I do. Tear down Trump and his Congress that took away your rights. Take your country back. We need to become vindictive.
yeah okay man
I'm not advocating violence, sorry that post was probably unclear. I mean that needs to be our message to win elections. We have to tell people what we will do, and also what Trump and Republicans have taken from them. Because there are going to be a lot of angry people in the next 4 years.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
Media consumption is more diverse than ever. It has no agenda-setting power
And yet all the outlets cover basically the same stuff somehow. They herd and look at each other for scoops and insights on what they should cover and ultimately it becomes pretty homogeneous. Which is another pervasive way Fox is dangerous.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
You cannot educate them. They do not want to educated.
We cannot afford to throw our allies - who suffer from discrimination and violence - under the bus just to appease racists and sexists. We can make outreach to people who voted for Obama, yet we somehow lost this time. We can focus on finding out who stayed home and why. We can try to energize our party and harness the populist anger.
But under no circumstances should we sacrifice the people who we desperately need to protect, to pick up votes in rural areas.
Bullshit. This is defeatist.
Something to consider.
My mother is a strong Trump supporter. I sent along a link to the 'Day 1 of Trump's America' that's been circulating along Facebook from Twitter, showing reports of hate crimes around the US.
She flat out denies that it's happening. She insists that the 'liberal media' is throwing a fit, and that these incidents are probably being staged by liberals. She sent me a link to O'Keefe's video showing Democrats being paid to protest in Trump rallies as "proof" that liberals do shitty things.
The problem is that she lives in a bubble. Every time I try to push back on her claims, she flat out denies it. When I push her for evidence, she claims that it "wouldn't change your mind, so why bother?". She insists that "Oblama" is causing the racial divide in the US, and this sentiment is echoed by my father. He doesn't vote (for stupid reasons), but it's a persistent mindset that they've had for years.
Albeit this is an anecdote, but I would have to agree with Roz there. They simply do not want to be educated. They live in a self-reinforcing bubble that's taught them to deny everything, and it's incredibly frustrating.
It's frustrating for me, because my (Asian) partner is now terrified of traveling to the US. And my family is going to frame this as not their fault, not the fault of Trump or the Republicans - it's the liberal media's fault for lying to us.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
if speech is free and money is speech you're not going to get legislation passed that prohibits people from making money off speech
it's just not going to happen
But someone can vote with their dollars for a non-profit organization even moreso than with a for-profit organization, in donations.
Maybe what we need is some sort of accreditation, that determines whether you're legally allowed to refer to yourself as a news organization based on your non-profit status. People could still run Fox News, they would not be allowed to call themselves "News", though.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
The first amendment prohibits everything you could conceivably propose to the end you want, with a long history of case law behind it. Start with reading Near vs. Minnesota.
But it would only get that far if you had a political consensus behind it, and you don't. Conservatives will oppose it alongside the ACLU wing of progressives. You wouldn't be able to muster 30% of the support you would need.
To which you will reply "but I really want it so it must be possible."
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
The first amendment prohibits everything you could conceivably propose to the end you want, with a long history of case law behind it. Start with reading Near vs. Minnesota.
But it would only get that far if you had a political consensus behind it, and you don't. Conservatives will oppose it alongside the ACLU wing of progressives. You wouldn't be able to muster 30% of the support you would need.
To which you will reply "but I really want it so it must be possible."
To which I reply "literally everyone hates the media right now". A bill that was sold as sticking it to the establishment for-profit media industry to instead prop up non-profit individual passion-driven reporting would absolutely fly with Trump voters.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
Where the real fun will begin is when they block something Trump wants that they don't.
I think we've all learned that Trump is not a man who likes to hear the word "No."
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The problem is that she lives in a bubble. Every time I try to push back on her claims, she flat out denies it. When I push her for evidence, she claims that it "wouldn't change your mind, so why bother?". She insists that "Oblama" is causing the racial divide in the US, and this sentiment is echoed by my father.
This is the problem, exactly.
When you want to have a discussion with someone, you both actually need to approach the table at least existing in the same reality as each other. If one party comes to the table in the full belief that the sky is red (which is roughly on the same scale as the things Trump voters would have to believe in order to vote Trump) you cannot have an actual discourse with that party.
