3468

It’s definitely important to note that Mary Ann Ahern is not a disinterested third party. She made her career with interviews around Chicago. This is her gig. So she should be treated skeptically as a source here.

So while I don’t know the situation in specific, I moved west just before Lightfoot took office, I would caution against simply accepting her framing @Timex as it may be quite self interested to create an inaccurate framing.

EDIT: It’s also not as if NBC 5 doesn’t have minority reporters it could send as well. So there isn’t any source being frozen out, so it is a far cry from DeSantis and Trump allowing only specified outlets.

3469

Like I said before, I think we’ve just got some kind of fundamental difference of opinion here regarding discriminating against people on the basis of race. Some folks believe that is ok, as long as the discrimination is serving a goal that they agree with.

I think people will have trouble putting those worms back into the can.

Although, in today’s climate of overt hypocrisy and complete disregard for any kind of logical consistency, maybe not.

To me, I really do believe that it’s absolutely wrong to prohibit someone from doing something, on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Perhaps my view there is too narrow, as Kevin suggested, but I do not believe I’m prepared to compromise on that principle. It seems extremely fundamental to me.

3471

Do you mind if I posed the same question as I did to Zylon? Again, no gotcha, no snark, I’m genuinely wanting to know your views and am happy to respect a difference of opinion. Do you feel the same way about AA? If you do not, can you explain why you see the two situations differently? I see these situations being similar with the caveat that I’m believing the mayor’s statement that this is a prioritization of underrepresented minority reporters, not a blanket ban on white reporters. If it’s the latter, I do have issues with it.

3472

Timex posts dumb racist bullshit until he finally accepts several years later that he was being an idiot but never admits such directly? Color me surprised :)

3473

No, it’s literally not. I already explained what it meant, and why it was bad.

The problem with saying all lives matter isn’t the concept that all lives matter. Your view here is naive to the point of absurdity. You’re actually taking the concept of all lives matter, at face value, and somehow suggesting that it’s bad… which shows a profound failure to grasp the problem.

The notion that all lives matter isn’t actually the problem, Matt. That’s something that literally everyone (or at least, all reasonable non racist people) believes.

The problem with saying “all lives matter” is not that only some lives matter. The problem is that the actual PURPOSE of saying that, is to minimize the statement that black lives matter.

And this is entirely disconnected from the notion of choosing to discriminate against people on the basis of race, because the statement that Black Lives Matter does not, in any way, suggest discriminations against anyone. The suggestion that black lives matter is disciminatory is an intentional misrepresentation of the slogan “Black Lives Matter” to add in an imaginary “only”, suggesting that it’s claiming that ONLY black lives matter, which is not something that BLM has ever suggested. The purpose of BLM is to highlight the truth that Black people deserve all of the considerations that white people get. That their lives matter TOO, a concept that is not currently held true by our society and especially our criminal justice system.

And the reason that the suggestion of “all lives matter” is bad, is because it attempts to minimize this message, obfuscating the fact that our current society doesn’t always treat black lives like they matter. It’s not bad because all lives don’t really matter.

3474

What’s hilarious is that disawoving the practices that led to white dominance is being used to preserve it. “Sure, I’ve been cheating all night and have won most of the pot, but cheating is bad and from now on out we’ll make sure there’s no cheating. That’s the principled thing to do.”

3475

Hey Armando, I’ve generally been pretty cool to you, right? Have I ever engaged in this kind of mean spirited, mindless attacks on your personal character? Ever? But you think it’s cool to do it to me, right? And like, you do it a LOT. Pretty much always in this form, with very little more than one or two sentences, meant only as a personal insult to me.

So is that really where we’re at? Or do you not mean it in that way?

3476

I really am not cool with that kind of characterization of Timex’s posts. Not that I have to be cool with anything you have to say. :) I do think you’re being unfair here, though.

