|
Rigel posted:I don't know what you are reading, but you are simply incorrect. The pre-2016 media was doing the typical horserace narrative where each party is kinda-sorta sane. Post 2016, the Media has been smashing back at Trump hard, repeatedly, for nearly the entire 2 years. The media smacked back so hard on family separation that they caved almost immediately.
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't know what you are reading, but you are simply incorrect. The pre-2016 media was doing the typical horserace narrative where each party is kinda-sorta sane. Post 2016, the Media has been smashing back at Trump hard, repeatedly, for nearly the entire 2 years. The media smacked back so hard on family separation that they caved almost immediately. rigel. do you remember the speech where Trump Truly Became President.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How is that in any way not a massive breach of the fifth? that's not really how the fifth amendment works, if you voluntarily share information with the census and they share it with ICE, you haven't had your right against self-incrimination infringed upon. it may actually be a violation of the statute that governs how the census works though, but that's a separate issue your concern, however, is exactly why the citizenship question would absolutely kill any hope of accurate counting of residents. people will stop talking if they think they might say something that could get shared with cops or immigration
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't say Trump didn't commit any crimes nor do I think that. My position is obviously that it's not much of a vote-getter if it's even one at all, not that Trump is innocent. Lol at you criticizing me for thinking critically about the poll, feel free to support your own conclusions with like anything at all. VitalSigns posted:Is there any evidence of this, at all. What crimes do you think Obama committed with regards to Benghazi, since you are equivocating the two events?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Wistful of Dollars posted:I hope everyone in the gallery who isn't licking the administration's boots passes their question to Acosta when he returns. It would be really cool if any kind of solidarity actually existed in the press but I don't see anything like this happening. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I don't know what you are reading, but you are simply incorrect. The pre-2016 media was doing the typical horserace narrative where each party is kinda-sorta sane. Post 2016, the Media has been smashing back at Trump hard, repeatedly, for nearly the entire 2 years. The media smacked back so hard on family separation that they caved almost immediately. I think that the NY Times has been pretty soft on Trump. There are many stories that they barely cover that would cause other politicians to resign, end their career, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The media's hack work is so much more pervasive then just "Trump bad but GOP good" I keep oscillating between malice and incompetence for the continued failures of our major networks. Like, sometimes I think there’s no way so many people could be so stupid in a way that consistently benefits Republicans, so the network owners must be pushing something. Then I remember how susceptible we all are to things like the sunk cost fallacy. If the MSM decided to actually start covering politics responsibly and honestly, it would mean that they have been loving up hard for many, many years. It would mean that venerated industry leaders that have been seen as shining cities on a hill were actually a bunch of clowns that helped entrench American corruption and fascism. It would also mean all the current honored and respected pundits have been loving morons for their entire career, so doing a course correction would look pretty drat embarrassing. Finally I decide it’s probably some mixture of the two and America’s future is hosed because of a bunch of ghoulish billionaires backed by a bunch of smug and out of touch millionaires like keeping things this way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:54
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I admit it's tough to find information confirming this definitively. It seems pretty evident to me considering we just had the biggest wave election since Nixon. If you're going to argue you can't come to his conclusion, however, would you make this point to the people who adamantly insist it has no impact at all, because they're making conjectures with a similar lack of evidence? Thanks I'm open to evidence it has an impact that's why I'm asking for it. Not accepting claims with zero evidence is standard epistemological practice in...pretty much everything (well except for convicting Manning in the court of opinion for murdering thousands of people apparently) There are a ton of more plausible explanations for the wave election, so many in fact that it's mere existence isn't proof that people are mad bout Russia (Russia was an issue prior to 2016 as well and welp)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
plogo posted:I think that the NY Times has been pretty soft on Trump. There are many stories that they barely cover that would cause other politicians to resign, end their career, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Well that blows their laughable "it's about accounting, not direct enforcement" argument out the window. E: For anyone curious, it's a direct violation of Title 13: quote:Title 13 provides the following protections to individuals and businesses: Stickman fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
