221–230 of 344 posts
Trump recently took DACA off the negotiating table, announcing it in a tweet, citing a Fox News & Friends segment on 'caravans' of inbound immigrants: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/trump-say... The President is watching this same garbage and making policy decisions based on it. Let that sink in for a moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you watched the state of the union, you know that Trump made a proposal about DACA that was such a huge compromise to the left, that much of his base raised hell. The left refused that compromise, and refused again, when he asked for DACA and the wall to be addressed in the latest spending bill. Since he has twice been rebuffed on his compromises, he's going the other way. That seems reasonable to me.
I was surprised Democrats didn’t compromise on that, I think they are too focused on making Trump fail at any cost. I’m all for increased immigration and amnesty, but I’m not in support of open borders, so a compromise for increased border security sounded like good policy to me.
Nothing new. I worked in a newsroom as an intern and most major news stations rely (maybe, relied, it's been a few years) on a tool like ENPS. It's made by the Associated Press and has a "wire" feature where new stories come into. So, e.g., if there was a plane crash, that message would be pushed out to all newsrooms that rely on ENPS. The news producers were lazy, too. They'd literally take the script that ENPS push…
Don't try to claim these are in any way equivalent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The journalism job market ain't what it used to be. I find it hard to label people trying to keep their family fed and housed as "gutless cowards."
The problem is your excuse is used to justify any action all the way down to killing Jews in a gas chamber. "I was just doing as I was told" Sure no one is being gassed here, bit this seems pretty subversive. I have a family to feed too, we all do, but I also chose my line of work so that I'm comfortable saying "No" to the boss (and have had to quit because of this in the past).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I have never seen that message on CNN Give me a break. You don't remember "This an Apple", one of the most elitist, pretentious advertising campaigns in recent times: ""This is an apple. Some people might try to tell you that it's a banana. They might scream, 'Banana, banana, banana,' over and over and over again. They might put banana in all caps. You might even start to believe it's a banana, but it's not. This is…
Fair point. I have never seen this add campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I ever had flagging power. I have never desired to flag anybody before now. If you want HN to degrade into rabid political name-calling, don't flag the people who do it. This person took the opportunity to level multiple refutable accusations at Trump, on a topic that had nothing to do with Trump. Would you rather I had engaged him at his level?
> This person took the opportunity to level multiple refutable accusations at Trump, on a topic that had nothing to do with Trump. Of course this topic has to do something with Trump. In fact, Trump is at the core of it given the role of his administration in the upcoming merger of Sinclair to include even more local stations! As for "multiple refutable accusations", I could provide you with many examples for each on…
I am curious about these "misogynistic policies" though. What policy is that, exactly? I suspect I'll be told about locker room talk he did in private, but maybe you have some actual misogynistic policies to share that his past history of hiring many women into executive positions belies.
That said, something I'm curious about... how many people still get their news primarily from local tv broadcast in this day and age? And what are the age ranges of those people? Lacking any actual data, I'd suggest by complete conjecture that it's not that many, and they skew much older than the general population. I'd be surprised if anyone under the age of 30 watches local tv news regularly at all.
I know that personally, I watch so little local news that when I do, the cognitive dissonance is kind of jarring. And when do I watch it? Mostly, when visiting my Baby Boomer in-laws...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nothing in the world is perfect, and by acknowledging that you and others all have implicit and explicit biases you can use your critical thinking skills to learn about the world without blindly accepting other people's biases as your own?
When people say something is biased, they usually mean to an unreasonably high degree. As you say, the nature of the universe dictates that everything is biased in some way. While a news source inevitably has to pick and choose what stories it's going to report, most people would not consider it "biased" if it simply reported what events occurred and did not take place in writing opinion pieces. On the other hand peo…
I disagree entirely. That is the essence of journalism. Not to tell you what to think, but to provide context that helps interpret.
For example, reporting that people at a Trump rally were shouting "Lugenpresse" is one thing. Providing the historical context that such language was used by the Nazi's as a pretext for cracking down on the free press and on Jews is another. Just hearing the first may make you aware of a fact, but the second tells you the truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- people trust local media - a single corporation owns a fuckton of those local stations - the same corporation writes a script to broadcast on every station - media hosts or journalists can't say "no". Do the job or lose your job. They're not free to report news without bias - you don't know everything about everything, so you're inclined to trust the news because they're supposed to be neutral and report facts - ul…
"They're not free to report news without bias... they're supposed to be neutral and report facts" I know I sound cynical, but does any thinking person actually believe that? That strikes me as incredibly naive.
You're taking this out of context. You come to know your local news reporters, learn their biases, and they build some kind of trust with them. You might even see them at events or having a meal with their family and have a personal relationship with them. As stated a few times in this thread, Sinclair bought this trust & is violating it.
they're supposed to be neutral and report facts
It's not naive to think this. News shows and publications generally have a clear divider between "reporting" and {"opinion"|"editorial"|"analysis"}. I'd also like to think most people can tell the difference, regardless, between and opinion, "immigrants are good for the country" and declarative statements, "Obama deported more illegal immigrants than any President before him".
Now, if the guy behind the desk on your 11 O'Clock news incorrectly reports that the the head of the local hospital personally leads a "death panel" that decides if your grandmother gets to live, you can easily march down there and sort it out yourself, hell you might even know the head of that hospital and know right off that this is factually false. Soon, you won't trust this lie peddling news outlet again, and they'll have to make some sort of change.
Of course, there are organizations out there that lie when making declarative statements, like the "death panel" example above, but those are generally on the national/Internet level, because someone in Jacksonville, FL can't reasonably verify a story about what's happening across the country or in DC like they can with a story about the Jaguars, so there's always some shadow of doubt...
The key here truly lies in buying up local news outlets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think bias makes something not worth watching?
That's not necessarily what I am implying. I'm challenging the idea that, if all news is biased(beyond simply picking and choosing stories), one can reliably find the truth by essentially making a Venn diagram between biased sources and analyzing overlaps. I neither believe nor disbelieve that it's a pathway to truth. I have my skepticism because it provides no form of validation; if all sources are too highly skewed…