You're unfairly tough on "most journalists" here, dneal.
You're unfairly tough on "most journalists" here, dneal.
Probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by TSherbs
The actual few living reporters for the newspaper closest to my home (Republican-leaning for decades, owned by one family) has a reduced staff now and most articles are bought from various news wires. The actual few reporters have, in a typical week, 30-40 articles to write in about 40 hours of paid work. Very little research is possible. They call a few people, get a few quotes, and write the 200-word piece. Rinse, repeat. Honestly, the job sucks, pay is low, respect is low, turnover is high. These people are not arrogant know-it-alls lying to their community. They are low-wage workers just trying to pay rent and get a start--perhaps--in the field. Just think how many times in how many 1000s of other communities across the 50 states the same situation is repeated. They are all "journalists", and I do not think it is good thinking to impugn their integrity.
Now, as for those journalists whom we see speaking to cameras on cable news networks, that is a very different job and a very small selection of individuals. Same is true for news anchors. Broadcast journalism, especially large scale, is an entirely different beast, especially toward the top where all sorts of factors come into play during editing and managing decisions.
But we can't just wait for book-length examinations to come out a year or two later to help us parse the who-what-where-when-how-why of current events. We must read news, and one must try to find the most (or "more") reliable of sources. I think that these charts, looked at together, give us a pretty good idea of which those outlets are more reliable. It is good to keep an objective mind, for sure. But distrusting all of them equally is its own form of bad reasoning that will lead to each mind being its own arbiter of that which it is not well informed. Then ignorance and prejudice rule unchecked.
I read the Washington Post and the New York Times because both have reporters and editors. Both demand accuracy from their journalists and both will make corrections when needed. Some articles make right-wingers uncomfortable by researching stories.
I happen to cross-check with the UK Guardian, the St Louis Post Dispatch, Toronto Globe & Mail, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and I read books. Anyone can do that, unless they are so lazy that they rely only on right-wing talk radio and Fox opinion celebrities.
For what it is worth, for two days I have only looked at my AP and Reuters apps for news, and it has been a relief. Even the drive to consume vast quantities of "news" is not healthy (for me). I don't pay to get beyond the paywalls of the WP or the NYT or any other subscription service, so I don't read any of those articles. But I did go for the youtube tv free trial to watch the football game last night, so I have bajillion stations for a week that I must ignore.
We all have to find our own healthy balance, and I am still looking for mine in the current situation.
I've read both AP and Reuters for the past five years regarding the present administration. When the Times offered $4 per month subscription I decided to give it a try. I enjoy reading through the op-ed section because of the variety of perspectives, my favorite is David Brooks.
I would not say I am a huge news junkie, but I want to be informed. I feel I am a skillful reader and able to distinguish between bias and objective writing. It does not concern me that I disagree with what I read. It makes me think. I dislike the way Fox News presents themselves and have avoided them. The same would be true for other network news.
Maybe it is fake news and plagiarism that makes right-wingers and many others uncomfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by welch
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019...m-allegations/
https://gothamist.com/news/new-york-...for-plagiarism
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/p...son-blair.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/b...sultPosition=8
https://www.imediaethics.org/washing...years-at-wapo/
You are cross checking elitist liberal media with more of the same? You bash right-wing talk radio and Fox, but get "news" from their liberal counterparts.Quote:
I happen to cross-check with the UK Guardian, the St Louis Post Dispatch, Toronto Globe & Mail, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and I read books. Anyone can do that, unless they are so lazy that they rely only on right-wing talk radio and Fox opinion celebrities.
Right wing talk radio is not news. And only part of Fox network is news (like only part of CNN is news). What is just news in either of these networks is basically as reliable and unbiased as that of the other. This has been studied. The problem occurs when the content becomes "talk" or "commentary". Then huge bias comes into all of it.
The news in NYT and the WP is fine. The lean a little left. WSJ news is also good, leaning a little right. AP and Reuters are most neutral.
Some news from Washington about the latest arrests of right-wingers who took over the Capitol last week in an attempt to stop Congress from accepting the Electoral Vote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...207_story.htmlQuote:
Capitol riot arrests: Retired firefighter accused of throwing fire extinguisher at police; man carrying Confederate flag
By
Spencer S. Hsu,
Rachel Weiner and
Ann E. Marimow
Jan. 14, 2021 at 4:35 p.m. EST
Two men accused of attacking police officers during last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol were arrested Thursday, along with a man photographed carrying a Confederate flag, and a Utah man who allegedly recorded the shooting death of one rioter.
