Total posts: 1,890
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Ok, I’m still trying to figure your reasoning out— would you describe any auto accident, for example, as “deadly” because auto accidents have the known potential to involve fatalities?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Your argument appears to be:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless a person diesP2: Ashli Babbitt was the only person to have died on Jan 6thC1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
You have conceded P2. I have asked for a source on P1 but I think its safe to say your conclusion's already done.
Now you are arguing HOMICIDE as a condition for P2 but that makes your P1 obviously untrue:
P1: One can't call an occurrence DEADLY unless there's homicideP2: Ashli Babbitt was the only homicide on Jan 6thC1: Therefore, if not for Babbitt one could not describe Jan 6th as DEADLY
P1 is manifestly false. When a car goes off a cliff, that can always be called a DEADLY accident but it is not always (not even generally) homicide.
Oh, my… I hope you didn’t spend too much time on that.
Ok, I was maybe hoping I could sort of *reason you through* your incorrect usage of “deadly” to an event with no fatalities (hypothetically speaking, of course), but it looks like that ain’t happening…
As for the equivocation fallacy, there are so many references on it that I could just guide you through the keystrokes required to find them on your little computer there. I know that wouldn’t cut the mustard with you, though, so here’s one:
Still, I really think I explained the problem very clearly already. Now, I know you’re still not going to reach any sort of epiphany from reading some reference, even if you did ask for it. I get the idea from your rather over-serious efforts that you would only accept a vote from some illustrious moderation panel here. The important thing is that I’m not bothered either way what you think…
Anyhoo… yes, multiple fatalities at that event, but only one *directly* caused by the event itself, and it was one of the rioters, not one of the people being… eh, rioted against? So, to put it a different way: the January 6 riot WAS deadly… to the rioters!
Remember the story that day about the policeman getting beaten with the fire extinguisher? Yes, it was an awful story. Good thing it wasn’t awfully true! Our objective media really ran with that one didn’t they? Funny how they didn’t do their due diligence until after they repeated that rumor daily. Hmm… it’s almost as if our trusty, objective media is trying to reenforce some sort of bigger narrative… it is to ponder…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
By equivocating, I mean that you are playing with the definition of a word (and not in a good way). To demonstrate the flaw in your use of the word “deadly” as applied to an event:
“Oh, my god, there was a deadly shooting today!”
“Oh, no! How many fatalities?”
“Well, none that we know of; several injuries though. But… the shooter clearly had deadly intent and used a deadly weapon. Ergo… the shooting was deadly! QED…”
*eyeroll*
To reiterate, I don’t deny that the riot was deadly. I am merely pointing out that the only *homicide* was one of the *rioters*. Here is what wiki has to say under “Casualties”:
“Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran, was fatally shot in the shoulder by Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd while attempting to climb through a shattered window in a barricaded door.[326] This was soon ruled a justified homicide.[261][327][328] Brian Sicknick, a 42-year-old responding Capitol Police officer, was pepper-sprayed during the riot, and had two thromboembolic strokes the next day,[329][330] after which he was placed on life support,[8] and soon died.[331][332] The D.C. chief medical examiner found he died from a stroke, classifying his death as natural,[333] and commenting that "all that transpired played a role in his condition".[334][335] Rosanne Boyland, 34, died of an amphetamineoverdose during the riot,[336] ruled accidental by the D.C. medical examiner's office.[17] Kevin Greeson, 55, and Benjamin Philips, 50, died naturally from coronary heart disease and hypertensive heart disease.[17]”
So, yes, there was a stroke connected to the riot, but it was classified as death by “natural causes,” ie not a homicide.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
No, I’m afraid you’re equivocating there. “Deadly” as applied to an event (as in this case) means someone died during the event (or later died from injuries sustained at the event, if one wants to be super duper technical about it, as so many debaters seem to be). For example, a shooting CANNOT be described as “deadly” unless someone died in the shooting.
Created:
Posted in:
If not for Babbitt’s tragic death, our media would not be able to describe that occurrence as “the DEADLY January 6th capitol riot.” Well, they would still be able to, but not without issuing a retraction later near the back page…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
It can be both simultaneously rather than being mutually exclusive.
It is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though: which came first, the profiting at others’ expense, or the anti-Semitism? Sure, I can generalize why the prejudice exists in modern times, but I really can’t say how, why or when anti-Semitic sentiment originated. The “profiting at others’ expense” accusation strikes me as merely jealousy rearing its ugly head.