One other thing to consider, a small silver lining in a sea of sludge - it looks like 60 million is the Republican cap. Our cap, based on Obama's numbers is in the 65 million range. It is possible for us to win, but we have to reallocate our votes. Which is what I think you guys are actually talking about. Right now certain zip codes just became immensely important, and if we have any hope of saving our republic, we have to pick up voters in those areas.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
The first amendment prohibits everything you could conceivably propose to the end you want, with a long history of case law behind it. Start with reading Near vs. Minnesota.
But it would only get that far if you had a political consensus behind it, and you don't. Conservatives will oppose it alongside the ACLU wing of progressives. You wouldn't be able to muster 30% of the support you would need.
To which you will reply "but I really want it so it must be possible."
To which I reply "literally everyone hates the media right now". A bill that was sold as sticking it to the establishment for-profit media industry to instead prop up non-profit individual passion-driven reporting would absolutely fly with Trump voters.
The truth, though, is that we are ignoring rural America.
And when I say this, I don't mean we need to pander to the policies they think they want. We need to educate them. We need to show that we even care what they think at all! Treating them like the enemy will never work.
What they claim they want is:
- Banning abortions
- Keeping minorities out of their communities
- No restrictions on guns, ever
If we bend on these, are we still liberals/progressives?
If we bend on these, why would they vote for is over the party that's always promised these?
Oh, and they hate when "liberal elites" try to educate them. They already know everything they want to know.
How, exactly, do you expect this situation to change?
You encourage turnout of people who agree with you, you continue to educate children, and you wait for racists and sexists to die.
We already outnumber them, we just need turnout.
The media killed turnout, and you know it. The media blew up the Comey shit.
The media fucked up everything. The media needs to change. I don't know how anyone cannot see this. We have to do something.
You're flipping cause and effect. The media covered what people wanted them to cover
Media agenda setting is incredibly powerful.
But the answer is just don't watch, don't give them clicks. Fuck them, especially the TV goliaths. Support good independent media with your money instead (TPM, for example) or even big papers that did a reasonable job like the Washington Post.
Media consumption is more diverse than ever. It has no agenda-setting power
And yet all the outlets cover basically the same stuff somehow. They herd and look at each other for scoops and insights on what they should cover and ultimately it becomes pretty homogeneous. Which is another pervasive way Fox is dangerous.
I can't think of any definition of "all the outlets" for which this is true
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited November 2016
META post - guys can we consider snipping the quote trees when they get more than 2-3 deep? Gigantic quote trees going back 6-7 posts are unnecessary for following an active conversation, and they make scrolling on mobile a paiiiinnnn
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Dhalphir on
+2
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
Anti-media sentiment is at an all-time high right now among everyone. Surely we could come up with a piece of legislation that would get pushed through even a GOP-dominated legislature if it was backed by all the pressure of anti-establishment sentiment.
i am 100% not interested in anti-media legislation
it would go against the very foundation of our society's ideals
you fight ideas, you don't silence them
Legislation that is against profit-motive-driven twisting of information is pro-media, in the sense of actually making sure truth is delivered to the people.
I seriously wonder what a world would be like if all media was non-profit.
so then everyone just goes to blogs
you can't silence the opinions you disagree with, even if they're wrong or fabricated
you have to overcome them
What do you think the blogs will be like once they become non-profit as well?
The fundamental concept behind for-profit news media is flawed: how can you tell people what's important when what makes them buy it is telling them what they want to hear?
winky you're not going to make it so every possible form of communication available is non-profit
You can prosecute any for-profit outlet that gets big enough to warrant it, which is all you really need anyway.
Who does the prosecuting? Who decides what's "big enough"? Who watches the watchmen?
The government departments that already exist to do these things?
I'm not drafting the legislature here, I'm saying "here's an idea that could work".
And we understand the situation better and are explaining to you why it can't
No, you're not explaining anything to me. In fact, you refused to.
The short answer from a person with only a passing amount of relevant information is "How do you expect the government to restructure the media in a way that at no point during or after the process screws up the whole 'The government can't not let you say things' thing?"
Is it possible? Theoretically, perhaps.
