Octopus Overlords

I'm full of bad analogies. Bad analogies are my bread and butter.

Mitigating factors are mitigating factors.

When someone says "I don't disagree with you" what does that mean to you?

I'm guilty of not enthusiastically supporting your point in this particular case, at worst.

I'm sure YK is suitably chagrined however. Unlike the people we're defending, he has a conscience and I'm sure his insults were more conditioned instinct than conscious undermining. Realizing what he did almost certainly hurt him personally, because he actually gives a shit about how he views and treats other people.

It isn't #fakenews instead it is #garbagenews. Why does CNN keep giving these malcontents a platform?

As far as the Sarah Manatee Sanders thing, I decided long ago that making fun of appearances was NOT off limits with her. Because she actively supports and spreads the propaganda of a man who says that's an OK thing to do to women. It's my petty way of making her reap what she sows (at least in my own mind).

And yes, I know that two wrongs don't make a right. That we should pull a Michelle Obama and "go high" when they go low. But my hatred for that mouthpiece is such that I can't help myself. If making fun of the appearance of a bad person makes us bad people, then we should all be in moral jail for making fun of Trump's tan and hair. Typically we get a pass because he's human garbage. I'm just applying the same standard to Sanders.

YellowKing wrote:As far as the Sarah Manatee Sanders thing, I decided long ago that making fun of appearances was NOT off limits with her. Because she actively supports and spreads the propaganda of a man who says that's an OK thing to do to women. It's my petty way of making her reap what she sows (at least in my own mind).

And yes, I know that two wrongs don't make a right. That we should pull a Michelle Obama and "go high" when they go low. But my hatred for that mouthpiece is such that I can't help myself. If making fun of the appearance of a bad person makes us bad people, then we should all be in moral jail for making fun of Trump's tan and hair. Typically we get a pass because he's human garbage. I'm just applying the same standard to Sanders.

I prefer Minister of Propaganda. Less insulting to the manatees.

We "get a pass" on Drumpf because men have a long tradition of judging women on their looks regardless of their qualifications, and this drives the objectification of women. When men insult the appearance of other men, it doesn't carry the weight of hundreds of years of men being nothing but sexual objects behind it.

We're not at the stage where men can insult a woman's appearance and it not carry hundreds of years of objectification behind it, which is pretty much the only reason appearance is off limits regarding men insulting women. Unless of course the woman has made appearance a motivating topic of conversation somehow, at which point appearance is fair game.

Insults are meant to be insulting after all, not necessarily valid criticisms.

I think it's safe to say Sanders doesn't ever have to worry about me sexually objectifying her. I'm guessing one of the reasons she was hired is that it's one of the few pussies Trump *wouldn't* grab.

STOP YK! STOP! BAD YK!

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:05 am We "get a pass" on Drumpf because men have a long tradition of judging women on their looks regardless of their qualifications, and this drives the objectification of women. When men insult the appearance of other men, it doesn't carry the weight of hundreds of years of men being nothing but sexual objects behind it.

We're not at the stage where men can insult a woman's appearance and it not carry hundreds of years of objectification behind it, which is pretty much the only reason appearance is off limits regarding men insulting women. Unless of course the woman has made appearance a motivating topic of conversation somehow, at which point appearance is fair game.

Insults are meant to be insulting after all, not necessarily valid criticisms.

+1

and, another +1 because it deserves it.

Plus, insulting SHS's appearance completely misses the point of her awfulness. She's not exactly a beauty, but that's not a sin.

Lying for the president, enabling bigotry, and covering for creeping authoritarianism are.

Fox News, doing more to kill the 4th Estate and Journalism:

Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt was clearly taken aback last year when occasional Fox & Friends fill-in host Ed Henry grilled him about a number of ethical scandals facing his administration.

And Pruitt had a good reason to be surprised. In past interviews with President Trump’s favorite cable-news show, the then-EPA chief’s team chose the topics for interviews, and knew the questions in advance.

In one instance, according to emails revealed in a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by the Sierra Club and reviewed by The Daily Beast, Pruitt’s team even approved part of the show’s script.

Fox & Friends has long been a friendly venue for Trump and his allies, but the emails demonstrate how the show has pushed standard cable-news practices to the extreme in order to make interviews a comfortable, non-confrontational experience for favored government officials.

Oh man, did no one think to let the fill-in host know about the usual arrangement? That's awesome.

I'd cut them some slack because they are just a talk show and can promote Homeopathy if they want, but they have highly placed politicians as guests all the time and ask political questions. I expect more responsibility if they are going to promote political narratives without being factual.

