Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Willfor]

So... Did... Trump REALLY just officially state that America is for Catholics? (or Christians, I didn't QUITE catch it). I mean not in those exact words but even in the general areas...

That... doesn't raise some serious alarm bells to anyone?

Trump is like the anti-JFK.

JFK won by going after the minorities and disenfranchised to get himself a popularity boost.

Trump will win by attacking the minorities and disenfranchised to get himself a popularity boost.

Why is this getting worse?

Sorry, we're not allowed to use analogies in this thread because they have to be exactly 1-to-1 comparisons, and the America of 2016 is not 100% exactly like the America of the 1960s. 

You're not allowed to make any sorts of comparisons between Trump and any other living being, nor between any person or any other person in the world.

[KingofstarrySkies]

Holy shit I would pay so much fucking money to see him go door-to-door

[Frumple]

... the worst thing, I think, is that the perfect response to that would be, "I would pay bail." But it... it's really a rather poor sentiment. Assault charges aren't funny in real life. Still...

[nenjin]

Well then what are you complaining about?  Seems like you can find what you want.

What part did you take as a complaint? It just is. American mass media doesn't do subtle very well, and so they chase unsubtle stories.

[Rolan7]

So... Did... Trump REALLY just officially state that America is for Catholics? (or Christians, I didn't QUITE catch it). I mean not in those exact words but even in the general areas...

That... doesn't raise some serious alarm bells to anyone?

Where'd you see that?  Sorry, I didn't find it with a very brief Google, so figured I'd just ask.
Not that it's surprising at all.  I guess I'm just curious as to whether he's being anti-islam, anti-nonChristian, pro-Christian, or what new hell.

Bush Jr got away with "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."  But that was then.

I've heard people say "That's it I am leaving my country" when certain people get elected... But goodness if I was American right now... I'd be looking to jump ship.

He's not going to win.  But if he does, yeah, I might actually relocate.  It'd only half be for political reasons, though.

[Flying Dice]

Well then what are you complaining about?  Seems like you can find what you want.

What part did you take as a complaint? It just is. American mass media doesn't do subtle very well, and so they chase unsubtle stories.

I mean to be fair modern journalism is basically just yellow journalism that isn't called yellow journalism.

[Frumple]

Or at least not as often, anyway...

[nenjin]

Well then what are you complaining about?  Seems like you can find what you want.

What part did you take as a complaint? It just is. American mass media doesn't do subtle very well, and so they chase unsubtle stories.

I mean to be fair modern journalism is basically just yellow journalism that isn't called yellow journalism.

I don't think that's really fair. I like hyperbole as much as the next guy but actual journalism, even mainstream journalism, is still pretty far away from Yellow Journalism. The lines between professional and amateur have just been blurred in the last 25ish years or so by the internet, the level of rigor is way lower because communication happens so much more quickly. And people may or may not be more willing to accept opinion as fact than they used to.

[Flying Dice]

I honestly don't think it's much of an exaggeration. Even the sources I trust the most are falling into the same bad habits, but more importantly it seems that critical thought and investigative journalism have taken the back seat to make room for totally un-nuanced reporting of hearsay and opinion as fact. It's not just that the negative habits have become more acceptable, or that informal nonprofessional outlets are given a real voice, but also that positive journalistic practices are discouraged because they're profitable and/or ideologically incompatible.

[Reelya]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations
UNASUR: GDP $US4 trillion dollars, population 414 million. Members: every fucking country in South America (not counting some small UK colonies).

Explain yourself, where is this clay?

Sorry I was mixing up French Guiana and British Guiana. British Guiana declared independence, but are still subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. So, arguably still under British rule. They are also part of UNASUR. French Guiana are directly a French territory, so they couldn't join UNASUR.

I honestly don't think it's much of an exaggeration. Even the sources I trust the most are falling into the same bad habits, but more importantly it seems that critical thought and investigative journalism have taken the back seat to make room for totally un-nuanced reporting of hearsay and opinion as fact. It's not just that the negative habits have become more acceptable, or that informal nonprofessional outlets are given a real voice, but also that positive journalistic practices are discouraged because they're profitable and/or ideologically incompatible.

