Yeah there were several headlines this cycle that were directly contradicted by the article. And I can't help but notice the pattern.
This happens a lot; click bait just refined it to an art.
Have you noticed that if you go to Cracked, then go back the next day, the article you read usually changes title?
And yet you're annoyed that anyone criticizes it.
If I was, why would I say it?
I'm annoyed at people blaming journalists for Trump. I think journalists did a good job of warning the American public about Trump being a dangerous lunatic. The American public ignored them like a bunch of Cassandras.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking about journalism. I love reading the media, talking about what I read.
Yeah there were several headlines this cycle that were directly contradicted by the article. And I can't help but notice the pattern.
This happens a lot; click bait just refined it to an art.
Have you noticed that if you go to Cracked, then go back the next day, the article you read usually changes title?
And yet you're annoyed that anyone criticizes it.
If I was, why would I say it?
I'm annoyed at people blaming journalists for Trump. I think journalists did a good job of warning the American public about Trump being a dangerous lunatic. The American public ignored them like a bunch of Cassandras.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking about journalism. I love reading the media, talking about what I read.
Look again at the word cloud about what people had heard about him. If they did, it didn't penetrate. And clearly they are capable of conveying a negative story, as you just need to look at Hillary's word cloud.
Or maybe they gave him billions of dollars in free air time to say whatever the fuck he wanted and that penetrated. Which story fits better with the election results?
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Word clouds I don't care about. Pretty things but not much meaning.
It'd be interesting to know what voters in swing states, the only ones that matter, heard about him. It seemed that they heard his bullshit because the polls went down every time he made a gaffe, but they seemed to forget within a week as he made some new gaffe. No need to blame "the media" for that - mentally normal adults can remember more than 3 facts about a person. It seemed that they just loved his substantive policies (Muslim hate, build the wall, jail Clinton) so much they couldn't stay mad at him long.
Word clouds absolutely do have meaning, you silly goose.
About as much meaning as any unsourced graph with no scale.
Mind you, they look lovely on student walls.
I work for a polling company, and we routinely include word clouds in our materials for the client to examine, when we ask respondents for their thoughts in the survey. We do not do this for shits and giggles, we do this because actual information is contained within the image. Clearly you don't know how to interpret those word clouds (hint: a bullshit scandal was present consistently and in large numbers for Clinton, while nothing stuck to Trump), but that does not mean they are primarily ornamental.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but that was my first impression until I read about it too. Considering how much skin minorities of all stripes have in the game, I do kinda tend to agree.
Looking at the entire Tweet-stream, Joan's very first response was: "Why are you uneasy that it's led by women?" which, I think, is unfair and needlessly combative. His point was valid. His response above I found somewhat amusing given the context that she was kind of a dick to him first. He didn't rise to the bait but he threw in some sass. I didn't read it as being bad-natured and he's still supporting the event.
Then again, I don't know who he is so maybe there's further context I'm not getting.
Looking at the entire Tweet-stream, Joan's very first response was: "Why are you uneasy that it's led by women?" which, I think, is unfair and needlessly combative. His point was valid. His response above I found somewhat amusing given the context that she was kind of a dick to him first. He didn't rise to the bait but he threw in some sass. I didn't read it as being bad-natured and he's still supporting the event.
Then again, I don't know who he is so maybe there's further context I'm not getting.
Chait hates any politics that don't put the concerns of straight white dudes at the forefront.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Looking at the entire Tweet-stream, Joan's very first response was: "Why are you uneasy that it's led by women?" which, I think, is unfair and needlessly combative. His point was valid. His response above I found somewhat amusing given the context that she was kind of a dick to him first. He didn't rise to the bait but he threw in some sass. I didn't read it as being bad-natured and he's still supporting the event.
Then again, I don't know who he is so maybe there's further context I'm not getting.
Whats combative about it? I don't get it. Chait decides to shit on something and someone fires back at him. That Chait then responds by acting like a child is flat out pathetic.
Looking at the entire Tweet-stream, Joan's very first response was: "Why are you uneasy that it's led by women?" which, I think, is unfair and needlessly combative. His point was valid. His response above I found somewhat amusing given the context that she was kind of a dick to him first. He didn't rise to the bait but he threw in some sass. I didn't read it as being bad-natured and he's still supporting the event.
Then again, I don't know who he is so maybe there's further context I'm not getting.
