|
Lightning Knight posted:The statement was qualified with "first world," which I mean I think you could debate whether or not the US or UK are more right-wing but it's mostly an academic exercise. the answer is almost certainly turkey, actually
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The statement was qualified with "first world," which I mean I think you could debate whether or not the US or UK are more right-wing but it's mostly an academic exercise. Yup - you are correct, I missed that and it's a pretty important qualifier. My bad, sorry about that! I won't argue with that statement but I don't think that it rebuts the claim that RT and BBC are significantly and substantially different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
Your Parents posted:if it werent for england's ridiculous parliamentary infighting and the rise of labour they'd be the most overtly right wing authoritarian nation in the first world. there's still a solid argument to be made that this remains the case. Tell us more, guy who doesn't know the difference between "England" and the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the answer is almost certainly turkey, actually This is an interesting response that I didn't consider but I will let the point go. U.S. RAMPS UP BOMBING OF ISIS IN EASTERN SYRIA FOLLOWING TRUMP WITHDRAWAL ANNOUNCEMENT from The Intercept, in partnership with Al Jazeera, by Trevor Aaronson and Ali Younes. quote:AFTER PRESIDENT DONALD Trump announced the withdrawal of 2,000 troops from Syria last month, the U.S. military ramped up its bombing campaign against the Islamic State’s remaining territory in the eastern part of the country, according to sources on the ground and photographs we obtained.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is an interesting response that I didn't consider but I will let the point go. This operation was widely reported to be in the works for almost a year before Trump’s withdrawal announcement. It was almost cancelled before the withdrawal was turned into slow and gradual instead of rapid and immediate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:25
|
|
|
The reason to scan RT and telesur and other non/anti-western news is that they often will report on the unsavory aspects of US covert ops before Rachel Maddow or The "oops sorry bout the iraq war" New York Times. Quite simply, most journalists that work for these prestigious news orgs are dependent on their government/intelligence sources for their amazing scoops on whether General McRaven thinks Trump is a turd or not. These orgs do not publish stories that can damage those important relationships. Since U.S. foreign policy is based mainly around western business interests, and news orgs only make their money in advertising, the conflict of interest should be apparent to anyone that hasn't bought into the "free press" propaganda hook, line, and sinker. If you think this means that myself or anyone is saying "all news/media is the same" then whatever, congrats on being a genius. The trouble with the entire propaganda debate is that everyone can accuse each other of being a sucker for their position's prop. The only appropriate solution is to adopt a model of media critique that is nuanced enough to consider the context and source of whatever information one comes across that's reported as news (a big part of that model should be being able to compare from disparate sources with appropriate ambivalence or doubt depending on a variety of factors). The issue then becomes having a coherent systemic and historical analysis of economic and cultural relations to root your media critique model in, but thats for another thread/place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This operation was widely reported to be in the works for almost a year before Trump’s withdrawal announcement. It was almost cancelled before the withdrawal was turned into slow and gradual instead of rapid and immediate. That's interesting. I actually don't have any strong opinion about that, believe it or not, I just thought it was interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Lil Mama Im Sorry posted:Quite simply, most journalists that work for these prestigious news orgs are dependent on their government/intelligence sources for their amazing scoops on whether General McRaven thinks Trump is a turd or not. These orgs do not publish stories that can damage those important relationships. you're wrong about this and it's the difference between RT and news. the washington post publishing the snowden leaks is the biggest example I can think of from this decade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BenjySarlin/status/1081310633759592448
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Thats some good poo poo right there. What was the impetus to bering PAYGO back in the first place in the house rules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Thats some good poo poo right there. Democrats are grown up and responsible and won't promise something for nothing, in contrast to the Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Democrats are grown up and responsible and won't promise something for nothing, in contrast to the Republicans. And I think it was one of Pelosi's concession to the Blue Dogs when they were challenging her for Speaker
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Thats some good poo poo right there. Its replacing a rule the Rpublicans put in place in the house called CUTGO, which said that spending increases had to be matched with spending cuts in other places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:That is exactly why RT hires that sort of journalist, and why Fox News hires them (sometimes the same journalists even) So you know there's good news to be had on both Fox and RT, but rather than politely acknowledge this to allow the forward motion of discussion you immediately counter with a rebuttal without actually being seen as ceding the point. I am now going to point out something good. A little while ago, Lawrence O'Donnell, in a moment of heroism, pointed out that while he loves his country and is proud to have served in elected office, the United States is not a democracy, has never been a democracy, was founded by men who abhorred democracy, that the United States has never actually tried to be a democracy, and that the Senate is the single largest obstacle to the realization of democracy in this country. He probably got away with this by being qualified. awesmoe posted:you're wrong about this and it's the difference between RT and news. the washington post publishing the snowden leaks is the biggest example I can think of from this decade. And Snowden, hero that he is, has such a great advocate in the Post that, after much suffering, he received the Medal of Freedom and a full writ of exoneration from the very president he embarrassed and outed as a liar who betrayed his constituency. Thank God for the Post, i just knew they were up for it after they gave Manning a column. now let's see if they ever do that again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:So you know there's good news to be had on both Fox and RT, but rather than politely acknowledge this to allow the forward motion of discussion you immediately counter with a rebuttal without actually being seen as ceding the point. It's not my fault you've never thought about how or why propaganda works dude 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
