[SpecialOlympian]

Nice Quinnipac poll. It's also not directly on topic; the issue isn't who people trust more, it's whether they trust the MSM to not lie. I'm just saying that this is like, not even considered a debatable an issue anymore.

That's nice, but fairly irrelevant coming from you. You really haven't done any debating in this thread or on this forum in years. Your only two attempts at it so far were to raise unfounded and made up criticisms of a study and accidentally revealing your inability to distinguish words.

In place of argument you have done the following:

Said, "Why don't people trust the media?" and then just quickly moved on to "People don't trust the media" without offering any logical steps in between. You have failed to address any legitimate points that anyone has made and have instead chosen to lazily Google up some articles and then misrepresent them.

Again, I feel genuine sympathy for students under your charge. Both for your fleeting grasp on the AMERICAN language and the obvious intellectual failings you have demonstrated in attempting to support your opinion.

The article ends on the note, that there no unbiased media in modern US. All of them are biased. The author laments this fact, yet is hopeful that something else might arise in the future.

Yes, this is typical right-wing concern trolling. The man who works for an overtly Pro-Trump media outlet is lamenting the state of the media because he cares ever so much about fair journalistic standards. Nevermind that as a partisan hack working in the opinion section of a pro-GOP/Trump newspaper he is actively contributing to the problem that causes him great spiritual distress. If only people would acknowledge the truth, as he does, which is that Trump is a heaven sent savior who can do no wrong and all negative or critical coverage of Him is therefore invalid based on His infallibility.

[One Degree]

@SpecialOlympian said...

Trump is a heaven sent savior who can do no wrong and all negative or critical coverage of Him is therefore invalid based on His infallibility.

Amen brother. Welcome to the fold.

[Albert]

Yes, this is typical right-wing concern trolling. The man who works for an overtly Pro-Trump media outlet is lamenting the state of the media because he cares ever so much about fair journalistic standards. Nevermind that as a partisan hack working in the opinion section of a pro-GOP/Trump newspaper he is actively contributing to the problem that causes him great spiritual distress. If only people would acknowledge the truth, as he does, which is that Trump is a heaven sent savior who can do no wrong and all negative or critical coverage of Him is therefore invalid based on His infallibility.

Well I do not know about Michel Goodwin. Yet the article he wrote is pretty much hits the spot the way I see things as well.

We here I found another article by him.

The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning



To understand the madness gripping American leftists, try to see the world through their eyes. Presto, you’re now part of the raging resistance.

Like the Palestinians who mark Israel’s birth as their nakba, or tragedy, you regard Donald Trump’s 2016 victory as a catastrophe. It’s the last thing you think of most nights, and the first thing most mornings.

You can’t shake it or escape it. Whatever you watch, listen to or read, there are reminders — Donald Trump really is president.

You actually believe the New York Times is too nice to him, so you understand why a Manhattan woman urged a reporter there to stop covering Trump to protest his presidency.

And where the hell is Robert Mueller? He was supposed to save us from this nightmare — that’s what Chuck Schumer banked on. Well?

You spend your tax cut even as you rail against the man who made it happen. And you are pleased that cousin Jimmy finally got a job, though you repeat the daily devotional that Barack Obama deserves credit for the roaring economy.

And now this — Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring, and Trump gets another Supreme Court pick. The court might tilt right for the rest of your life. He’s winning.

NOOOOOOOOO!!!

In a nutshell, our visit to the tortured mind of a Trump hater explains everything from Saturday’s mass marches to why a Virginia restaurant owner declared No Soup for Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Their loathing for Trump is bone-deep and all-consuming. This is war and they take no prisoners.

For most marchers, border policies offer a chance to vent. They didn’t make a peep when Obama did the same thing.

If children are their main concern, they could help the 23,000 New York City kids living in shelters. Or they could have attended the funeral of Lesandro Guzman-Feliz, the innocent Bronx teen hacked to death by a Dominican gang.

Instead, they give in to Trump Derangement Syndrome, which causes them to immediately and absolutely adopt the opposite position of the president’s — facts and common sense be damned.

