Print

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

[Shadowlord]

Remember a while ago when there was a discussion about the "First Amendment Defense Act" and how it cpeople ould screw over a bunch of people? Remember how someone mentioned Obama had made it illegal to fire LGBT so at least there'd be a teeny, tiny amount protection on that front?

Well, fuck.

That never passed the senate, as far as I can tell. Another NDAA passed both house and senate, but I don't know if it has that same provision, or if it reached President Obama. These bill-tracking websites seem to be of limited helpfulness (I could probably tell if it has the same provision, but if it never reached President Obama, or he vetoed it, then it doesn't matter).

IIRC a new congress would have to start the process over again with new bills, but there's nothing stopping the GOP from writing it in whatever way they want if they can get it past a democratic filibuster in the senate, and if Trump doesn't decide he doesn't like something in whatever they send him (I can't see him actually reading any bills, though).

Ah, see, you said "people" there, but I think you're talking about Native Americans and their supporters, the time for a rights movement and outrage on their behalf would have been before they were wiped from the country and reduced to a bit part in the history books, sadly.

... Are you suggesting we should just ignore what is happening today because we didn't do anything about what happened centuries ago?

[Wolfhunter107]

... thing is, wierd, that first bit wasn't neutral, either. Violent clashes imply it's coming from both sides and fairly equitably, which is a tough proposition to support considering what's going on. Consortium also downplays just who it is on the enforcing end, and rather severely.

There's been plenty of violence originating from the protesters so far--there's been lots of object throwing so far, including firebombs, and there was a report of somebody firing a pistol at police trying to arrest them. And that's just what I can recall off the top of my head.

[Neonivek]

Sure there is. You provide neutral reporting, and don't promote either side's viewpoint. It's really that simple

Or... you do both.

[Wolfhunter107]

Sure there is. You provide neutral reporting, and don't promote either side's viewpoint. It's really that simple

Or... you do both.

...how, exactly? Neutral reporting and bias are kind of mutually exclusive.

[Shadowlord]

... thing is, wierd, that first bit wasn't neutral, either. Violent clashes imply it's coming from both sides and fairly equitably, which is a tough proposition to support considering what's going on. Consortium also downplays just who it is on the enforcing end, and rather severely.

There's been plenty of violence originating from the protesters so far--there's been lots of object throwing so far, including firebombs, and there was a report of somebody firing a pistol at police trying to arrest them. And that's just what I can recall off the top of my head.

When you beat people down repeatedly, eventually some will try to fight back.

[wierd]

The thing is, accurate reporting would appear biased, because one side really is wrong.

The whole "I don't see you tearing up THIER reasoning!" Canard.

Never mind that a factually minded analysis of the souix argument leaves zero credibility for the pipeline's legality.

Instead, you have the evil emperor saying he will "make it legal", and objecting when the media points out that, no, he can't.

[Neonivek]

Impartial reporting isn't about presenting both sides of an argument as if they have equal credibility.

It is about presenting the facts and not to commentate or overexpose one side.

If the Sioux really do have diplomatic justification then an impartial report wouldn't hide that fact even if it would make the Sioux look like they are in the right. It is up to the readers to come to the conclusion not the journalist.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Wolfhunter, how would you determine if a news article is unbiased? (Lemme guess, if it agrees with you )

[Neonivek]

Wolfhunter, how would you determine if a news article is unbiased? (Lemme guess, if it agrees with you )

His argument is more that it doesn't make either side look right.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

...that's hardly unbiased though. Some things are objectively true, and painting them as anything else is a "Teach the Controversy" kind of bias.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Impartial reporting isn't about presenting both sides of an argument as if they have equal credibility.

It is about presenting the facts and not to commentate or overexpose one side.

If the Sioux really do have diplomatic justification then an impartial report wouldn't hide that fact even if it would make the Sioux look like they are in the right. It is up to the readers to come to the conclusion not the journalist.

The thing is raw data can be time-consuming to interpret. People don't have time to go around reading the facts of everything. It's not just people being too lazy to figure things out for themselves ('cause yeah, that is a pretty big problem in today's world), it's the fact that at some point it becomes physically impossible to keep up with every event going on nationally and worldwide. Look at research papers, for example: they provide all the data for those who have time to go through and analyze it and form conclusions, but even they also provide their own interpretation of the results. We live in an information-saturated age, and that means we need, more than ever, reliable and honest interpretation of that information. Sometimes that means simply recognizing that yes, in some cases things are pretty black-and-white.

Very true; however, it looks like Neo actually agrees.

[Shadowlord]

Impartial reporting isn't about presenting both sides of an argument as if they have equal credibility.

It is about presenting the facts and not to commentate or overexpose one side.

If the Sioux really do have diplomatic justification then an impartial report wouldn't hide that fact even if it would make the Sioux look like they are in the right. It is up to the readers to come to the conclusion not the journalist.

The thing is raw data can be time-consuming to interpret. People don't have time to go around reading the facts of everything. It's not just people being too lazy to figure things out for themselves ('cause yeah, that is a pretty big problem in today's world), it's the fact that at some point it becomes physically impossible to keep up with every event going on nationally and worldwide. Look at research papers, for example: they provide all the data for those who have time to go through and analyze it and form conclusions, but even they also provide their own interpretation of the results. We live in an information-saturated age, and that means we need, more than ever, reliable and honest interpretation of that information. Sometimes that means simply recognizing that yes, in some cases things are pretty black-and-white.

Very true; however, it looks like Neo actually agrees.

Re-reading what he posted, looks like I messed up. I really should stop posting when sleep-deprived

I thought you were just agreeing with him (somewhat, and elaborating!).

[SalmonGod]

The woman hit with the grenade is Sophia Wilanski, and that whole thing appears to be genuine, as far as I can tell.  And while she's the most shocking injury from lastnight, it looks like a lot of people were seriously injured.  There's dozens of photos and videos out there.

[Reelya]

... thing is, wierd, that first bit wasn't neutral, either. Violent clashes imply it's coming from both sides and fairly equitably

"There were violent clashes between Mahatma Ghandi's head and British soldiers' iron-shot batons today".

Being vague about who's doing what to whom is a form of bias itself isn't it?

[Sergarr]

Impartial reporting isn't about presenting both sides of an argument as if they have equal credibility.

It is about presenting the facts and not to commentate or overexpose one side.

If the Sioux really do have diplomatic justification then an impartial report wouldn't hide that fact even if it would make the Sioux look like they are in the right. It is up to the readers to come to the conclusion not the journalist.

The thing is raw data can be time-consuming to interpret. People don't have time to go around reading the facts of everything. It's not just people being too lazy to figure things out for themselves ('cause yeah, that is a pretty big problem in today's world), it's the fact that at some point it becomes physically impossible to keep up with every event going on nationally and worldwide. Look at research papers, for example: they provide all the data for those who have time to go through and analyze it and form conclusions, but even they also provide their own interpretation of the results. We live in an information-saturated age, and that means we need, more than ever, reliable and honest interpretation of that information. Sometimes that means simply recognizing that yes, in some cases things are pretty black-and-white.

It's not that it's just information-saturated, it's that it's also filled with information-duplicates with a very uneven spread, false or altered information, and all kinds of combinations of these both, including the seemingly internally consistent and constantly reinforced narratives for just about anything. There's really no universally good way to extract useful information from this sort of media soup on fire.

Re-reading what he posted, looks like I messed up. I really should stop posting when sleep-deprived

That's indeed a very good advise, which I sadly didn't follow yesterday.