Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ustrello wrote: Yeah all he has done is say the media is the enemy of America, call into question of the point of a judiciary, have his surrogates say to America not to question his authority and many other things.
Totally fine and nothing to worry about
He said that fake news media was the enemy of the people. Interesting that you would choose to conflate the two as though media and fake news media are indistinguishable from one another. I do recall remarks about a "so-called judge" but nothing about the entire judiciary so I'd be interested in seeing those comments if I missed them. In the event that your comment is accurate he would not be the first President to have had conflict with the judiciary;
- Lincoln spoke on the Supreme Court adjudicating on cases that would affect policy
- FDR and his address to the American people that "[t]he court has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policymaking body. . .When the Congress has sought ... to serve our clearly national needs, the majority of the court has been assuming the power to pass on the wisdom of these acts of the Congress — and to approve or disapprove the public policy written into these laws."
- Obama called out the Supreme Court during his State of the Union address in
But you're right, Trump is truly history's greatest monster
Nah you don't get to hand wave this away, he has called any opposition media fake news that is the beginning of something bad. But it's alright with you I assume since it's team red in power. As for the judge thing you are conveniently forgetting that he said any terrorist attacks on the US will be the fault of the judiciary. Kind of a far cry from what you posted above
No hand waving away here, but I do see that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of "team red". Trump preemptively blaming judges for ruing against his immigration policy is separate from calling into question the need for a judiciary. It's bad form to move the goalposts and then accuse someone of ignoring a point that you had not yet made, and then ignore evidence that shows Presidents calling out the judiciary is not new.
feeder wrote: Guys, guys. Trump can't be Hitler. Hitler never wanted to feth his own daughter.
Guys, guys. We've found Ashley Jedd's dakka account
The thing I'd question is to what degree Trump believes his own BS. They guy seems outright certifiable at times.
I suspect that Trump is lashing out because he's desperate for approval from the media, and he's not getting it, and he can't stand it. So he's trying to reconcile his need for approval with the dissaproval he's getting by painting the media as dishonest. If only they were honest, they'd understand him and love him for the smart, tough boy he is.
Some people view Trump as some kind of media mastermind, but if you think about him as though he's in some ways like a school-aged child, alot of his behavior makes a whole lot more sense. At least to me.
I think he absolutely believes what he says. It's the narcissism. He thinks the world should just fall into line and love him because, well, it's him and he's just so damn great. He cannot be disagreed with, because he's the smartest and knows best.
School-aged child is aiming high. He's more like a 3 year old.
No hand waving away here, but I do see that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a supporter of "team red". Trump preemptively blaming judges for ruing against his immigration policy is separate from calling into question the need for a judiciary. It's bad form to move the goalposts and then accuse someone of ignoring a point that you had not yet made, and then ignore evidence that shows Presidents calling out the judiciary is not new.
Don't think Trump s questioning need for judiciary. Just their integrity. If judges don't agree with him then they aren't real judges but fake ones that needs to be replaced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crispy78 wrote: School-aged child is aiming high. He's more like a 3 year old.
Now now. That's extremely insulting. For 3 year old kids!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/23 11:14:04
jasper76 wrote: Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?
Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?
Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?
Those are people, mostly anarchists but also other leftists, engaging in black bloc tactics. They attempt to be for the protest what the police are against the protest. Roughly speaking. The black and red flag is the anarchist flag.
Since I was taken to task for using the common definition of anarchy, I'll point out that the red/black flag is the symbol of anarcho-syndicalism, which is what Noam Chomsky identifies with. Since Chomsky throughout his career has failed to convince the public at large of his causes and ideas, it seems some of his followers or fellow-travelers are going the extreme route.
I'd be interested to know if Chomsky himself has made any statements supporting or decrying the violence that his acolytes and fellow travelers have chosen to engage in.