We’re all products of our life experiences and we all see things differently. I said above that I think Timex (sorry that I’m talking to you like you’re not here!) sees things through a narrow lens, but I don’t think he’s saying racist things. Certainly not being a racist (not that you accused him of that). He’s willing to engage with people here and think about things we say, even when things get pretty hostile. I think we’re better served by trying to show different points of view rather than framing his posts in that way.

3477

I don’t think that Timex ever argues in bad faith or is a deliberate troll. But he rarely provides evidence for his statements and tends to characterize opinions he disagrees with as obviously dumb and not really worth debating with the usual forum repartee of claim->data->counterclaim->data. It “feels” like gaslighting or sealioning (to me), but isn’t actually intended that way. And it certainly rubs up against my personality in a way that spins me right up, which is more my problem than his. I need to take a step back and remember that changing minds (including my own) is a long process and can’t usually be done in the space of a single conversation, nor is it ever done with snark. (Snark usually has the effect of making me hold onto arguments I know are wrong long past their sell-by date.)

So, I apologize for inflaming discussion here and will disengage on this subject.

3478

I have no meaningful opinion on this, and even if I did, that opinion would be irrelevant to the question I asked, which was one of simple factual categorization.

Now, whether or not I posed that question to force Matt to put on his tap shoes would be a different question altogether.

3480

This is pretty wild.

3481

I know you’ve been paying attention the last 5 years but I guess you have selective memory. Virtually every interview with Trump where the White House has said one thing, only to be contradicted by Trump a day or two later has occurred because of 1-1 interviewed. We can start his firing of James Comey, where he told the NBC reporter, “it was not the memo, I fired him”. The numerous revelation with Bob Woodward about Covid, and the same with Chris Wallace. Other this his constant appearances on Fox & Friends, I’d say almost every 1-1 Interview with Trump was news worthy. While Trump’s have been more newsworthy than most, because of famous lack of message discipline. One on one interviews are pretty much the only way you passed the can Q&As that politician try to stick to.

So matters a helluva of lot who gets them. If Lightfoot wants to bend over backward to make sure POC reporters get more than equal access, that her right, but if she categorically refusing white journalist request, that’s just wrong.

3482

I wonder if they’ll make it to somehow squeeze this narrative into the next season of The Crown. I’m assuming that one is currently in production, and since it’ll span across the 90s, the interview itself certainly will be a part of it.

3483

In other news:

The Trump administration secretly sought and obtained the 2017 phone and email records of a CNN correspondent, the latest instance where federal prosecutors have taken aggressive steps targeting journalists in leak investigations.

The Justice Department informed CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, in a May 13 letter, that prosecutors had obtained her phone and email records covering two months, between June 1, 2017 to July 31, 2017. The letter listed phone numbers for Starr’s Pentagon extension, the CNN Pentagon booth phone number and her home and cell phones, as well as Starr’s work and personal email accounts.

It is unclear when the investigation was opened, whether it happened under Attorney General Jeff Sessions or Attorney General William Barr, and what the Trump administration was looking for in Starr’s records. The Justice Department confirmed the records were sought through the courts last year but provided no further explanation or context.

A Justice Department official confirmed that Starr was never the target of any investigation.

3484

game recognizes game

3485

/sadtrombone

3486

The right wing is going to be frothing at the mouth over this cancelling.

3487

I think I know what you did there. Maybe.

3489

Dear New York Times: fuck you.

(Wonkette rant with summary of the article here if you don’t want to give the NYT clicks.)

After all the country has been through in the last 12 months - the murder of George Floyd, the protests, the election, the insurrection, the conviction of his murderer, everything - here’s what the NYT has taken away from all of it:

  • Trump needs his name in the headlines more.
  • Racists and liars need to be given a microphone by the NYT and encouraged to speak “candidly” and at length.
  • White Republicans (and Frank fucking Luntz) are obviously who you must consult first to determine anyone’s legacy.
3490

Be advised: The GOP now hates Frank Luntz.