Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't know if I've ever read NPR. I'll have to go check that out.

Re: Decision 2016
 

National Public Radio. You have a local station, wherever you are. Listen to the news programs Morning Edition in the mornings, or All Things Considered in the afternoons.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Indeed that was what I meant, but I may have made that confusing given how I listed a lot of different mediums together there. But when I'm driving I pretty much am listening to sports talk or NPR.

Speaking of fivethirtyeight, one of the articles they linked to this morning really interested me: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/port...-pay-1.3886955

Basically Portland created a tax where they charge companies extra if their CEO gets 100x the average employee or even more if the CEO gets 250 times or more.

I would really love to see those types of laws enacted more places. I think it's crazy how much CEO's get compensated for some companies and how little the average workers do. The government can help combat income inequality through these type of efforts. Possibly encourage some of these CEO's to raise worker's wages a little bit and then they can get paid more too. I doubt this actually could get passed on a national level right now, but gosh I would love to see it.

Infodump
 

538, occasionally tune into NPR, Last Week Tonight or other programs like it (in the same vein as Ranior), plus I read a fair chunk of the stuff that chunnels onto my facebook feed, but with a super critical eye (also a lot of times I click on something precisely to confirm it's exactly what I thought it was). I'm probably less informed than the others who have chimed in, but the less certain I am about how much I can trust the source, the more I scrutinize it.

~Dysole, who finds herself asking questions mostly

Re: Decision 2016
 

Oh, I didn't realize NPR was a radio show. I don't really listen to the radio that much.

I enjoy John Oliver. I think he's funny and usually has some good points. Sometimes he gets a little dramatic, but it is comedy so that's to be expected.

I really wanted to like Trevor Noah, but I don't. I don't think he's very funny, and I don't think his commentary is very good. His recent bit with that conservative girl (Lahren?) wasn't well done at all, in my opinion. There were a couple of times he intentionally misunderstood her, and he just ignored some valid points she made.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You can see their coverage online. You can also check out Reuters, which I mentioned. Its strong international feel helps keep its coverage of the US in meaningful perspective.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Dysole, I also agree that if I don't know a source I immediately start as a skeptic and investigate the credentials of it. Everyone once in a while on facebook I just click the stuff that seems obviously fake to confirm it is so.

John Oliver is just really funny. I love listening to the old back podcasts of the Bugle even. Good stuff.

I like Trevor Noah, but I can understand how others might not. I personally think that the Daily Show has become a bit more liberal leaning and conservative bashing than it used to be under his watch which is a little bit of a shame. Stewart had such a great way of just being a bastion of reason and pointing out the absurdity of certain areas of the system, politics, and politicians. It does seem Noah does a bit more of just bashing on the conservatives rather than broadly addressing all the absurdity out there. Given that Daily Show watchers typically are quite liberal leaning, I can't argue he isn't playing to his audience, but I dunno. I personally feel that Stewart had some great moments when he made liberals uncomfortable about themselves by pointing out the Democrats and others shortcomings. I'd agree that Noah doesn't do this so well. I think your criticisms are fair in the fact he doesn't seem to have the razor sharp wit and logic that Stewart had, and at times is a bit clumsy in just blindly going against conservatives. I still find him quite funny and enjoyable, but I don't think he's great. Replacing Stewart was an impossible task of course, but even then Noah is only good in my opinion, not great. Too bad Oliver already had gotten his own show as he could have managed. Ah well.

Yikes I rambled on that way more than I thought I would. Weird. Ah well time for the lunch break and watching some Trevor Noah clips probably anyhow.

Well
 

Not just whether it's fake or not, but I'll occasionally click on the stuff to be like "Oh hey look at all these liberal/conservate buzzwords. Is this article supposed to make me mad/feel good assuming I'm its intended audience? Yep. Thought so."

~Dysole, who absolutely HATES any headline that states someone else "DESTROYED" (or similar adjective) someone else

Re: Decision 2016
 

That cuts both ways. Headlines are, I believe, often written by people who did not write the article. Sometimes articles will have valuable information in them, notwithstanding poor or unprofessional headlines, and sometimes the good headline will belie the poor story. You can't, to coin a phrase, read an article by its headline.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I do not like Daily Show and the "political comedy" genre it spawned very much. They all seem very one-sided and hide behind "it's just a comedy!" when their views are actually challenged (they're right, most of the time, but they do a bad job being right). For being a comedy, there are not many jokes

Completely
 

I agree which is why I still sometimes click on them. I just grumble and there's a better than 50% chance with those that the article isn't really that useful.

