Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The American Press Is Destroying Itself

taibbi.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 618 posts

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#491

Post by Mirioron »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #461
pm90 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would advise care when reading it. It’s not immediately clear but it uses very hand picked facts to paint a very different picture of what’s actually going on. I call these kinds of articles disinformation-lite; not outright lies but selectively picking events to portray a hypothetical scenario that doesn’t really hold true. I’ll cite a specific example to make this case. See this paragraph: > Cotton did not call f…

Something that Cotton also said recently on Twitter: "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters." Literally, "no quarter" means that combatants are to be killed rather than taken prisoner. Figuratively, it means to give one's full effort to achieve an overwhelming victory. Especially with the inclusion of anarchists, it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that he really wants to cast this a…

"No quarter" also means [0]:

>no pity or mercy —used to say that an enemy, opponent, etc., is treated in a very harsh way

It's plausible that he meant this in the way you describe, but I think it's more likely he was using fancy language to emphasise that the city and police shouldn't tolerate things like the CHAZ or rioting and looting. Essentially, he's trying to criticize the local governments for tolerating these things and not putting a stop to it. (Easy way to try to score political points.)

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no%20quarter

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#492

Post by nz »

nz wrote: post #344
mushbino wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "excessive pseudo socialism" and "Locust capitalism?" Also, I see your account was created an hour ago.

In the same way that decaf is coffee without the caffeine, (and phone-sex is sex without sex), pseudo socialism is socialism without genuine socialists. In the USA -- and increasingly in Europe -- we've seen the socialists' ranks get eroded by our societies' blind pursuit of ever-greater profits at the expense of the common good. This has resulted in the subordination of most aspects of life -- including most aspects…

If you're going to down-vote me, could you at least offer an explanation as to why? As it stands, there's an infinity of possible objections you can have with my comment. It would help to know what they are, so that I can at least _try_ to integrate them into my thoughts and perspective.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#493

Post by Mirioron »

coffeefirst wrote: post #438
TheAdamAndChe wrote: post #134

For those in the comments that haven't read the article, I highly recommend you check it out. While the comments are talking about the survival of news media and "tone-deaf" titles, the bulk of the article is about the Overton window[1] shifting to the point where rigerous journalism questioning outrages of the time is becoming untenable, weakening the news overall. It's a very good read. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org…

That's true, and I usually like Taibbi, but I think he's misreading the issue. The real overton window has moved a little bit, but a lot of this is really about Twitter. Many institutions, including universities and publishers, act like Twitter outrage represents their real readers and communities. This isn't true. Twitter is a thick bubble that gives the loudest voice to the angriest, most passionate outrage-mongers…

The problem is that an angry Twitter mob can get people fired from all kinds of institutions/companies. While Twitter and universities might not be the mainstream thought, they can still ruin your life.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#494

Post by brianpgordon »

Shivetya wrote: post #91

What I find most reprehensible about this whole situation is that more and more members of the left regulate political discourse, no make that any discourse, by defining any opposing view as illegitimate, bigoted, and now violence. As in, they are taking the position that their moral superiority is without question and anyone who does not ascribe to this has no rights and we are nearing the point of the same having n…

All these high-minded ideals you're appealing to sound wonderful. Who would be opposed to individual rights? The idea of suppressing opposing viewpoints seems insane. And nobody likes people who act like they're morally superior.

But hang on. What rights, and which viewpoints, and what are people acting morally superior about? Your appeal to those ideals is not as universally applicable as you make it sound. I mean, this is pretty self-evident - one can easily pick examples of completely reprehensible beliefs that almost no one would tolerate.

Let's make this concrete. Someone who supports a policy of the government killing all American Jews could make an impassioned argument about the injustice done when a tyrannical moral orthodoxy imposes its views on a free man and vilifies him for daring to think differently, and about the tragedy of the fact that in its zeal to stamp out the dissenter it would betray its own cherished value of free thought. But it wouldn't be a very convincing argument.

And similarly the left is increasingly unconvinced by people who say that their reasonable disagreements are being demonized and complain that the usual framework of liberal democracy should protect them from that kind of treatment. When someone - anyone - finds a position monstrous enough, they're no longer going to be willing to tolerate it. That's what's happening. The human costs of our current status quo are so emotionally and ethically explosive that people come to see these issues as non-negotiable. Your appeal to those norms of civil disagreement and compromise is just not convincing if you're no longer willing to accept the consequences of playing by those rules.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#495

Post by jbeam »

refurb wrote: post #462
hobs wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is factually correct for anyone complaining. You can argue about some other places, but this was an obvious authoritarian play for a photo-op. Military officials are condemning this - why is this up for debate? (hint, its not.) https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-guard-troops-deploy... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/02/us/politics/military-nati... https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-threatens-to-mobili…

Per your article - "Moments before, police had cleared largely peaceful demonstrators from the area". Largely would infer there were some demonstrators using violence. I don't disagree that it was a bad move politically.

