Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,551 posts, read 16,539,320 times
Reputation: 6038
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
That one always had me confounded. Obama wasn't progressive left and didn't go far enough. That's right in their with blacks who say that some blacks aren't black enough (the drop of blood BS) or how gays claim that other gays aren't gay enough (how is that even possible?)...
People with insane logic usually are insane.
NO, NO, those 2 things are nothing alike other than being exaggerations.
President Obama had policies that do not fall into the political definition of progressive, and do in many ways seem to be part of the Third Way/Democratic Leadership Committee arm of the Democratic Party.
One can indeed not be "progressive enough" to be labeled a progressive. Ideologies have definitions and standards. You would not call Ron Paul or Ronald Reagan "liberals", but you may very well say 1 of the 2 is not a conservative and label them libertarian
Same thing on the left. You can be a Democrat, and not be a liberal or progressive.
Where as with Sexuality or race, the argument is simply that being black means to be "this(usually derogatory and meaning ghetto), and not being so means you arent black enough.
As not being gay enough usually means the same thing, you are flamboyant enough or something like that.|
there is no right way to be black, or gay, but there is a right way to be liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian as they have somewhat set definitions.
The Kim Jong Un article is about how he has remained in power.
The article about Rubio was not a warning against him at all but an article about how the GOP leaders need to sway him over to Tillerson and how important that is.
Obama laments country's deep partisan divisons: well, it's true. Should they not report on the current president and what he thinks. Not sure how this article is partisan. Seems partisan NOT to report what he said?
How about this one? In Trump pick, right-wing Israelis see a good friend. Reads fairly positive to me.
Optimism prevails among businesses as DC area shows strong job growth: Positive article on job situation since Trump's win.
I guess I'm really not seeing a left or right lean. None of the articles today seem overly harsh or critical but yes, they did report that the FBI is agreeing with the CIA now. Should they not report that?
Maybe I need to head on over to Breitbart (never looked at that one) to see what kind of journalism you're looking for.
Last edited by ChristineVA; 12-17-2016 at 02:29 PM..
ThePost has been pushing universal national health care for decades as an editorial policy. Are there a couple columnists, Will and Kraithammer, who are opposed to it? Yes. They're the Op-Ed representatives.
They support getting rid of the Citizens United decision.
Again, I don't know why you think the paper is a DC version of the Arizona Republican.
They are absolutely not what you describe them as. Every time there is a real chance of real progressive policy change, WaPo will side with the neoliberal agenda that transfer more power and money into the hands of the wealthy and the powerful. Regarding Citizens United? Did big money in politics start with Citizens United? We've had 40 years of relentless Reaganomics and groveling the donor class which has decimated the working class of America. WaPo has been strong in support of weakening the unions, pushing anti-worker trade deals, weakening anti-trust laws, deregulating the financial industry and strongly support perpetual war mongering in the Middle East. Their agenda is neoliberal, even if they pay lip service to mainstream American opinion which is social democratic.
As we have seen from the election we have a biased media. There is Fox news then everyone else.
Journalism used to be a honest trade that told both sides of an issue and then let the reader/viewer make up his own mind after weighing all the facts. I guess it is a sign of the times that people either don't have intelligence or time to think or the media tells us what they want us to think.
The Washington Post is guilty of this.
I have no recollection of media consistently telling both sides of an issue and I am no spring chicken.
What has changed is that opinionated news is very profitable.
They are absolutely not what you describe them as. Every time there is a real chance of real progressive policy change, WaPo will side with the neoliberal agenda that transfer more power and money into the hands of the wealthy and the powerful. Regarding Citizens United? Did big money in politics start with Citizens United? We've had 40 years of relentless Reaganomics and groveling the donor class which has decimated the working class of America. WaPo has been strong in support of weakening the unions, pushing anti-worker trade deals, weakening anti-trust laws, deregulating the financial industry and strongly support perpetual war mongering in the Middle East. Their agenda is neoliberal, even if they pay lip service to mainstream American opinion which is social democratic.