The BBC and other British outlets have been publishing hit-pieces on Corbyn written by people paid by a state-funded agency: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/foreign-office-investigates-report-state-funded-body-targeted-corbyn Y'all are way, way too credulous about the amount of daylight between the BBC and RT. Just wait until after Brexit when the economy really goes down the toilet and watch how fast they go from "a little right wingy" to "full on calling for arresting socialists".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
selec posted:The BBC and other British outlets have been publishing hit-pieces on Corbyn written by people paid by a state-funded agency: That's...not what that article says happened. Nor does the root cited article that broke the story say anything about the BBC. The article says that the funded agency retweeted anti-Corbyn articles- it doesn't indicate where those articles were published. That's a serious and horrible scandal, but it's, uh, not what you're saying it is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
The UKMT thread was also talking about it recently, the BBC has gone massively downhill in recent years
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Since the Tories took power they've been placing people friendly to them all over the bbc. It's a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:you're wrong about this and it's the difference between RT and news. the washington post publishing the snowden leaks is the biggest example I can think of from this decade. It's pretty hard to argue there's no substance to that statement. This is interesting practice in the big publications, its old enough and common enough to have a specific name though I'm forgetting it at the moment. Basically whenever there's new leadership in the house or on the Republican/Democrat national committee, papers like WaPo and NYTimes will publish some fawning congratulatory article about the new hero shaking up Washington. It doesn't matter how stupid the person is they always do it. People in the industry straight up admit they do this, and the idea is they build up good will with the person, mine them for quotes while acting as their trusty ally in the media, and then when you have enough dirt burn them with an article tearing them apart. These kinds of profiles meant to butter up sources are easy to recognize because without fail somebody will post them in USPol saying something like "wtf. . . this papers really going to the dogs how could they like Politician X so much that rear end in a top hat." They're common enough that private media can sometimes resemble state media in tone and content, at least superficially. I do disagree though with Lil Mama Im Sorry on the idea that RT or other foreign media are likely to report on US covert ops before American media. Having sources with the US government means the NYtimes can get information before other sources. The US government is leaky as a sieve and almost always telegraphs its activity before it acts. Usually you only get vague statements from public officials or specific statements from anonymous sources, but for example I found the NYtimes was by far the best source for tracking US activity in Somalia from 2004 forward. The problem of course is nobody in America gives a gently caress about secret Special forces operations in Yemen or whereever unless they die, so the articles on the subject will necessarily be buried on page 20 or something, so you have to actually look for the details. Talking heads like Rachel Maddow or any other punditry are of course useless as a source of information and that's true whatever channel they are on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:Since the Tories took power they've been placing people friendly to them all over the bbc. It's a shitshow. Exactly what's been happening with the ABC in Australia. They just can't help themselves. As much as they whine about snowflakes and safespaces, as soon as anyone criticises them, they lose their goddamn minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:05
|
|
|
Squalid posted:It's pretty hard to argue there's no substance to that statement. This is interesting practice in the big publications, its old enough and common enough to have a specific name though I'm forgetting it at the moment. Basically whenever there's new leadership in the house or on the Republican/Democrat national committee, papers like WaPo and NYTimes will publish some fawning congratulatory article about the new hero shaking up Washington. It doesn't matter how stupid the person is they always do it. People in the industry straight up admit they do this, and the idea is they build up good will with the person, mine them for quotes while acting as their trusty ally in the media, and then when you have enough dirt burn them with an article tearing them apart. Are you thinking of access journalism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:09
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1081395238013407238
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 05:13
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1081412855973462016
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