Is there even the slightest chance that one side or the other wouldn't claim shenanigans even if things were somehow going perfectly? NO.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
I have a take that might be wildly optimistic but I think isn't too improbable. Also disclaimer: I'm a white heterosexual man so I have the luxury to look at the situation from a relatively safe and detached place. I know lots of groups in society are super scared right now, and I don't mean to undermine entirely justified anxiety with a cynical political analysis. I just think it might be an interesting perspective. Here I go:
Isn't there a chance that this outcome, in the long-run, might be a net positive for both the country and the Democratic Party? Because it is in my opinion almost a certainty that his administration will collapse onto itself in a way I honestly don't think we've ever seen before. The result will be his already soft support (more on that later!) will collapse and Democrats sweeping into power again becomes highly likely. Not just sweeping into power but doing so in a country that has seen the terrifying alternative to the center-left party. My logic for his administration collapsing is this: when you assess our next President's obvious personality disorders you have someone who is literally incapable of even the simplest of interactions. This person: got mad at his VP for doing better at him in a debate, insulted his own audience members at rallies when he thought he was going to lose, stayed up for seemingly a week straight tweeting about something Mrs. Clinton said during a debate, and those are just off the top of my head. I mean it was only I believe a month ago that his own party was looking, however briefly, at ways to legally remove him from the ticket. He isn't going to pivot, and there isn't some master plan, because this all hasn't been some next-level gambit. It's the ramblings of an unhinged man. His campaign succeeded almost by accident (his form of thin-ski outrage was confused for sincere contempt for the establishment) but now he has to actually do something. I don't even think he's a fascist, I think he just says whatever gets the largest cheer from the audience. So when he inevitably gets push-back from his party and lashes out at/punishes them (and that will be his response; it's always the narcissist's response) it will pretty much spark the beginning of the end, because his team will spend most of their time fighting each other. And I don't think he will be forced into a ceremonial role because his personality disorders won't allow him to not get the maximum amount of attention, which requires doing things.
Obviously this is where the human element comes in, because having President Trump's support collapse will be a small consolation if it comes at the price of civil liberties for countless Americans.
As for his soft support: I know this is anecdotal, but I think his support is a lot more casual than is believed. Yes there is the core base that doesn't care about anything he says or does, but there are many that voted out of anti-establishment spite/morbid curiosity/etc. At my own workplace, which is blue collar and pretty much a stereotypical Trump stronghold, most of my coworkers who I believe voted for him openly acknowledge that he is a buffoon and probably can't (or won't) do anything he says he will. It won't take much for them to dismiss him as they have done other politicians.
I don't think this analysis is me looking for some impossibly good outcome. I realize that even if things break like I think they might it will still be several years of some dark policies that will hurt a lot of people. And I'm not expecting his administration to collapse in the first week and then Democrats and Republicans nobly join together and impeach him before the summer or anything. Just wanted to share!
Its possible i guess. Like Obama and co have said, something along the lines of "being president does not change you it emphasizes who you already are" or something like that. I think a lot of us are hoping for this to happen.
I certainly know that a few of the people in my office that voted Trump pretty much reacted about him the same way your did.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
Where the real fun will begin is when they block something Trump wants that they don't.
I think we've all learned that Trump is not a man who likes to hear the word "No."
Yep. I'm actually slightly comforted by something that Farage, of all people, said on election night; this was a hell of a run by an independent candidate.
Trump isn't a real Republican, for whatever that means. There's going to be infighting.
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Add "Minneapolis star tribune v. commissioner" to your reading list
I'm glad so many people know exactly what the stupid, failing DNC that got Obama elected twice did wrong this time around. I hope everyone calling for the DNC to be gutted is ready to sign up to replace them and lead the charge into 2020.
I'm a little concerned that the first mention I've heard of Clinton wilfully neglecting the Midwest is in this thread though, but I may have missed it back in the other threads in the good old days when we were all broadly on the same side.
Polling was off. The Clinton campaign was doing some weird stuff in the last days of the campaign. But everybody's polling was off. The only reason Trump was in the places he needed to be was because those were the only places he could be to make any difference.
it's kind of a blur now, that final rush (and then the crushing blackout), and I haven't gone back to look... but I do seem to recall something like, "Wisconsin? WTF is he doing in Wisconsin? and Michigan?"
and the assumption that he was flailing, that it was completely wasted effort.
The only guy who called it right was Michael Moore. I'm still amazed at that. And the backlash he got here for it!
I'm not going to search through 50,000 pages to find specific posts whining about it. I remember hedge and preacher were, for one thing. "It's a publicity stunt for his movie, PEC says this is 99% in the bag, etc"
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
I would love to increase funding to PBS and NPR so that they can afford to keep pace with for-profit media and fill that niche. Not gonna happen under a GOP Congress.