I wonder if it even occurs to these young rioters that the "preview" of anarchic syndicalism they are showing the world is that they stand for violence, destruction, mob-rule, keeping workers from going to their job or getting home to their families, etc. Maybe they don't even care about things like PR. Anyways, if it's chaos on the streets vs. Trump, I'll happily keep Trump, warts and all, thank you very much.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Looks like we *are* going to have the "Immigrants are raping everyone in Sweden!" "debate" again after all. Fething Fox News is attacking Sweden by pretending that correlation implies causation. Why is there such a fascination with Sweden? On the one hand we're a socialist hellhole, on the other hand we're a utopia being destroyed by Muslim immigrants. Which is it going to be?
jasper76 wrote: I'll take your word for it. I refuse to join Twitter.
You don't need to, you can just check the tweets without joining!
jasper76 wrote: Anti-progressivism does not mean white supremacy, or isolationism. It does not mean you are threatened by equality.
If you are anti-thing-that-bring-more-equality, aren't you “threatened by equality”?
jasper76 wrote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation.
When was that? Which political affiliation?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/23 13:23:54
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
Yes, it's the anarcho-syndicalist flag. It's the one I've been seeing in relation to Antifa so that's why I said just anarchist. I am not myself one.
However, Noam Chomsky is not involved in or otherwise relevant to the black bloc. Well, as far as anyone knows, hypothetically he could be masked. Heh.
Whatever the exact status of Chomsky, they don't care about people who'd rather complain about a smashed window than cheer for successfully preventing a fascist from getting to use his speaking position to target vulnerable groups for harassment.
The Air Force can’t account for $1 billion in savings that President Donald Trump said he’s negotiated for the program to develop, purchase and operate two new Boeing Co. jets to serve as Air Force One.
“To my knowledge I have not been told that we have that information,” Colonel Pat Ryder, an Air Force spokesman, told reporters Wednesday when asked how Trump had managed to reduce the price for the new presidential plane. “I refer you to the White House,” Ryder said. A White House spokesman didn’t respond to repeated inquiries about Trump’s comments.
of course.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
jasper76 wrote: Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?
Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?
Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?
Those are people, mostly anarchists but also other leftists, engaging in black bloc tactics. They attempt to be for the protest what the police are against the protest. Roughly speaking. The black and red flag is the anarchist flag.
Since I was taken to task for using the common definition of anarchy, I'll point out that the red/black flag is the symbol of anarcho-syndicalism, which is what Noam Chomsky identifies with. Since Chomsky throughout his career has failed to convince the public at large of his causes and ideas, it seems some of his followers or fellow-travelers are going the extreme route.
I'd be interested to know if Chomsky himself has made any statements supporting or decrying the violence that his acolytes and fellow travelers have chosen to engage in.
I wonder if it even occurs to these young rioters that the "preview" of anarchic syndicalism they are showing the world is that they stand for violence, destruction, mob-rule, keeping workers from going to their job or getting home to their families, etc. Maybe they don't even care about things like PR.
Anyways, if it's chaos on the streets vs. Trump, I'll happily keep Trump, warts and all, thank you very much.
Seems like kind of a false dilemma, don't you think? And what if Trump's tone deaf approach is triggering more protests and violent resistance to a perceived intolerant and oppressive government?
It is odd that you are trying to typify outliers as characteristic of a rather broad group without even having a basic understanding of the political philosophies you are imputing to them. Just like Neo-Nazi attacks do not typify even reactionary conservatives, these seem to be outliers. I would strongly suggest that if you want to broach the broader topics of international politics and the myriad political philosophies beyond the dumbed down US red v. blue, you spend some time reading. These are complex systems that have arisen out of hundreds of years of events, from feudal warlords, to imperial empires, to modern democracies.
And, most importantly, try to distance yourself a bit and look at these as intellectual and social developments. Kind of like looking at religions through the lens of comparative mythology and not "stuff that threatens my beliefs".
Prestor Jon wrote: Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.
This is a fundamentally weird way to think about the media.
Lets say I have a McDonalds near my house. They make countless burgers and have for decades. Once I went in there, and my burger was burned because a machine was malfunctioning. They apologized and replaced the machine. Then a few years later, one of the guys on the grill goes behind the restaurant to smoke a joint and burns a burger. They apologize and fire the guy. A few years later, the grill guy is on a personal call and burns the burgers. They apologize and fire the guy.