Alas, they may look back on the last few months as the good old days. For Trump, despite his stumbles and the Mueller shadow, is finding a political sweet spot.

He is reaching a high-water mark in his presidency, with his support growing and expanding. Events, including big Supreme Court rulings and Kennedy’s retirement, give him chances to pad his advantage.

It’s a swift reversal from just 11 days ago, when Trump was sucking wind. The media was — again — treating him like a piñata over the separation of families on the border, and the White House was ready to fight a war it couldn’t win.

Then the president suddenly called off the dogs to sign an executive order ending family separations. Much of the hot air instantly came out of the resistance balloon, though protests continue because the left is embracing little or no border control as its passion of the moment.

Whether it’s because of Trump’s quick reversal and/or the left’s overreaction, polls are capturing the president’s rising fortunes. One survey showed most Americans were not nearly as sympathetic to the illegal border crossers as the media.

“I think it’s terrible about the kids getting split up from their parents. But the parents shouldn’t have been here,” a Minnesota woman told the Times.

Another poll shows Trump with 90 percent support among Republicans, matching the backing of President George W. Bush after 9/11.

And his support is broadening. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed his approval rating hitting 47 percent, a two-point gain in one month driven by a 10-point swing among Hispanic voters and a four-point gain among Democrats.

Pollsters attributed the rise to the strong economy and that a whopping 75 percent approved of the president’s decision to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.

Finally, a Pew finding about Trump supporters upends stereotypes: Just 31 percent are white men without college degrees, while 66 percent are college graduates, women or nonwhites.

These signs of the Big Mo switching sides came before two Supreme Court rulings that favored Trump. The first upheld his revised travel ban for a handful of Muslim-majority nations, saying it was within his ­executive authority.

It rebuked lower-court judges who bought the partisan canard that it was a “Muslim ban.” Their invalid rulings stood in stark contrast to plain readings of the law and show them to be hacks blowing with the political wind.

The second ruling, which blocks municipal unions from forcing workers to pay dues, is a tax cut for workers who opt out and a blow to Dems in New York, New Jersey and other blue states. The nexus between unions and Democrats turned those states into one-party fiefdoms — and resulted in union contracts taxpayers can’t afford.

Both rulings were 5-4, with Kennedy supplying the swing votes in an otherwise evenly divided court. That Trump will soon nominate his successor and likely have that person confirmed before the midterm elections improves GOP chances to hold Congress and the president’s chance to cement his legacy as an agent of dramatic change.

Because Democrats set the agenda for most media, the immediate talking point was that abortion rights are threatened with another GOP pick. While that is unlikely, given the Supremes’ traditional respect for precedent, the larger fact is that there is much more at stake than any single issue.

Consider that the travel-ban case upheld broad presidential authority on national security, and the union ruling was among several supporting First Amendment rights of individuals against government infringement.

Rulings like these have long-term cultural and political impacts and explain why Supreme Court appointments can have an outsize influence on a president’s legacy.

Already Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first pick, is enormously popular with those who believe a justice’s job is to make sure laws pass constitutional muster, not legislate from the bench. A second pick in the Gorsuch mold would secure a majority on the court for curbing government’s appetite for more domestic power, perhaps for decades.

And that could do something extraordinary for Trump’s legacy. All else being stable, putting the Supreme Court on an enduring constitutional footing would make his presidency one of the most consequential of any age.

Cue the wailing.

New Deb mini-me
New Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is a great fit with Mayor Bill de Blasio. Like his boss, Carranza is obsessed with counting racial beans and believes the answer to every problem is more money.

One of them was more than enough. Two may be more than even New York City can handle.

An easy ‘pass’
A friend writes with a question: “How is it that if you arrive at JFK Airport without a passport, you are sent back to your place of origin, whereas if you cross the Rio Grande River without a passport, you are not sent back?”

https://nypost.com/2018/06/30/the-left- ... s-winning/


He is right though. I guess truth is bias to you guys. If there is no mention of how wonderful it is not to have borders, how great homosexuality and multiracial societies are. It is automatically bias and is written by a Nazi.