I love how our big dumb baby president could've just answered Acosta's fairly simple questions, even with a diplomatic "we don't know at this time" or whatever, but he's too much of a big dumb baby and now some poor White House intern has to write up a new set of regulations about how and when reporters are allowed to ask questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I admit it's tough to find information confirming this definitively. It seems pretty evident to me considering we just had the biggest wave election since Nixon. If you're going to argue you can't come to his conclusion, however, would you make this point to the people who adamantly insist it has no impact at all, because they're making conjectures with a similar lack of evidence? Thanks Thus far the people arguing the other side have at least posted polls showing few people care about the situation with Russia. While not confirmatory that's at least something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
Sir Lemming posted:I love how our big dumb baby president could've just answered Acosta's fairly simple questions, even with a diplomatic "we don't know at this time" or whatever, but he's too much of a big dumb baby and now some poor White House intern has to write up a new set of regulations about how and when reporters are allowed to ask questions. Let's not suggest that WH interns deserve our pity. Anyone who willingly works for this WH is an rear end in a top hat, whether they are an intern or a paid staffer. Slow News Day fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Lemming posted:What crimes do you think Obama committed with regards to Benghazi, since you are equivocating the two events? Benghazi was the location of a secret illegal torture facility
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:I keep oscillating between malice and incompetence for the continued failures of our major networks. It's incompetence and careerism at the bottom. The journalists who get ahead are either the ones who know how the game is played and act accordingly, or that happen to be predisposed to normalizing fascism anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
"That is a stupid question, you are stupid for asking it!" "Can you please answer my question?" "THAT IS A FOLLOW UP QUESTION! YOU ARE NOW BANNED FOR LIFE!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Au Revoir Shosanna posted:lol well gently caress me I was going to ask who the gently caress in the Millenial generation has been able to secure that much?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It would also mean all the current honored and respected pundits have been loving morons for their entire career, so doing a course correction would look pretty drat embarrassing. I really really really really REALLY suggest you subscribe to Matt Taibbi on substack and read excerpts from his upcoming book, "the Fairway" (a reference to how the media sticks to the "smooth grass" of a story, i.e. a golf fairway), because he talks about the media at great length and it's very, very good. He is not doing his Hunter S Thompson shtick at all (which I like, but some people really find annoying). quote:I was saddened to read a story in the Washington Post this past summer about the shattered partnership of John Heilemann and Mark Halperin of MSNBC, Bloomberg, ABC, and Game Change fame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Hastings posted:I was going to ask who the gently caress in the Millenial generation has been able to secure that much? Isn't it like 60% of people that have zero savings of any kind? VVV Ah right. Kind of the same effect but makes more sense than being literally broke CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Isn't it like 60% of people that have zero savings of any kind? Close, they can't handle a 400 dollar emergency. So less than 400 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Benghazi was the location of a secret illegal torture facility Yeah that's definitely what you meant. The famous Republican investigation into Obama over CIA torture facilities.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:Honestly, I've seen "Russian Interference wasn't a big deal" said in the same way as when people claim that advertising doesn't work. A ~$200bn/year industry like advertising 'doesn't work'? I'm not being flippant about this, I just think that a lot of people considering themselves to somehow be above any sort of manipulation when they really really aren't. Lemming posted:The best part of this is the people who think advertising doesn't work on them are the most susceptible to advertising. So, uh, yeah. It's more accurate to think of it in terms of being one source of manipulation in an ecosystem with countless other sources, many of which are far more influential (and far more harmful in the grand scheme of things). Like, most mainstream US media is effectively just more sophisticated propaganda. The lead-in to the Iraq War is one of the best contemporary examples of this. The end result is that the vast majority of people thought there were WMDs, and even most anti-war people still thought Saddam should be removed, but just disagreed with the specific process involved. The Russia stuff "feels" worse to people because it's scary and foreign, while WaPo and NPR and stuff is just so normal, and those mainstream sources will also allow some small degree of dissent to create the illusion that there's a "free marketplace of ideas," even though in reality only a limited breadth is given serious representation. At the end of the day, the most harmful propaganda is that which is pervasive and directly causes most of the human suffering both domestically and perpetrated by our country abroad. And that propaganda is nearly all domestic in source, from our own government and corporations. Russian propaganda is very convenient, in that it's something people can be taught to recognize without actually threatening those with power/wealth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
