|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:ahahah bullshit. I don't know much about journalism but from what I do know its that journalists love tearing eachother down more than anyone else. No one outside of NBC is going to come to Lauer's defense and they certainly won't be inspired by him. On the other hand media people have been allergic to asking follow-up questions for years and nothing has ever shamed them into stopping before. Just for context I REEEEEEEALLY want to be wrong about this but the last 15 years of the media gives me no reason to expect anything other than the worst.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:On the other hand media people have been allergic to asking follow-up questions for years and nothing has ever shamed them into stopping before. You're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Enjoying every journalist giving Matt Lauer a collective swirly, hopefully he is covering dog shows from now on. This entire debacle has somehow given me more faith in the press
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're wrong. If you can credibly quote this back to me after the debates I will be so relieved.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Enjoying every journalist giving Matt Lauer a collective swirly, hopefully he is covering dog shows from now on. They'll be trying to rehab his reputation over the coming months but he's probably out of the rotation for this election now. Hopefully this sets a precedent for future moderators of, "Trump will be a blithering idiot no matter how much you try to help him, so don't put your career on the line to help him out"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:I think the heroes hounding her on Twitter should know she's a legacy brat. Good context, she's probably been coasting on her father's rep her whole career. I imagine that's not uncommon in journalism, and most of the legacy brats are pale shadows of their parents. After reading This Town, seeing Luke Russert leave NBC was such a relief. He was easily the worst legacy (and I'm including Chris Wallace in this).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Also, even with Lauer tossing up softballs Trump STILL hosed up. He still began to unravel and was only able to stay together due to Lauer not pushing it. What do you think Hillary is going to do when Trump starts to get flustered? She won't just go silent and let him say that he'll "Make America Great Again" as a response to anything, instead she's going to crucify him on live TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:That's an abuse of the word. It's too easy to obfuscate the results for election polling, and rarely do they fall under the same rigor that conference papers or journals do. There was a huge scandal awhile back when some kid from UCLA got caught fixing data. It's more that the media is abusing a good tool. Just because polling (or surveying) is a valid scientific methodology that underlies a lot of valid political science research doesn't preclude the media from misusing that same instrument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Dr.Zeppelin posted:After reading This Town, seeing Luke Russert leave NBC was such a relief. He was easily the worst legacy (and I'm including Chris Wallace in this). His dad would have loved this election. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You're wrong. I would also like to submit for evidence that journalists don't learn from embarrassments the fact that the NYT had to totally gut and rewrite their entire piece on Trump's immigration speech last week because they wrote it based on what they thought he was going to say. They were so embarrassed by this that they tried to completely memory hole the original writeup of tonight's debacle and replace it with a new article that wasn't quite so mean to Plucky Little Vladimir.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Also, even with Lauer tossing up softballs Trump STILL hosed up. He still began to unravel and was only able to stay together due to Lauer not pushing it. What do you think Hillary is going to do when Trump starts to get flustered? She won't just go silent and let him say that he'll "Make America Great Again" as a response to anything, instead she's going to crucify him on live TV. Yeah, it's why I'm now more confident about the first debate. This event, while short, gave people a taste of what to expect. Wallace is probably on edge now because he was probably planning on moderating like this and Lauer is getting destroyed right now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
I'm reading recaps of this and just want to scream. What the gently caress is wrong with these moderators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:He also thinks this: I agree. Wil Wheaton should be kept from the public at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
iospace posted:Yeah, it's why I'm now more confident about the first debate. This event, while short, gave people a taste of what to expect. Wallace is probably on edge now because he was probably planning on moderating like this and Lauer is getting destroyed right now. Wallace will have the advantage of going third,a nd have all of fox news behind him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
