• 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

G W Bush is on record has having disagreed with trump's lies about the press being the enemy of the people. To paraphrase it was something like "even when I don't like what they are saying about me."

Now do military and police political donations.

Agree with ph that the premise of your question sure seams like a tacit acknowledgement that fox, oan, Newsmax etc traffic nearly exclusively in lies, misinformation, and grievance politics.
 
WokeandBroke said:
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?
Click to expand...


The proper bias of journalists should be uncovering and reporting what is true.

Of course they don't always get it right. But those respecting this orientation will tend to be hated (and ultimately oppressed) by pathological/serial liars and those lying as a preferred means of grasping for power, either individuals or a party. That's on Trump/Republicans, not journalists.
 
WokeandBroke said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. I don’t. I think the profit motivated nature of the news business is far more damaging to the integrity of the news than 90% of journalists being democrats.
 
The crux of his argument is that journalists can’t do their jobs without bias but police and politicians can.

Yes, it’s a weird argument.
 
From the Vox article:

Breyer also offers some unexpected praise for Bush v. Gore(2000), or at least for the aftermath of that decision. Using highly dubious legal reasoning, Bush effectively awarded the presidency to George W. Bush. Breyer was one of four dissenters in the case.
Yet, as Breyer notes, “Despite the huge stakes involved, despite the belief of half the country that the Court was misguided, Americans accepted the majority’s holding without violent protest.” Former Vice President Al Gore, who many still believe rightfully won the 2000 election, told his supporters not to “trash the Supreme Court.” At the time of Bush, Breyer writes, “acceptance of the Court’s decisions, respect for those decisions even when one considers them wrong, had become virtually habitual.”
Click to expand...

That's because Gore lost. If Bush lost, there may have been violence by the people who staged a riot to stop counting votes.

Breyer doesn't understand that one side is manipulating the law and he's admonishing the other side for not respecting manipulated law.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

"When they become so old, so comfy in cushy lifetime positions" doesn't just explain what's wrong with Breyer but with most of the Democratic Party Establishment. It's a gerontocracy that's been living the good life in DC for so long that too many of them have become complacent, out-of-touch, and incapable of either seeing Republicans for what they've become or seeing what's going on in the country. Mentally, they're still living in the 80s when you could cut deals and make compromises with Republicans. Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, and to some extent even Pelosi and Biden all fit this pattern, as do lesser figures in Congress.

ETA: This also appears to be a strong sign that he's not planning to retire anytime soon. So there's that as well.
 
Highland Deac said:
"When they become so old, so comfy in cushy lifetime positions" doesn't just explain what's wrong with Breyer but with most of the Democratic Party Establishment. It's a gerontocracy that's been living the good life in DC for so long that too many of them have become complacent, out-of-touch, and incapable of either seeing Republicans for what they've become or seeing what's going on in the country. Mentally, they're still living in the 80s when you could cut deals and make compromises with Republicans. Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, and to some extent even Pelosi and Biden all fit this pattern, as do lesser figures in Congress.

ETA: This also appears to be a strong sign that he's not planning to retire anytime soon. So there's that as well.
Click to expand...

Damn, Anthony Kennedy admitted that that was exactly what he did to get Kavanaugh nominated. How much more do you need?
 
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...

WokeandBroke said:
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]
Click to expand...

you, uh, didn't answer his question
 
There have been a few good reads this week about Dem complacency about fighting anti-democratic efforts from the right. None of them deal specifically with age but it’s certainly a factor but in terms of cushiness and being in office during the Reagan revolution and Contract with America. They feel like they’re fighting a policy fight for white working class voters who are long gone and aren’t coming back to the Democratic Party. They don’t understand that they still have a majority they need to maintain and they can expand.
 
PhDeac said:
The crux of his argument is that journalists can’t do their jobs without bias but police and politicians can.

Yes, it’s a weird argument.
Click to expand...

That---of course---isn't close to what I said.

You claimed the press was insufficiently racially diverse, citing no data.

I accepted your premise on its face, but said that the insufficient racial diversity is surpassed by a lack of ideological diversity, citing three different studies. Given the responsibility of the press, I argue a lack of demonstrated ideological diversity is a more manifest threat to their mission (a watch dog role) than your alleged lack of racial diversity.

You then argued that the lack of ideological diversity was merit based. It is your theory that the white liberals that run the media intentionally discriminate on the basis of race (not farfetched, given that group's other policies) but do not(!) discriminate on the basis of ideology (presumably you typed this with a straight face).

Your argument was so shitty (The disparate results you like are fully explainable on the basis of merit; nothing to see here) but the kind you don't are highly suspicious, that I called you on it. You then decided to leave the argument we were having and instead post bullshit like the above post, that no one anywhere on this thread has argued, including me. Nice punt, Doctor.

Since juice is wondering, I (well, me and the 14th Amendment) am against a government official engaging in de jure racial discrimination in the course and scope of their official duties. I didn't realize we were still having the debate in 2021. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Or one could actually wake up and realize Republican policy/politics, such as it is, isn’t worthy of support.

And be happy that most journalists are apparently able to recognize this.
 
ConnorEl said:
Or one could actually wake up and realize Republican policy/politics, such as it is, isn’t worthy of support.

And be happy that most journalists are apparently able to recognize this.
Click to expand...

You have all of the good ideas. No one else has any other good ideas. You have them all and none of them are bad.

Amazing.
 
WokeandBroke said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are no races that are incompatible with good journalism, but there are political parties that are incompatible with good journalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top