The point was, you can't take money away from media. They have to be able to afford to operate. Keeping a well-funded and well-regarded state-run alternative with different priorities helps keep for-profit media honest, but that requires winning.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
There is no level of republicans in government where blame does not fall on democrats/liberals. Every single government position in the country could be staffed by a hardcore republican and everything would still be the democrats' fault. If nothing else then "the democrats allowed this to happen" would be the go to.
Hell, a republican poster already used that excuse in this very thread.
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Which means that you're addressing what I'm proposing superficially because of the way I stated it.
Fox News is probably shitting themselves right now, I assure you.
Fox News does best when some large part of the government is controlled by democrates. That way they can endlessly parade democrate failure 24/7 to their die hard right wing audience.
Their audience doesn't want to hear the republicans did good things today, they don't want to hear the republicans messed up. They want to hear how someone who looks different acts different and thinks differently wants to do something bad and how the good guys will sweep in to save the day.
A republican led government for them is a potential ratings nightmare.
They care about audience share that drive profits, and this is their gimmick.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
There is no level of republicans in government where blame does not fall on democrats/liberals. Every single government position in the country could be staffed by a hardcore republican and everything would still be the democrats' fault. If nothing else then "the democrats allowed this to happen" would be the go to.
Hell, a republican poster already used that excuse in this very thread.
If nothing else it's their fault for not being elected.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Which means that you're addressing what I'm proposing superficially because of the way I stated it.
You want to control what the media says. That is your stated goal.
It doesn't matter how much deeper you go than that, or what method is used.
There is no way to do that that doesn't involve government intervention, and once you give the government the tools to control media, you can't take them back.
Long term, we need to humanize Democrats, and to do that we'll need to socialize with people who demonize us. But as long as we let Limbaugh describe us rather than being real people that other real people know, there is no "educating" that will happen. It is a non-starter. You become not The Enemy, and people will figure the rest out themselves.
But short term: enthusiasm.
This.
The #1 way that (some!) _ists stop being _ists (other than dying, maybe) is that they meet someone and learn they're not a monster, not an Other, not a freak, but a person.
Maybe it never gets further than that for them, and they're able to tell themselves that one person is just "one of the good ones".
Sometimes it does go further, though.
Look up Dunbar's number, aka "the monkeysphere"; we are literally wired to 'Other' people outside of our tribe(s), not treat them as fully human, fully people.
But if there's a fix for that, it starts with interacting with someone from the Other group in a context where we see they're something more than that label, that convenient and/or horrible stereotype.
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Add "Minneapolis star tribune v. commissioner" to your reading list
This ruling's not exactly relevant: it found that you can't have different taxes applied to the press without substantial justification.
What I'm proposing is not a tax, and the justification for it rather substantial!
More of us staying in the Midwest and fighting to change from within is a good start. Almost all my liberal friends from high school have moved to a coast.
That said, I still want to move to a state that actually gives a shit about teachers.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Maybe it never gets further than that for them, and they're able to tell themselves that one person is just "one of the good ones".
Sometimes it does go further, though.
It does not go further often enough to be statistically relevant.
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Which means that you're addressing what I'm proposing superficially because of the way I stated it.
You want to control what the media says. That is your stated goal.
It doesn't matter how much deeper you go than that, or what method is used.
There is no way to do that that doesn't involve government intervention, and once you give the government the tools to control media, you can't take them back.
I think that this is an unhealthy way to approach the first amendment, and is just as bad as the way the NRA treats the second amendment.
Both sides thought the media was biased so they are probably doing OK.
Because the media is biased. The media is biased towards profit.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Add "Minneapolis star tribune v. commissioner" to your reading list
This ruling's not exactly relevant: it found that you can't have different taxes applied to the press without substantial justification.
What I'm proposing is not a tax, and the justification for it rather substantial!
You missed *why* you can't have different taxes. Because it would give the government the power to influence publication. You are trying to directly influence publication.
There is no court in this country that would agree with your definition of "substantial."
+1
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Which means that you're addressing what I'm proposing superficially because of the way I stated it.
You want to control what the media says. That is your stated goal.
It doesn't matter how much deeper you go than that, or what method is used.
There is no way to do that that doesn't involve government intervention, and once you give the government the tools to control media, you can't take them back.