They do seem to play the cards they are dealt in life quite well, if I may generalize…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I believe that the fundamental notion behind anti-Semitism is that Jews profit at the expense of non-Jews.
And therein lies the conundrum: Jews tend to prosper *in spite of* the long history and preponderance of anti-Semitic sentiment at best, and outright persecution and genocide at worst, in the world. They certainly pose a stark contrast to other victimized groups which blame their lack of prosperity on their victimization.
Created:
Any stubborn, old fool could simply withdraw his forces from a country with disastrous results. And a stubborn, old fool did…
Created:
Posted in:
Why do some societies/people groups advance more rapidly and generate more wealth than others?
This, from a doc (and a book, I believe) titled “Guns, Germs, and Steel”:
tldr: the common denominators of wealth and advancement in human history appear to be the presence of domesticatable animals and farmable land.
But this background knowledge wouldn’t inform present day policy at all…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, so the example such as with the 'mockery' element and such is that if you mock a race that has been continually victimised and isolated, it has more harshness than if you aim your mockery at a race that is blatantly dominant. I am not saying I agree, what I am saying is 'racism' in that context is referring to how harsh the impact is.
Oh, I understood your earlier explanation just fine. The point here specifically is the word “cannot [be racist].” Says who?
You dare disagree with your moral betters? Well, you know what you will be accused of if you do that…
It can be. Especially because this question is a terribly worded one that people should stop using altogether (I genuinely mean that). Other than first-generation immigrants, there is a huge issue with the question 'where are you from' as it is not clear if it means to ascertain where you grow up and resided in for your younger life or alternatively means to ascertain where does your ethnic bloodline trace back to.
My spouse has a foreign accent; she gets asked “Where are you from?” all the time. No offense intended; no offense taken. However, I have to resist the urge to command “Please, don’t ‘otherize’ my wife!” Offense comes far too easily these days…
Another funny story:
Back in college freshman (oops! Bad word!) orientation, we were walking through a computer lab, and there was a Sikh wearing his customary turban headgear. Here’s how the dialog went:
“So, where are you from?”
“Fresno.” (Gets some chuckles from our group)
“No, where are you REALLY from?”
“India.”
“Ok, I knew he was from someplace!”
Now, for the plot twist: the student asking about the origins of the headgear happened to be African American. Doesn’t that conflict with example #1 that POC “cannot” be racist (or racially insensitive/xenophobic/etc)? (Rhetorical question, really)
Depends on the person and other things contextually, this is far too generic and vague for me to talk about either way.
My point is that your reasonable definition gets expanded beyond its original bounds by many progressives. To be honest, I wasn’t looking for your explication of these examples I posit. Rather, I was giving examples of definition “creep”… aka “moving of the goalposts.” THAT is really my point.
I don't recall anyone arguing this ever but please show me.
Oh, well, you’re going to love this then:
Who knew?
Again, my point being that the definition of “racism” is constantly expanded to a very confusing, and unreasonable IMO, degree. I even see it lead to contradictory concepts. Hence, my question 2 about who all agree to the definition, and finally my question 3 asking who/what/where is able to escape any accusation of racism. Because if everything is racist, the word loses its meaning and impact… and it’s a shame when important words and concepts lose their original meaning and impact…
Anyway, thanks for at least addressing my first question, as my original addressee seems either unwilling or unable to answer ANY of my questions…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Thanks for your comprehensive answer to my first question!
One of the problems, as I see it, is that (too) many in progressive circles have expanded upon your definition greatly. Such as:
1. People of Color (POC) cannot be racist, as they are not part of the racist power structure
2. Asking “where are you from?” is a “micro aggression” rooted in racism because it is “otherizing” a person with a different appearance from the majority
3. A white person disliking an individual of a different race is assumed to be because of racism (conscious or subconscious) rather than merely the dislike people have for another person all the time
4. “Nonwhite” is a label rooted in racism, as it sees all different races through the (racist) Eurocentric lense
5. Math is racist because… I cannot comprehend why…
5. Punctuality, hard work, etc. are aspects of “whiteness”, and therefor is racist to expect from all people
That’s just from the top of my head right now. Hence, precisely why I pose question 2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Would you be willing and able to:
1. Define racism
2. Explain where that definition is widely accepted
3. Posit examples of persons in power and systems worldwide who/which do not fit that definition (are NOT racist)?
Created:
Biden is the best POTUS that communist China ever had.
