06:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2022 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
I mean they're supported by facts and they're from the GOP run investigation but okay. The senate Intel report (vol. 5) describes contact (by Manafort) with a single (alleged) "Russian intelligence officer," Konstantin Kilimnik (a person who cooperated with the US state dept for years by informing on Ukraine & Russia). The two had a prior relationship of consulting dealings. By contrast, the NYT story alleged that "phone records and intercepted calls show that members of trump's campaign and other trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials."
The two had a prior relationship in as much as Manafort is also a Russian asset lol. He was working for a Russian proxy in Ukraine previously.
The idea that he wasn't contacting Russian intelligence, he was just contacting his old friend in Russian intelligence is absurd. He was contacting his handler.
|
Russian Federation102 Posts
On January 23 2022 12:02 KwarK wrote:
It’s weird that you keep coming up with the worst takes so reliably. Laypeople should absolutely not be reading medical studies and evaluating their conclusions themselves. They also shouldn’t be designing their own bridges and generating their own nuclear power.
There isn’t a truth in the middle where people decide for themselves. Liberals don’t advocate for mass vaccination as a tribal thing, virologists advocate for it and liberals advocate for doing the thing the experts recommend.
My friend, I do not simply say you have "worst take" and then disregard it and discuss something else entirely so we can please focus on discussion?
By layperson you mean someone who is not well versed in thing like biology? Yet this same person you speak of spends many time reading about politics, watching news, reading articles, participation in forums, they spend all this time so there is no excuse they should not direct this time into learning how to comprehend a study instead. Especially for something so important like this. I don't think comparing generating nuclear power to learning how to comprehend studies is fair because understanding studies is crucial for making informed decision, but generating your own nuclear power is not necessary.
As for what expert recommend, and I really do not know why we are focusing about vaccination now, but I will participate in discussion, what do you mean by this? I saw several study showing vaccination is not as effective as natural immunity against different strain*, so what is the expert advice for mass vaccination when someone already had covid and is naturally immune? We can find articles saying "virologists say so and so", then we can find articles saying "but these virologists say the opposite of so and so". Especially important when we consider the lack of established efficacy for vaccine, it is well known at this point that vaccines aren't really helping as much as we hoped hence why we are still in lockdown, wear mask, things like this. The lack of longitudinal study on its safety is also called into question by this. Many vaccines take years to become approved, and that is for vaccines that are not based in adaptive mRNA which is for all intents and purposes completely new. Many times the FDA has approved a medication and then five, six, seven years later it is recalled because of unforeseen side effects.
Important to note I am not saying this vaccine is bad or will give you blood clots or anything like this. I am saying I do not know if it will in the long run because of lack of information. I will grant it is unlikely, and also I think the benefit outweighs the risk for old or obese people. But instead of advocating for vaccine, why not advocate for vitamin D intake (largest correlation between severity of covid symptoms), losing weight (second largest), and living healthy lifestyle? On that note why not discuss things like Ivermectin? Some say it works, some say it does not, is that not reason to study it more? Yet we have seen very few such studies. I am not saying Ivermectin is good and that it works but I think it should be studied because of some reports saying it is effective. I think this is plausibly intentional by greedy pharmaceutical corporations. Lack of information causes uncertainty in judgement of whether it belongs in a treatment plan.
* https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
Thank you all, I see good discussion happening here. And again sorry for bad English but I am learning more  if any part is unclear because of bad grammar please tell me here or in private message I would appreciate it greatly!
|
United States42778 Posts
Again with the worst takes. How exactly is it that you plan to imbue an entire nation's population with natural immunity? Is it possible that that plan could backfire?
The Black Death was resolved with a policy of natural immunity but that wasn't a total success.
|
On January 24 2022 07:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2022 06:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On January 24 2022 05:31 Sermokala wrote:
I mean they're supported by facts and they're from the GOP run investigation but okay. The senate Intel report (vol. 5) describes contact (by Manafort) with a single (alleged) "Russian intelligence officer," Konstantin Kilimnik (a person who cooperated with the US state dept for years by informing on Ukraine & Russia). The two had a prior relationship of consulting dealings. By contrast, the NYT story alleged that "phone records and intercepted calls show that members of trump's campaign and other trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials." The two had a prior relationship in as much as Manafort is also a Russian asset lol. He was working for a Russian proxy in Ukraine previously. The idea that he wasn't contacting Russian intelligence, he was just contacting his old friend in Russian intelligence is absurd. He was contacting his handler.
It takes a couple of assumptions to go from "Manafort worked for a Russian proxy" to "Manafort was a Russian asset with a Russian intelligence handler." Perhaps Manafort should have worked for the American proxy instead. But it's likely, based on the evidence, Manafort contacted Kilimnik for the purpose of making up on personal debts, as opposed to colluding with Russia in US election interference. In any case, the NYT story was false (although perhaps it was only 90% as opposed to 100% false).
|
|
|
On January 24 2022 06:55 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2022 01:59 micronesia wrote:
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported. It is a fact that apart from Fox News, basically every other major news organization is tilted to the left to some extent.
Most news organizations are left wing in the sense that they don't openly despise minorities. Fox is unusual in this regard. Most news organizations are right wing in the sense that they support plutocracy. Fox is normal in this regard.
|
On January 24 2022 06:55 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2022 01:59 micronesia wrote:
It is also somewhat questionable to say all media reporting is not 100% accurate, therefore it cannot be trusted at all. I can understand urging caution, but outright dismissal is not supported. It is a fact that apart from Fox News, basically every other major news organization is tilted to the left to some extent. Fox has their problems of course, but if you don't agree politically with the left, where do you even go?
Are you being serious, or joking? It is not the case that every other major news organization is tilted to the left. Just because most outlets report that covid is real or that Biden is actually the president doesn't make it liberal propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