I think that this is an unhealthy way to approach the first amendment, and is just as bad as the way the NRA treats the second amendment.
Cool. It really doesn't matter.
You want to give the government power to influence what the media publishes. The moment they can do that, the population loses.
Particularly since we just got a full Republican government! What incentive would they have to do anything but push the same old FOX news agenda?
Any power you want to give the government we used to have to pretend Bush could have that power, now we have to pretend Donald motherfucking Trump would have that power.
Think about Trump with censorship powers.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Any power you want to give the government we used to have to pretend Bush could have that power, now we have to pretend Donald motherfucking Trump would have that power.
Think about Trump with censorship powers.
I am not describing censorship.
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
Oh hey
Steve Bannon might have a high position in a Trump administration
Who knew Grumble Grate was more serious than people thought it was
I'm looking through (lefty) predictions of Trump winning and why, and it's basically Moore and like David Wong from Cracked that got it. I can't believe how myopic everyone else was. I was!
Beijer had a pretty good inkling as to what was going on.
Posts
I'm not advocating violence, sorry that post was probably unclear. I mean that needs to be our message to win elections. We have to tell people what we will do, and also what Trump and Republicans have taken from them. Because there are going to be a lot of angry people in the next 4 years.
And yet all the outlets cover basically the same stuff somehow. They herd and look at each other for scoops and insights on what they should cover and ultimately it becomes pretty homogeneous. Which is another pervasive way Fox is dangerous.
Winky, there's nothing you can do here. Think it through:
Journalists need to make a living, or they aren't journalists, they'll chose a career where they can, you know, eat. If media that might employ journalists cannot solicit for revenue, the government must fund it. If the government is funding it, a government offended by the content can defund it. If it can be defunded, it has motive to tailor it's content so as not to risk that funding.
You've reduced the number of information sources but done nothing to decouple it from bias.
Something to consider.
My mother is a strong Trump supporter. I sent along a link to the 'Day 1 of Trump's America' that's been circulating along Facebook from Twitter, showing reports of hate crimes around the US.
She flat out denies that it's happening. She insists that the 'liberal media' is throwing a fit, and that these incidents are probably being staged by liberals. She sent me a link to O'Keefe's video showing Democrats being paid to protest in Trump rallies as "proof" that liberals do shitty things.
The problem is that she lives in a bubble. Every time I try to push back on her claims, she flat out denies it. When I push her for evidence, she claims that it "wouldn't change your mind, so why bother?". She insists that "Oblama" is causing the racial divide in the US, and this sentiment is echoed by my father. He doesn't vote (for stupid reasons), but it's a persistent mindset that they've had for years.
Albeit this is an anecdote, but I would have to agree with Roz there. They simply do not want to be educated. They live in a self-reinforcing bubble that's taught them to deny everything, and it's incredibly frustrating.
It's frustrating for me, because my (Asian) partner is now terrified of traveling to the US. And my family is going to frame this as not their fault, not the fault of Trump or the Republicans - it's the liberal media's fault for lying to us.
How can you possibly engage someone like this?
But someone can vote with their dollars for a non-profit organization even moreso than with a for-profit organization, in donations.
Maybe what we need is some sort of accreditation, that determines whether you're legally allowed to refer to yourself as a news organization based on your non-profit status. People could still run Fox News, they would not be allowed to call themselves "News", though.
I genuinely wonder if the House and Senate are feeling like this too. They've been obstructionist for so long, and now they can actually do stuff without being able to say "sorry, that nasty Democrat President is preventing all your hopes and dreams".
I mean, I wish you guys didn't get to empirically test this, but at least 2018 isn't that far away.
The first amendment prohibits everything you could conceivably propose to the end you want, with a long history of case law behind it. Start with reading Near vs. Minnesota.
But it would only get that far if you had a political consensus behind it, and you don't. Conservatives will oppose it alongside the ACLU wing of progressives. You wouldn't be able to muster 30% of the support you would need.
To which you will reply "but I really want it so it must be possible."
Because everyone thinks that NPR and BBC are shitty news organizations, right?
What you are proposing is full-stop barred by the First Amendment.
To which I reply "literally everyone hates the media right now". A bill that was sold as sticking it to the establishment for-profit media industry to instead prop up non-profit individual passion-driven reporting would absolutely fly with Trump voters.
Where the real fun will begin is when they block something Trump wants that they don't.