If my takeaway from this is "I don't go to mcdonalds, because they always burn the burgers", wouldn't that be sort of a crazy person way of seeing the world? Wouldn't a more reasonable thing be to look at the bigger picture - to see that they make a bajillion burgers and rarely burn them, and when they do, they try and fix the process when it's a process issue, or fire the responsible party when it's not a process issue? To decide that a single plagiarism scandal in a 166 year old newspaper just might be an outlier?
No it's not weird at all. If you went to a McDonald's and every time you ordered the Filet o Fish they messed up the sandwich then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to distrust the ability of that same McDonald's to correctly make a different sandwich. The NYT hired a journalist that turned out to be plagiarizing and fabricating news articles. If one of their reporters is a liar then it makes all their other reporters suspect too. Consumers have to be able to trust that the NYT is holding their journalists to a standard of credibility when it is proven that the NYT had one journalist break that standard then consumers can't trust that other journalists aren't also falling short. If a given McDonald's ruins my order multiple times, regardless of their overall error rate for all of their customers I'm not going to keep going back to that McDonald's and hope that they finally fixed the problem, I'd rather go eat somewhere else that hasn't fethed up my order even once.
The claim was made that the NYT, NBC and CBS don't product false news. I listed well known examples of those media outlets producing fake news and disseminating it to the public. I never claimed that other "media" outlets such as sites like Breitbart don't product a gak ton of click bait fake news, only that the allegedly trustworthy media outlets have had their share of fake news scandals that impugn their integrity.
A lot of discussion in this thread and the previous one was spent on the Clinton Foundation and possible conflicts of interest and pay to play incidents of the Foundation taking foreign donations in exchange for favorable actions from Hillary Clinton as SecState. The NYT ran a big piece about the Clinton Foundation taking donations in order to get SecState Hillary Clinton to approve the Russian purchase of Uranium One: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 The NYT also had to print a correction for the article, twice, that they misstated the agreement between Hillary Clinton and Pres Obama regarding the Foundation accepting foreign donations. So was the article an accurate depiction of a problematic relationship between the SecState and the Clinton Foundation or was it a hit piece that tried to make something out of nothing? If the NYT is a trusted source with journalistic integrity then it was perfectly legitimate for the Republicans to question Hillary's ethics and foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation right? Or was that just a partisan witch hunt?
Now the Arizona Department of Corrections has issued a revised procedures manual that says death row inmates, through their lawyers or other representatives, can provide their own pentobarbital or sodium pentothal to ensure a smooth execution.
Nice of'em.
I know people say that it's the lawyers that kill you but....
If you went to a McDonald's and every time you ordered the Filet o Fish they messed up the sandwich
That's where your analogy falls apart -- much like the buns at Maccy D's do oddly enough.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Prestor Jon wrote: Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.
This is a fundamentally weird way to think about the media.
Lets say I have a McDonalds near my house. They make countless burgers and have for decades. Once I went in there, and my burger was burned because a machine was malfunctioning. They apologized and replaced the machine. Then a few years later, one of the guys on the grill goes behind the restaurant to smoke a joint and burns a burger. They apologize and fire the guy. A few years later, the grill guy is on a personal call and burns the burgers. They apologize and fire the guy.
If my takeaway from this is "I don't go to mcdonalds, because they always burn the burgers", wouldn't that be sort of a crazy person way of seeing the world? Wouldn't a more reasonable thing be to look at the bigger picture - to see that they make a bajillion burgers and rarely burn them, and when they do, they try and fix the process when it's a process issue, or fire the responsible party when it's not a process issue? To decide that a single plagiarism scandal in a 166 year old newspaper just might be an outlier?
No it's not weird at all. If you went to a McDonald's and every time you ordered the Filet o Fish they messed up the sandwich then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to distrust the ability of that same McDonald's to correctly make a different sandwich. The NYT hired a journalist that turned out to be plagiarizing and fabricating news articles. If one of their reporters is a liar then it makes all their other reporters suspect too.
If a single McDonald's hires a crappy employee that does a repeated bad job and they eventually fire that employee, it may damage their reputation, but it doesn't mean that particular McDonald's always serves crappy food for that the problem happens at other McDonald's or at all Fast Food joints, or that if it does, that it's a routine state of affairs. These things happen. They suck, they need to be acknowledged and corrected, but they're not the standard modus operandi.