I don't think it is either. On topics which the corporate class agrees, and this is both the "liberal" and "conservative" end of the spectrum, they basically blindly follow lock step as if they're all FOX News or Pravda.

e.g. I think the "Obama Derangement" was directly modeled on "Chavez Derangement" which the mass media in Venezuela indulged in. Certainly, almost all the accusations and a lot of the memes/posters which were created about Obama are extremely similar to the anti-Chavez campaign conducted by that country's corporate media. New York Times for example would reprint verbatim some of the craziest anti-Chavez claims without even the barest of fact-checking or context, turning nytimes basically into FOX News when it comes to understanding Latin America.

So, it's in the biased coverage, or lack of coverage, of important events from Latin America ("don't mention UNASUR" and printing blatant BS about Hugo Chavez) that you can peer through the curtain and see the gears clunking along in the so-called "liberal" side of the corporate media. As far as corporate media goes, "lib" and "con" represent two factions of a wealthy elite class with different worldviews. But they share US corporate interests as a shared interest, so that bias pervades all corporate media.

[Orange Wizard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations
UNASUR: GDP $US4 trillion dollars, population 414 million. Members: every fucking country in South America (not counting some small UK colonies).

Explain yourself, where is this clay?

Sorry I was mixing up French Guiana and British Guiana. British Guiana declared independence, but are still subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of England. So, arguably still under British rule. They are also part of UNASUR. French Guiana are directly a French territory, so they couldn't join UNASUR.

What about the Falklands?

[Reelya]

What about the Falklands?

Well I guess we could count that too, if we count Falklands as part of South America. I'm guessing that the UK wouldn't want it to "count" as part of the continent because it's not actually joined. But plenty of islands in Europe are counted as part of Europe, and Japan, Taiwan and Philippines are all part of "Asia", so there's no much of a consistent reason not to count Falklands as part of South America. It's certainly part of the "Americas", and if you split that into North, Central and South Americas, it's clearly in the South.

EDIT: To give an idea of the under-reporting about UNASUR, which is one of the biggest political developments in the Western Hemishpere in decades, this is the nytimes seach for all articles containing "unasur":

http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/unasur/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/oldest/
Exactly 16 hits over 10 years. So Unasur gets mentioned, briefly, in one article every 6 months in the New York Times. Note also that the nytimes completely stopped reporting on Unasur the very day that the treaty was ratified, and there's a 4-year gap in which the term "unasur" was basically verboten from nytimes coverage from 2008 to 2012. And up until 2008 they were reporting on Unasur as "like the EU, but for South America", but the post 2012 articles are trying to sound as dismissive as possible, or they include mentions of Unasur purely by accident, or snuck in sneakily by opinion piece writers:

2012 opinion piece on Ecuadors military history. The writer sneaks a mention of what Unasur is into the bottom of the footnotes (footnote 17).
2012 Story about political crisis in Paraguay mentions Unasur as a "political bloc" without any context. Similar article 1 day later, unasur "regional bloc".
2012 Assange story, off-hand reference to unasur as some vague thing that "including most states" on the continent, without mention that's because the only non-member is part of France.
2012 accidentally mentioned Unasur because it was part of Christina Kirchner's election victory tweet, in Spanish.
2012 mention of Venezuela elections, merely mentions Unasur as an "organization" without any context.

After that, there are basically 5 mentions of Unasur from 2013-2016, so basically one brief mention every year or so, and they're even more dismissive of it than before. The only mention in the last two years is a June 2016 one that basically labels UNASUR as lackeys of those Venezuelan commies, without any other context. So they're getting worse at reporting this, if anything.

Meanwhile, "Kardiashian" gets 1086 hits, in the same time period.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/kardashian/from20070101to20161212/allresults/2/allauthors/oldest/

[nenjin]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

An English magazine in 1898 noted, "All American journalism is not ‘yellow’, though all strictly ‘up-to-date’ yellow journalism is American!

Pretty canny for 118 years ago. Maybe little has actually changed.

[Reelya]

In one well remembered story, Examiner reporter Winifred Black was admitted into a San Francisco hospital and discovered that indigent women were treated with "gross cruelty." The entire hospital staff was fired the morning the piece appeared.

If only things moved as quickly now as back then.

[MarcAFK]

Indigent women have less privilege now, I blame the feminists!