[SpecialOlympian]

How incredibly surprising that the rightwing oped writer who works for the pro-Trump media outlet speaks directly to Albert's sensibilities. Is anyone else as shocked as I am?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Just one randomly selected article about independents are not independent. They lean Democrat by the same margin the poll showed.

It says that "true independents" are rarer than a simple poll question implies. But it doesn't say they lean Democrat. It picks off leaners to each party at about the same rate. The trust shown in the poll for CNN over Trump was a margin of 15%.

[Beren]

Trump was created by the liberal media, they were symbiotic. He was their favourite flamboyant Manhattan prince and extravagant businessman, real estate tycoon, casino owner and billionaire womaniser. Anytime he came up with the idea of running for president, they jumped on it, or even asked for it, then they gave him tremendous amounts of free air time when he actually did. Trump still prefers bad press to no press and being ignored. Good media coverage may be better than bad media coverage, but the best is if there's a balance of them, because he can utilise both.

[skinster]

Ter is disappointed corporation-owned, links-with-US-govt-agencies media sources like the NYT and WP are not telling the truth.

He's not even American so wtf.

I posted this in the propaganda thread but some of its content is related to this thread:

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The Left needs to face reality: Trump is winning

Sovereignty is winning - hopefully.

That's all this comes down to. Today's populists are pro-sovereignty and pro-nationhood, including but not limited to, the decision who can join the country and who cannot, opposition to all-encompassing so-called free trade deals and the "pooling" of sovereignty or similar euphemisms.

They are also opposed to progressive articles of faith that lack any basis in reality such as diversity is strength (as opposed to unity) and everybody is equal (other than before the law and in worth).

Trump is on message most of the time, so it's not really surprising that he's doing well with the voters who care about the above. If the economy tanks or something unexpected and negative happens he might have a problem, but otherwise he's very likely to do just fine.

[colliric]

Ter is disappointed corporation-owned, links-with-US-govt-agencies media sources like the NYT and WP are not telling the truth.

He's not even American so wtf.

We live in the smartphone + internet age. Ter is getting daily instantaneous news from America and his Google web results will include these sources. Naturally he is going to be interested in them, and maybe annoyed by the results he is getting in his searching.

America's Business is the World's Business now...... I can communicate directly with President Trump(or his Twitter account) right now if I really wanted to.

[SpecialOlympian]

I'm glad the right wing brainworms RE: media have spread so thoroughly that Kaiser is now repsonding to NY Post OpEd article titles.

It appears our resident chuds have grown to resent reality and anyone who presents it accurately to them. Such as pointing out that Trump is unpopular, his policies are executed incompetently, said polices are generating massive backlash, and that he and his administration leak embarrassing secrets like a sieve. Many of those leaks coming from Trump himself.

We're talking about an administration who allowed Michael Wolff to just sort of "hang out" in the White House for months while everyone competed to paint their coworkers in the worst light possible for his book. Can you imagine any real businessman like, say, the CEO of Exxon-Mobil, GE, Wal-Mart, etc. allowing a reporter to just wander around their corporate offices doing whatever they liked with no supervision or oversight? For months?

Trump's administrative org chart could best be described a circular firing squad with everyone using the media instead of guns. And yet, our resident chuds find it inconceivable the media coverage generated by such brilliant leadership could be negative (which is different from biased, I know some people here have trouble with that).

[Rugoz]

Sovereignty is winning - hopefully.

That's all this comes down to. Today's populists are pro-sovereignty and pro-nationhood, including but not limited to, the decision who can join the country and who cannot, opposition to all-encompassing so-called free trade deals and the "pooling" of sovereignty or similar euphemisms.

They are also opposed to progressive articles of faith that lack any basis in reality such as diversity is strength (as opposed to unity) and everybody is equal (other than before the law and in worth).

Trump is on message most of the time, so it's not really surprising that he's doing well with the voters who care about the above. If the economy tanks or something unexpected and negative happens he might have a problem, but otherwise he's very likely to do just fine.