Every human institution has failings, and no media source should be 100% trusted 100% of the time. Nobody denies this. Get your info from multiple sources always. However, the idea that is being pushed, that "The Media", as an industry, is coherently and intentionally pushing a singular anti-Trump or "pro-left" or otherwise inherently falsified agenda for purely partisan reasons goes far beyond believability, and the insane conspiracy theories and accusations coming from the institutions pushing this theory are far and away less reliable and accurate, and far more partisanly stilted, than the outlet's they're criticizing.
Vaktathi wrote: Every outlet has had issues going back to the origins of the printing press and the town crier, and everyone should get their information from a variety of sources and channels to minimize the impact of specific outlets doing dirty things, but the constant railings about how they're *all* untrustworthy about *everything*, as opposed to making mistakes or doing dumb things once in a while on specific topics (as human organizations naturally do), is both inaccurate and tiresome, and is directly intended to undermine credibility without any real reason other than so when people do things that they *should* be called out on, they can just say "it's all fake" and people will believe them.
One of the most interesting developments in soviet propaganda came when they realised they didn't have to convince their lies were real, they just had to leave you confused enough that you didn't believe anyone. The modern day Russian government still holds to the same strategy, and so would be quite happy with a state of affairs where people back away from believing all media, who dismiss everything as fake news.
Aye, and sadly that's increasingly what it looks like the goal is here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/23 15:18:51
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
jasper76 wrote: Honest question. Do the people who show up at protests dressed in black with masks, assaulting people and destroying public and private property constitute a group with a common political cause? If so, what is that cause?
Are they anarchists according to the common definiton? Some other type of anarchists? Anti-Trumpers? Something different altogether? Just hooligans?
Also, is there any significance to the masks other than they are trying to hide their identity?
Those are people, mostly anarchists but also other leftists, engaging in black bloc tactics. They attempt to be for the protest what the police are against the protest. Roughly speaking. The black and red flag is the anarchist flag.
Since I was taken to task for using the common definition of anarchy, I'll point out that the red/black flag is the symbol of anarcho-syndicalism, which is what Noam Chomsky identifies with. Since Chomsky throughout his career has failed to convince the public at large of his causes and ideas, it seems some of his followers or fellow-travelers are going the extreme route.
I'd be interested to know if Chomsky himself has made any statements supporting or decrying the violence that his acolytes and fellow travelers have chosen to engage in.
I wonder if it even occurs to these young rioters that the "preview" of anarchic syndicalism they are showing the world is that they stand for violence, destruction, mob-rule, keeping workers from going to their job or getting home to their families, etc. Maybe they don't even care about things like PR.
Anyways, if it's chaos on the streets vs. Trump, I'll happily keep Trump, warts and all, thank you very much.
Seems like kind of a false dilemma, don't you think? And what if Trump's tone deaf approach is triggering more protests and violent resistance to a perceived intolerant and oppressive government?
It is odd that you are trying to typify outliers as characteristic of a rather broad group without even having a basic understanding of the political philosophies you are imputing to them. Just like Neo-Nazi attacks do not typify even reactionary conservatives, these seem to be outliers. I would strongly suggest that if you want to broach the broader topics of international politics and the myriad political philosophies beyond the dumbed down US red v. blue, you spend some time reading. These are complex systems that have arisen out of hundreds of years of events, from feudal warlords, to imperial empires, to modern democracies.
And, most importantly, try to distance yourself a bit and look at these as intellectual and social developments. Kind of like looking at religions through the lens of comparative mythology and not "stuff that threatens my beliefs".
I don't see it as a false dilemma. If these are the tactics that anarcho-syndaclists are willing to employ when they have no power, what tactics would they be willing to employ of they actually had power? I did do some research on anarcho-syndicalosm, I even provided a link so others could do the same, nd I recognize the worldview as the one espoused by Noam Chomsky, with whom I am familiar, except for the fact that I did not realize he himself was a self-identified anarcho-syndicalist. I do not find Chomsky's ideas or worldview to be compelling or convincing. If there are other stalwarts of the theory, let me know and I'd be happy to do some more research. I actually do want to know the angle that these rioters are coming from...the rioters themselves hide behind masks and to the extent that they do give interviews, which is rare, they are not eloquent and do not seem very concerned with sharing their own opinions.
