321–330 of 344 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One entity owning multiple outlets and therefore having the ability to broadcast a consistent message, as literally shown in the video, not only does not facilitate fake news, but can not ? It acts as an antidote to fake news, in all cases?
"Fake news" is a symptom of consumer ignorance, and beneficial for facilitating monopolization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was also missing key immigration reforms that Trump said he needed to see. "Key immigration reforms" is a great way to spin additional constraints on legal family-reunification, that exact program which allowed Melania's family to join her here in this country. He's closing the doors that he and his family used to come here and amass wealth.
Well it was more than just chain migration he wanted changed. Also the “diversity lottery” and overall limits. No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans who want to see less immigration overall, and more selective granting of visas and green cards. The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open, to the tune of about a half million green cards per year. Historically average.
There is plenty to question here. Given the CA news and additional leaks regarding the campaign he ran, Trump does not in fact represent a large segment of Americans. At best, he represents a well-targeted, vocal minority.
Specifically, with his actions and his words he is representing and providing a megaphone for the worst xenophobic elements of our society [1].
>The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open
Speak to anyone with DACA or TPS, those doors are decidedly closed.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...
So, this explains the creepy video I saw over the weekend, of numerous news stations reciting the same canned speech, verbatim. When I see one station doing it, or similar sentiment from multiple stations in their own words, that might slightly temper my cynicism about the (lack of) objectivity and truthfulness of the news. But when I see shit like this, it only serves to harden my cynicism.
Local news stations receive packages and content with scripts pre-written from national networks and other sources all the time. It's not a conspiracy, and it shouldn't cast doubt on the truthfulness of a story.
Television news is a scripted medium, and most stations don't have the time or talent to write a completely unique script for every newscast from scratch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Polls have indicated that the DREAM Act is supported by an overwhelming majority[0]. If representatives don't mirror that support, then the problem is with them, not the bill. [0] http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/sep/19/...
Trump's issue was with what was left out. '68 percent of Americans said they oppose "the lottery that randomly picks 50,000 people to enter the U.S. each year for greater diversity.' https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-imm... Family based (chain migration) is more evenly split according to article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a roboticist, so I view this as an exercise in signal processing. A news agency is like a sensor, reporting that an event happened. We don't know what or how or when, so we use different signals and fuse them to arrive at a better understanding of "truth". The nice thing about sensor fusion, is even without external validation as to the truth, you can still approximate it with certainty using otherwise very nois…
That's an interesting perspective. Do you think that humans are capable of similar sensor fusion? If so, then does that mean that we shouldn't be worried about bias?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McConnell and Ryan refuse to consider bills unless 50% of their party supports it. This essentially prevents any bipartisan deal on issues such as immigration.
Polls have indicated that the DREAM Act is supported by an overwhelming majority[0]. If representatives don't mirror that support, then the problem is with them, not the bill. [0] http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/sep/19/...
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.
Do we have to be on the left to think Trump is a nut? Does Trump own the right?
I wish I was kidding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it was more than just chain migration he wanted changed. Also the “diversity lottery” and overall limits. No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans who want to see less immigration overall, and more selective granting of visas and green cards. The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open, to the tune of about a half million green cards per year. Historically average.
>No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans There is plenty to question here. Given the CA news and additional leaks regarding the campaign he ran, Trump does not in fact represent a large segment of Americans. At best, he represents a well-targeted, vocal minority. Specifically, with his actions and his words he is representing and providing a megaphone for the worst xenophobic elements of our society…
Oh and the “Trump Defends White Nationalists” trope? Here’s the video [1] and here’s the quote;
“You had some very bad people in the group. But you also had people, that were very fine people, on both sides.... So you know what, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-nazis or the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally, but you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists, okay, and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”
If you have an issue with DACA maybe talk to your congressman. Trump’s been trying to get a legal fix for DACA for months now.
As far as TPS is concerned, maybe the “T” doesn’t stand for what I think it does, but 2001-2018 seems pretty generous for the Salvadorans. Unless you’re telling me those countries are still too ravaged from natural disasters over a decade ago to return to?
But I’ll stand by the assertion that while we do have borders and we do enforce immigration law, we also provide entry for half a million immigrants a year. It seems like you’re claiming that because you can cite a specific special interest that isn’t being granted special citizenship outside the legal system that has existed for decades, therefore the doors are closed and that’s somehow xenophobic. I personally think that’s inaccurate and perhaps hyperbolic. While you’re entitled to your opinion, I think a large portion of the country will continue to have reasonable and open debate as to what levels of immigration is right for the country, and how we should select for those immigrants, without resorting to calling it xenophobic.
It's kind of sad to see a potentially important discussion here devolve into a: off-topic threads about policy (DACA), or partisan trolling about #fakenews to derail the subject away from Sinclair. 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 com…
I looked for Sinclair station ownership in this market and according to The Book of Knowledge (Wikipedia) there is none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or our constitutional republic, as the case may be.
A constitutional republic is a type of democracy. Trying to draw a distinction there is beyond splitting hairs.
For example, in a pure democracy, gay marriage would not be a thing, because the majority voted against it. However, because we are a republic, and the government is compelled to recognize the minority and protect their rights, gay marriage is now legal.
I don't think this distinction is "splitting hairs," since it is of vital importance to the minority.