What they say is true: elections have consequences…
Created:
Posted in:
Censoring the Biden story: How social media becomes state media
“… Either way, this was major news.
The response of Twitter and Facebook, however, was to shut it all down. Major media companies also imposed a virtual blackout on the allegations. It didn’t matter that thousands of emails were available for review or that the Bidens did not directly address the material. It was all declared to be fake news.
…At the same time, we are seeing a rejection of journalistic objectivity in favor of activism. The New York Times apologized for publishing a column by a conservative U.S. senator on using national guardsmen to quell rioting — yet it later published a column by a Chinese official called “Beijing’s enforcer” who is crushing protests in Hong Kong. The media spent years publishing every wacky theory of alleged Trump-Russia collusion; thousands of articles detailed allegations from the Steele dossier, which has been not only discredited but also shown to be based on material from a known Russian agent.”
Nothing to see here, folks…
Created:
Posted in:
Biden has payed a lot of lip service to promoting national unity. Here is video of a reporter asking him about just that:
Kudos to this reporter for asking about such an important issue and for doing so PRIOR to the election. Negative kudos, however, for MSM allowing this rambling excuse for an answer to flow past like water under a bridge with little to no attention. Am I mistaken?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Ah, right. Well, Bill Maher has usually been his own man regarding political platforms. He has long veered from left orthodoxy particularly in eschewing political correctness (humor is the first casualty of PC) and Islam apologetics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Consistent in its failure to report events objectively, the mainstream media has long since lost all credibility. It has become the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and will not report anything that might adversely affect that party’s chances at maintaining power.
Counselor, these are very serious charges. The mainstream media (MSM) has rights and is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are you prepared to defend these charges in the Court of Debateart.com Politics Forum, the Honorable Ramshutu presiding? Double R will be the counsel for the defense. The winner of this case will be able to declare that the loser holds an invalid opinion out of sheer stubborn will and with insufficient evidence.
What say you, Counselor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
“Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?”
Again, this was the (honest) question I posed to you. You gave a comprehensive response, yes, but none of it answered any part of the question. I could ask you to reread my question, offer greater clarity, or even offer my answer to it… but I get the idea that would be futile at this point.
I think we have different objectives here:
Me: “This is my opinion, and this is why I feel this way. If you disagree, why (ie feel free to expand upon your disagreement)?
You: “Your opinion is unreasonable/wrong/invalid, and I won’t be satisfied until you admit to being wrong, or I have logically proven you wrong in this forum, the court of debateart.com. Recant, or I will proceed to demolish every point you bring up!”
You may not have realized this, but I haven’t been trying to convince you that your opinion is “wrong.” (Opinion doesn’t entail correctness/incorrectness unless the underlying facts involved are misunderstood, or worse, completely fabricated). I have merely been explaining to you why I hold my opinion in spite of your direct protests. I’m not going for “the win” as you seem to be.
In conclusion, I’m confident we could go back and forth in perpetuity to no avail here. Our perspectives are simply different. Human nature and the nation’s political polarization exemplified.
If you happen to work in news journalism, you have the distinct satisfaction of working with like-minded people with like-minded objectives. If you do not work in news journalism, you have my gratitude…
If you happen to work in news journalism, you have the distinct satisfaction of working with like-minded people with like-minded objectives. If you do not work in news journalism, you have my gratitude…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Several late night leftist stalwarts have suddenly become more... shall we say, conservative?
I forgot to pursue this— who/what/how?
Currently, I’m having trouble getting the images out of my head of Stephen Colbert dancing with and high fiving Sen. Schumer and Jimmy Fallon’s very self-defeated look while he was getting schooled on white fragility by Robin DiAngelo… *shiver*
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I would be interested to hear your rationale for a decisive ideological win from the left but in a separate thread for that purpose…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Squinty eyed Dirty Harry impression: fail
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Cable networks took an extremely anti-Trump stance because they correctly read the room in that unlike a normal President the opposition to him was very very strong. I think he had like 40% “strongly disapprove” right off the bat. Controversy and outrage spur engagement, especially when it’s what people want to hear, and engagement is how these companies make their money. Fortunately nobody is watching anymore, I think cable news will continue to get more and more vestigial. I only watch the news for MAJOR events
Sure. But it is not the purpose of news reporting to lick a finger and sense the winds of public opinion. That is what politicians do, particularly ones with few core values. Nor is it the purpose of reporters to sway opinion. They are supposed to report information so that one can be informed and come to informed conclusions. Opinion writers and pundits will, of course, give their views which one can take or leave as they wish, but that is known upfront, which is a crucial distinction.