What a silly post.

With Trump only the sovereignty of the big powers is winning. His idea of sovereignty is to be able to bully others into submission. As for "diversity is strength (as opposed to unity)" and "everybody is equal (other than before the law and in worth)", that's hardly a mainstream position. Voting for a lunatic like Trump to counter a few radical SJWs is simply inane.

I have always known the New York Times, especially the New York Times, as a trustworthy quality newspaper. To some extent, the same was true for the Washington Post. Those reputations are out of the window for about half the people in the US and probably from elsewhere as well. The moment journalists let their personal opinion permeate everything they write, it is no longer news but opinion. As is explained in the OP.

If you're such an avid reader of the nytimes, how hard can it be to post an article that serves as a good example of bias? I'm genuinely interested.

[Hong Wu]

So, SO pretty much tells us that he posts while drunk or high for his own entertainment. Let's not let get bent out of shape over it.

This is niche but it's one of my favorite Bollywood movies:

Some shower thoughts regarding the Harvard poll:

First, it was treated as legitimate upon its release by practically every major media publication or commentator.

Second, it's true that it was released some months ago and studied a time period some months before that. But this is not actually unusual. It wasn't a "we asked people questions" poll, it was a thorough analysis so it makes sense that it would take them months to complete and release it.

Third, Harvard does not appear to be in this to gain political points, so this isn't a common and running thing they do. There appear to have been people who were genuinely interested in settling a toxic debate on something that seemed obvious, so they did this study and released it and it did indeed settle the issue for most people.

The only legitimate counter-argument would be that things have changed since the time period that the study considered. I haven't seen anyone take that position.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

What a silly post.

With Trump only the sovereignty of the big powers is winning. His idea of sovereignty is to be able to bully others into submission.

Nonsense. This is a movement in opposition to ever more openness and international rule-based decision making which is undermining democracy. Let me know when Trump is bullying Canada into accepting free movement and submitting to US based courts and regulations. At that point I might take your objections seriously.

As for "diversity is strength (as opposed to unity)" and "everybody is equal (other than before the law and in worth)", that's hardly a mainstream position. Voting for a lunatic like Trump to counter a few radical SJWs is simply inane.

Huh? I suspect Justin Trudeau disagrees that he is a radical. As does the Canadian tech community and the Progressive Caucus in the US. That's just from a quick search. Feel free to do your own to see left wing leaders all across the western world proclaim this and similar articles of faith.

To be successful in the 21st century we also need to increase diversity in the workforce by way of hiring practices (1 2 3 4 5).

E.g. BBC diversity strategy:

New 2020 On-air PORTRAYAL TARGETS to ensure our content on screen and on-air reflects our audiences
a. 50% women on screen, on-air and in lead roles across all genres from Drama to News
b. 8% disabled people on screen and on-air including some lead roles
c. 8% LGBT on screen portrayal including some lead roles
d. 15% black, Asian and ethnic minorities on screen, on-air and in lead roles across all genres

New 2020 WORKFORCE TARGETS to ensure our employees and LEADERSHIP TEAMS reflect and represent modern UK.
Women 50%; Ethnic minorities 15%; Disability 8% and for the first time LGBT 8%.

As for biased articles that are not opinion pieces, with focus on the NYT because it is probably the most influential newspaper in the US and has portrayed itself as impartial for a long time:

1. NYT on free speech: How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment. Long article with a slant already given away by the headline and ending with a warning:

In response, Justice Kagan said the court’s conservatives had found a dangerous tool, “turning the First Amendment into a sword.” The United States, she said, should brace itself.

“Speech is everywhere — a part of every human activity (employment, health care, securities trading, you name it),” she wrote. “For that reason, almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech. So the majority’s road runs long. And at every stop are black-robed rulers overriding citizens’ choices.”