Hell, John Stewart was more even handed than these guys, and he was a left leaning satirist.

An appearance on Fox & Friends is basically a performance review with Trump.

Jobs are on the line here, people. Why do you hate jobs?

New: Russian President Vladimir Putin will discuss the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at G20 summit in Buenos Aires -Russian state news agency TASS.

"Very much your technique I admire with bone saw, but still, for the points in style, there is no beating of Polonium. Or window."

Credit where credit is due. CNN added a facts overlay next to Sanders speaking. I think it is potentially a great idea! Finally some push back and a strategy to combat the constant lying. If they keep it up, I'm reasonably certain the WH will simply shut down the pressers entirely but is that really bad if all they use it for is propaganda?

CNN is so rude. It really is a terrible person.

Fox headlines I have refused to click on:

"Is America really safer with George Papadopoulos in Jail?"
"Hateful critics bash Melania Trump White House holiday decor" and included in the images was the Sesame Street Martians photoshop.

Fuck you, Fox.

Fuck you for attempting to undermine the justice system because your guy got his comeuppance. You want to talk about the pros and cons of putting Papadopoulos in jail, do that. Don't narrow the context to a single, isolated facet of justice and then discuss it like the only facet that matters is the one you chose.

Fuck you for trying to paint a hilarious and tongue in cheek photoshop as somehow hateful and mean spirited. Personally I think over the top, mean spirited criticism of Melania with regard to the WH decorations is unwarranted and distasteful, but for fuck's sake, be honest about your criticism of the critics. Not everyone you don't like is the devil, and not everything you don't like is hateful. That's what got us Drumpf in the first place, and this is what sets you apart from other, less than honest media companies.

Dude, the rabid right FEEDS off hate and righteous anger!

Trump knows this, Fox knows this, and they have both been extremely successful because they know how to use that knowledge to create more viewers, more sycophants, more support.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:13 pm "Is America really safer with George Papadopoulos in Jail?"

Isn't that sort of anti Ayn Rand?

Jailing for safety = utilitarian = end justify the means = collectivism = evil

Fox conservatives are supposed to believe jailing is for just us, aren't they?

Didn't know where to put this but he is clearly referring to another systemic media failure around this issue. The GOP did this in NC and it barely merited a mention. Now they are running this playbook in MI and WI. This isn't a one off - it is a blatant attack on democracy and the NY Times calls it to paraphrase 'shoring up their strength'. Come on.

CNN is full on pretend navel gazing for clicks at this point. Actually *don't click it*.

To sum it up. After Chris Cuomo and Kelly Anne had their nearly hour long battle, Don Lemon questioned on air whether CNN should book her anymore. Reasonable question. But why on air? Then they had a segment discussing the 'controversy' they cooked up? This is preposterous trash.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:41 am CNN is full on pretend navel gazing for clicks at this point. Actually *don't click it*.

To sum it up. After Chris Cuomo and Kelly Anne had their nearly hour long battle, Don Lemon questioned on air whether CNN should book her anymore. Reasonable question. But why on air? Then they had a segment discussing the 'controversy' they cooked up? This is preposterous trash.

I didn't click it, but I definitely think there's value in making the debate public.

Simply icing out Trump stooges tells no one anything. Explaining *why* you're ignoring them makes the journalistic choice transparent.

In the age of Trump, explaining how news works is an important part of the news.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:28 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:41 am CNN is full on pretend navel gazing for clicks at this point. Actually *don't click it*.

To sum it up. After Chris Cuomo and Kelly Anne had their nearly hour long battle, Don Lemon questioned on air whether CNN should book her anymore. Reasonable question. But why on air? Then they had a segment discussing the 'controversy' they cooked up? This is preposterous trash.

I didn't click it, but I definitely think there's value in making the debate public.

Simply icing out Trump stooges tells no one anything. Explaining *why* you're ignoring them makes the journalistic choice transparent.

In the age of Trump, explaining how news works is an important part of the news.

My problem is that they have a history of bringing on Trump liars and/or people who literally can't speak negatively about them contractually. Then having these debates on air about it. They are fueling their own news cycle with controversies that are effectively them making shit decisions. That they turned their own bad decision into 5+ hours of content is why CNN is such a hot stinking pile of shit.

