R_P wrote: 




Good points. Does it bother you that you and I seem to agree on matters concerning Russia? What a strange and complex world we live in! lol

 westslope wrote: 
This reminds me of The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street

 westslope wrote: 
That Chobani is good tho.

How Fakes News Turned a Small Town Upside Down - NYT

 westslope wrote: 




Yea, but I wouldn't hold my breath the duopoly has us by a chokehold. :-(

 sirdroseph wrote: 
Agreed.  Intellectual libertarians have consistently opposed US military meddling and signalled the threat of blowback.

Funny though, lots of folks in both Canada and the USA like to think of themselves as "libertarians" but continue to promote pro-war, pro 'kill and take' policies.  

If there were more honest-to-god libertarians, classic liberals and Quakers in North America, perhaps this cycle of endless wealth-destroying war would slow down a bit?  

 westslope wrote: 




Well there is a small, but vocal and CONSISTENT contigent of Americans who oppose war and US perpetual meddling at every turn and we are called Libertarians.

 sirdroseph wrote: 

Eating babies?  No, you love aerial-bombing babies.  Apparently it is a classy, socially acceptable way of killing grandchildren and grandparents.  And of course, because all these civilian, non-terrorist deaths are righteous, there is no threat of blowback.  

 

 

The truth is not pleasant:  many Americans love guns more than they love their fellow Americans.  
Happy 4th of July.  

 westslope wrote: 
Just to help clarify that issue, which I thought was cleared up years ago:

"After Loughner’s shooting, some of Palin’s surrogates claimed the map was never intended to portray crosshairs, and instead said they were “surveyor’s symbols.” But that was debunked by Palin herself, when she acknowledged that the symbols were intended to be crosshairs.

It’s unclear whether Loughner even knew of Palin’s map, but it probably would not have changed the outcome. His focus on Giffords began as early as 2007, long before the map was published...”

 kurtster wrote: 
Interesting.  Been reading maps for a very long time, published a couple of books and a few more articles including peer-reviewed journal articles.  I have seen lots of alignment marks over the years and would NEVER mistake them for cross-hairs.

Are you sure you are correct about this kurtster?
As for If I was American, I would be tempted to shoot her myself, that is a remark aimed at your culture. 'Cause you Americans love guns and love shooting each other.  

Within the western world, Americans are unique for their love of shooting each other.
Once upon a time I spent half a decade hitch-hiking and backpacking through South America and Africa.  I went into some extremely dangerous areas.  When I recount this story to regular Americans, I would often get the same question:  why did I not pack a gun?   Often that question was accompanied by disbelief and bewilderment.

Well, there are all kinds of really good reasons why I did not pack a gun.  In fact, I am alive today, precisely because I was not carrying a firearm.   

The point is that only Americans asked that question.  Nobody else from poor developing countries, emerging economies or other rich OECD countries ever asked that question.  

The truth is not pleasant:  many Americans love guns more than they love their fellow Americans.  
Happy 4th of July.  

 Steely_D wrote: 
Not so fast, boss.  I'm not doing it wrong.  I'm making 60 widgets a day, but half are scrap cause you don't maintain your equipment properly and the blanks you get from that sleazy supplier aren't worth using.  Be happy you're getting 30 a day out of me that pass inspection.  You want more out of me, then maintain your equipment and find a better supplier.  If you did your part I might be able to do 70 a day.  Don't blame me for your inabilities to do what you are supposed to be doing.

Eh ?

 Steely_D wrote:  
Get off my back!

 kurtster wrote: 
You can't dispose of criticism by saying it's all subjective/opinion. 

You can dispose of it by saying that nothing matters. If it's anarchy, then nothing matters. But if there are rules, values, expectations - then criticism can be the judgment of whether or not someone/something is meeting those standards. 

E.g., you're supposed to make 50 widgets a day. You're making 30. Me telling you that you're doing it wrong is not subjective or opinion but is criticism. Unless you're the Dude.
In which case


 

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I see folks overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed, and I think like Ron Swanson: these folks ned to get a tent and a pole and go spend some time in nature. Phones off, TV off, life on. So many anxious thoughts are the result of us being told we should be different or worried. Politics, deodorant, car, past stories...they all fit in there somewhere as things we're supposed to be concerned about.

 maryte wrote: 
Reasonable thoughts.  Clearly the common denominator in causing the perceptions we are dealing with is how it has become all about the messenger instead of the message.  Only certain messengers are deemed or thought to be acceptable by varying factions.  The accompanying message is then and only then seen, regardless of veracity.  But since it is only certain messengers being viewed, their message is the only one considered.

On the bolded.  Criticism ≠ news.  Criticism = opinion. See your bullet point regarding op - eds.  Accurate presentation of new facts (the 5 W's) = news.  