2. NYT expressing frustration that demographics have not yet delivered victory to Democrats in every district: If Demographics Are Destiny, Why Can’t Democrats Win This Denver District? Answer: Because a "renegade Republican" has snatched victory from them, but fear not - the time for Democrats has finally come:

He supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, and he won re-election easily in 2016 even as his district backed Hillary Clinton by 9 percentage points.

But that was before President Trump and “zero tolerance” along the southern border. This year, liberal groups and immigration activists hope to flip these diversifying suburbs, in part by mining the fear, anger and activism unleashed by Mr. Trump’s policies.

Not much information content in this article. It goes on to quote and sympathetically describe plenty of Dem-leaning immigrants. The token Republican gets to finish the article with this quote:

“It’s getting worse,” he said. “I can live with everybody, but the bad elements are moving in. We need to get stronger. It’s moving. Fast.”

Not sure how many people they had to interview until they managed to get something that sounds like a bad movie script.

3. Also see this column on the NYT's reporting of Britain after the referendum (including opinion pieces).

4. NYT focusing on small disadvantage in math scores for girls while ignoring much larger disadvantage in English for boys: Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math

[SpecialOlympian]

So, SO pretty much tells us that he posts while drunk or high for his own entertainment.

Yes. Imagine doing things for fun. Do you not enjoy the act of posting? If not, what is wrong with you and why do you feel obligated to post when you don't enjoy it and aren't getting paid to do so?

I'm getting paid to post half the time. Do you? Finance owns.

Some shower thoughts regarding the Harvard poll:

First, it was treated as legitimate upon its release by practically every major media publication or commentator.

Second, it's true that it was released some months ago and studied a time period some months before that. But this is not actually unusual. It wasn't a "we asked people questions" poll, it was a thorough analysis so it makes sense that it would take them months to complete and release it.

Third, Harvard does not appear to be in this to gain political points, so this isn't a common and running thing they do. There appear to have been people who were genuinely interested in settling a toxic debate on something that seemed obvious, so they did this study and released it and it did indeed settle the issue for most people.

The only legitimate counter-argument would be that things have changed since the time period that the study considered. I haven't seen anyone take that position.

First, when was it treated as illegitimate?

Points 2 is just pointless babbling so I won't address it.

Third, I bet if you go back exactly four years from now in the Harvard archives you will find many studies on the previous election. It's almost as if they are historically significant events that people from various disciplines would want to study.

I get that you're attempting to be disingenuous. I just don't get how you can be so bad at it.

[Hong Wu]

I guess if I were to put some more effort in, both trolling and wanting to be taken seriously is a fine line to walk. You'd probably have to be friendlier in your trolling if you want both. You basically toe the line just short of being banned which wouldn't satisfy me personally.

[SpecialOlympian]

It's a knack, not a skill, Hong Wu. If you haven't mastered it after a decade of effort then... welp!



Try to excel at something else, I guess. I dunno. Wherever you choose to go from here... I can't help you. Not my monkey, not my circus. Definitely not your monkey or circus. Best of wishes in your future endeavors.

[Rugoz]

Nonsense. This is a movement in opposition to ever more openness and international rule-based decision making which is undermining democracy. Let me know when Trump is bullying Canada into accepting free movement and submitting to US based courts and regulations. At that point I might take your objections seriously.

Seriously?

Trump is bullying Canada to get a better deal for the US and he tries the same with Europe (not only the EU by the way). National and popular sovereignty can only exist in a framework of international law that limits economic and military warfare. You complain about the EU, fair enough, but luckily EU neighbors still have WTO rules to fall back to as long as the EU respects them. If Trump tears it all down the sovereignty of smaller countries will be the first victim.

To be successful in the 21st century we also need to increase diversity in the workforce by way of hiring practices

I think one can make a case for on-screen roles being representative of the general population. As for the workforce in general though, I agree it's anti-meritocratic. Still, hiring practices at the BBC do worry me less than a POTUS who sees the world as a zero sum game.

As for biased articles that are not opinion pieces, with focus on the NYT because it is probably the most influential newspaper in the US and has portrayed itself as impartial for a long time:

I agree those articles are low quality, one-sided and with little useful information.