By the way, you are implying that I am trying to typify the left as anarcho-sydicalist, when I am not. I recognize that this is a fringe subset that most people on the left do not adhere to.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/23 15:40:16
jasper76 wrote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation.
When was that? Which political affiliation?
My entire life, nearly every armed services man or woman, regardless of political affiliation.
Sadly, it has been my experience that this is changing... During that Colin Kaepernick thing at the beginning of last football season, the people loudest on my FB page against him were the veterans I know. It also seemed to divide pretty neatly along "typical" political lines. The more left-leaning Vet buddies I have were, like me, of a view like this (the "I may disagree, but it's your right to say it" thing), whereas all of my more right-leaning friends, ya know... the ones who claim to be the party of personal freedom were the ones going all apeshit over someone taking a knee and actually exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
jasper76 wrote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation.
When was that? Which political affiliation?
My entire life, nearly every armed services man or woman, regardless of political affiliation.
Sadly, it has been my experience that this is changing... During that Colin Kaepernick thing at the beginning of last football season, the people loudest on my FB page against him were the veterans I know. It also seemed to divide pretty neatly along "typical" political lines. The more left-leaning Vet buddies I have were, like me, of a view like this (the "I may disagree, but it's your right to say it" thing), whereas all of my more right-leaning friends, ya know... the ones who claim to be the party of personal freedom were the ones going all apeshit over someone taking a knee and actually exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
Yeah, I am frustrated that this viewpoint is deteriorating, and from all sides. Free speech is a liberal principle I personally view as paramount, and the degradation of it, whether it be right-wingers trying to shut down Colin Capernick's speech, or academics and student trying to shut down conservative events, is something I find deeply troubling.
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/23 15:48:46
Yeah, I am frustrated that this viewpoint is deteriorating, and from all sides. Free speech is a liberal principle I personally view as paramount, and the degradation of it, whether or be right-wingers trying to shut down Colin Capernick's speech, or academics and student trying to shut down conservative events, is something I find deeply troubling.
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.
To be fair, this isn't actually a new problem. Check out FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and the PMRC hearings if you get the chance. I'm doing a Social History capstone project this spring, and I may be shifting focus slightly to really incorporate both of these things. I'm just waiting on Prof. feedback to see if she thinks it's too far into Poli-Sci, or too much into "American Studies" and not enough history
d-usa wrote: We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.
I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? Plus, if someone decides to make a spectacle of themselves by burning a flag, if you give them attention for doing so, you've given them exactly what they want.
Prestor Jon wrote: Jayson Blair got fired from the NYT for writing fake news articles, Dan Rather got fired from CBS for pushing a fake news story on the network broadcast and Brian Williams got fired from NBC for repeatedly lying and fabricating false news stories about himself. Not all the news they report is fake but they've had fake news scandals that has damaged their credibility and journalistic integrity.
This is a fundamentally weird way to think about the media.
Lets say I have a McDonalds near my house. They make countless burgers and have for decades. Once I went in there, and my burger was burned because a machine was malfunctioning. They apologized and replaced the machine. Then a few years later, one of the guys on the grill goes behind the restaurant to smoke a joint and burns a burger. They apologize and fire the guy. A few years later, the grill guy is on a personal call and burns the burgers. They apologize and fire the guy.
If my takeaway from this is "I don't go to mcdonalds, because they always burn the burgers", wouldn't that be sort of a crazy person way of seeing the world? Wouldn't a more reasonable thing be to look at the bigger picture - to see that they make a bajillion burgers and rarely burn them, and when they do, they try and fix the process when it's a process issue, or fire the responsible party when it's not a process issue? To decide that a single plagiarism scandal in a 166 year old newspaper just might be an outlier?