Robert Lee Sanford, Jr., 55, of Chester, Penn., a recently retired firefighter, threw a fire extinguisher at members of the Capitol Police, according to law enforcement. Peter Francis Stager, of Arkansas, is accused of using a large American flag to beat a member of the D.C. police.
Kevin Seefried, who was photographed carrying a Confederate flag inside the Capitol, turned himself in to authorities in Wilmington, Del., on Thursday morning, according to an FBI spokeswoman, Joy Jiras. He and his son, Hunter Seefried, are charged with misdemeanor counts of trespassing and disorderly conduct; Hunter Seefried is also accused of destruction of property.
John Earle Sullivan, 26, of Utah, was charged after allegedly entering the building and recording when Ashli Babbitt was shot by an officer while she attempted to climb through an opening outside of the Speaker’s Lobby. In a video he posted online and gave the FBI, Sullivan could be narrating the riot, saying “There are so many people. Let’s go. This [expletive] is ours! [Expletive] yeah,” and “Let’s burn this [expletive] down!” according to charging papers.
The extinguisher incident connected to Sanford was captured in two widely distributed videos of the scene outside the U.S. Capitol at the Lower West Terrace. U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the riot, was hurt in a separate incident.
Stanger was identified from videos in which a D.C. officer is seen being dragged down the steps of the Capitol and attacked. He later gave an interview in which he declared, “Everybody in there is a treasonous traitor. Death is the only remedy for what’s in that building.”
According to an affidavit, Stanger told an informant that he did not realize the man he attacked was a police officer and instead believed him to be a left-wing activist. The same informant told the FBI that Stanger planned to apologize to his children and turn himself in to law enforcement.
The agent who wrote the affidavit said after watching videos of the attack, Stanger “was able to clearly see the police markings on B.M.’s uniform and was aware that the individual who he was striking was, in fact, law enforcement.”
In charging papers, the FBI said a tipster in Pennsylvania called Tuesday saying that Sanford, a friend of many years, “had confessed to the complainant that he was the person that the FBI was looking for” in connection with videos showing a man apparently wearing a stocking cap, dark jacket, plaid shirt and backpack hurling an object at a group officers.
A Capitol Police officer was struck in the helmet by what he later saw was a fire extinguisher, the FBI said. The officer was evaluated at a hospital and cleared to return to duty. The device also ricocheted off two others, the FBI said in a charging affidavit.
The tipster said Sanford told them he traveled on a bus with a group to Washington, listened to President Trump’s speech, “and then had followed the President’s instructions and gone to the Capitol,” according to the FBI.
Sanford said the group he was with left the Capitol grounds after about 10 minutes, and did not mention having thrown anything, but acknowledged he was the man wearing a hat with the initials CFD, the tipster said, according to FBI Agent Samad D. Shahrani.
Photos: Scenes of the aftermath at the U.S. Capitol
Sanford recently retired from the Chester Fire Department, the agent said, and the complainant identified him in video to the FBI.
The FBI said it had also received an anonymous tip identifying another person as the person throwing the fire extinguisher, but that the Illinois resident did not appear on flight manifests to the Washington area nor was the license plate of his vehicle entered into D.C. logs at the time.
“I’m just stunned,” said retired Chester Fire Department battalion chief Charles E. Hopkins Jr. “That’s totally out of character for him.” He described Sanford as a “quiet guy” who “never messed with anyone … he did his job and went home.” He added, “If you weren’t working with him you wouldn’t know he was there.”
In a statement, Chester Mayor Thaddeus Kirkland said Sanford joined the department in 1994, retired last February and is not a current employee.
“As the First Amendment of our Constitution outlines the right to free speech and to peaceful assembly, the actions of the rioters in D.C. last week hinged on characteristics of domestic terrorism,” Kirkland added. “As such, if any person, be it current or former employee or resident, is confirmed to have participated in last week’s event at the Capitol, then we hope our legal system will work according to its purpose and bring them to justice.”
Kevin and Hunter Seefried were identified as among the first group to break into the Capitol after a colleague called the FBI to report that the younger man had bragged about being at the riot with his father, according to court records. In an interview, authorities say Kevin Seefried acknowledged being the man photographed with the Confederate flag, which normally hangs outside his Delaware home.
The men entered the Senate Building through a broken window at about 2:13 p.m., with a helmeted group captured in a widely shared video, according to an arrest affidavit.
According to court records, Kevin Seefried said both men came to hear Trump’s speech, and then marched to the Capitol led by a person with a bull horn. He also confirmed that because his son was wearing gloves, Hunter Seefried was asked by a stranger to punch out glass from a Capitol complex window after others broke it with a 2x4 wooden plank, giving rioters entry, the FBI said.