I think we've all learned that Trump is not a man who likes to hear the word "No."
This is the problem, exactly.
When you want to have a discussion with someone, you both actually need to approach the table at least existing in the same reality as each other. If one party comes to the table in the full belief that the sky is red (which is roughly on the same scale as the things Trump voters would have to believe in order to vote Trump) you cannot have an actual discourse with that party.
everyone hates the media
no one wants the media they don't hate silenced
it's the same problem as everyone hating congress
I can't think of any definition of "all the outlets" for which this is true
Again, make it an accreditation: if you meet these criteria, you may represent yourself as a news outlet. If not, you must put this disclaimer. FDA-style.
Who makes it so?
I really don't mean to be condescending, but I can't say this without it coming off that way. The only time I have ever heard anyone use the phrase "why don't we make it so <x>" (or some paraphrasing thereof) "x" is, without exception, some hopelessly naive thing that ignores almost everything about the way government and society works. And your insistence that we can regulate the media without risking freedom of the press is no exception.
Is it possible? Theoretically, perhaps.
Is there even the slightest chance that one side or the other wouldn't claim shenanigans even if things were somehow going perfectly? NO.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Its possible i guess. Like Obama and co have said, something along the lines of "being president does not change you it emphasizes who you already are" or something like that. I think a lot of us are hoping for this to happen.
I certainly know that a few of the people in my office that voted Trump pretty much reacted about him the same way your did.
Yep. I'm actually slightly comforted by something that Farage, of all people, said on election night; this was a hell of a run by an independent candidate.
Trump isn't a real Republican, for whatever that means. There's going to be infighting.
Add "Minneapolis star tribune v. commissioner" to your reading list
Hi there
I would love to increase funding to PBS and NPR so that they can afford to keep pace with for-profit media and fill that niche. Not gonna happen under a GOP Congress.
The point was, you can't take money away from media. They have to be able to afford to operate. Keeping a well-funded and well-regarded state-run alternative with different priorities helps keep for-profit media honest, but that requires winning.
Cart before horse.
There is no level of republicans in government where blame does not fall on democrats/liberals. Every single government position in the country could be staffed by a hardcore republican and everything would still be the democrats' fault. If nothing else then "the democrats allowed this to happen" would be the go to.
Hell, a republican poster already used that excuse in this very thread.
Which means that you're addressing what I'm proposing superficially because of the way I stated it.
If nothing else it's their fault for not being elected.
You want to control what the media says. That is your stated goal.
It doesn't matter how much deeper you go than that, or what method is used.
There is no way to do that that doesn't involve government intervention, and once you give the government the tools to control media, you can't take them back.
This.
The #1 way that (some!) _ists stop being _ists (other than dying, maybe) is that they meet someone and learn they're not a monster, not an Other, not a freak, but a person.
Maybe it never gets further than that for them, and they're able to tell themselves that one person is just "one of the good ones".
Sometimes it does go further, though.
Look up Dunbar's number, aka "the monkeysphere"; we are literally wired to 'Other' people outside of our tribe(s), not treat them as fully human, fully people.
But if there's a fix for that, it starts with interacting with someone from the Other group in a context where we see they're something more than that label, that convenient and/or horrible stereotype.
This ruling's not exactly relevant: it found that you can't have different taxes applied to the press without substantial justification.
What I'm proposing is not a tax, and the justification for it rather substantial!
That said, I still want to move to a state that actually gives a shit about teachers.
It does not go further often enough to be statistically relevant.
I think that this is an unhealthy way to approach the first amendment, and is just as bad as the way the NRA treats the second amendment.
You missed *why* you can't have different taxes. Because it would give the government the power to influence publication. You are trying to directly influence publication.
There is no court in this country that would agree with your definition of "substantial."
Cool. It really doesn't matter.
You want to give the government power to influence what the media publishes. The moment they can do that, the population loses.
Particularly since we just got a full Republican government! What incentive would they have to do anything but push the same old FOX news agenda?
Think about Trump with censorship powers.
I am not describing censorship.
Steve Bannon might have a high position in a Trump administration
Who knew Grumble Grate was more serious than people thought it was
Beijer had a pretty good inkling as to what was going on.
http://www.carlbeijer.com/2016/05/you-have-choice.html
And, as I recall, so did Bruenig and deBoer, but their Twitter exodus makes it a bit more difficult to dig their prognostications up.
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.