I never said the Post was progressive, just that it generally endorses and supports liberal causes and candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G1..
That makes you consistent ,it doesn't always make you right.
But I am more often than not, by a large margin.
Both of you are so far to the Left that anything, anybody or any organization which isn't there with you is John Birch Society right wing.
I only took high school journalism class, mind you. But I seem to remember vaguely a few important details like... oh I dunno, that news coverage must tell both sides of the story, be well-researched from a reliable source, and be factual.
So I look at today's paper. They are praising Kim Jong Un. They are insisting on a broken Russian hacking narrative, claiming that Putin has some grudge against Hillary. Some sexual assault case. A warning against Rubio. And Obama talking about how partisan mentality is evil.
I could get into any one of these, but frankly, all of them seem (1) poorly researched (based on one of Washington Post's earlier maps even, Trump won nearly all districts making any claims of rigging completely incredible), (2) heavily biased toward liberal viewpoint, and (3) not at all factual (we either have non-news, like Obama talking about something random, or we have outright hearsay like the sexual assault thing possibly is).
How can you consider any of this news? I look at the Richmond Times Dispatch, they had largely fluff holiday news, and that was a step better in journalistic quality.
You have to understand that the news media's power is totally based on who they know. They have no real power. This is why they are all a bunch of drama queens freaking out over Trump and his appointees that come from the military and business. It doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, an outsider scares the bleep out of them. Those panelists on Fox News are freaking out as much as the liberal media. They've lost their cachet. For The Washington Post, it's really tough. They have no "in" in the White House and they are a Washington newspaper. All of their sources now will come from Capitol Hill or some peon in the White House who doesn't really know anything.
Now, I know they probably haven't thought of this but maybe it would be a good idea to move one or two of their business reporters over to their pool of political reporters.
Remember, most of these brainiacs in the national news media didn't see the recession coming.
WaPo is borderline on Fake News because it is Jeff Bezo's propaganda machine afterall. They'be been revoked from covering Trump during the campaign because of heavy misquoting and lying.
Huffington is an opinion blog, it is not a news site. It's the samething as me reading the news the way I want it.
Journalism is about objectively covering what has happened and transpired not about opinion pieces like CNN which often make sensation claims and questions or NY Times making false accusations of Republicans and blindly covering for democrats.
I rather news sites objectively go after both parties and seek the truth out of politicians. You can sense all liberal media conforms to the same brand of progressive liberalism and not any sort of contrarian journalism. Because of their similarities most people are tired of reading and watching news that promotes the same agenda and offers insights to the problems of the country.
That's how we end up with Brexit and Trump. Rejection of liberal media propaganda.
Washington Post hate the concept of health care as a right and expansion of social security by lifting the cap on income subject to payroll tax. They are not liberal in that sense at all. They are owned by a man worth $60 billion who is a self professed libertarian; Jeff Bezos. They might dislike Trump for other reasons, mostly because he is erratic, but thats another story.
I think it's because they, Jeff Bozos et al, want 'free' trade and mass immigration, globalism and corporate communism and probably voter/ethnic displacement and replacement.
The Kim Jong Un article is about how he has remained in power.
The article about Rubio was not a warning against him at all but an article about how the GOP leaders need to sway him over to Tillerson and how important that is.
Obama laments country's deep partisan divisons: well, it's true. Should they not report on the current president and what he thinks. Not sure how this article is partisan. Seems partisan NOT to report what he said?
How about this one? In Trump pick, right-wing Israelis see a good friend. Reads fairly positive to me.
Optimism prevails among businesses as DC area shows strong job growth: Positive article on job situation since Trump's win.
I guess I'm really not seeing a left or right lean. None of the articles today seem overly harsh or critical but yes, they did report that the FBI is agreeing with the CIA now. Should they not report that?
Maybe I need to head on over to Breitbart (never looked at that one) to see what kind of journalism you're looking for.
Whenever you ask for an example it is usually sorely lacking any substance, I don't see anything wrong with that Kim Jon Un article. I think the OP may have a different definition of praise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
