General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 379

God imagine if this was the Clinton Foundation what the news outlets would be doing right now ...

 

Slave owners would only talk to slaves from a distance of 10 meters.

 

Can you disagree that they endorsed Hillary? As unbelievably anti-journalistic integrity as that sounds. Because....well, they did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?_r=0

How about when they suppressed an op-ed piece because it gave humble praise to Sanders during the primary? And then phantom edited the article to make it actually incredibly critical of Sanders (like all the rest of their articles were)?

I no longer subscribe to the Times. The fact that they pulled that shit with that article and then insulted their readers by pretending they didn't do anything wrong was disgusting. By far the most upsetting story that never got any fucking attention.


Also, the Times endorsed Hillary over Obama in 2008 as well.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.c...to-the-timess-endorsement-of-hillary-clinton/


Fuck the Times and any notion that their being in the Clinton's pocket (or at the very least having VERY strong shared financial interests) being "comically wrong".

 

Stop construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline which endangers the water supply to Native American reservations. | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

 

Disgusts me that this isn't getting mainstream media coverage. Hopefully that changes now. If assaulting protesters with dogs doesn't get the attention of the major parties/press, then I'm afraid to know what will.

 

That USChamber tweet. That makes me feel sick. "Anti-energy". Fucking pricks.

Fuck this country and its media.

 

It's cool. We can just get another 30-minute segment on the 1849468747th Donald Trump soundbite that's clueless and act like it changes anyone's opinion of the guy.

 

I never said anything about an endorsement. Enjoy the straw man and cherry picking if you want.

 

There's the highest number of "undecided" voters at this point in the election cycle we've ever seen. Yes, we should absolutely expect the media to keep telling people about the racist clueless bigot.

 

So you think officially endorsing a candidate is consistent with being against them?

It's not a straw man: it's an evidentiary premise to my argument that the NYT are very obviously on Clinton's side and have been for at least 8 years. The Times lost more credibility than any publication this primary season, including WashPo and CNN.

 

The weakness of Hillary has a lot to do with this. She is an empty vessel that people, rightly, believe is a liar, a racist and someone for whom ideological principles aren't relevant.

I don't think the times is anti-Hillary. I think it is trying to find a scoop because it needs to be profitable. That the implicit bias, alongside the preservation of access and the status quo.

 

This seems a little off since before it was stop covering him because he's getting free press and now its keep covering him its important we knew he's a piece of trash. I think everyone gets it. Trump supporters won't be swayed by the media, they're convinced its biased and too PC.
The high undecided voters can be blamed on the democrats and republicans for putting out awful candidates. I imagine that the undecideds are contemplating voting third party, rather than jumping from Trump to Hillary or vice versa, but I haven't seen numbers on that.

And also kind of bad taste to defend volumes of Trump coverage in ignoring the violent eminent domain battle in North Dakota involving historically oppressed native americans.

 

As they should be. The assumptive logic that they're the last, best hope no longer holds true:

Young Blacks Voice Skepticism on Hillary Clinton, Worrying Democrats

"But when the participants were asked about Hillary Clinton, their appraisals were just as blunt and nearly as biting.

“What am I supposed to do if I don’t like him and I don’t trust her?” a millennial black woman in Ohio asked. “Choose between being stabbed and being shot? No way!”

“She was part of the whole problem that started sending blacks to jail,” a young black man, also from Ohio, observed about Mrs. Clinton.

“He’s a racist, and she is a liar, so really what’s the difference in choosing both or choosing neither?” another young black woman from Ohio said.

Young African-Americans, like all voters their age, are typically far harder to drive to the polls than middle-aged and older Americans. Yet with just over two months until Election Day, many Democrats are expressing alarm at the lack of enthusiasm, and in some cases outright resistance, some black millennials feel toward Mrs. Clinton.

Their skepticism is rooted in a deep discomfort with the political establishment that they believe the 68-year-old former first lady and secretary of state represents. They share a lingering mistrust of Mrs. Clinton and her husband over criminal justice issues. They are demanding more from politicians as part of a new, confrontational wave of black activism that has arisen in response to police killings of unarmed African-Americans."

 

I don't think an endorsement reflects an editorial staff of 1300 people or the empirical evidence. I said that already.