The videos are easy to access. The people who the Trump administration attacked were peaceful. The fact that someone half a mile away might have been looting a store or a random person might have thrown a Poland Spring bottle does not justify assaulting the public so you can take a stroll for a two minute photo op.

The church clergy themselves were teargassed and pushed off the property to make way for Trump. The US Government forcibly seized a church without warning from its clergy to provide a photo op for the president.

It's not just bad politically, its bad.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#496

Post by naveen99 »

arkades wrote: post #336
csallen wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how analogies work, so this is completely missing the point. For example, if you say the Colosseum is to Rome what a roller coaster is to an amusement part, you are not saying that the Colosseum is similar to a roller coaster. No, what you're comparing is the Colosseum's relationship to Rome and the rollercoaster's relationship to the amusement park. xg15's analogy isn't meant to equate Black people in Ame…

> Always surprising to me how the basic structure of analogy is so commonly misunderstood. It's what happens when people don't have a rebuttal to the point being raised. It's generally a good sign that they're no longer engaging in good faith.

The analogy might be stronger if intra Jewish violence killed 10x more than nazis.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#497

Post by JPKab »

zipwitch wrote: post #474
JPKab wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I share your opinion. My own theory (without any real evidence) is that the oligarchs use race to divide the white working class from the non-white working class. A specific example is the video on systemic racism going around. It correctly points out redlining (a truly horrific practice), but also talks about black students having to attend underfunded schools. I attended predominantly black, underfunded, public sch…

Using race to divide labor is a time-proven capitalist tactic. Go back to Bacon's Rebellion in 1676, where the system was made explicit after the mixed-race uprising again the oligarchs of the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacon%27s_Rebellion

"The alliance between European indentured servants and Africans (many enslaved until death or freed), united by their bond-servitude, disturbed the ruling class. The ruling class responded by hardening the racial caste of slavery in an attempt to divide the two races from subsequent united uprisings with the passage of the Virginia Slave Codes of 1705."

Fascinating. I grew up in rural Virginia. A little Known fact is that the vast majority of white settlers there were indentured and/or bonded, often convicts. The first Africans in 1619 were indentured as well. Horrifically, in the 1650s when the first African slaves were brought over, the elites pushed further changes in social norms that resulted in a significant worsening of treatment of the African indentured servants who had long since become free landowners and farmers. A formerly indentured, free black man had a prosperous farm a few miles from where I grew up. The courthouse there dates to the 1600s, and the records are there that show jealous white neighbors gradually stealing his land with impunity, starting at the time that slaves started becoming common. It is chilling looking at those documents standing in that building.

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#498

Post by nkurz »

rsweeney21 wrote: post #345
maps7 wrote: post #277

On a side note, does anyone subscribe to any good news/information site? I would like to subscribe to something good and know I'm supporting it.

I've recently discovered The Hill ( https://thehill.com/ ). It's very refreshing. No sensationalized language in titles and I haven't been able to detect a bias for the left or right. They seem to present information pretty objectively.

> I haven't been able to detect a bias for the left or right

Allsides.com is an interesting attempt to evaluate media sources for bias, and agrees with you. Through some fairly detailed surveys they "found that The Hill maintains a Center bias, though on the border of Lean Left." https://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill-media-bias

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#499

Post by blitmap »

mudlus wrote: post #486

This wouldn't be a problem if Section 230 was repealed https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech/comm...

I understand how dangerous it is to have news organizations operating in bad faith. Even if I recognize it and avoid their venue, my neighbors may not. In 2020, these online platforms can reach a billion+ people. Misleading statements, or flat-out lies can create a mob very quickly.

I'd still rather have the ability to dissent online, rather than losing the platforms that may be held liable for what I post.

Section 230 is a good thing. Removing it would (in my opinion) only lead to de-platforming people the state disagrees with.

"Think of the children!"

Re: The American Press Is Destroying Itself

#500

Post by jkingsbery »

Animats wrote: post #261
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #62

I don't think they are. I think they are optimizing for survival. Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. Few people would consume it (or even be capable of doing so), even fewer are ready to pay the real price of it. So they did the next best thing: they changed to please the market in a way that makes money. Grabbing a lot of attention, as cheaply as possible, so that you can sell it to the hi…

Serious news is expensive, and at this point, a niche market. I suspect that's correct. It's hard now to find any news outlet now that sticks to "Who, What, When, Where, Why". This is a consequence of pay per click, probably. The left and the right now both have a checklist of mandatory positions required to avoid punishment. Those positions are in many cases contrary to fact. That's not good. Denial has become a cor…

For whatever it's worth: I'm a mostly conservative person who dislikes Trump (that seems to me that should be a tautology, even if it seems to others it's an oxymoron). I've been looking for tolerable media - something that doesn't give Trump a pass. I've found National Review to be an interesting read because the writers there seem to frequently disagree with each other. To my knowledge, none of them have been punished for these disagreements.
Post reply on HN