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.

I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.

I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.

So we are complaining that companies that use news as a way to sell advertising slots are reporting stuff that people want to read and watch?

The vast majority of national US news, especially from cable networks, are opinion pieces and on-Air personalities telling you what they think. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing: getting people angry enough to watch and read so they can charge their advertisers for the number of people who are watching and reading.

But aside from that, POTUS saying stupid ignorant stuff matters, even if it’s happens to be Trump who says it.

As a nation we shouldn’t be expected to lower the office of POTUS to the level of the occupant, we should always demand that the occupant raises to the level of the office he chose to seek. Trump should not get a pass because he’s Trump, the president is still the president.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.

I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.

You can do both, for instance the NYT can report a fact -- that Trump has done blah blah blah -- and also do an opinion piece on what Trump's behaviour means, and the op ed can have a right of left slant, or a business slant or whatever. But the original fact should be presented and understood as a fact.

The problem is that in the modern world people seem to run supposed facts through their personal opinion bias filter before accepting them as facts. Then they reject the facts that don't meet their prejudices.

Some of this is due to psychological weaknesses such as confirmation bias. Thanks to science we know about those things and therefore can adjust for them. But a lot of people don't. Perhaps they don't accept confirmation bias as a fact.

 RiTides wrote:


I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...

NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?

Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.

Trump now has 87% positive support from Republican Party members, says a report on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44324545

Presented as a fact derived from a Gallup poll, and given some analysis as to why this matters.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

No, I'm asking what Newsom has done that puts him on the same level as someone convicted of corruption.

He’s a democrat from California.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump now has 87% positive support from Republican Party members, says a report on the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44324545

Presented as a fact derived from a Gallup poll, and given some analysis as to why this matters.

I said it before the election. If Trump wins then he will be the future of the Republican party and if people didn't want him to be the representative of conservative politics then they must do everything they can to ensure he doesn't win, even if that meant voting for Hillary. Nothing would have spoken louder to the Republican leadership that a lying racist was not what people wanted than their own supporters voting against them.

If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

So THATS how the Emperor of Mankind came to power...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

So THATS how the Emperor of Mankind came to power...

Nah, the Emperor is Obama, establishing a WORLD government, expanding the 'federal' government as much as possible throughout the galaxy and a militant atheist!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

So THATS how the Emperor of Mankind came to power...

Nah, the Emperor is Obama, establishing a WORLD government, expanding the 'federal' government as much as possible throughout the galaxy and a militant atheist!

Not only that, but a KENYAN MUSLIM militant atheist! Those are the worst kind!

 RiTides wrote:
I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.

I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.

You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

No, I'm asking what Newsom has done that puts him on the same level as someone convicted of corruption.

He's an epic level sleazebag, well known in Cali, particularly in SF.
The Republicans will love this. They can retire Pelosi and use him as their posterboy for why the Democrats suck balls so bad, want to take your guns and protect criminal illegal aliens and don't give a flying feth about you.* But seriously he's bad, like Mayor Daley level bad.


*Now I need to send off my bill to the RNC, for creating their new marketing campaign.

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.

I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.

 Frazzled wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.

I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.

You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.

I agree that story selection and interviewees are extremely important. They don't always get it right (i.e. balanced), but are by far the best available, imo.

 Easy E wrote:

 RiTides wrote:


I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...

NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?

Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.

Only took half a dozen posts for your point to be proved

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

Fortunately the tide of history is against them, but they are in position to do a lot of damage before they are got rid of.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 RiTides wrote:


I have been impressed how NPR has shifted some of their coverage away from sensationalism, but they're publicly funded and not as beholden to generating pure listening/watching numbers...

NPR? You mean that news organization that the right wants to destroy for being so liberal, unfair to conservatives, and publicly funded?

Trying quoting NPR to many right-wing politicos and see how far that gets you. You might as well site Salon.com.

Only took half a dozen posts for your point to be proved

Since it is Frazzled, I am not 100% sure it was serious.

 RiTides wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I don't know about that - but regardless, the media can't have it fully both ways. Either they're a business maximizing their market (views/clicks/listens), or they're providing a public service and will prioritize that over all else.

I understand a little of both could be required, but honestly, I'm having less and less faith that many organizations I listen to (other than the two I listed above, NPR and BBC) have this balance right.

You think NPR and BBC are balanced? Mmmm...no. They may be more balanced, but they are definitely not balanced. The easy way to tell if something is balanced is to look at what articles they run and what "experts" or interviews they have.

I agree that story selection and interviewees are extremely important. They don't always get it right (i.e. balanced), but are by far the best available, imo.

I hear you. One should also add Al Jazeera is going the TV route. Bloomberg is good for business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.

I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.

He has been quite the figure in California.

Newsom has always come off to me as an attention seeking and slimy looking dude and the king of bay-area-smug that leads me to intensely dislike the dude personally, but I cant confess that I've heard of him ever doing anything on the level of Blago.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.

I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.

He has been quite the figure in California.

Then you should be able to readily cite examples rather than make vague allusions to things.

That's what is being asked for. If you're going to participate in the conversation, then participate in the conversation.

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It also didn’t claim that GOP supporters are white supremacists. It claimed that white supremacists are more likely to support the GOP. Which is a difference.

Heckler's veto alive and strong.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Are Democrats really going to elect Blagoyivich level sleazebag Newsom as Governor? What a shitshow. They really are no different than Republicans.

Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

You're asking if Blagoyivich was convicted?

He's asking if Newsome has been convicted.

I'd really like to know more about what it is he has supposedly done. In the age of "but her emails" it's difficult not to tune out similar noises.

He has been quite the figure in California.

Then you should be able to readily cite examples rather than make vague allusions to things.

That's what is being asked for. If you're going to participate in the conversation, then participate in the conversation.

I did. I am not going to rehash 20 year's of history that will change no one's mind. I am sure the Republicans will do that shortly.

 gorgon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.

He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?

That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.

He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?

Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.