~Dysole, just making observations

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's true. I write a local column for the paper here in town and I don't get to pick my headline. The editor does.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Then don't watch it. Though I suppose I often agree with him, John Oliver is a little shrill for me. So I don't watch it. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was great; I haven't watched it even one time with Trevor Noah. I don't know how you could fill those shoes. As for its appropriateness, it is satire. I believe that satire is an excellent response to fearmongering and exaggeration, which, essentially, it was.

As far as it being "one-sided," if Fox News personalities didn't like being mocked for exaggeration and fearmongering, they should have quit exaggerating and fearmongering. His lens turned elsewhere often enough, though I don't blame him or his writers for taking advantage of the low-hanging fruit.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I love satire, and find that in general those type of shows are just very good at it. I enjoy the genre a lot but can understand those who do not.

I'm not sure I actually get some of your criticism though, but ah well. I particularly never do understand those who won't accept their defense of the fact that they are simply a comedy/entertainment show. They don't actually have a duty to be factual or journalistic. I'm glad that they generally do a good job of being honest and fact checking and what not, but they certain do not have a duty to be so. Perhaps I'm mistreading your criticism here though, but in general I have always found some of the criticisms lobed at the Daily Show and Last Week Tonight to be a bit odd.

As for Dad Scaper, there is no way to fill Stewart's shoes, and Noah in no way did. He's a different comedian doing somewhat similar format, but the show is fairly different. I still enjoy it, but it's not as good and my biggest criticism would have to be that Noah is nowhere near as clever or witty as Stewart was. But how could anyone be? Ah how I'll miss you Stewart. Particularly the gift that Trump would have been.

Finally, I do agree that in particular these satire shows pick the lowest hanging fruit which currently are the conservatives and fox news in particular. But they have at various points done plenty of good segments against liberals and mainstream media when they get things wrong too. I personally wouldn't even use the word bias--I think there really is clearly one party that has more to satirize right now in American politics. I don't think the Daily Show in particular ever unfairly favored the Democrats/liberals--they pulled their punches and satire where they could, and the clearest targets for that satire were/are most often the conservatives.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I somewhat disagree. If they're going to present themselves as being "correct" then I think they have a responsibility to make sure they're being truthful and fact checking things. Like it or not, these shows have morphed into more news than comedy, and that's how a lot of people perceive them. They're almost like a spoken op-ed piece. There's some responsibility there to make sure everything they're presenting is factual.

Re: Decision 2016
 

A lot of people would agree with you Swamper. I will continue to not on this issue though.

Just because a lot of people perceive them to essentially be a news source, they do not have a responsibility to be so. That's a perception problem on the people's end, not the show's problem to ensure accuracy and journalistic efforts and what not.

It's a nice feature that stuff like Last Week Tonight and the Daily Show actually do engage in plenty of research for their comedy peices and do get so much accurate and almost are like news in some ways. But it's most certainly not their responsibility to do so. It's the new's job to do so, and if they really want to news stations can and sometimes do comment on pieces that are done by these comedy shows. But it's not the entertainment show's job to do anything other than entertain.

Re: Decision 2016
 

They tend to be fact-intensive, as Ranior said. Some people object to them on the ground that they don't needle the left as much as they do the right, but it's satire. Satire works at its best when it's mocking exaggeration and fearmongering and ridiculous posturing, and there has been, for years, far more of that on Fox then on other news program channels.

It's not Jon Stewart's fault that Fox is more ridiculous - worthy of ridicule - than CNN, though in his career he went after CNN many, many times. Indeed, maybe his most famous single piece, and I think philosophically his most important piece, was aimed squarely at CNN (and on one of their shows):
The issue he takes with CNN in this piece, and it's totally worth a watch, is that there is no real reason for us to take sides. At least, not in the way that we do now. As media sellers and as media consumers, we as a nation are far too concerned about "liberals" vs. "conservatives" and scorekeeping, as if we are in some kind of a conflict without any obvious reason to be so. Far better would be simply expressing and consuming the news, and let people draw their own conclusions, without spoonfeeding needless conflict. He really had it in for fearmongers and those profiting off of exaggeration and artificial conflict among Americans. And that was principally, though not only, Fox.

On a related note, ask yourself if you are a liberal or a conservative. Do you have a quick answer? Is it that simple? I suspect not. Consider that most of us have that much in common. "Liberals" do not have a "war on Christmas"; "conservatives" do not want the return of Jim Crow laws. If we would stop acting like everyone around us was in a uniform, there might be less rhetorical shooting.