I don’t actually think the media’s coverage of Trump was THAT biased—I mean it was, but people can detect bias and make their own conclusions. My problem was and still is the stuff that they refuse to report on. But it is what it is. Ultimately I think railing against the media is pointless, they’re not going to change, the negative impact is probably less than you think, and it redirects energy that should be spent elsewhere.
Yes, story selection can be and is indeed an aspect of bias. Of course, sometimes there are too many things to cover each adequately, and stories must be prioritized for time and space. However, media outlets have a lot of say in how much to repeat certain things, how much prominence to give certain things, etc. Therein lies great responsibility and great potential for irresponsibility.
I disagree with your dismissal of the potential impacts. The press, as an institution, exists ideally to keep government accountable. But if the press’ ideal of objectivity gets corrupted by pet ideology, who/what keeps the press accountable? I don’t think our founders had an answer to that.
If mainstream press loses the public trust for objectivity, why not simply find your echo chamber of choice elsewhere? And that is exactly what’s happening, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. National division will continue to fester, and the press will feed off it and back into it rather than attempting to recenter it.
Needless to say, I don’t like to be right about these sorts of things, and I hope I am wrong…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So how did Trump approach the situation? Did he show up ready to calm everything down? No, he showed up guns blazing towards the “alt-left” making sure to forcefully condemn them while paying lip service in his condemnations towards the right. That’s when the good people on both sides comment came out, which was absurd cause like I already pointed out, the only people involved were white supremacists. These “very fine people” he was talking about were a complete fabrication.
Who do you believe were the “fine people” on each side Trump was referring to, and what was the issue in contention?
You’re trying to justify media bias by claiming they got predictions wrong. That’s not only not how that works, but that’s also misrepresenting what these networks were actually doing. The news media reports in the present, so they can only work with the information they have available at that time.
No— I’m pointing out how they kept looking for turds to throw at the wall to see what stuck. If it didn’t stick, no need to reflect upon it; simply look for the next turd to throw. Repeat as necessary.
Let’s just look at your first example, “warned of Trump caused war with NK”… well duh, Trump was literally saying publicly that he would blow up the whole country if they made any more threats. To argue that the media should not have been concerned about a nuclear war being started by a president so childish that he’s going to make these kind of statements on Twitter is absurd. If Biden did that tomorrow you would lose your mind.
Funny— both you and Ramshutu address North Korea exclusively…
When tensions went the opposite way, MSM did not reflect and ask “Is Trump tapping into something we don’t fully understand via his unconventional behavior? Does he possess a curious knack for dealing with a dangerous dictator?” No, that would be far too much like a compliment… Instead, it was (again) “He cozies up with ruthless dictators!” On to the next turd…
Provide one example of something Biden should have been held accountable for which the media failed and I will be happy to give my thoughts.
Thanks, but no need. This response says enough for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
One of us maybe correct, maybe neither of us.
Correct? I’m expressing an opinion here and my reasons for holding it and inviting others to do the same. If you or anyone else is the appointed arbiter of which opinions are supposedly “correct” and which ones are “incorrect,” I am in the wrong place.
I can tell you the tools I use to try and eliminate bias if you want.
I’d rather you forwarded them on to the offices of CNN. “Attn: Don Lemon” would be even better.
But saying that, I don’t think it was particularly bad, and the media do go back and assess what they said more often than I think you give them credit for.
Perhaps. As stated in my OP, I do not see much journalistic detachment these days. I am not seeing the self reflection when they are mistaken. I did not see them give Trump the benefit of the doubt when the repeated negative predictions failed to materialize. They seem to look for the facts that fit the predetermined narrative. I see anchors who are virtually indistinguishable from political pundits. I see press briefings where the tough questions go unasked.
If we agree on what was appropriate agree on what they did - then how far away they are is east to agree upon - Then it’s no longer just my presumption.
When you assume something about my position without my agreement, I call that a presumption.
