• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

PhDeac said:
Yet another example of white politicians freaking out when Black politicians merely suggest doing the same thing white politicians do all the time.

But hey, if Republicans want to mandate that politicians take questions without selecting by race, that's a huge net win.
Click to expand...

It's either OK or it's not.
 
dcnelso said:
Even as the point, she did it in a dumb way.

Choose a black reporter for a 1 on 1 interview, and then say I chose X because they are one of the few black reporters in the press core and I really want to encourage more people of color have access to politicians in order to bring diversity of color and opinion to the press as it lacks diversity.

She could've spun it as a positive choice instead of a negative announcement where we aren't granting interviews to white reporters. And maybe she didn't do in in the most negative way, I haven't tried to follow the specific details of this story because, to me, it's not that big of a deal and I don't live there.
Click to expand...

This.

JuiceCrewAllStar said:
maybe, I didn’t really follow too closely because it’s such a wgaf story, but I feel like the first I heard of it was post-clarification as I believe I knew the context for the interview to only be for the anniversary period when I heard it first reported to me

either way, seems to be more handwringing from the right about the lack of access that Ticker Carlson had to interview the mayor (has he ever tried?) than the fact that the entire group that typically gets access to the mayor is white
Click to expand...

And this.

Liquid Karma said:
It's either OK or it's not.
Click to expand...

Sure. But it’s also not OK to equate this with maintaining a disproportionately white press corps. It’s shitty for white guys to perpetually whine about small slights in a system that greatly benefits them. The real complaint here isn’t that the mayor didn’t call on white reporters. The real complaint is that the mayor is a Black lesbian.
 
Liquid Karma said:
It's either OK or it's not.
Click to expand...

It's ok.

Of course Junebug posts about this silly issue of a white supremacist rag suing a black woman that has zero to do with the Supreme Court while this entire thread is demonstrative of his entire bullshit theory of jurisprudence being shown for what it is - extreme Christian zealotry activism. What a supreme asshole.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
horsehoe
Click to expand...


dFR23W8Qct-1.png
 
PhDeac said:
This.



And this.



Sure. But it’s also not OK to equate this with maintaining a disproportionately white press corps. It’s shitty for white guys to perpetually whine about small slights in a system that greatly benefits them. The real complaint here isn’t that the mayor didn’t call on white reporters. The real complaint is that the mayor is a Black lesbian.
Click to expand...

Simple question: do you you approve of her policy? Or not?
 
If it was a policy, no. Since it was a one time thing to draw attention to inequity in journalism, it’s fine.

Simple question. Why does one BIPOC press conference bothers you more than the millions of all white press conferences that have happened in this country?
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
It's ok.

Of course Junebug posts about this silly issue of a white supremacist rag suing a black woman that has zero to do with the Supreme Court while this entire thread is demonstrative of his entire bullshit theory of jurisprudence being shown for what it is - extreme Christian zealotry activism. What a supreme asshole.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
PhDeac said:
If it was a policy, no. Since it was a one time thing to draw attention to inequity in journalism, it’s fine.

Simple question. Why does one BIPOC press conference bothers you more than the millions of all white press conferences that have happened in this country?
Click to expand...

If you are in favor of diversity in the mainstream press, what are your thoughts on the ideological makeup?

According to Juliana Heerschap, Brat's communications director, the congressman was referring to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), which examined donations by journalists to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries and the first month of the 2016 general election campaign.[2] CPI reported that more than 96 percent of those donations were made to Clinton.[3][4][5]

*** An analysis by MSNBC.com found that 87 percent of the 143 donors (who made contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign) gave to Democrats or liberal causes.[7] The Media Research Center found that 94 percent of donors affiliated with five news outlets also contributed to Democrats between 2008 and 2016.[8]
 
Journalists tend to be “liberal” as a consequence of being educated.

Trumpublicans have increasingly distanced themselves from people who can think critically.
 