In a hypothetical world in which we didn't dwell on what sets people apart, or what we think sets people apart, we could stop getting so worked up about media. But until people start breathing normally again - understanding that there is not an actual culture war, nobody is coming for your guns, etc. - there will continue to be hyperventilation, and a market for fake news stories, and incessant and universal accusations of hypocrisy.

I found myself watching videos of Fred Rogers last night and I realized there is room for us to emulate him more than we do. I feel like he was a peacemaker. Just honor what's good in your friends and neighbors, and in strangers, too. Just because others are fighting doesn't mean you have to fight, too.


That doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to what's going on. It just means we should treat each other kindly. And I write that here as much as a reminder for myself as for anyone else, because heaven knows I am not Mr. Rogers.

Here endeth my rambling.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Wait, there was a time before when people were breathing normally?

Things objectively have become more politically polarized lately, although it's still not the worst this country has ever been (we were at our most polarized during the time preceding, and I suppose including, the Civil War). I think this is something to be addressed but we need to mindful how deep these problems go.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Saying things have become "more politically polarized" is true, though it's also true to say that *both* parties are more conservative now than they were in the '80s and '90s. Consider that Trump's selection for the Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was denied a federal judgeship in the 1980s because of his personal history of racist (or racism-charged) comments. And it was the Republicans who rejected him, and it was a Republican President who signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Democratic Party has come to the right as well, but not as far. Sanders was a bit of throwback that way.

Anyway. I agree that the people are more politically polarized, in that there are fewer (I suspect) truly undecided people when the time comes to cast a ballot. But I do not believe that the *positions of the politicians* are equally polarized, if by that you mean that each party has pushed to a place more extreme that it was in recent memory.

Re: Well
 

I'm the same way. Every once in a while I see something that looks blatantly one side or the other, and I'll take a peek at it and kind of laugh at how slanted it is.

And the trend of "person X destroyed person Y" has to go. It's becoming a bad cliche, and it is usually something that would more accurately be titled "person X has a few good points about person Y's position".

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm starting to ignore stories on the Internet that aren't from a source I'm familiar with. I have no intention of helping some click bait asshole make a dime off my curiosity.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Same. And all the crap people post on Facebook. If it's "news" related, I just assume that it bs. If it's something I care about I'll do my best to fact check it. It is getting harder and harder to get to the truth.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yeah, it's become a lucrative business for people to either make up fake news, or share it on social media. All the websites care about are "views" or "hits", and the more there are, the more some people make.

People may not like traditional news sources, but anymore, they are the only ones whose job and responsibilities are to do the research and present he facts. Now sometimes they may still get something wrong here or there or may be slightly more biased one way or the other, but every other source can simply say thatit's not their job to research what they write. Or wI'll just claim that they are expressing their opinion.

Problem is, too many people believe what they see on the Internet from these digital "news" sites or blogs or whatever. Too many people blindly follow people on twitter, Facebook, snap chat or other sources and hang on every word that their "hero/champion" says. Facts become irrelevant.

The only thing I follow is Beasts of War on YouTube. They are an Irish group of guys that demo, have unboxings and full game play throughs of tabletop miniatures game. Other than that, I personally don't give a crap about what celebrities and the like have to say.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't reject "all the crap" I see on Facebook. But before I think something is credible, I look carefully at sources and think critically. The manufacturers of fake news have said they target conservatives, so I encourage those of us who might identify that way to be especially careful.

Re: Decision 2016
 

This was actually my new year's resolution a couple years back, and while I haven't been perfect I've done a decent job of it. I find that if the headline is super vague you're usually not missing anything, and if the headline is about something you're better off just googling that subject.

Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/savedyouaclick/

Re: Decision 2016
 

This is usually my starting point. If I don't recognize the source I won't even click the link, but if it's interesting and/or important, I will simply Google the story. I will normally not even read the linked story, if the source doesn't have indicia of trustworthiness.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Good stuff fellas.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Wonder why Trump wants the Exxon boss as Secretary of State?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...k-827731523790

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-puti...fa1#.2ks19jiua

Re: Decision 2016
 

The narrative that Russia and Trump are secretly collaborating towards anything is part of the reason Trump won.

I have no doubt that Russia, and specifically Putin, wanted Trump to win but I think that was more due to their ideological similarities and promised improved relations with Russia

When you frame Trump as a secret Russian fascist instead of just a fascist, you make the important part of the message look bad

Re: Decision 2016
 

Part of why he won, was because he stirred up a bunch of emotion among white males. We're going to get rid of illegal immigrants and build a wall. We're going to keep Muslims out. We're going to keep jobs in America. We're going to be tough on our enemies. We're going to drain the swam. We're going to put crooked Hillary in jail etc. Meanwhile, Clinton is a liar and the Clinton Foundation is a pay for play etc.