No it's not weird at all. If you went to a McDonald's and every time you ordered the Filet o Fish they messed up the sandwich then it would be perfectly reasonable for you to distrust the ability of that same McDonald's to correctly make a different sandwich. The NYT hired a journalist that turned out to be plagiarizing and fabricating news articles. If one of their reporters is a liar then it makes all their other reporters suspect too.
If a single McDonald's hires a crappy employee that does a repeated bad job and they eventually fire that employee, it may damage their reputation, but it doesn't mean that particular McDonald's always serves crappy food for that the problem happens at other McDonald's or at all Fast Food joints, or that if it does, that it's a routine state of affairs. These things happen. They suck, they need to be acknowledged and corrected, but they're not the standard modus operandi.
Every human institution has failings, and no media source should be 100% trusted 100% of the time. Nobody denies this. Get your info from multiple sources always. However, the idea that is being pushed, that "The Media", as an industry, is coherently and intentionally pushing a singular anti-Trump or "pro-left" or otherwise inherently falsified agenda for purely partisan reasons goes far beyond believability, and the insane conspiracy theories and accusations coming from the institutions pushing this theory are far and away less reliable and accurate, and far more partisanly stilted, than the outlet's they're criticizing.
You're arguing against generalizations that I didn't make. The NYT times has had multiple scandals regarding journalistic integrity. The consumer has to take the stories in the NYT at face value and trust in the integrity of the reporting. That trust has been broken by the NYT more than once. How many times it has to be broken before an individual consumer decides not to rely on the NYT as a new source anymore will vary with the individual but losing faith in a news outlet after being burned by fake stories more than once isn't a crazy unreasonable positon.
I don't believe in the massive media conspiracies or that the "Media" is creating some kind of united front against Trump. The Media industry does suffer from a lot of cross contamination when it comes to issue of partisanship and trustworthiness. I believe that there is a partisan bias inherent in Fox News, I don't think many people would argue against that assertion. However, when we look at the news networks you see a lot of the same people moving around to different networks. Lou Dobbs moves from CNN to Fox, Glen Beck moves from CNN/HLN to Fox and then leaves Fox, Greta Van Sustern moves from Fox to MSNBC, Megyn Kelly leaves Fox for NBC, Maria Bartiromo leaves CNBC for Fox, etc. So do the journalists/hosts become more credible or less credible depending on which network they work on? Does the partisanship in their shows change depending on which network they are on? The networks all use the same business model, have the same for profit motive and the same "talent" moves around between networks and outlets.
I think a big problem for news has been the development of "infotainment" and the lack of a clear line where news stops and editorial opinion content begins.
Yeah, I am frustrated that this viewpoint is deteriorating, and from all sides. Free speech is a liberal principle I personally view as paramount, and the degradation of it, whether or be right-wingers trying to shut down Colin Capernick's speech, or academics and student trying to shut down conservative events, is something I find deeply troubling.
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.
To be fair, this isn't actually a new problem. Check out FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, and the PMRC hearings if you get the chance. I'm doing a Social History capstone project this spring, and I may be shifting focus slightly to really incorporate both of these things. I'm just waiting on Prof. feedback to see if she thinks it's too far into Poli-Sci, or too much into "American Studies" and not enough history
I was actually tuned into the PMRC hearings in Congress when they were going on...my dad was infuriated by the group. Outside of the general anti-free speech, nanny-state vibes which were the most important thing on display, it was notable because an unelected group of women with connections to politicians seemed to have been given inordinate and undue power and influence. Tipper Gore was an albatross hung around Al Gores neck from that point forward.
The speeches that John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snyder gave were priceless. People should still watch them today, IMO.
What's crazy is the specific lyrics these women were objecting to were on the whole so innocuous compared to what we see as routine song lyrics in music today.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/02/23 16:19:59
The speeches that John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snyder gave were priceless. People should still watch them today, IMO.
What's crazy is the specific lyrics these women were objecting to were on the whole so innocuous compared to what we see as routine song lyrics in music today.
Agreed on the speeches. My personal favorite is Dee Snyder's, in part because of the non-verbal pimp slaps he gave (such as showing up with no sleeves, in jeans, wearing sunglasses. Pulling his entire speech out of a folded/semi-crumpled piece of paper from his pocket, etc)
Obviously music has progessed far since then, but even their infamous list of 15 songs weren't that bad compared to some of the songs coming out in that time period. Then again, much of what I'm thinking of wasn't among the most popular and most consumed music back then, so it makes some sense why they didn't make the cut.
