Jump to content

U.S. Politics: Huff and Puff the Socialism away


Guest

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Did we read the same articles? They don’t seem particularly negative about Warren at all, the first i would suggest is favourable to her even.

I said the captions!  Most people only read the captions!  You have to read the articles to know there isn't anything wrong here.  Captions!  Captions!

What about Pearl Harbor?  Were there observations and ceremonies where you are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I said the captions!  Most people only read the captions!  You have to read the articles to know there isn't anything wrong here.  Captions!  Captions!

What about Pearl Harbor?  Were there observations and ceremonies where you are?

Still can’t see anything wrong with the NYT article. The WP though is pretty obvious in its stance against her though i can agree there.

being from England, no

 

@Simon Steele

Quote

It is very suspicious, honestly. I mean...that's hardly anything in the grand scheme. Bernie made close to that a couple of years ago when he wrote a book. 

Do you mean Warren is very suspicious, or the tone of the articles? If the former, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m pretty sure they couldn’t even submit an application to be on the ballot, though I am not entirely familiar with all the technical steps of how a VP files to be on the ticket or if they even have to.

Still, this is all pointless.

It is pointless because I cannot imagine a major party shooting itself in the foot this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

I said the captions!  Most people only read the captions!  You have to read the articles to know there isn't anything wrong here.  Captions!  Captions!

I agree with HEM that outside of a little too much editorializing in the WaPo piece, there isn't much there there.  The captions could use more context, yes, but that's kinda the nature of captions.  I'm sure I could drum up recent stories about Buttigieg and McKinsey/allowing the press into fundraisers that are framed in equally damaging terms.  Warren's campaign released this information yesterday, were the two most important papers in the country supposed to not report on it?  Anyway, I don't think this crap is gonna have much of an effect outside of the socialist left continuing to turn on Warren, which they already have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not complaining about the content, but the CAPTIONS.  Why is the difference so hard for you all to grasp?

I.e. the media in so many ways is responsible for perceptions of figures and events that are not true, even within the body of the article they are misrepresenting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I addressed the captions - I don't think it's that big of a deal.  And if your argument is that the media is responsible for misleading perceptions because people only read the headlines/captions/lede, then that means the public shares quite a bit of the responsibility as well - for, ya know, not actually reading the story for context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

if your argument is that the media is responsible for misleading perceptions because people only read the headlines/captions/lede, then that means the public shares quite a bit of the responsibility as well - for, ya know, not actually reading the story for context.

People do have to pick and choose what they read - there's far, far too much data available these days for any one person to absorb more than a tiny fraction of it. The media are absolutely responsible for the impressions given by misleading headlines etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, felice said:

People do have to pick and choose what they read - there's far, far too much data available these days for any one person to absorb more than a tiny fraction of it. The media are absolutely responsible for the impressions given by misleading headlines etc.

Of course there's too much out there for any single person to absorb, but the tendency to just focus on the snippets (e.g. the headline/lede) is just as much on the consumer as the producer (as well as just, ya know, the constructionist shifts in media consumption).  Private media is going to produce the headline/lede that they think will generate the most business, that's inherent with for-profit political media, and oftentimes that will mean those snippets are misleading.  If you wanna argue for public media playing a bigger role in political coverage in the US, I'm totally on board - that's the primary normative takeaway of the Media & Politics class I've prepped and taught. 

But when it comes to private media, I think it's silly to complain unless the content is factually wrong, and that's not the case here.  Basically, I guess what the criticism is centered on is is it too much to ask for non-misleading headlines, ledes, etc?  And my answer would be yes when it comes to private media - what do you expect?  Moreover, the complaint in this case suggests the NYT and/or WaPo has a bias against Warren based on those two articles.  I don't think that's the case at all, and even if it was, those examples are pretty poor as evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DMC said:

that's inherent with for-profit political media, and oftentimes that will mean those snippets are misleading. 

I'm pretty sure that is the case with public media as well. Not sure which outlet is public media in the US, but reading articles from the BBC is getting increasingly annoying. Not only does the headline not match the article, but they also run multiple headlines on the same article and sometimes they even pretend that its a new article a couple of weeks later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is pointless because I cannot imagine a majority shooting itself in the foot this way.

I think you lack a sense of imagination then my friend. Majorities own goal on the time. Just look at the Pats cheating against the dogs**t Bungles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so with that the die is cast. Interesting that leadership decided to go narrow instead of wide. My best guess is they know there’s no chance he’s being removed so they’re protecting their 2020 candidates.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Democrats aren't very good at politics. Announcing a deal on USMCA the same day you announce Articles of Impeachment is so dumb.

Also, as an aside, as someone who works in strategy consulting and has for the last 8 years, absolutely nothing Buttigieg did at McKinsey is meaningful in any way. He would have been a first or second year associate and have absolutely no control over anything he was doing. I hate how irrelevant things gets overindexed and media hyped to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Mexal said:

The Democrats aren't very good at politics. Announcing a deal on USMCA the same day you announce Articles of Impeachment is so dumb.

Yeah.  I really don't get that.  Trump's going to shout about how awesome his trade deal is, and all the work the democrats put into it will be completely ignored.  If Trump couldn't make it a good deal, they should have sent it back to him to fix, not fixed it for him.  I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the president has threatened to withdraw from the NAFTA, which withdrawal most establishment folks likely believe to be insane. such unilateral withdrawal would be unlawful, as the NAFTA went forward as a congressional-executive agreement, which requires majorities in both chambers, rather than 2/3 of the senate, as for treaties proper--this is why the house democrats must be involved, because the same process is needed to undo or otherwise alter the NAFTA as was used to bring it into being--basically a regular statute, which brings into force the terms of the international agreement that the president has negotiated.

i suspect that not all congresspersons are sufficiently cynical to act only in the interests of their own or their party's electoral success; they may actually believe that the amendments to the NAFTA are good things for their respective constituents--especially considering the alternative of the president having a tantrum and fucking it up worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Zorral said:

I was not complaining about the content, but the CAPTIONS.  Why is the difference so hard for you all to grasp?

I.e. the media in so many ways is responsible for perceptions of figures and events that are not true, even within the body of the article they are misrepresenting.

 

I think captions and headlines both are notoriously bad for doing this. They paint a truly different picture than you'd take if you just read the article. So many things are blocked behind paywalls, though, it's easy to see just headlines and a caption or two. These messages are taken in by people, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For months and months I’ve watched Republicans and Republican reps on tv attacking the Democrats for doing nothing in Congress except run investigations. They never mention the dozens of laws passed by Congress sitting trapped on Moscow Mitch’s desk. 
 

They also constantly bitch about NAFTA 2 not being passed. This shuts up that line of argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, argonak said:

Yeah.  I really don't get that.  Trump's going to shout about how awesome his trade deal is, and all the work the democrats put into it will be completely ignored.  If Trump couldn't make it a good deal, they should have sent it back to him to fix, not fixed it for him.  I don't understand.

I assume it’s a combination of trying to give themselves cover against the charges that everything that they do is a partisan attack on Trump, (“Look, no matter what Republicans or Fox say, we aren’t just anti-Trump. If we were, why would we be working on this trade deal with him?”) and to be able to point out that they’re doing things besides investigations and actually trying to do serious work.

 I think it’s wrongheaded and doomed, but I imagine that’s their thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...