So we'll see how much of his promises he keeps. But he has already discredited our media, military leaders and intelligence agencies. He's made our country look weak to the whole world.

So is he a Russian agent? No. But I do think that he's all about money and power, and the rest of the world be damned.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Although if you think of his wife as a Warsaw Pact spy it all makes more sense.

Re: Decision 2016
 

:lol: Which one?



Another thing that the Donald did this weekend kind of rubbed me the wrong way, though it wasn't political.

I went to a buddy's house to watch the Army/Navy college football game on Saturday. He graduated from West Point in the early 90's, was deployed in Iraq and then was reserves until the early 2000's. His wife was in ROTC in college. They both are passionate about this rivalry game and went to one each year that each of their 3 kids were born. I was in the Marines and should have been rooting for Navy, as the Marines are part of the Department of the Navy and some of the cadets at the Naval Academy are going to be Marine officers. But since the Navy has won the last 14 previous meetings, I felt like rooting for Army in support of my buddy and his wife.

That aside, Trump happened to show up to the game and at one point he was in the broadcast booth and the announcers were asking about what he thought about the game and being the commander in chief of the men and women at both academies. While he did acknowledge the great passion of the game, he also felt it necessary to add that it wasn't good football. The announcers were taken a little aback and I thought it was a pretty crappy thing for him to say. I mean, sure there were some turnovers and they don't play pro-style football. But it was a close game and some good momentum swings etc. Not to mention, Navy had a ton of injuries and had the 3rd string QB in, playing his first start and like 2nd time in a game at all.

Those kids are out there playing their butts off, and the military academies have a lot of things that keep them from getting the players that a lot of college schools can get. A lot of college and NFL games aren't "good football", so I just don't see the need for him to throw that jab in.

Re: Decision 2016
 

It's what a narcissist does. His football, or bank accounts or hands or cows or whatever, is better than yours. I didn't make this up; I've known other people with similar personalities.

Re: Decision 2016
 

It wasn't good football, even by college standards :lol: I'm glad army won though, I've got a friend at West Point. Apparently they got pretty wild after the win. It'd been like 14 years or something since they won I think.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yup, 14 years. Even the Navy fans I know couldn't be upset.

Re: Decision 2016
 

True it's not great football, but there is a lot of that going on at all levels. The pro level certainly has declined over the years IMO. But the Army/Navy game isn't as much about being good football, it's tradition and rivalry between future leaders in our military.

But yeah, it's been 14 years of losses for Army, so I imagine they celebrated hard. I even rooted for them, seeing how much it means to my buddy and his wife.

Re: Decision 2016
 

On the plus side, Rex T (can we call him T.Rex?) is pretty active in trying to move us out of fossil fuels and into safe and sustainable power, like nuclear, due to his stance on climate change being real and something that we have to combat.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That seems kind of conflicting with T. Rex's business interests. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thoughts on this article?

https://newrepublic.com/article/1392...-faux-protests

Re: Decision 2016
 

An editorial that I find pretty vacuous. I think the part that makes me immediately shake my head is the idea that Drumpf was an actual protest against Trump that was meant to have intellectual vigor or be effective at swaying conservatives to Trump's faults.

The entire point about Harry Potter stuff is absurd to me. The author manages to point out a handful of articles during a period of 18 some months as some sort of evidence that liberals were failing to combat Trump because they focused too much on Harry Potter? I can't even fathom how that is the case. Instead it seems a few online sites posted some articles here and there to attract attention and drive traffic. I don't even see how this has any real linking to liberals or democrats failings in the latest election cycle.

I guess my thoughts on this article are that it is devoid of any real intellectual points, and doesn't actually point out the real failings of liberals or the democrats in the latest election cycle. Ultimately I disagree with the author's conclusions and don't think the article is actually worth reading.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Two thoughts:

1) Satire is a perfectly reasonable response to exaggeration and to fearmongering.

2) I confess I don't know anything about the safety pins, except that some of my FB friends were posting things about it, but I wasn't interested enough to pursue. At first glance it seemed to me to be pointless, though I am well aware that my uninformed first glance may have been unfair and/or mistaken. If some people made money selling fancy safety pins to people who wanted to buy them, that's fine with me.