The reason that it's called the Women's March is because it was women's advocacy groups that did the planning and organization initially, and then other groups gravitated to their work. Changing the name would erase their work and leadership. Furthermore, Chait has a reputation for being a goose on these sorts of issues.
In short, Chait arguing for the name to be changed, erasing the work women did to set it up, because of how he feels events should be marketed to include men like him is neither a value-free nor amusing, and her comment got right to the point of why his request was actually rather offensive.
Newt Gingrich, a prominent supporter of President-elect Donald Trump and a Fox News contributor, would like to shatter the influence of an “adversarial” press. And he thinks Trump’s press conference confrontation with CNN reporter Jim Acosta has given the incoming administration the opportunity to dramatically reshape White House press interactions to favor journalists who will treat the president-elect more favorably.
During Trump’s January 11 presser, he lashed out at CNN and demanded the network apologize for a recent report on his alleged ties to Russia, and Acosta repeatedly called out, seeking to ask a question in response. Trump replied by calling CNN “terrible,” castigating Acosta for being “rude,” and declaring, “I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news!” Sean Spicer, who will serve as Trump’s White House press secretary, subsequently told Acosta that he would be removed if he continued to press for a question, and Spicer later demanded that the reporter apologize to the president-elect.
Team Trump’s efforts seem intended to both damage the credibility of CNN and cow other networks into shying away from similarly critical journalism -- as Gingrich put it, to “shrink and isolate” the network. But the Fox News contributor wants the incoming administration to go even further and use the incident as an excuse to “close down the elite press.”
Gingrich laid out this strategy during an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, one of the most pro-Trump venues available. He urged Spicer to learn “a couple of big lessons” from the incident. First and foremost, he suggested that Acosta be banned from reporting on Trump events for 60 days “as a signal, frankly, to all the other reporters that there are going to be real limits” for proper behavior.
[...]
UPDATE: Gingrich is not alone in urging Trump to freeze out the press. Following Trump's election, Hannity stated that "until members of the media come clean about colluding with the Clinton campaign and admit that they knowingly broke every ethical standard they are supposed to uphold, they should not have the privilege, they should not have the responsibility of covering the president on behalf of you, the American people."
"In other words, the mainstream press should not be allowed to cover Trump," New York University's Jay Rosen wrote in response to Hannity's comments. "A few years ago that was a bridge too far. Now it’s a plausible test of poisoned waters." It looks like we'll see more of those tests in the days to come.
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above "Have mercy, now save poor Bob, if you please
Newt Gingrich, a prominent supporter of President-elect Donald Trump and a Fox News contributor, would like to shatter the influence of an “adversarial” press. And he thinks Trump’s press conference confrontation with CNN reporter Jim Acosta has given the incoming administration the opportunity to dramatically reshape White House press interactions to favor journalists who will treat the president-elect more favorably.
During Trump’s January 11 presser, he lashed out at CNN and demanded the network apologize for a recent report on his alleged ties to Russia, and Acosta repeatedly called out, seeking to ask a question in response. Trump replied by calling CNN “terrible,” castigating Acosta for being “rude,” and declaring, “I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news!” Sean Spicer, who will serve as Trump’s White House press secretary, subsequently told Acosta that he would be removed if he continued to press for a question, and Spicer later demanded that the reporter apologize to the president-elect.
Team Trump’s efforts seem intended to both damage the credibility of CNN and cow other networks into shying away from similarly critical journalism -- as Gingrich put it, to “shrink and isolate” the network. But the Fox News contributor wants the incoming administration to go even further and use the incident as an excuse to “close down the elite press.”
Gingrich laid out this strategy during an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program, one of the most pro-Trump venues available. He urged Spicer to learn “a couple of big lessons” from the incident. First and foremost, he suggested that Acosta be banned from reporting on Trump events for 60 days “as a signal, frankly, to all the other reporters that there are going to be real limits” for proper behavior.
[...]
UPDATE: Gingrich is not alone in urging Trump to freeze out the press. Following Trump's election, Hannity stated that "until members of the media come clean about colluding with the Clinton campaign and admit that they knowingly broke every ethical standard they are supposed to uphold, they should not have the privilege, they should not have the responsibility of covering the president on behalf of you, the American people."
"In other words, the mainstream press should not be allowed to cover Trump," New York University's Jay Rosen wrote in response to Hannity's comments. "A few years ago that was a bridge too far. Now it’s a plausible test of poisoned waters." It looks like we'll see more of those tests in the days to come.