I'm not really surprised by anything in this article, but it still makes me  and want to drink heavily.https://www.courant.com/nation-world/hc-wp-fake-news-facebook-20181119-story.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Thus far the people arguing the other side have at least posted polls showing few people care about the situation with Russia. While not confirmatory that's at least something. And there are polls that show there are Republicans who approve of the Mueller investigation. While not confirmatory that's at least something. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4806449-PPP-FINAL.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
lol owned rear end in a top hat. https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/1064641711534673920
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's more accurate to think of it in terms of being one source of manipulation in an ecosystem with countless other sources, many of which are far more influential (and far more harmful in the grand scheme of things). Like, most mainstream US media is effectively just more sophisticated propaganda. The lead-in to the Iraq War is one of the best contemporary examples of this. The end result is that the vast majority of people thought there were WMDs, and even most anti-war people still thought Saddam should be removed, but just disagreed with the specific process involved. The Russia stuff "feels" worse to people because it's scary and foreign, while WaPo and NPR and stuff is just so normal, and those mainstream sources will also allow some small degree of dissent to create the illusion that there's a "free marketplace of ideas," even though in reality only a limited breadth is given serious representation. Well they also criminally broke into DNC servers and worked with the Trump campaign to figure out how to most effectively disseminate them. That was a big factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol owned rear end in a top hat. Aw, gee, Susan, maybe you shouldn't have betrayed your constituents and voted for Judge Drunky McRape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:I mean other posters have already covered this. You're wrong. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:rigel. plogo posted:I think that the NY Times has been pretty soft on Trump. There are many stories that they barely cover that would cause other politicians to resign, end their career, whatever. You are cherry-picking little stupid isolated incidents where one or more members of the media did or said something stupid and bad. That does not prove your point at all. Step back and look at the big picture: the media (outside of FOX News of course) has been EXTREMELY hostile to Trump. Its breathtaking, really when you consider this and then look back to Obama, GWB, Clinton, etc and what it was like then. Its night and day, and if you can't see that, then you are either very young, or you are in some kind of depressing echo chamber.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol owned rear end in a top hat. oh gently caress her. i am glad she is probably hosed in 2020. you voted for sex monster and cried about it. gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You are cherry-picking little stupid isolated incidents where one or more members of the media did or said something stupid and bad. That does not prove your point at all. My dude they literally just stopped referring to his racist bilge as "racially charged comments", they aren't as hardcore as you seem to be think. Yes, they've absolutely tightened the screws but they've got a LONG way to go. They also are terrible at context, frequently they do something like "Trump says border wall will be free (it won't)" instead of "and also 90% of GOP support and believe in this fantasy"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yeah that's definitely what you meant. Honestly it was a throwaway joke about a scandal being hammered on in the media 24/7, I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was unfair to Trump the way the Benghazi hype was unfair to Obama. But since you asked me what crimes were committed in Benghazi it's kind of a funny parallel. A scandal being used as a cynical propaganda tool to convince the public of wildly untrue conspiracies (Russia literally hacked voting machines and changed votes for Trump / Obama ordered the military to stand down because he loves terrists) while the systemic causes are ignored (blood-drenched US foreign policy combined with austerity-driven budget cuts to security / US meddling in Russian elections in the 90s blowing back on us) because they're inconvenient for the party seeking to gain from the scandal, and the actual crimes involved though real are something that everyone does and the people objecting to it are such obvious hypocrites about it that no one cares (US politicians torturing prisoners / a government using cyberwarfare and propaganda to influence foreign elections in favor of a candidate more favorable to its interests) Anyways, any evidence that anyone at all votes on the basis of RussiaRussiaRussia? I would genuinely like to see some because it would be reassuring to believe Democrats aren't going to blow 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:What crimes do you think Obama committed with regards to Benghazi, since you are equivocating the two events?