Humanity was a mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Are you thinking of access journalism? Puff pieces are the genre he describes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:Puff pieces are the genre he describes. I mean basically, I'm pretty sure though there's a highly specific journalistic trade word just for complementary profiles written to ingratiate journalists with potential sources. Can't find it though so maybe I dreamed it? Anyway, here's a quote from NPR's training blog on the subject for aspiring journalists: https://training.npr.org/blog/the-art-and-skill-of-working-with-sources/ quote:Tell stories to build sources (but be willing to whack them) This quote is pretty clear on the subject imo. You build "trust" and "credibility" profiling a source by saying things they like to hear and see reported. If you slam them nonstop they aren't going to return your calls next time. The article has to specifically caution young journalists from writing "puff pieces" because that's what a lot of real journalists often end up writing. I.E. its a common pitfall the author wants to help steer people around. Of course what exactly makes an article a puff piece is subjective, and given how narcissistic pols typically are I expect the article has to be pretty egregious before many sources stop respecting the authors. Of course not all profiles are written with this intent, but a lot are. This kind of tactic isn't as bad as official state propaganda because private media tends towards polyamory as far as sources go. . . they want to cultivate access with everyone and anyone who might be important and hedge bets their bets to insure access whoever wins an election. Squalid fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Jan 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's...not what that article says happened. Nor does the root cited article that broke the story say anything about the BBC. The article says that the funded agency retweeted anti-Corbyn articles- it doesn't indicate where those articles were published. That's a serious and horrible scandal, but it's, uh, not what you're saying it is. Sorry, I'm co-mingling the official reporting with what folks like Craig Murray have been saying about it on Twitter. There have been many, many cases of British intelligence services infiltrating activist orgs and suborning journalists, and they're saying it's been done here too. Here's Murray's write-up: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...for-statecraft/ In the interest of having a conversation though, I'll retract any assertion that they're paying journalists until that's documented more thoroughly. I think it's breathtaking enough that British military funds are going to an organization that targets members of the government for negative coverage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Russia is an enemy of the United States, do not read RT.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Matthew Yglesias goes to bat for AOC at Vox Mediaquote:In an interview scheduled to air Sunday on 60 Minutes, America’s most widely covered new House member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) floats the idea of a top marginal income tax rate as high as 70 percent as part of a plan to finance a “Green New Deal” that would aim to drastically curb America’s carbon dioxide emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
I'm increasingly convinced forcing the Democrats to embrace tax increases must be one of the biggest priorities for left activists. Second only to healthcare reform. It's time to break the stranglehold of Reaganomics on our country.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Matthew Yglesias goes to bat for AOC at Vox Media The media has completely bungled its communication and discussion of this, even normally reputable outlets. It took Matthew Yglesias at Vox to actually discuss AOC's proposal with clarity and the necessary historical context. We can increase our tax proceeds greatly not by adjusting the top rate to 70%, but rather, implementing a new bracket for the ultra-rich that kicks in at $5 or $10 million, rather than at the current ~$400,000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
Rednik posted:The media has completely bungled its communication and discussion of this, even normally reputable outlets. It took Matthew Yglesias at Vox to actually discuss AOC's proposal with clarity and the necessary historical context. We can increase our tax proceeds greatly not by adjusting the top rate to 70%, but rather, implementing a new bracket for the ultra-rich that kicks in at $5 or $10 million, rather than at the current ~$400,000. Washington Post also put out a pretty good breakdown of how much it could raise, and also proposed larger wealth taxes https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1081598728170078209 Its saying AOC's plan would raise $72 Bil a year and discusses alternatives that would raise $320 bil a year
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Meant to put this here not USPOL so I guess both get it. Newish Krugman On the subject of taxes. Originally posted this in the trade thread: The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You’ve Heard https://nyti.ms/2H2rvYL Look at that reinvested income vs dividends graph in there. gently caress. Also it's foreign wealthy getting most of the benefit. A reminder if taxes on the rich can be raised hit those sovereign wealth funds with US assets too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1081696072580374528 also trump sounds like he is gonna go full national emergency over the loving wall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:10
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1081696072580374528 And then the courts shut him down in a matter of hours again because that’s not how things actually work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:And then the courts shut him down in a matter of hours again because that’s not how things actually work. Actually, the national emergency powers are hilarious broken because no one ever envisioned a lunatic like Trump could get elected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wonkmonk_/status/1081718597431513089 AOC does an insane job at setting the newscycle
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Actually, the national emergency powers are hilarious broken because no one ever envisioned a lunatic like Trump could get elected. I’ve read otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:43 |
|
|
truman wasn't allowed to seize steel plants during an Actual War but i'm sure trump will be totally allowed to initiate a massive program of emergency eminent domain costing untold billions without any trouble
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 02:42
|
|