No, picking two articles is not evidence counter to my claim. Sorry. Talking with you is truly more energy than it is worth.

 

You do realize that millions of people are voting for Trump right? Yes he deserves as much negative press as he gets because those supporters need their minds changed. And yes, it is possible. Plenty of people have left his camp after the media reported his bigoted comments about the Khan family.

Also the times is covering all of Hillary's missteps so this talk of bias needs to stop. So their opinion writers like her, big deal, the news being reported is still factual and on point. Stop making the times out to be some Rupert Murdoch media source.

 

Trying to find a scoop does not make one more or less, for or against, a candidate, a historical anlaysis going back to "Whitewater" does raise some questions -- which are widely discussed as "the Clinton Rules" in journalist circles. And even admitted by the former editor:

"Politico's Glenn Thrush reported March 21 that Jill Abramson, the former New York Times executive editor, said in an interview that she "agree[d]" with Media Matters founder David Brock that the Times gives Hillary Clinton "an unfair 'level of scrutiny.'" She said Clinton "does get more scrutiny" than other candidates, particularly than other male candidates, Thrush reported."

At this point it's been widely documented (I'm on my phone, but there's a loooot of evidence on this out there), this cycle has just brought it once again the the forefront. When Bondi/Trump gets ignored and stories about "shadows" are about a woman leaving her gross husband and not the men advising Trump, it's once again brought back to the discussion and the reporters themselves have been arguing about it on Twitter with quite a few media watchdog/professors/other journalists. It's a real thing and a big part of the media landscape right now. The documentation on this goes very far back at this point, and, as many many many other journalists are now pointing out: it's getting very weird during this cycle.

 

What's more interesting to me is that polling does not bare out the same results that this focus group does.

 

I've seen polls that give her an overwhelming edge with "non-white voters". I haven't seen anything that puts her near the level of support that Obama received. Either way, as you said, there are a number of undecided and given the destructive relationship the Clintons have had with the black community, which has come to fore, rather than being ignored, I would not be surprised if the feeling is pervasive among black millennials. I know, I know, it cuts against this idea that black voters are a monolith, unable to freely give and withdrawal support like white voters, but the dynamic is real and her focus on Trump doesn't resonate in the same way that actively campaigning for something. There's something to be said about the focus on Trump's racism, the places from which it comes, etc., but activists in BLM and elsewhere are the only people articulating a real response to it, with real policy objectives. Hillary, once again, is taking them for granted and pivoting away from those communities, whilst invoking fear. Fear is not enough to get young voters to the booth.

 

No, we don't need 24/7 coverage of the same stuff when activists for the most important cause of our lifetime (and those thereafter) are getting blacked out by the media and simultaneously torn to shreds by corporate dogs (literally).

News for profit is fucking bullshit, as is this alarmist perspective that marginalizes important current events so we can keep saying "see guys? he is really bat shit crazy." You want it to push your agenda; the outlets want it to push theirs (profit). And substantive news reporting suffers.

?

When journalism actually gets suppressed and edited because it wasn't viciously critical of her opponent (who happens to be against the bourgeois financial interests that she continues to represent [see: her pivot on Wall Street that Dom posted a few days back]), it's a big fucking deal. And, no, they have been very tame with her missteps and all but clung to the absolute minimum when it comes to reporting them during the primary. For instance, they ran several stories about that BLM interruption of Sanders in Arizona and were noticeably mute about the Clinton camp locking BLM out of a rally, having that one BLM girl escorted out of a speaking event, and the white noise speakers at the donor fundraising event. And, if I remember correctly, they didn't even report on Bill angrily defending welfare reform to BLM activists (some of whom, we could statistically infer, had friends and families whose lives were ruined by it).

The most prestigious publication in the country is very obviously, and openly, in Clinton's pocket. Yeah, it's a big deal. Fox News isn't the measuring point for ethical journalism.

The editorial staff itself endorsed her. So....

Likewise. You've become less mature and more catty with the years, as evidenced by last week's discussion on professional codes of ethics re: the blatant conflict of interests in the Clinton Foundation (which I admittedly did not comment on because tkamb is a smarter fella than I, particularly on that topic).

 

The last two weeks has proved me overwhelmingly right on the foundation... and no, an "endorsement" does not negate what I said. At all. That's just silly.