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Moderates scream for a return to the middle so they can vote for what's right when they feel pious and then immediately vote for horrible poo poo when it's in the personal interest to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:the actual crimes involved though real are something that everyone does and the people objecting to it are such obvious hypocrites about it that no one cares (US politicians torturing prisoners / a government using cyberwarfare and propaganda to influence foreign elections in favor of a candidate more favorable to its interests) No, they're not. The last time an event like this happened here was literally Watergate. Russia broke into the DNC's server and stole their data. Trumps campaign worked with them to benefit from this. This isn't something "everyone does." Again, you're doing the Republicans' work for them, downplaying their crimes and giving them all the cover they need to pretend that everyone is equally bad so what they're doing is ok. If you want to make this sort of behavior unacceptable you can't throw up your hands and say "it's ok, everyone does it!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You are cherry-picking little stupid isolated incidents where one or more members of the media did or said something stupid and bad. That does not prove your point at all. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Lemming posted:No, they're not. The last time an event like this happened here was literally Watergate. Russia broke into the DNC's server and stole their data. Trumps campaign worked with them to benefit from this. This isn't something "everyone does." My dude the US does that and more to foreign countries all the drat time. I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying it's not okay but the national security Dems' complaints about it ring hollow because they do the exact same thing and aren't at all interested in grappling with that or rejecting election-meddling generally, they're only mad that someone did it to them and people see that. In fact Trump exploits this, whenever anyone criticizes Putin he says "well the US does bad things too" and he's right. Does that mean it's okay for him to be Putin's friend no! but it effectively discredits his accusers because they love dictators too and aren't coming from a place of moral conviction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:You are cherry-picking little stupid isolated incidents where one or more members of the media did or said something stupid and bad. That does not prove your point at all. I'm not cherry picking, I gave no examples. But, yes, of course, the media has had some negative stories about Trump, but there are so many stories about him he ends up getting a pass because of the sheer volume of them. My argument is that media coverage of him is proportionally lenient and if the media played by the same rules for Trump, as compared to other presidents, they would be much more hostile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My dude the US does that and more to foreign countries all the drat time. The solution is to hold Trump accountable and make that behavior unacceptable so we can hold our government accountable when they do it to other countries. Someone doing a bad thing doesn't mean we should excuse someone else doing the bad thing. In fact, it's the opposite!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
plogo posted:I'm not cherry picking, I gave no examples. But, yes, of course, the media has had some negative stories about Trump, but there are so many stories about him he ends up getting a pass because of the sheer volume of them. My argument is that media coverage of him is proportionally lenient and if the media played by the same rules for Trump, as compared to other presidents, they would be much more hostile. There literally isn't enough time per day for any media platform to spend as much time on Trumps scandals on even the most laid back day, compared to the standard they would hold Obama scandals to. Its Lucy and the Chocolates, and you're complaining about the ones that get through.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Honestly it was a throwaway joke about a scandal being hammered on in the media 24/7, I didn't mean to imply that I thought it was unfair to Trump the way the Benghazi hype was unfair to Obama. Out of curiosity who is saying this? Like I've never heard the "Russia literally hacked the machines and changed votes to Trump" from anyone except RW people claiming that's what Democrats are arguing. And maybe the lunatics likes Mensch. I'm not saying no one has said it. I haven't read and heard everything and I'm sure SOMEONE has said it. But you're elevating it to the equal of what was one of the most commonly pushed ideas about Benghazi, had a book and movie written for it, and had Republican politicians and media repeating nonstop. I fail to see how the two compare, or really why "Russia hacked the machines" is anything but a Right Wing deflection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2018 23:36
|
|