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.
You make it sound like the USA are the only nation that enshrined free speech and a "no" to censorship into their basic laws...
When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.
Didn't claim that Germany would be one of those countries with the free-est of speech, either. Most of the countries have some niche issues with restrictions to free speech, I'd presume.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/23 16:21:41
d-usa wrote: I think a big problem for news has been the development of "infotainment" and the lack of a clear line where news stops and editorial opinion content begins.
100% this. Even the local news is getting into the infotainment act.
The speeches that John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snyder gave were priceless. People should still watch them today, IMO.
What's crazy is the specific lyrics these women were objecting to were on the whole so innocuous compared to what we see as routine song lyrics in music today.
Agreed on the speeches. My personal favorite is Dee Snyder's, in part because of the non-verbal pimp slaps he gave (such as showing up with no sleeves, in jeans, wearing sunglasses. Pulling his entire speech out of a folded/semi-crumpled piece of paper from his pocket, etc)
Obviously music has progessed far since then, but even their infamous list of 15 songs weren't that bad compared to some of the songs coming out in that time period. Then again, much of what I'm thinking of wasn't among the most popular and most consumed music back then, so it makes some sense why they didn't make the cut.
Yeah, if these women were clutching their pearls over Sheena Easton's "Sugar Walls", imagine how they would have reacted to Nicki Minaj begging for D in every other verse. I think I even heard that Cannibal Corpse decided to make their lyrics so grotesque and over the top as a response to the PMRC outrage. The whole thing backfired, big league.
jasper76 wrote: "I may disagree with what you say, but I'd die for your right to say it" used to be an axiom regardless of political affiliation.
When was that? Which political affiliation?
My entire life, nearly every armed services man or woman, regardless of political affiliation.
Sadly, it has been my experience that this is changing... During that Colin Kaepernick thing at the beginning of last football season, the people loudest on my FB page against him were the veterans I know. It also seemed to divide pretty neatly along "typical" political lines. The more left-leaning Vet buddies I have were, like me, of a view like this (the "I may disagree, but it's your right to say it" thing), whereas all of my more right-leaning friends, ya know... the ones who claim to be the party of personal freedom were the ones going all apeshit over someone taking a knee and actually exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
Yeah, I am frustrated that this viewpoint is deteriorating, and from all sides. Free speech is a liberal principle I personally view as paramount, and the degradation of it, whether it be right-wingers trying to shut down Colin Capernick's speech, or academics and student trying to shut down conservative events, is something I find deeply troubling.
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.
None of the examples you give are an attack on free speech. All it is is other people using their own free speech rights.
Free speech does not guarantee you the ability to not have your spreeh contested or disagreed with. If you say something offensive, it is not an attack on your right of free speech to use my right of free speech to call you on it.
The speeches that John Denver, Frank Zappa, and Dee Snyder gave were priceless. People should still watch them today, IMO.
What's crazy is the specific lyrics these women were objecting to were on the whole so innocuous compared to what we see as routine song lyrics in music today.
Agreed on the speeches. My personal favorite is Dee Snyder's, in part because of the non-verbal pimp slaps he gave (such as showing up with no sleeves, in jeans, wearing sunglasses. Pulling his entire speech out of a folded/semi-crumpled piece of paper from his pocket, etc)
Obviously music has progessed far since then, but even their infamous list of 15 songs weren't that bad compared to some of the songs coming out in that time period. Then again, much of what I'm thinking of wasn't among the most popular and most consumed music back then, so it makes some sense why they didn't make the cut.
Yeah, if these women were clutching their pearls over Sheena Easton's "Sugar Walls", imagine how they would have reacted to Nicki Minaj begging for D in every other verse. I think I even heard that Cannibal Corpse decided to make their lyrics so grotesque and over the top as a response to the PMRC outrage. The whole thing backfired, big league.
As such things usually do. Just ask Augustus about his morality laws.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
of course.