iospace posted:Yeah, it's why I'm now more confident about the first debate. This event, while short, gave people a taste of what to expect. Wallace is probably on edge now because he was probably planning on moderating like this and Lauer is getting destroyed right now. Good. Lauer deserves it. He was practically holding up notecards for Trump with suggested answers. The only times he came close to asking decent followups, Trump came apart like jello hitting an airplane propeller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
nachos posted:I'm reading recaps of this and just want to scream. What the gently caress is wrong with these moderators. "The View From Nowhere" + Clinton hate
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Things seem to be going well for the NYT: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1245445/1245474/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-national-security.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wallace will have the advantage of going third,a nd have all of fox news behind him. Yeah, but who knows if Trump will even show for debate 3 if Hillary dumpsters him like the shitgibbon he is. I can see him doing debate 1. He probably knows expectations are low. Hillary will probably dunk on him but he'll come out not looking too bad after (according to the press). Debate two is the town hall. This is the one debate I want to see more than any other one, because tonight was his first true town hall (the ones he had prior had obvious plant questions. Pence has had real ones with real questions).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
iospace posted:Yeah, it's why I'm now more confident about the first debate. This event, while short, gave people a taste of what to expect. Wallace is probably on edge now because he was probably planning on moderating like this and Lauer is getting destroyed right now. You act like Wallace has any shame and doesn't have a job at Fox for life
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
greatn posted:You act like Wallace has any shame and doesn't have a job at Fox for life Point. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/773734320284504064 To be fair, yes. But when the NYT changes their story TWICE IN A WEEK, there's a fuckton of smoke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
Could this be the fist election where all the debate moderators crater their own careers?
Crabtree fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Literally stop this. No more "but still" weaselly sexist-but-don't-call-me-that bullshit. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton isn't running for president, Hillary Rodham is. She is her own person and always has been, because women are people. I think it's fair to criticize Hillary for her political work during Bill's administration and her involvement in some of his worse policies, but it behooves the person doing to criticism to remember that she was on record as being more left-wing than him even at the time, as a US Senator in the 2000s, and in the present day. Instead it's always framed as "Bill wasn't a great president for leftism, ergo Hillary must also be a secret Republican," which is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Things seem to be going well for the NYT: http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1245445/1245474/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-national-security.html They finally added Putin back in. http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1245484/1245500/www.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-national-security.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Look, we're the New York Times alright? We're going to tell you all how this goes Once again they get the questions in advance and assume Trump is a real candidate in their pre-write. "He's going to respond with a bunch of banality and exceed his low expecations, and if he stumbles then Matt will help him out. This is a piece of cake" *knocks out write up an hour before event, sets it to publish a couple minutes after event is over, and goes to bed* *wakes up to an entirely different article without his name on it*
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
What's that article/saying that gets quoted here? Something like "If Hillary isn't bad, then why do I think so?" I'm trying to find it with no luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:Look, we're the New York Times alright? We're going to tell you all how this goes wasn't this the opposite of the immigration speech situation? i thought the original article was more even-handed this time and then the newer one memory holed all the bad poo poo, it was also written by patrick healy who bombed the first draft of last week's debacle
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Literally stop this. No more "but still" weaselly sexist-but-don't-call-me-that bullshit. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton isn't running for president, Hillary Rodham is. She is her own person and always has been, because women are people. Ah yes, because she never weighed in on policy issues while she was First Lady, or said inflammatory things then. Yes, women are people. Yes, Clinton is her own person and always has been. And that's why I criticize her for bad positions she's adopted in the past. But hey, continue telling me how criticizing Clinton for backing the crime bill and talking about bringing young black men "to heel" is sexist. 
Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:I agree. Wil Wheaton should be kept from the public at all costs. sorry he's gonna get elected vice-president of OASIS and stick around for a while
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What's that article/saying that gets quoted here? Something like "If Hillary isn't bad, then why do I think so?" http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/if-black-lives-matter-isnt-racist-hate-group-then--4610
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
If only they were real https://mobile.twitter.com/onlxn/status/773709725644890112
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/if-black-lives-matter-isnt-racist-hate-group-then--4610 Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think it's fair to criticize Hillary for her political work during Bill's administration and her involvement in some of his worse policies, but it behooves the person doing to criticism to remember that she was on record as being more left-wing than him even at the time, as a US Senator in the 2000s, and in the present day. It's always framed as "women only think what their husbands think." I'm done with it. Majorian posted:Ah yes, because she never weighed in on policy issues while she was First Lady, or said inflammatory things then. Yes, women are people. Yes, Clinton is her own person and always has been. And that's why I criticize her for bad positions she's adopted in the past. If you can't figure out a non-sexist way to criticize a woman well, then you'd be you, wouldn't you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you can't figure out a non-sexist way to criticize a woman well, then you'd be you, wouldn't you. I've been doing that this whole thread actually...  Would bringing up her support for the 1996 welfare reform bill also be sexist, in your fevered imagination? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's always framed as "women only think what their husbands think." I'm done with it. I haven't done that once in this discussion. Stop projecting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:It's always framed as "women only think what their husbands think." I'm done with it. Yeah, I don't really disagree. edit: Majorian posted:I haven't done that once in this discussion. Stop projecting. You said: Majorian posted:Yeah, but still, her husband's record in the 90's doesn't instill confidence. Obviously I understand she's not her husband, but still. I'll be reassured when I see it happen. "Bill Clinton's record in the '90s is bad, in my opinion, which makes me feel that Hillary could also be bad. She is not her husband, but at the same time, I will continue to imply that she has the same opinions as her husband, because he's her husband." Hillary was involved in and worked on things I don't agree with in the '90s, and it's ok to criticize her for her work. But vaguely implying "well she might be bad because I think her husband is bad" is sexist because it assumes that she must have the same opinions as her husband, even though the record clearly shows she does not, and she is an independent person with her own agenda. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've been doing that this whole thread actually... People who aren't sexist don't act like this when sexism's being criticized. You're being smug and condescending because you don't have any other tools to use here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
e: Lightning Knight posted:You said: Okay, I see it now. Fair enough, my apologies - I shouldn't have suggested that she held the same opinions as her husband, simply by virtue of being his wife. What I meant to say is that some of her own stated positions as First Lady strike me as cause for concern. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:If only they were real It basically did go down about like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
In other news: A Group of People Who Are Wasting Our Time With Dumb Bullshit Proposal would brand abortion as aggravated murder in Ohio COLUMBUS, Ohio – A proposal to amend the Ohio Constitution to classify abortion as aggravated murder has been presented to the Ohio attorney general for review. Petitions were submitted Friday to Attorney General Mike DeWine's office -- the first step in a long process to reach the Ohio ballot. DeWine must decide whether the proposal moves to the second step by Monday. A proposed constitutional amendment would not go on the ballot until at least 2017. The proposed constitutional amendment would "prohibit abortion of all unborn human beings, without exception, and classify it as aggravated murder in the state of Ohio." The amendment language includes provisions to allow for contraception to prevent pregnancy, would not affect procedures involving unfertilized eggs and would not affect procedures like invitro-fertilization. [/quote]
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh bullshit. You called "sexism" without understanding what was being argued in the first place. You assumed I was casting Hillary Clinton as an extension of her husband's political agenda, when I was criticizing her on her own stated positions as First Lady. Lightning Knight posted:You said: Tiny Brontosaurus posted:People who aren't sexist don't act like this when sexism's being criticized. You're being smug and condescending because you don't have any other tools to use here. Somebody being smug and condescending doesn't by default make them wrong in a discussion. They could also just be an rear end in a top hat! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:22 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh bullshit. You called "sexism" without understanding what was being argued in the first place. You assumed I was casting Hillary Clinton as an extension of her husband's political agenda, when I was criticizing her on her own stated positions as First Lady. I was criticizing a sexist thing you've done repeatedly, as have others in this thread, and you're having a temper tantrum about it. If you do it again I'll criticize it again. You always have the option of learning and changing, which would free up all that tanty time for something more fun. Lightning Knight posted:Somebody being smug and condescending doesn't by default make them wrong in a discussion. They could also just be an rear end in a top hat! I actually think the way you responded was great and indicative of a levelheaded approach to criticism, but I worried mentioning you would just get the kicking and flailing pointed your direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 05:43
|
|