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above "Have mercy, now save poor Bob, if you please
*shrug*
aren't we always talking about how access journalism is horseshit anyway
I know administrations have played that kind of game before, but I don't think they've ever bothered to be this brazen about their intentions. The narrative that the SCLM is already in the tank as anti-Trump and that they need to be brought into line with the lessor systems is about as over-the-top as it goes.
If there is any 'positive', it will be that we'll be able to permanently side-eye all that cave. But elevating Brietbart and Infowars is quite chilling.
Yeah there were several headlines this cycle that were directly contradicted by the article. And I can't help but notice the pattern.
This happens a lot; click bait just refined it to an art.
Have you noticed that if you go to Cracked, then go back the next day, the article you read usually changes title?
And yet you're annoyed that anyone criticizes it.
If I was, why would I say it?
I'm annoyed at people blaming journalists for Trump. I think journalists did a good job of warning the American public about Trump being a dangerous lunatic. The American public ignored them like a bunch of Cassandras.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking about journalism. I love reading the media, talking about what I read.
This falls flat when their actions depicted Hillary as the bigger evil. That's a reason why Trump was able to get away with a lot more.
Yeah there were several headlines this cycle that were directly contradicted by the article. And I can't help but notice the pattern.
This happens a lot; click bait just refined it to an art.
Have you noticed that if you go to Cracked, then go back the next day, the article you read usually changes title?
And yet you're annoyed that anyone criticizes it.
If I was, why would I say it?
I'm annoyed at people blaming journalists for Trump. I think journalists did a good job of warning the American public about Trump being a dangerous lunatic. The American public ignored them like a bunch of Cassandras.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking about journalism. I love reading the media, talking about what I read.
You are saying it. Via getting upset that anyone dare point out that the media treated both candidates as if they were equally malignant.
You want reporters to report anything they see with no attempt at fact checking or editorializing. I do not. It's not a fault for me to desire higher standards than you have for the press. Cause while you think reporting on a fake scandal for months on end is okay I do not.
The first 2017 AMA of /r/the_donald! Introducing their newest hero: Tucker Carlson.
TryCatcher on
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
Which just goes to show that all the satire in the world was simply screaming into the wind. The one single thing that Jon Stewart definitely claim to have accomplished on The Daily Show was getting Carlson's terrible show cancelled. And now Carlson's back with a new terrible show having learned nothing and changed even less.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The Fourth Estate already neutered themselves by being a courtier class. A few brave individuals will keep trying to fight the good fight, but all the major outlets will continue to be courtiers and will debase themselves more and more, bending over further and further for scraps and attention.
I expect that if we are going to continue to get real news information it'll have to be through unofficial channels and those few brave people going freelance. Part of why I've been paranoid about online security is that I want to be able to still get true information and facts despite coming censorship, official and self-imposed by the media.
Yup. People realized that the media were courtiers, so there's no good reason to listen to them anymore. Something had to fill that vaccum, and the Alt-Right Twitter ->Drudge -> Fox News -> MSM cycle was all too happy to do so. In order to challenge Trump and the Trumpians's versions of the facts, they have to fill that vaccum too, because any criticism coming from CNN is going to be tainted, and so far, only the likes of The Intercept are fighting on that battleground.
The middleground has been shrinking with the decline of newspapers and a lot of news work is expensive. Mother Jones pointed out how costly its story on private prisons was to produce compared to the amount of money they got for it.
The middleground has been shrinking with the decline of newspapers and a lot of news work is expensive. Mother Jones pointed out how costly its story on private prisons was to produce compared to the amount of money they got for it.
It's a sticky problem, too, because while i'd like government funding for a lot of stuff, investigative journalism is something i'd never want public funding to touch even if you assured me that my choices for President and Congress would stay in power forever.
The audience for the deep dig story was always going to be small, though, even on the left.
Posts
And yet you're annoyed that anyone criticizes it.
If I was, why would I say it?
I'm annoyed at people blaming journalists for Trump. I think journalists did a good job of warning the American public about Trump being a dangerous lunatic. The American public ignored them like a bunch of Cassandras.
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in talking about journalism. I love reading the media, talking about what I read.
Look again at the word cloud about what people had heard about him. If they did, it didn't penetrate. And clearly they are capable of conveying a negative story, as you just need to look at Hillary's word cloud.
Or maybe they gave him billions of dollars in free air time to say whatever the fuck he wanted and that penetrated. Which story fits better with the election results?