You seem to agree with what they did; and Agree with their reporting - and simply think they should have reported on why they got their opinion reporting wrong.
There you go again. I know the tactic you’re attempting to employ here. You can give it a break, Mr. Debater.
It seemed about as credible than the steel dossier appeared - and that was circulating prior to Trumps election without being reported on.
In contrast, the Muller investigation was time and money well spent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Then: “President Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David. Can you effin believe that messed up sh!t? Come on, man!”
Now: “The Taliban are our allies in Afghanistan.”
Now: “The Taliban are our allies in Afghanistan.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If it's a story from the media, there is gaslight all around it spreading misinformation to every Democrat in America.
“Governor Cuomo? No, we never liked that creep. As if!!”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re biased, I am biased.
To establish the validity of the behaviour of the media in terms of your list; one needs to correctly qualify the exact nature of media portrayal of the events at the time: And qualify whether that portrayal was reasonable, in the context of that time.
The issue is that if you’re biased you can’t do either of those things properly.
By your own admission above, neither can… you?
The media, widely reported on escalating tensions and rhetoric when NK had a deliverable nuclear weapon; Trump talked about fire and fury. The factual reporting suggested was bad and made the prospect of hostilities more likely, and that it could lead to further destabilization. I don’t think that was unreasonable. You also had a bunch of talking heads and opinion writers saying it was a bad idea, and could cause hostilities; and some saying it’s about time - and a lot of opinion conversation about how NK Has been going on for so long that perhaps this type of talk and unpredictability could lead to beneficial results as the status quo had failed.
I, too, feared reprisals from North Korea. So I’m with you up to this point. When those reprisals never happened, and tensions de escalated, MSM did not reflect upon their failed analysis. To the contrary, they doubled down on “wrong” by switching the narrative to “President Trump is cozying up with dictators rather than our own allies!!”
In this respect; while I won’t say the MSM was straight down the middle; they were way closer to the middle than to your interpretation of events.
Says your presumption…
The bleach one is a perfect example.
It is a perfect example of MSM taking a poorly worded phrase out of its larger context and unashamedly embellishing upon it. UV light can act as a disinfectant, by the way. Thanks for exemplifying my point, but I actually would find it more compelling if you addressed the second half of that post re: the timing of the Hunter Biden story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yet every argument I have ever heard claiming the media was unfair to Trump is built on false equivalences just like this one.
Then, of course, there was the old “good people on both sides” narrative. It was as effective as it was misleading and out-of-context. Agreed, context matters. Again, selection of detail. Then there’s the virtually countless, negative speculations and “backing the wrong horse”:
MSM warned of a Trump caused war with North Korea. Wrong.
MSM warned of a Trump caused war with Iran. Wrong.
MSM warned of a Trump caused recession. Wrong.
MSM anticipated that the Muller investigation would lead to Trump’s impeachment. Wrong.
MSM made a darling of Michael Avenatti. Wrong.
MSM made a darling of Gov. Cuomo. Wrong.
Not just unfair to Trump, but *more than fair* to the other side of the aisle. Here ya go: MSM completely ignored the Hunter Biden story prior to the election, when it could have, you know, informed the public and held Joe Biden to account! The story *conveniently* broke after the election. Do you not see the partisan timing in this? Do you see why one might opine that they are merely the media wing of the DNC?
If not, can you please provide some examples of MSM holding Biden to account before the election? You know, when doing their job could have made an actual difference?
Created:
Posted in:
*slow clap* Yes, keep up the good work, Mr. President.
The DNC and its media arm have a lot to answer for. Media’s token pushback now is too little, too late…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
By the way, welcome to the site.
Thanks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, thank you for the correction.
You’re welcome.
“I get it— you don’t like Trump or his presidency. But almost half the country did, and an appreciable number thought he was the most effective president in their lifetimes. Mainstream media neither reflected that fact nor even comprehended it.”
It’s not their job to reflect it, their job is to cover what happens and hold power to account, which is exactly what they were doing.
Oh, contrer, mon frer. That an unpresidential, former private citizen with all the subtlety of a stomach pump should garner such a large and dedicated following is highly newsworthy— probably the biggest story never told by the MSM.
