All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Gray Lensman]

Well, Rick is correct but for the wrong reasons.

Obama did exacerbate racial tension....merely by being a black POTUS.

[aja_christopher]

What deal with the devil did I make? I've been pretty open about the fact that I haven't voted for Trump in either the primary or the general election.

You support the party that both created and now enables Trump -- you may choose to ignore the obvious but don't expect others to do the same.

The current Republican party is both fiscally irresponsible and morally bankrupt: the current Republican President is starting trade wars with our closest allies while he ignores Russian interference in our elections and claims complete immunity from the rule of law as his Republican peers loot the coffers of our nation with tax cuts that they know we will never be able to afford -- for them, it's money before people every time.

It is no coincidence that a lifelong conman and racist criminal is now the head of the Republican party -- he represents the party perfectly, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

[Iron Maiden]

The important point isn't whether more journalists self-identify as liberal, but rather does the actual reporting done by these liberal journalists contain more factual information than that of conservative leaning journalists. I'd bet money that it does.

Or in the case of Fox News or Faux News, they have an almost complete blackout of any news that casts Trump in a negative light.

[Iron Maiden]

[URL="https://twitter.com/fawfulfan/status/1002502139367837702"]An interesting insight someone proposed on Twitter about Trump and his economic philosophy.

Remember people, voting is important.

Those posts, about Trump having this transactional view of diplomacy,etc is exactly the kind of thing his ghost writer for "Art of the Deal" saw in Trump. Trump is an amoral grifter who only sees winners and losers and that's about the depth of his thought processes.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Those posts, about Trump having this transactional view of diplomacy,etc is exactly the kind of thing his ghost writer for "Art of the Deal" saw in Trump. Trump is an amoral grifter who only sees winners and losers and that's about the depth of his thought processes.

But, hey! Her emails! Meanwhile, Republicans continue to enable that madman because they’re every bit as morally corrupt as Trump.

[Tendrin]

You support the party that both created and now enables Trump -- you may choose to ignore the obvious but don't expect others to do the same.

Not just the party but the myths the party promulgates.

[Mister Mets]

An interesting insight someone proposed on Twitter about Trump and his economic philosophy.




Remember people, voting is important.

I've heard this argument before. An additional factor is that Trump has a particular type of business background (Manhattan real estate which is largely about competing for finite resources) that can lead to viewing everything in a zero-sum way.

Not only does the fact that people keep calling Obama a racist tie into the conversation about Trumps earlier pardon of a dead man, but to quote the article agreed with:

It comes back to the question I always ask in these circumstances: How is Obama at fault for WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO IN REACTION TO HIM? I don't blame Trump for Anti-Trump protesters who cross the line, but considering how he's advocated for them multiple times at his rallies I will blame him for Pro-Trump excesses. Somehow though it's Barry's fault when the GoP obstruct everything, get many avowed racists running under their banner, and even when people become informers in plea deals. The buzzwords 'identity politics' give it away as I see it, basically meaning "I don't like how I feel about these people but rather than confront these feelings in myself or others I'm going to say focusing on them is what's wrong with everything today." and that's just another lie people tell themselves to avoid self examination over why they are willing to tolerate the bigotry that 'identity politics' arose to confront.

Santorum's specific point was that Obama said things that were wrong. He wasn't claiming that Obama was right, but too ahead of his time, or blunt or something.

Incidentally, that was the topic of a recent Maureen Dowd column on Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/o...-as-it-is.html

The important point isn't whether more journalists self-identify as liberal, but rather does the actual reporting done by these liberal journalists contain more factual information than that of conservative leaning journalists. I'd bet money that it does.

There are some further wrinkles here.

One note is that it isn't just about which way journalists self-identify, since there are some who are evasive about who they vote for, even if it is pretty clear. This would especially be true in the so-called mainstream media (Network news, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NPR, PBS) outside the avowedly liberal (Mother Jones, Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc.) and conservative (National Review, Breitbart, etc.)

There's a potential for error in comparisons. If you're looking at the accuracy of reporting, the equivalent of a Blaze reporter isn't someone who works for CNN, which is ostensibly neutral, but someone who works for an openly left-wing news source (the Young Turks or something.)

The accuracy of the information is important, but there are other problems when newsrooms are skewed in a particular way. There will be omissions and blind spots.

They aren't contrary at all. You just chose to read it differently than how it was posted.

There is no Liberal media bias, it's something the Right Wing lies about constantly.

ALSO,

Your words here...


Media FIGURES lean left. Again, there is nothing wrong with people being lefties or liberals. I said nothing about the media as a whole.

I'm not choosing to read it a particular way. I'm trying to figure out the argument.

Is it that the people in the media lean left, but due to corporate biases this does not affect the work in any discernible way?

[Kevinroc]

Santorum's specific point was that Obama said things that were wrong. He wasn't claiming that Obama was right, but too ahead of his time, or blunt or something.

Incidentally, that was the topic of a recent Maureen Dowd column on Obama.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/o...-as-it-is.html

https://twitter.com/ProudResister/st...06376251449344

An important distinction:

Obama becoming the first black president did NOT hurt race relations in America.

Racists in America who couldn’t handle Barack Obama becoming the first black president hurt race relations in America.

[Jack Dracula]

There are some further wrinkles here.

One note is that it isn't just about which way journalists self-identify, since there are some who are evasive about who they vote for, even if it is pretty clear. This would especially be true in the so-called mainstream media (Network news, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek, NPR, PBS) outside the avowedly liberal (Mother Jones, Huffington Post, MSNBC, etc.) and conservative (National Review, Breitbart, etc.)

There's a potential for error in comparisons. If you're looking at the accuracy of reporting, the equivalent of a Blaze reporter isn't someone who works for CNN, which is ostensibly neutral, but someone who works for an openly left-wing news source (the Young Turks or something.)

I interpreted the implication of your earlier post to be that the majority of mainstream American journalists who report negatively on the current administration do so out of malice primarily because they were admitted liberal Democrats. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As for a potential for error, if your criteria is factual accuracy, it shouldn't matter who the reporter works for.

[4saken1]

I'm saying what you will be seeing when you look at yourself, really look at yourself will be.

Introspection is an art that is lost on most conservatives. People tend to forget they were on the wrong side of history about something, especially if they have something else to focus their hate and rage on.

[Malvolio]

https://twitter.com/ProudResister/st...06376251449344

Well, yes. It reminds me of the notion that property values in a given neighborhood go down because Black families are moving in. That's simply not the case. The property values go down because white families are moving out, mostly out of irrational fear.

[4saken1]

As for a potential for error, if your criteria is factual accuracy, it shouldn't matter who the reporter works for.

Exactly! There's another aspect of potential bias in news sources, too, and that is what they don't report. Many conservatives used the fact that MSM didn't spend a whole lot of time on the Benghazi 'cover-up' as 'proof' that they were completely biased. Instead, as it turns out (psssst - everyone else already knew), this story was COMPLETE. FUCKING. BULLSHIT!!! But again, you never heard conservatives complain about the lack of positive Obama stories on FOX!

[numberthirty]

While not exactly "News", this was an interesting take on the current state of affairs...

[Tendrin]

Tell me again about the 'liberal media'.

Attachment 66618

[numberthirty]

Forget "If" the liberal media are in control.

The real question is more like "Does MSNBC seriously run that "We are serious journalists." commercial when someone hosting their shows apparently straight up fabricated a story about a hack being behind a bunch of stuff that personality had to disavow?"