It'd be interesting to know what voters in swing states, the only ones that matter, heard about him. It seemed that they heard his bullshit because the polls went down every time he made a gaffe, but they seemed to forget within a week as he made some new gaffe. No need to blame "the media" for that - mentally normal adults can remember more than 3 facts about a person. It seemed that they just loved his substantive policies (Muslim hate, build the wall, jail Clinton) so much they couldn't stay mad at him long.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Yes. They did
About as much meaning as any unsourced graph with no scale.
Mind you, they look lovely on student walls.
And yet people still voted him... apparently you can't give someone enough rope to hang themselves.
It's literally just what voters said they heard about the two candidates during the election. From Pew or Gallup, I believe.
His rallies weren't negative coverage?
pleasepaypreacher.net
I work for a polling company, and we routinely include word clouds in our materials for the client to examine, when we ask respondents for their thoughts in the survey. We do not do this for shits and giggles, we do this because actual information is contained within the image. Clearly you don't know how to interpret those word clouds (hint: a bullshit scandal was present consistently and in large numbers for Clinton, while nothing stuck to Trump), but that does not mean they are primarily ornamental.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but that was my first impression until I read about it too. Considering how much skin minorities of all stripes have in the game, I do kinda tend to agree.
Then again, I don't know who he is so maybe there's further context I'm not getting.
Steam: adamjnet
Chait hates any politics that don't put the concerns of straight white dudes at the forefront.
Whats combative about it? I don't get it. Chait decides to shit on something and someone fires back at him. That Chait then responds by acting like a child is flat out pathetic.
The reason that it's called the Women's March is because it was women's advocacy groups that did the planning and organization initially, and then other groups gravitated to their work. Changing the name would erase their work and leadership. Furthermore, Chait has a reputation for being a goose on these sorts of issues.
In short, Chait arguing for the name to be changed, erasing the work women did to set it up, because of how he feels events should be marketed to include men like him is neither a value-free nor amusing, and her comment got right to the point of why his request was actually rather offensive.
Anyway, Newtie has some ideas about what the incoming administration should do:
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
I went to the crossroad, fell down on my knees
Asked the Lord above "Have mercy, now save poor Bob, if you please
what was being presented was "truthful and accurate depiction of the actions of the republican party"
I don't know how you turn that into hyperpartisan talking points
*shrug*
aren't we always talking about how access journalism is horseshit anyway
If there is any 'positive', it will be that we'll be able to permanently side-eye all that cave. But elevating Brietbart and Infowars is quite chilling.
Yeah, how dare they collude with Hillary to always be talking about her email.
This falls flat when their actions depicted Hillary as the bigger evil. That's a reason why Trump was able to get away with a lot more.
You are saying it. Via getting upset that anyone dare point out that the media treated both candidates as if they were equally malignant.
You want reporters to report anything they see with no attempt at fact checking or editorializing. I do not. It's not a fault for me to desire higher standards than you have for the press. Cause while you think reporting on a fake scandal for months on end is okay I do not.
Which, BTW, is a very big reason why Trump is able to get away with treating the media like shit.
I wasn't very old back then. I strongly disagreed with the Iraq war and as I recall so did the paper I read at the time "The Guardian."
America didn't have the luxury of that, the whole industry practically folded once W. was coronated.
Made it to question three and gave up.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Because the latest in the ongoing pratfall that is the transition suggests they're going through with removing the Whitehouse press room.
So get used to everything being unofficial and leaks coming from everywhere as the war on expertise, independent media, and knowledge continues unabated. Or as Putin likes to call it, neutralizing the Fourth Estate.
I expect that if we are going to continue to get real news information it'll have to be through unofficial channels and those few brave people going freelance. Part of why I've been paranoid about online security is that I want to be able to still get true information and facts despite coming censorship, official and self-imposed by the media.
There are reputable bloggers, but a lot of them are focused on specific subjects, and you have to actively seek them out so...
I think access journalism needs to die off, hard. It's outright poisonous to the republic.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Yes, because there is no middle ground between the large media conglomerates and random propaganda cranks on the internet.
MWO: Adamski
It's a sticky problem, too, because while i'd like government funding for a lot of stuff, investigative journalism is something i'd never want public funding to touch even if you assured me that my choices for President and Congress would stay in power forever.
The audience for the deep dig story was always going to be small, though, even on the left.