Also charged was Hunter Ehmke, of California. He is accused of being one of the first to try to break into the U.S. Capitol by breaking a window of the building during last week’s riot, according to court documents
An officer who was part of a line struggling to hold back the mob on the Capitol’s east side at about 2:15 p.m., that he saw Ehmke on the ledge gesturing for others to join him, court documents said.
“They’re going to break the window” the officer shouted. He then left the line and ran toward Ehmke, according to the affidavit. He used his riot shield to push Ehmke off the ledge, he says, causing them both to fall in broken glass, the affidavit said. About 10 officers made a new line at the window to keep a small crowd from getting through. Ehmke was handcuffed.
But the crowd “began to show aggression” and threatened officers, saying, “You’re not leaving with him,” according to court papers. The officers tried to radio for instructions but “could not be clearly heard or unable to be broadcast due to the many other calls of service by USCP officers.” So they let Ehmke leave, after photographing him and the window and seizing his driver’s license and advising him they would seek a warrant for his arrest.
The Justice Department and the FBI have carried out a nationwide manhunt in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach by Trump supporters, during which a woman was fatally shot by police and an officer died after he was injured.
Prosecutors have called the investigation one of the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, and it has led to charges against more than 70 people and the identification of 170 suspects to date.
Also Thursday, a New York man who authorities say drove to the Washington area from that state to take part in the protest was denied bail for the second time by Arlington Circuit Court.
Moses Geri, 38, of Weedsport, N.Y., was arrested Jan. 1 after allegedly getting in a drunken argument with other guests at his Rosslyn hotel and then firing a gun outside. He had more than 800 rounds of ammunition, including white phosphorous and armor-piercing bullets, according to prosecutors.
Also charged with misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct were Christine Marie Priola of Willoughby, Ohio, who the U.S. Marshals Service alleged was the person photographed wearing a red jacket and blue “MAGA” pants and holding a sign reading “The Children Cry Out for Justice,” and apparently photographing a rioter occupying Vice President Pence’s chair on the Senate dais; and Pete Harding of Buffalo, who was photographed allegedly attempting to set news media equipment on fire and taking credit in a video for joining the Capitol mob, which he said was organized by “Marching Patriots.”
Trump is so brilliant he has tricked the Wash Post into (finally) condemning riots.
#4DChess
lmao
Details of how the Metropolitan Police fought Trump's fanatic crowd to defend the Capitol, as Trump watched TV in the White House. Now at five days and thirteen hours until the US has a President again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md...t/?arc404=true
Brilliantly self-centered, self-serving, media savvy, egotistical, and corrupt... and orange. It just goes to show you how people who are well-financed and have no ethics can succeed at deceiving the masses... for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by dneal
Oh WashPost, how far you've fallen.
To understand Trump's support we must think in terms of multi-racial whiteness
It gets even crazierQuote:
The Trump administration's anti-immigration, anti-civil rights stance has made it easy to classify the president's loyalists as a homogenous mob of white nationalists. But take a look at the FBI's posters showing people wanted in the insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol: Among the many White faces are a few that are clearly Latino or African American.
Such diversity highlights the fact that President Trump's share of the Latino vote in November actually rose over 2016, notwithstanding years of incendiary rhetoric targeting Mexicans and other Latino communities. Yes, Trump's voters — and his mob — are disproportionately White, but one of the more unsettling exit-poll data points of the 2020 election was that a quarter to a third of Latino voters voted to reelect Trump.
And while the vast majority of Latinos and an overwhelming majority of African American voters supported the Biden-Harris ticket and were crucial to its success, many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently backed the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories.
One of the organizers of the "Stop the Steal" movement is Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter who identifies as Black and Arab. The chairman of the neo-fascist Proud Boys is Enrique Tarrio, a Latino raised in Miami's Little Havana who identifies as Afro-Cuban...
What are we to make of Tarrio — and, more broadly, of Latino voters inspired by Trump? And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence that also includes non-White participants? I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination.
Quote:
Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.
Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.
The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris' Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water
Democracy dies in darkness, claims the WashPost; and they're the ones turning off the lights.
Quote:
When The Washington Post published a 2019 campaign trail feature about then-presidential hopeful Kamala Harris' close relationship with her sister, it opened with a memorable anecdote in which Harris bizarrely compared the rigors of the campaign trail to…life behind bars.
And then proceeded to laugh—at the idea of an inmate begging for a sip of water.
It was an extremely cringeworthy moment, even by the high standards set by Harris' failed presidential campaign. But now that Harris is vice president, that awful moment has seemingly vanished from the Post's website after the paper "updated" the piece earlier this month.