3) I keep seeing pieces that imply that it was the responsibility of the "liberals" to defeat Trump. It's normally presented, as here, as a premise. It was not the responsibility of the liberals to prevent a totally unqualified, corrupt narcissist from becoming President of the United States. It was the responsibility of all of us,, and I know, Swamper, that you were no fan of his either. Country has to come before party, and people have to be discerning enough to know when they are being subjected to gaslighting.

We all share some responsibility, I guess, but mostly I blame the people who voted for him. I'm not saying those people owe me an explanation or an apology and I'm not saying those people can't be friends of mine, but they're the ones who put him where he is.

4) I don't blame people who complained online or who wore safety pins. What they did, and what I've done, may not have made a difference. As far as that goes, I agree with the article.

I know how to carry on a conversation, or a debate, with most of my friends. When it comes to politics, it's my experience that people tend to shut down, or move quickly to a point where facts become "opinions" and there is no point in further discussion. I don't know how to find the words to push past that point into a fully developed exchange of ideas, even though I tried.

So I suppose that, if I bought a safety pin or some other gewgaw as an ineffective symbol of some kind, maybe I did it because I was out of other ideas. I'm not angry or in despair or anything, but I do feel like I don't know where to go from here in some ways, so I guess I understand.

Bernie was able to do it. I take some comfort in knowing that it's possible, at least when there's a moderator present to keep things on track.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Thanks for the thoughts. I largely agree with both of you. The article, to me, brought to mind not the Democratic party or liberal group as a whole, but a subset of the group that seems to find ways to "protest" or be an "activist" without ever really doing anything. It seems very self-righteous to me.

I really respect the attitude some people here had when Trump was elected. I'm thinking specifically of Dysole signing up for that trans hotline thing. That's a real, concrete action that will help people. I respect that. I have a harder time respecting people wearing safety pins or checking in on Facebook at Standing Rock when they're in their warm living rooms.

That basic thought of the article I agreed with. The rest of it was fluff. I did find the Harry Potter part kinda funny.

Re: Decision 2016
 

"gewgaws". Yes!
Made my day DS.

I really liked Ranior's use of vacuous. Not as good as gewgaws but hey what is right.

Score one for vocabulary!

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well, if people are angry or hurt or upset or frustrated, and they choose to express that with safety pins, that's ok with me. Don't misunderstand me.

I don't blame people who wear safety pins for electing Trump, nor do I hold them responsible for his election, nor do I really care if they wear safety pins. They aren't bothering me; I'm not bothering them.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I feel the same way, as long as those wearing the safety pins aren't looking down on or judging those that don't see the point in wearing a safety pin.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Seems to me almost everybody is judging everybody else. That's why I posted the Mr. Rogers link, above. Even if they are judging you for your politics, it doesn't mean that they are lost souls. We could all set good examples by walking that back.

Who cares if they're judging you? They might be. They might not be. Don't you judge them. I know that I'm routinely judged for the political opinions I share, but I am learning that I should try to get beyond that. Let's not act like judgment is a handgun, and I won't put down mine until you put down yours first. Be the change you want to see.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Safety pins should only be worn on the varsity jackets of high school wrestlers.

Those pins should be earned on the mat of combat.

:)

Re: Decision 2016
 

As mentioned by others above, I don't think any of that stuff had anything to do with Trump winning.

I had no idea about the Drumf thing, nor the Harry Potter crap. In either case, they are nothing, as Trump gave plenty of ammunition on his own. The people that voted for him didn't care about anything he said, nor anything liberals said.

To me, the main profiteer from Trump during the campaign and that helped him a lot, was the "liberal" media. Lots of free airtime every time he said something controversial. He played them like a fiddle.

If anything, I think people didn't take him serious, and took advantage of his controversy to make money.

And it wasn't only the liberals that couldn't counter Trump, there were like 500 (exaggeration) other Republicans running against him. They had no answer either, as they didn't bring out in people what Trump did.

There are a lot of angry people out there, and Trump tapped into that by helping point the finger to many different places for the cause of the angry voters problems. He promised to eliminate those issues. Liberals didn't tap into that.

Certainly not all people that voted for Trump were angry people, but there must be enough to have helped him win.

Finally. I don't think it was the liberal's job to win the election for the Dems, it was the candidates and their campaign staff. They fell short, as Clinton was an easy target with baggage that was used against her, while Trump could have killed a child (exaggeration) in front of many and it wouldn't have mattered to his voters. He was an outsider and was going to drain the swamp, put Wall Street in its place, build a wall, repeal Obamacare, create millions of jobs etc. That was the appeal and it got him elected.