But to assume your premise— if Trump was properly held to account, Obama clearly was not— he let the banks off easy after the Great Recession, the “red line” in Syria, Trump’s “children in cages” also occurred under Obama’s watch, etc. These decisions were soft-pedaled. As I said, he was, and continues to be a media darling, clearly.
As for Biden, he claimed to be moderate on the campaign trail. He put the lie to that claim once he took office. I don’t recall him being held to account early on. I do recall him being asked what ice cream he preferred by one of our many “hard-hitting, gotcha journalists.” As I already said, once an issue simply becomes too big, too egregious to ignore, it is eventually reported. NO ONE wishes to be remembered as being on the wrong side of history, as I said in my OP. However, the initial reluctance is all part of the bias I am talking about.
Anyway, it’s all about “selection of detail.” The media form a narrative. They no longer just report the news; they decide the news.
Democracy Now is a 60 minute program, Newsmax is an entire news network. Newsmax has more viewers in 2 days than Democracy Now has in an entire month. They’re not comparable.
*sigh* Alright, then… Free Speech TV! It is well beside the point I’m making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
with the best will in the world, it’s near impossible to extract personal bias from such things entirely.
That’s just it— with few exceptions, the best will in the world is becoming nonexistent in journalism.
There has been a massive change in the way we consume and pay for news.
Indeed, we have the best media money can buy.
So in this respect; the driving factor for media bias is not the media itself - but us.
Right. Perhaps we pay lip service to objectivity as a society, but we actually prefer validation.
This is not an issue with the left explicitly - the issue is the same, and in some cases worse on the right.
I’m not saying it’s an issue with the left per se; I’m saying it’s an issue with journalism and people’s trust or mistrust in it, and whether trust in it is warranted. It’s actually a boon TO the left— corporate media is furthering its political aims under the premise of centrism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Good post.
Thanks; I appreciate that!
It will. These things ebb and flow.
I think and hope you will be proven right eventually, but it is so very hard to visualize currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Yes, I’m well aware of Watergate, but, no, it was before my time. I’m also aware that the term “yellow journalism”— the penchant for sensationalism— was coined in the 1800’s. None of us are that old!
It’s a matter of degrees— I’m not claiming that the 80’s set the gold standard, just that they were far more objective than the present day. Again, my point is that present day journalism is the least professional I have yet seen… in MY (none too short) lifetime…
It’s a matter of degrees— I’m not claiming that the 80’s set the gold standard, just that they were far more objective than the present day. Again, my point is that present day journalism is the least professional I have yet seen… in MY (none too short) lifetime…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Neutrality and objectivity are not the same thing. The media’s responsibility is the former, not the latter.
I would say that media which strives toward being unbiased have a responsibility towards objectivity, not neutrality. You seem to argue that; did you get your statement reversed by accident?
As for coverage on Trump, what I am saying is that mainstream media painted as catastrophic a picture as possible. Any good news was either ignored or mentioned in a begrudging fashion, with negatively slanted verbiage, qualifiers, and caveats thrown in. I get it— you don’t like Trump or his presidency. But almost half the country did, and an appreciable number thought he was the most effective president in their lifetimes. Mainstream media neither reflected that fact nor even comprehended it.
If Trump were presiding over this Afghanistan withdrawal, CNN et al would be screaming from the rooftops about it and speculating about a third impeachment (and rightly so for once, IMO). Anyone who is honest with themselves would admit to this. Instead, we have Don Lemon saying “Let’s stop piling on this president, ok?”
But today we have two sides to our media that are not the same. You say the media treats Biden with kid gloves. I don’t agree with that, but what I will point out is the fact that left leaning media criticizes Biden far more than right wing media ever criticized Trump, so if you really care about this I have no idea why you have nothing to say about that. Just a few days ago a Newsmax anchor went on a viral tangent booting his guest right of the show for having the temerity to say something negative about Trump (and it wasn’t even a serious critique). It’s gotten to the point where anti vaxers now have an advocate on the number one news show on cable. There is nothing like this happening on the left.
You are referring to the entirety of media here, but I am specifically referring to mainstream media which has at least attempted to build a national reputation on the aforementioned objectivity. Newsmax, MSNBC, The Epoch Times newspaper, Huffpost, and Fox News (although their anchors are more professional than CNN’s IMO) do not apply. The inclinations of these outlets should be well known. No, I am referring to CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, The Associated Press, etc.
That important point aside, if you think that Newsmax has no left wing counterpart, then I don’t think you’re aware of Democracy Now.
