Don’t post that shit, he’ll probably get paid if we click it.
jpinard
1938
Nope. That’s conflating a species trait with humanity. People like trump literally have no humanity whatsoever, and when they’ve displayed this lack of decency over their entire lives, I no longer consider them human. They might as well be that parasitic mold takes over ants and eats through their heads. Evil.
As you see it. I consider all humans human, including Hitler, Ted Bundy, etc. Writing people off as monsters isn’t very illuminating, in my opinion. They should still be held responsible for their actions, however.
jpinard
1940
They are a cancerous mold. They don’t deserve the moniker “human”.
I don’t think we’re going to agree on this point, which is now just semantics. Let’s move on!
jpinard
1942
I know, I’m sorry. I just am so disgusted with that type of individual ruining the lives of so many out of their utter narcissism, hate, and greed.
Yeah, whenever they have to do the Sinclair editorial thing, they look like they’ve just eaten a sandwich containing bad cheese. I’m sure that’s the case in many cities around the country, and that’s probably a part of Sinclair’s decision – they’ve been getting a bad rap recently (thanks John Oliver!) and have probably seen their ratings go down.
It’s a good business decision to lie low for a bit.
We had one. Liberation Theology. Absolutely commie mutant traitors thought. It seems to fit your criteria. Christian following Jesus’s doctrines of being, like, nice. Including lepers and whores. Looking after the poor. Communal property for the poor. The original Christian religion of the meek and have nots.
Typically I posted negative stuff here, but the media deserves a shout out when they “get it.” (Although maybe she should have a word with a few of her colleagues at NBC.)
While some questions surrounding impeachment are contestable matters of judgment — such as whether the things Donald Trump has proven to have done rise to being “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But many of the underlying questions are just simple questions of fact, and this article does nothing at all to inform the reader about who’s telling the truth and who isn’t. And the effect of this pose isn’t neutral no matter what it looks like formally. Writing it all off as “tribalism” strongly helps the one side who’s trying to throw a cloud of nihilistic obfuscation over the entire process.
(Click the link to read the remaining paragraph for an example of how the NYT is even worse than this. It’s also worth reading the linked Rosen twitter thread.)
It is an epic shit show.
Exhibit B for failure
Peter Baker’s Sunday front-pager used a comparison between the Trump and Clinton impeachments as a vehicle for declaring this one boring and — relative to lying about a blowjob — “esoteric.”
I have never read any major news story so inappropriately world-weary — and so willing to fob off the press’ failures on the public.
Baker’s been on a roll lately, even by his standards. He threw up his hands the other day, writing about how “truth is on trial” in modern Washington. And his recent article about an executive order on anti-Semitism managed to be both credulous and alarmist.
In Sunday’s piece, he came off as so jaded he really shouldn’t be doing this anymore.
What are the biggest differences between the Clinton and Trump impeachments? Well, if you ask me, for starters:
- Clinton’s offense didn’t involve the abuse of power to pervert the electoral process for personal gain.
- Members of his party actually listened to the evidence against him and quite a few of them found it persuasive.
- The public was soundly opposed to his impeachment.
But no, for Baker, the biggest difference is that this one is boring:
Back in 1998, the impeachment battle felt like the ultimate drama, so intense that the rest of the world seemed to have stopped spinning on its axis, yet so fluid and suspenseful that it was never entirely certain how it would play out.
This time it feels like one more chapter in an all-out clash that has been fought for three years, hugely consequential yet of a piece with everything that has come before, with less suspense and an outcome seemingly foreordained.
So there’s no suspense because the Republicans are paralyzed by unthinking fealty. And relative to everything else, it’s nothing special.
It’s almost like Baker’s saying: Three years of normalizing the Trump presidency, and we’re going to stop now?
Discourse won’t let me post the link here without this disclaimer, because I first posted in the impeachment thread, but deleted it because I thought here was more appropriate.
I include this tweet because of the question posed:
And yet the existence of this difficulty should give us pause. Something is interfering with telling the public the truth. What is it?
The op-ed in question:
Equating the unequal. In an unceasing effort to be seen as neutral, journalists time after time fell into the trap of presenting facts and lies as roughly equivalent and then blaming political tribalism for not seeming to know the difference.
“Too much coverage seems to have got stuck in a feedback loop,” wrote Jon Allsop in Columbia Journalism Review. “We’re telling the public that politicians aren’t budging from their partisan siloes, and vice versa, with the facts of what Trump actually did getting lost somewhere in the cycle. The cult of ‘both sides’ is integral to this dynamic, and it’s serving the impeachment story poorly.”
Other critics, including the Atlantic’s James Fallows, NYU’s Jay Rosen and Dan Froomkin of Press Watch, among others, pointed particularly at the New York Times.
However, the problem is broader and deeper. Watch the broadcast evening news for a couple of nights in a row and, to varying degrees, you’ll see it in action: The Democrats said this; the Republicans said that; we don’t know — it’s so tribal! — so you decide.
I’m going to push back on this, because I frankly don’t see it happening all that often (Disclaimer, I only read my 10 articles a month on the NY Times, and all that often doesn’t mean never.)
I’ll use as example the PBS Newshour, I think probably more than any news organization strives to be balanced and present both side. A typical Newshour segment consist of Judy Woodward asking a reporter what happened today at border. “Well Judy more horrific pictures of children being separated from the parents and living in overcrowded facilities, reports of them not having soap, or toothbrushes.” The Judy turns to WH correspondent Yamiche and ask what does the White House. Yamiche, the President press secretary said that “this actually started under Obama, and many kids are happy they don’t have brush their teeth twice a day” Now I understand, why we’d all on this forum would like the media to say this is bullshit." But in the long run, I think it is better what the Newshour, does. Which is follow up with saying, that no there were 35 children separated under Obama because their “parents” we actually cartel members. Nor is their any evidence that were happy about not having to brush their teeth, and many of the kids were traumatized by the separation and have been crying non-stop.
This lets the viewers decide which side is telling the truth,and inthe long run that is the function of the media.
Calelari
1952
I suspect ¯\(ツ)/¯ isn’t actually taught in journalism school. If party A says the sky is a mauve-y shade of purple, it’s perfectly valid journalism - and I would say required - to point out that the sky is not, in fact, a mauve-y shade of purple. Which sort of thing usually manifests in our media - PBS News Hour and its massive reach and influence notwithstanding - as “Republicans say mauve-y purple, Democrats say blue.”
Zylon
1953
Is it time to repost this again?
Strollen
1954
It seems to me the responsible thing to do is point the normally the sky is blue but it can be purple at times.
Excellent job missing the point. I’m going to assume, intentionally. Because it wasn’t that difficult and you’ve told us you’re a bright guy.
Timex
1956
Might just have wanted to pay cool pictures