Here's how the first seven paragraphs of that article, published by the Post on July 23, 2019, and bylined by features reporter Ben Terris, originally appeared:
It was the Fourth of July, Independence Day, and Kamala Harris was explaining to her sister, Maya, that campaigns are like prisons.
She'd been recounting how in the days before the Democratic debate in Miami life had actually slowed down to a manageable pace. Kamala, Maya and the rest of the team had spent three days prepping for that contest in a beach-facing hotel suite, where they closed the curtains to blot out the fun. But for all the hours of studying policy and practicing the zingers that would supercharge her candidacy, the trip allowed for a break in an otherwise all-encompassing schedule.
"I actually got sleep," Kamala said, sitting in a Hilton conference room, beside her sister, and smiling as she recalled walks on the beach with her husband and that one morning SoulCycle class she was able to take.
"That kind of stuff," Kamala said between sips of iced tea, "which was about bringing a little normal to the days, that was a treat for me."
"I mean, in some ways it was a treat," Maya said. "But not really."
"It's a treat that a prisoner gets when they ask for, 'A morsel of food please,' " Kamala said shoving her hands forward as if clutching a metal plate, her voice now trembling like an old British man locked in a Dickensian jail cell. "'And water! I just want wahtahhh….'Your standards really go out the f—ing window."
Kamala burst into laughter.
It should go without saying that choosing to run for the most powerful political office in the world is absolutely nothing like being behind bars—and getting to squeeze in a morning SoulCycle session before sitting down for an interview with a national newspaper is not remotely the same as dying of thirst. None of this is funny.
The scene was a brilliant bit of reporting and writing because it did what few political features can accomplish: showing, rather than telling, something about the candidate at the center. Harris made her name as a prosecutor, and her track record includes defending dirty cops and laughing off criticism of her history of throwing poor parents in jail when their kids missed school. The Post profile provided a mask-slipping moment that seemed to perfectly capture a warped sense of justice and lack of basic human dignity—all in just a few hundred words.
We've republished that passage here because you won't find it on the Post's website any longer.
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.
Trump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
You still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnealTrump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
You still don't understand sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck NaillYou still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnealTrump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I have no idea what you're talking about doubling down on a mistaken position. I have never said Biden didn't win, and I have never said Biden cheated. While you're on wikipedia, look up "straw man".
What's really funny is how happy you are to use the "whataboutism" term, and then complain when it's sarcastically applied to you.
I have a bachelors in philosophy. I'm intimately familiar with principles of reasoning, sentential logic, and logical fallacies. No wiki page needed, but thanks.
You don't understand "whataboutism", or Tu quoque. That's when one argues you are wrong because you are a hypocrite. That's what makes it a variation of an ad hominem.
Hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. It is an inconsistency that reduces credibility. I don't point out the hypocrisy to prove that a point is not true. I point out hypocrisy to demonstrate inconsistency, bias, disingenuousness, etc... When you argue that something is ok when one person does something, but it's not ok when another person does the exact same thing; you are creating a contradiction. Pointing out a contradiction is pointing out a logical flaw. The behavior of approving of one and decrying the other is the hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy is pointing out that you are losing credibility. It is a rhetorical tool, just as misusing "whataboutism" to deflect is a rhetorical tool.
Oh, you were being sarcastic?? I have been accused of many things, but never a mind reader. Sorry for my disability.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnealYou still don't understand sarcasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck NaillYou still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by dnealTrump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Naill
"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I have no idea what you're talking about doubling down on a mistaken position. I have never said Biden didn't win, and I have never said Biden cheated. While you're on wikipedia, look up "straw man".
What's really funny is how happy you are to use the "whataboutism" term, and then complain when it's sarcastically applied to you.
I have a bachelors in philosophy. I'm intimately familiar with principles of reasoning, sentential logic, and logical fallacies. No wiki page needed, but thanks.
You don't understand "whataboutism", or Tu quoque. That's when one argues you are wrong because you are a hypocrite. That's what makes it a variation of an ad hominem.
Hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. It is an inconsistency that reduces credibility. I don't point out the hypocrisy to prove that a point is not true. I point out hypocrisy to demonstrate inconsistency, bias, disingenuousness, etc... When you argue that something is ok when one person does something, but it's not ok when another person does the exact same thing; you are creating a contradiction. Pointing out a contradiction is pointing out a logical flaw. The behavior of approving of one and decrying the other is the hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy is pointing out that you are losing credibility. It is a rhetorical tool, just as misusing "whataboutism" to deflect is a rhetorical tool.