What I would like to see from any and all sides:

• When criticizing or lauding specific examples of good or bad journalism, take the time to provide clear rationale as to *why* they are either good or bad, not simply "So-and-so said it, therefore it's fact"  
• No op-eds - those are opinions, and not news - damned near the pinnacle of media bias 
• Cease and desist with the term "main stream media" - it's simply a lazy way to disregard what could very well be a good piece of journalism that you just don't happen to agree with (see the first bullet point)
• There are a few sources which can be disregarded, but even Fox News gets it right once and a while - hell, the National Inquirer gets it right once and a while - so if criticizing a story from a source that you generally would not consider reliable, please provide more rationale beyond "I don't like that source"
• If at all possible, try to find the primary source for a story and don't cite news aggregators; their sole purpose is to generate clickbait headlines, and therefore, money.
• And if you're not already aware of them, however dry the writing is, Reuters is about as neutral a source as exists today

 steeler wrote:
A public good that can be undermined from within as well as without.

It's also an industry, and most of the part with national reach is concentrated on the coasts in big cities, big media markets. And it generally holds people outside those markets as contemptible imbeciles, uncultured, unsophisticated, incapable of following their narratives. Not people who disagree with big city politics, people too dumb to get it. The middle of the country has become enamored of a faction of the media that tells them they are honest hardworking people who may cling to traditional values but at least they have values, and they deserve better than the image the coastal elites have created for them.

That contempt has become mutual, and it has had terrible consequences. When CNN (to pick an example) tries to inform the public that the president is playing them for fools on, say, immigration that public either nods its heads and says "Yes, fools! Dangerous, racist, homophobic fools!" or says "Yep, they hate us, they hate Trump, and they'll say anything to bring him down and make us look bad." If Fox (to pick another example) were to try and shed some light on the latest free lunch proposal from the left those same heads will either tip back in full-throated outrage and chant "They hate us, they want us to suffer, and they oppose anything that might benefit anyone who isn't rich and white!" or "Yep, another set of eggheads ignoring the consequences of their feel-good politics, screwing the public to curry favor with their base."

And I can't honestly say either one is wrong. Much of our media will distort the truth to match its agenda, and much of the public is now seeking out news that matches their preconceived notions of how the world works—not just because they want those views confirmed, but because they can sense the contempt they're held in.

The cure isn't going to be easy or simple. We need journalists courageous (and patient) enough to build an audience by being honest. They don't have to be unbiased, nobody is. They have to be willing to tell stories that audience won't like.

There are examples of this emerging. The Intercept is lopsidedly lefty but willing to point out when the left gets it wrong. NPR shows signs of it now and again. The Wall Street Journal has a pretty broad perspective hidden behind its paywall but tends to focus on economic issues to the exclusion of others. The Economist is similar.

We need to water the trees we want to grow. and give honest journalists our attention.

And yes, I'm "assailing the media" because most of it isn't doing its job well. If I'm misrepresenting your views on this you're going to have to meet me halfway here and actually express them. I may be one of the voices in your head but I can't hear the others.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
OFFS. As I finished writing that post, I was thinking that I should have said "assailing the media as a monolith," but did not edit to add that clarification, being lazy and also thinking that my many previous posts on the topic would provide amplification. My error.

Now, with that clarification, let me say: OFFS, I am not saying that criticism of the media is off limits.  You are rebutting an argument that I have not made. Feel free to criticize reporting errors, flawed coverage, lack of coverage, and any other miscues that can and do occur on a daily basis among the innumerable stories published or broadcast every day. Those in journalism do that kind of review every day, and in the aggregate. It is a good practice.

i have no quarrel with any criticism of this sort. The problem — and the danger — stems not from the criticism of specific reporting errors or flawed coverage of a particular story. It stems from the sweeping conclusions that are drawn. The reporting error was not just a mistake born, perhaps, from shoddy work, it was emblematic of something far greater and more sinister. These reporters and editors have an agenda that is predicated upon showering the public with disinformation. And that kind of "criticism" is extended to most, if not all, of the "mainstream media" as a monolith. The mainstream media cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. They will distort the news to serve their own purposes. 

Enter Trump: journalists are the enemy of the people. You fail to see the danger in a President making those kind of statements on a regular basis? I know you must know that the Founders considered the press to be critical to our democracy — the fourth branch. 

are there examples of bias in the media? Sure. It happens. Janet Cooke infamously reported in the Washington Post in 1981 about an 8-year-old heroin addict. Won a Pulitzer, which was rescinded when the story subsequently was exposed as fiction. She had a self-serving agenda and the system  at the Post failed to detect the inaccuracies. Does that mean everything reported is the result of bias? Of course not. It is not systemic. And if it were — as you and others seem to believe — where does that leave us? The greater harm is the media? OFFS.

Trump and way too many others rail about "fake news" stemming from unnamed sources. Publishing stories based upon sources, named or unnamed, is a tricky, complicated editorial judgment — but a necessary one. For example: We would not have read about Watergate, nor would the Boston Gobe Spotlight team been able to inform the public about decades of child sexual abuse by priests in the Boston area and the efforts of the Boston Archdiocese to cover it up, if those investigations could not rely upon unnamed sources in piecing together what was going on. 

As the Founders recognized, the American press is a public good. We forget that at our own peril.

OFFS, indeed.

 

 steeler wrote: 





I actually agree with this, our political and economic system has been and probably always will be a sham that is too big and entrenched for us to do anything about anyway. Voting is a joke when the ballot of choices are rigged and corrupted before you even get to the polls. So vatta u gonna do except look at the man in the mirror and get yourself straight because our individual impact on each other is ultimately the only true power we, the peon citizens have.