Created:
Posted in:
I have never seen it this blatant.
I recall a very different time in the 80’s and 90’s. I remember Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer… one could not easily discern their political leanings because they did their jobs well. Contrast them with their current counterparts: Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Jim Acosta, Yamiche Alcindor— their biases are obvious. Contrast yesteryear’s Tim Russert (RIP) on Meet the Press with today’s Chuck Todd.
Now, I know that journalism tends to appeal more to the left leaning, so a center-left bias has always been there. It seems that the more blatant variety I lament here started gaining momentum during Obama’s presidency. He was young, charismatic, the first black president, and he quickly became a media darling. Enter President Trump, and the script quickly flipped. Nothing he did or could do would ever solicit anything resembling a compliment from mainstream reporters. When Biden was elected, the media met him with an overwhelming sense of relief. All he needed to be and do to garner such a welcoming reaction was not to be Trump. He was treated with kid gloves. Whatever pushback he gets from the media lately is simply media not wanting to end up on the wrong side of history to an embarrassing degree considering Biden’s glaring missteps.
In summary, today’s TV media and most of the major print media have lost their journalistic professionalism and are now merely the media arm of the DNC. If you disagree, why? If you agree, do you think the profession will ever get back to its previous standard? Will it produce another one of the greats?
I recall a very different time in the 80’s and 90’s. I remember Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer… one could not easily discern their political leanings because they did their jobs well. Contrast them with their current counterparts: Don Lemon, Jake Tapper, Anderson Cooper, Jim Acosta, Yamiche Alcindor— their biases are obvious. Contrast yesteryear’s Tim Russert (RIP) on Meet the Press with today’s Chuck Todd.
Now, I know that journalism tends to appeal more to the left leaning, so a center-left bias has always been there. It seems that the more blatant variety I lament here started gaining momentum during Obama’s presidency. He was young, charismatic, the first black president, and he quickly became a media darling. Enter President Trump, and the script quickly flipped. Nothing he did or could do would ever solicit anything resembling a compliment from mainstream reporters. When Biden was elected, the media met him with an overwhelming sense of relief. All he needed to be and do to garner such a welcoming reaction was not to be Trump. He was treated with kid gloves. Whatever pushback he gets from the media lately is simply media not wanting to end up on the wrong side of history to an embarrassing degree considering Biden’s glaring missteps.
In summary, today’s TV media and most of the major print media have lost their journalistic professionalism and are now merely the media arm of the DNC. If you disagree, why? If you agree, do you think the profession will ever get back to its previous standard? Will it produce another one of the greats?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I don’t see how you equate “I disagree” with “I have no objections” as they are exactly opposite in meaning, but thanks for your comprehensive answer earlier nonetheless.
If I was intellectually naive to believe Sam Harris’ take on some poll result, then mea culpa, and I can certainly live with that, as I tend to respect his reasoning abilities. But, yes, ultimately I agree with you that further discussion of politics with you would be neither enjoyable nor beneficial for either of us. Our frames of reference are perhaps too different. Such is the nation as a whole, sadly…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Hmm… well, I’m going to have to disagree with your characterization of events. And remember, we are only 8 months in with this administration!
If you’re familiar with Sam Harris, he once cited a survey in which a significant portion of the respondents claimed that given the choice between a large asteroid hitting the earth or having Trump get re-elected in 2020, they would choose the asteroid. No fan of Trump himself, Harris nonetheless had to admit that that is not a preference based in rationality.
I think that history will show that Trump’s foreign policy results compare favorably to those of his successor. But, again, the current President still has over 3 more years to improve upon or double down upon his current record.
If you’re familiar with Sam Harris, he once cited a survey in which a significant portion of the respondents claimed that given the choice between a large asteroid hitting the earth or having Trump get re-elected in 2020, they would choose the asteroid. No fan of Trump himself, Harris nonetheless had to admit that that is not a preference based in rationality.
I think that history will show that Trump’s foreign policy results compare favorably to those of his successor. But, again, the current President still has over 3 more years to improve upon or double down upon his current record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
“Only really true of one side”? How do you figure? It seems all too clear to me (as also evidenced on this very site) that there is a sizeable core base of President “NotTrump” supporters whose trusty refrain is “well, he’s still better than President Trump”— no matter how egregious the situation…
Created: