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
Message to all politicians: What are you gonna do for me? Why should I shoot myself in the foot if you're going to benefit and I won't?
Because politicians, first and foremost, represent themselves. Example: Obama breaks the record in deportations one year, then in the next, just before an election, he introduces a pathway to citizenship.
edited 15th Nov '12 12:22:55 AM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.![]()
To answer you though, I just replied to Potatoes Rock that way because I didn't want this criticism against cult of centrism to go out of control. If we agree there, that's great. I just wanted to make a "to be fair" point.
edited 15th Nov '12 12:25:48 AM by Trivialis
And I was expanding to Handle's comment that it's the GOP at fault, noting the articles he linked were adding onto that while the scientists were condemning the GOP's 4x Right Ward Lurch, it needs to be framed in conjunction that said political scientists were also blaming the "Cult of Centrism" in the news media for letting the GOP run so far to the right as they've had, and not providing a counterbalancing agent.
Oh, I think I see.
No, objective doesn't mean "anything I disagree with."
It means, well, objective.
If you abandon the notion of objectivity because "What does it objectively mean to be objective-and no self-definitions!" you've literally just abandoned logic entirely. Like, there's a whole lot of metaphilosophical discussion about post-modernism, but, uhh, that's a really nasty can of worms I don't wanna open.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29
Certainly, people disagree on the topic.
@Potatoes Rock
In my original response, I was repelled at the notion of news trying to achieve some kind of ideology, as it goes too far in trying to discover truth beyond its proper role. It felt like "we should make enemies out of the Republicans", something that just doesn't sit right with me. You probably didn't mean it that strongly; I was just making a counterpoint in advance in case such strong implication was still floating around.
I'd add, though, that the two-party system is largely at fault for making the situation so hostile to everyone. It concentrates powers too heavily on the major parties that, any strong stance (including "trying too hard to be a centrist") is going to be burdensome.
So, how far should a news media go in fact-checking before it lets people make their own decisions?
Basically, I was saying to Handle: "Yes, the GOP members of Congress are causing a lot of gridlock due to irrational/bad behavior, enabled by radical elements in their own party, BUT, according to the article, part of the problem is that the Journalism Industry is not doing their job (according to the scientists) by pointing out how Tin-Foil hat a lot of the GOP's behavior is."
—-
Personally though: I do think the Republican Party (specifically its politicians) need something equal to a wake-up call/detox. As the party's positions lurching 22 points to the right while the Democrats have gone 6 to the left doesn't sound like a good thing to me. :x And until they reverse course somehow, they kind of need the roasting.
edited 15th Nov '12 1:05:15 AM by PotatoesRock
News outlets should always be as factually correct as possible. It is their job, that they chose, to inform people of the goings on in the world. They have a professional duty to fact check as far as humanly possible, Triv. Otherwise they simply aren't trustworthy.
Letting people make up their own minds is all well and good, but if you're deliberately lying or obscuring the facts, or even just not making sure you're reporting things correctly, then you're deliberately letting people make up their minds on false and incorrect information. Not everyone has all the time in the world to cross check over the internet. That shit takes time they need to spend on other things.
As a rule, I'm fine with news guys having and expressing their opinions. I just want them to meet some damn standards as regards truthfulness and generally not lying about things.
edited 15th Nov '12 1:05:10 AM by AceofSpades
I would say that news should be "This is what we have; work with it." News should strive to be better at facts, but at the same time encourage viewers to research as well.
I think this criterion for where to draw boundaries is ultimately debatable. I mean, a more obvious example case is how CNN and Fox botched the PPACA ruling report. A more subtle and difficult case is divergence in what people claim, about complex views and explanations.
Therefore I don't see reporting both statements X and Y as bad in itself, though it varies. If there's some other argument that challenges Y, you present that too (but if you can't find that rebuttal, however, then you should give Y the benefit of the doubt for the time being). Key point: if you have information to challenge, you find other sources to verify that and present that as part of the news. If you make your own assertions why X is better than Y, then you're admitting that you're just as opinionated as anyone you're reporting about.
That's not what I'm saying. Again, how far should news go in pursuit of research, when its job is inherently secondary source reporting? You know that there's a difference between these two cases:
1) Supreme Court upholds Obamacare: yes or no.
2) These groups claim these things about economy, based on these positions of group leaders, based on these economic advisers, based on these economic researchers, ... (ad nauseum)
^^
Indeed. By the time they've checked it three times, couldn't something else have happened which makes the information out of date?*
@ Trivialis: Do you want News Programs to present just the basic Facts, and thus last five-ten minutes?
edited 15th Nov '12 1:33:35 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnThere's nothing wrong with having basic facts as a starting point, but of course a news gets better with more information and more verification on it. On the other hand, I don't expect news to completely overlap with research and submit 3,000-page dissertations.
I still think maybe you're talking about the obvious case 1, when I meant more than that.
Anyway, I was just bugged about the over-saturation of cult of centrism talk, despite other people already admitting before that it's a loaded term. I want to say that not all neutral sources are overdoing it or having bad intentions, and I'm just as annoyed with propaganda.
Exactly what I said. It's something that is often implied on the complaints part of the BBC News here; some (particularly older people), don't want analysis, celebrity news, or anything like that. I get the feeling they don't particularly care that it can't be reduced to that — if it can't be reduced to that, they'd probably not want it reported at all. But that may just be a different style of Moral Guardian, combined with Grumpy Old Man.
edited 15th Nov '12 1:49:33 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnMaking clear distinction between more reducible cases of "events" and opinion pages helps. I know certain newspapers having that.
I guess the trade-off of digging deeper and deeper into more subtle and complex propositions is that you tend to become more commentary-based than report-based. And if you don't keep yourself under control in that process, you risk becoming "partisan"; the tone becomes such that you favor one side, praising its victories and condemning the opposition, instead of being focused on the news. It develops an "attitude" and you tend to spin the news in favor of a side.
That's what happens to certain news sources that may have started with good intentions to be more reliable.
edited 15th Nov '12 2:04:31 AM by Trivialis
Boehner Rejects Obama’s Request to Extend Middle Class Tax Cut
![]()
The general idea is to be objective as possible but try not to comment on things that cannot or haven't been proven fact yet. In the christ-dino video you wouldn't even invite that lady on because her views are simply false. You would invite a creationist on with more sensible views.
Unsurprising. They'll play this game until the deadline then concede or have to explain why tax cuts are bad.
edited 15th Nov '12 3:41:53 AM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?Okay I just want to say this. If a news station doesn't report the facts they should not be allowed to broadcast themselves as "news." I don't give a damn what political affiliation they are so long as they can back up their assertions. Unfortunately Fox News has said screw that to the notion of telling the truth and it has poisoned the other outlets because they don't want to be seen as partisan. Now if the facts say that the GOP is wrong then they should be called out on this by news stations that aren't afraid of being screamed at for being partisan and liberal shills.
In short there need to be laws that restrict lying and if Fox News can't continue to operate in this environment then too bad. Their loss will be of no consequence.
Why would you invite a creationist at all? Look regardless of what people think evolution is real. Teaching the controversy is stupid and causes people to think there's actual doubt behind it when in fact there's practically none.
edited 15th Nov '12 4:42:59 AM by Kostya
![]()
If there is a thing as a Creationist with "sensible" views, I have yet to meet him.
Seriously, they all simply appwar to have their hands in the hears and yell "nanana, I cannot hear your scientific facts!"
I still wish that the remark to Romneys "we will our campaign not be influenced by fact-checkers" would have been answered by the press with "Sir, WE are Fact-Checkers."

I hated that.
edited 15th Nov '12 12:19:43 AM by Completion