Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist who has extensively studied the role of economic conditions and other fundamentals in presidential outcomes, agrees. Given the magnitude of the pandemic's impact, "I probably would have expected that it would hurt him more than it has and Trump's [approval and vote share] numbers would have dropped into the mid-30s," he told me. "You would think Biden would be up 15 or 20, not 6 or 7 or 8 points. As long as it stays in that range, there's still that outside chance ... [Trump] can eke out narrow wins in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin and he could still win the electoral vote. I don't think that's very likely, but it's not inconceivable."
I feel like this is a reflection on how US politics become increasingly hardline and identity-driven - or at worst radicalized - in the past several decades, although it's more visible on the conservative side of the country. Trump even once said that he could shoot someone in public and people will still vote for him. Maybe he's right. Conversely, the CNN is also spinning so many laughably partisan and/or fearmongering stories that they might as well be the liberal Fox News.
-Brian Schaffner, Tufts University political scientist
The reality is, America - and probably most of the western world - will be up against a long, petty and arduous culture war.
Edited by Lazlo74 on Sep 15th 2020 at 4:15:23 AM
Scaled seeker![]()
And again, I think you're ascribing too much intelligence to someone who willingly works for Trump's reelection campaign.
Yeah CNN doesn't have a liberal bias, it has a horse-race bias and engages in a ton of bothsidism while also pushing for whatever will generate the most headlines.
CNN is a huge part of why Trump won the Republican primary in 2016, because they gave him a ton of free air time that nobody else got.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranDidn't even realize that, considering how buddy-buddy they have been to Biden throughout this year. The "any news outlet that doesn't kiss the GOP's ass is fake news lamestream media" accusation from the right is a given, but I honestly didn't believe that the CNN's reputation is also poor among the left-wing.
Scaled seekerCNN is widely viewed as enabling Trump's victory in 2016 by playing up the scandals attaching to Hillary Clinton instead of discussing the actual merits of the candidates' platforms. CNN wanted a horse race, so it manufactured one.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"CNN is considered to be the Enlightened Centrist option of the various popular news channels, although it's got a lot of the above artificial forced competition mixed into the usual Golden Mean Fallacy. It's only "pro-Biden" insofar as supporting Trump is potentially damaging to its bottom line, and reporting honestly on Trump's atrocities relative to Biden's gaffes will end up making the latter look better by comparison.
Edited by AlleyOop on Sep 15th 2020 at 8:06:58 AM
The problem is that CNN tries to be unbiased, and that means giving air to stories that are bad for Democrats, and to commentators who bring Republican talking points. This may be good from a journalistic standpoint, but it bites you in the ass when one side is perfectly willing and able to abuse it to their own ends.
Again, there is nothing wrong with showing both sides of an issue in principle. The real problem is that Republicans exploit this to their own end by arguing in bad faith.
And yeah, they give air to stories unflattering to Democrats, but that is their job. They would be terrible journalists if they didn't do that.
Saying that CNN is liberal Fox News is both wrongheaded and plays right into the fake news narrative.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThe problem with the CNN-type bothsidism is that it gives the same amount of coverage/gravitas to Trump/Republican atrocities as to Biden/Democratic gaffes (stealing the phrase from AlleyOop). IIRC, Biden's "you ain't black" gaffe, ill-advised though it was, got about as much coverage on a lot of mainstream outlets as Trump/his admin. basically leaving "blue states" out to dry during the early days of the pandemic, their lies about vote-by-mail, the outrage of the DHS in Portland, etc. The two take up equivalent amounts of space, which is incredibly lopsided.
US halts imports from China's Xinjiang region over Uighur forced labor.
Edit: a disclaimer that I get my impressions of CNN from the international version. From what I understand, they are not quite the same as the US version.
It really is being stuck between a rock and a hard place, journalistically speaking. What were they supposed to do with Biden's gaffe, ignore it? They can't really do that in good conscience either.
I think the real problem is not so much that they cover both sides, but the way they cover them, and the guests they interview.
Which is another problem. They can't just not invite Republicans to have a say on whatever news story they are having. That is not good journalism. So what are they supposed to do, vet their experts for their opinion beforehand? That would be censorship, and that's not exactly conducive to a free press either.
I think we should put blame where it belongs: with Republicans who argue in bad faith and take advantage of good journalistic practices to push their agenda, not with news agencies who at least try to maintain a standard of journalistic integrity.
up]
I think that is a much more relevant complaint: CNN does tend towards breathless sensationalism.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 2:43:02 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times![]()
I would argue that providing a platform to those who argue in bad faith is in violation of journalistic integrity.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 15th 2020 at 8:42:57 AM
My musician pageWisconsin Supreme Court rules Green Party presidential ticket is ineligible for state ballot – Under state law, more than 1 million absentee ballots that have already been requested are supposed to be mailed by Thursday.
And nothing of value was lost?
What were they supposed to do with Biden's gaffe, ignore it? They can't really do that in good conscience either.
I think the real problem is not so much that they cover both sides, but the way they cover them, and the guests they interview.
I agree with you here,
not with news agencies who at least try to maintain a standard of journalistic integrity.
but not here.
My beef with the specific coverage of Biden's gaffe was not that they covered it in the first place, but that it was a headline story on the main page for multiple outlets, that they (each!) wrote multiple articles over the course of a couple days analyzing it from a bunch of different angles. I've seen much worse Trump news stories that were treated like a footnote and barely followed up on. It's the disparity in coverage and treatment that grates.
I think a better response to arguments in bad faith is to provide stronger pushback against them, and to expose it for what it is, rather than treating it as valid arguments. I think that is partly on Democratic commentators to have good counter-arguments and be able to spot bad arguments.
As for Biden's gaffes, I agree they should not be weighed equally to Trump scandals, but you still need to cover them somewhat. And the gaffe in question was deserving of scrutiny and pushback.
I think part of the problem there is that Trump has so many scandals that many of them inevitably become footnotes. I'm sure most of you don't even remember half the scandals from last year, let alone Trump's first year in office.
And that's kind of the mad genius of Trump: he creates so many scandals that few even stand out any more. And when someone else, like Biden, has a scandal (and it was, if a minor one) it automatically stands out because Biden does not have three scandals a week.
Edited by Redmess on Sep 15th 2020 at 2:50:20 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times![]()
My argument against providing stronger pushback instead of just not allowing them on the platform is that it’s the same as Disregard That Statement. You can’t just take an idea out of a listener’s head, but you can stop it from getting there in the first place.
About the most you can say is say “x has this belief, here’s the problems with it” and not provide any of the “pro” arguments, for example, if they’re an anti-vaxxer, just say they are, and call them out. Don’t let them make arguments in favor of it.
Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Sep 15th 2020 at 8:52:30 AM
My musician page

Exposure is all the pay they need
"You can reply to this Message!"