511–520 of 618 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or it's in response to and a reversal of the moral superiorirty Christians and conservatives have held over this country for several hundred years. Maybe it's an overcorection, but that's how these things always work.
Say what you want, but religions have largely been successful in society/nation building. Marxism has wrecked most things in its path before, and it looks to be doing so again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm 48. My family had a newspaper subscription (in my case, the Miami Herald). I've been a consumer of news all my life, mostly print media. (My family rarely watched local news except for when a hurricane was headed our way, but would often watch programs like 60 minutes.) When was the news ever "Who, What, When, Where, Why?" It's always had a slant as long as I remember. Here's "the most trusted man in America" cal…
The problem with journalism today is not opinion, but that we’ve allowed “newsish” to pose as real news, to the extent that people can’t tell the difference. And on top of that I don’t think people are generally equipped well to recognize opinion as such.
Thing is, when the New York Times was "the newspaper of record", everyone read it. When they only print what will pass muster with the howling mob, for fear of losing their jobs if they offend, then only the howling mob will read it. But the howling mob doesn't have enough members to support the New York Times. That is, catering to the most vocal segment of the Right Thinkers is a ticket to an ever-shrinking readersh…
Margins on digital products are lower than on print products but that's not unique to the Times and it's largely outside of their control. Ad margins have collapsed since their astronomical highs of the 90s and early 2000s because of the divorce of classifieds and news, rather than a collapse in total circulation.
Is the left losing their minds of their own accord? Or are people becoming more reactionary due to the unprecedented level of insanity that the right has displayed and wielded with actual political power of late? Calls for liberals to be be rational when a trump administration rules the country is a bit odd, since reasoned debate does no good there, or with the current GOP senate. what is left? throw a fit is about a…
Then cops are killing people.
Are people meant to keep their minds? If ethical behavior is material, then are we not incentivizing unethical behavior by not providing the means to basic material when it is well within our own means to do so? And what king-of-kings thrives clad in white, righteous anger against the unethical? If we chastise those in pain, we will all know despair.
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…
> It’s very clear to anyone reading Cottons article that the call is to deploy troops to subdue he largely peaceful protests Is it? Because to me he very clearly and explicitly talks about people that are breaking the law - rioters and looters. The opinion piece by Cotton literally says this: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A major…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 thes…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_the_Defen...
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…
The most common way the free market fails to do the "right" thing is by ignoring externalities. By optimising for user engagement, media is ignoring the effect it has over society at large. This is actually an argument for government sponsored news outlets implemented in a politically neutral manner; i.e. the television shouldn't just be a mouthpiece for the state/the ruling party. For an example of state-financed bu…
The very definition of an oxymoron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm 48. My family had a newspaper subscription (in my case, the Miami Herald). I've been a consumer of news all my life, mostly print media. (My family rarely watched local news except for when a hurricane was headed our way, but would often watch programs like 60 minutes.) When was the news ever "Who, What, When, Where, Why?" It's always had a slant as long as I remember. Here's "the most trusted man in America" cal…
> What is that if not a partisan political opinion? What was partisan about what he said? He made no mention of US political parties. He simply said that the war was failing and it needed to end. May I suggest you are projecting your partisanship onto this? Objective journalism is not about giving both sides an equal voice. It is OK to use rationale and logic to support one side over the other. Should all journalism…
Ideally a concept like "getting out of the war" could be a non partisan concept. Back then perhaps, but in 2020 definitely, there's no room for that. Maybe because of the internet, maybe because of cable news, I dunno, but even a single stated position plops you on the right or left in America. Sure it's not ideal but it's reality.
If only Republicans knew how many American communists were pro-armed-populace. If only it were possible to be conservative and reconcile your preference for self sufficiency and blue collar values with the ideals of people living on a commune, or the Green and Sustainability movements. But no, Climate Change is Fake News and Guns Are Bad. Full stop.
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…