ConnorEl said:
Journalists tend to be “liberal” as a consequence of being educated.

Trumpublicans have increasingly distanced themselves from people who can think critically.
Click to expand...

This. Also, decades of attacking "the liberal media" have probably driven some would-be conservative journalists away from journalism. Now, they think that James O'Keefe is doing journalism.
 
It’s not shocking that the party that manipulated the media to start a war in The Middle East, let a journalist, Judith Miller, go to jail over illegal leaks, on up through Trump declaring journalists “the enemy of the people,” would get less support and fewer donations from the journalists than democrats. The GOP has treated the media with disdain for decades so out of self preservation journalists turn to the opposition.
 
Last edited:
birdman said:
It’s not shocking that the party that manipulated the media to start a war in The Middle East, let a journalist, Judith Miller, go to jail over illegal leaks, on up through Trump declaring journalists “the enemy of the people,” would get less support and fewer donations from the journalists than democrats. The GOP has treated the media with disdain for decades so out of self preservation journalists turn to the opposition.
Click to expand...

Duke basketball fans don't have a problem with ACC refs. I get it. But it still doesn't answer my question about the damage being in (some might say...) a bubble does to journalism itself.

Let's assume every syllable of your post is the complete truth. Even if so, isn't an echo chamber a problem for quality control? Dan Rather unskeptically finding defamatory documents forged on technology that hadn't even been invented yet (at the time of the actions being reported) a month before a Presidential election doesn't get reported if there's someone in the kill chain that doesn't need for that "news" to be true. The Duke LAX kids don't get slandered if there weren't "reporters" rooting for an outcome. The media gets reporting terribly wrong all the time. You don't think balance would help prevent that?
 
Turn to the opposition...while still contorting themselves into both sides neutrality false equivalency BS.

My question remains unanswered.
 
PhDeac said:
Turn to the opposition...while still contorting themselves into both sides neutrality false equivalency BS.

My question remains unanswered.
Click to expand...

You're arguing about the lack of diversity in journalism but don't see that 96% of journalists that contributed to candidates contributed to Democrats is a problem. GTFOH.
 
This is a good time to remember that these guys are full of bad faith white victimhood arguments that have little basis in reality.

I will say that these posts are a tacit admission that Republicans don’t do actual journalism.
 
PhDeac said:
This is a good time to remember that these guys are full of bad faith white victimhood arguments that have little basis in reality.

I will say that these posts are a tacit admission that Republicans don’t do actual journalism.
Click to expand...

I'm making an ideological argument. Are you in favor of ideological diversity in the press corps or not?
 
I would be in favor of two political parties that believed in searching for and reporting the truth and therefore journalism was attractive to people on both sides.

What political test would you use to ensure your ideal “ideological diversity?” What rules would you put in place to govern journalism to ensure equal representation?

By the way, 2/3 of CEO political donations go to Republicans. What do you want to do about “ideological diversity” among business leaders?

https://watermark.silverchair.com/laz002.pdf
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
I would be in favor of two political parties that believed in searching for and reporting the truth and therefore journalism was attractive to people on both sides.

What political test would you use to ensure your ideal “ideological diversity?” What rules would you put in place to government journalism to ensure equal representation?
Click to expand...

When 96% of the people in a self-selecting group hold a set of values, but the country is closer to 45/45/10, there's a manifest imbalance. There should be some alignment between the speakers and their audience. No wonder the people on the outside looking in have a distrust of the exclusionary insiders. I can't imagine this is a foreign concept to the good faith reader.

Bubbles lie to the people inside of them. To answer your question, there isn't a straight line litmus test that makes sense. The market will make room for the people excluded by the legacy media (enter Fox et al). All I ask is that we view the legacy media for what it actually is, rather than exalting it to anything greater. They are cheerleaders for a point of view. As long as there is equal time and honesty about what is going on, I'm content. The second part of that test (the honesty part) is where we are coming up short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top