Reportedly the AP's executive editor thinks that people can't figure out what is serious or not in the Mueller investigation. I'm hoping what Sally Buzbee is talking about is confusing 'reporting' on the investigation which is driven by the secrecy. Yet the comment is odd at best considering they are talking about 'how long' it is taking. Watergate went on longer and that involved people/entities exclusively inside our borders. Going outside muddies the water significantly time-wise. For example, the Mueller investigation has been battling a subpoena issued to a foreign entity since August by some accounts. Once that is adjudicated and assuming the subpoena stands, they'll still have to dig through the discovery. So that is a 5-6 month delay on one subpoena alone. Who else knows what is happening beneath the waves on top of this one account.

This is also cross-posted in the Shutdown thread too since this may be a pivotal moment for the MSM regarding covering Trump. This outstanding opinion piece by Greg Sargent highlights how the coverage tonight possibly will be a preview of 2020 media treatment of the Presidential campaign. Specifically around what or if the networks learning anything from their abysmal failures dealing with Trump's agitprop during the 2016 campaign.

Edit: This was linked in the Greg Sargent piece - Jay Rosen of NYU explains what an alternative to the media model used in 2016 might look like. However, it sure looks like he is predicting that the MSM has given up on trying to improve and is trying to push them from the outside.

Might as well throw this here as well. The national political press has elements hell-bent on bending themselves into logic-free pretzels to appear 'fair'.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 10:16 am Reportedly the AP's executive editor thinks that people can't figure out what is serious or not in the Mueller investigation. I'm hoping what Sally Buzbee is talking about is confusing 'reporting' on the investigation which is driven by the secrecy. Yet the comment is odd at best considering they are talking about 'how long' it is taking. Watergate went on longer and that involved people/entities exclusively inside our borders. Going outside muddies the water significantly time-wise. For example, the Mueller investigation has been battling a subpoena issued to a foreign entity since August by some accounts. Once that is adjudicated and assuming the subpoena stands, they'll still have to dig through the discovery. So that is a 5-6 month delay on one subpoena alone. Who else knows what is happening beneath the waves on top of this one account.

I want context because without it, I start to wonder is the AP becoming a spokesperson for Trump? Remind to start checking the wire for sources for interpretation bias.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:52 pmI want context because without it, I start to wonder is the AP becoming a spokesperson for Trump? Remind to start checking the wire for sources for interpretation bias.

I wanted context too but she never responded to the criticism. For what it is worth Buzbee also made on-air statements that they needed to reform their coverage for 2020 about a week ago. That was heartening.

However, then the AP had the 'takes 2 to tango' tweet about the Trump speech and people have really been banging on the @AP_Political handle for the last few days. And their response was pretty atrocious (posted in the shutdown thread) - but essentially that the two tango tweet was technically correct, etc. Ignoring the criticism that 'fact checking' complex items isn't the best approach.

It's kinda up to Brian Selter to provide Context, not Sally Buzbee, isn't it?

The AP it takes 2 tango thing is directly sourced, no context necessary. The Sally Buzbee thing is just some guy tweeting a quote at her for general public consumption and pithcfork wielding. I don't care for that method, while I do want to more and means to find out more is made available. If that's how you use your position as media correspondent for CNN, then that puts me even more at the 'Meh' end of how CNN does things.

I take serious issue that the Mueller investigation is driven by secrecy just because it doesn't leak like a sieve.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:17 am I take serious issue that the Mueller investigation is driven by secrecy just because it doesn't leak like a sieve.

Like it's a bad thing that an active criminal investigation isn't transparent to the public.

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:37 am

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 11:17 am I take serious issue that the Mueller investigation is driven by secrecy just because it doesn't leak like a sieve.

Like it's a bad thing that an active criminal investigation isn't transparent to the public.

It's bad for viewership/readership numbers. Who wants to hear, "nothing new today..." or "let's just wait and see.."?

They're pissed that they don't get daily nuggets to make their jobs easier.

Some people...

There's quite a few tweets from Matthew Gertz on this subject from yesterday, but here's a couple of damning ones regarding the merging of Fox News and the Trump White House.



A thread:

malchior wrote: ↑Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:41 am

Is it really? Or is it just the fact that it's already known that King is an avowed white supremacist?

Colorado Crime Journalists have a problem with encrypted police radio

encrypting all radio communications makes it harder to cover crime. Journalists usually don’t use scanner traffic directly in their reports, but they often use the traffic to learn about and respond immediately to breaking news. In that sense, expanding encryption reduces transparency.

“If you’ve ever worked in a newsroom, you know how important the police scanner is to covering a community,” Chip Stewart, a media law professor at Texas Christian University, says. “You can’t get out to cover something if you don’t know it’s happening, and journalists would be at the mercy of police public information officers. Do we want the first draft of history dictated by police PIOs?”

I think that these communications should be encrypted, however, I do see this as a bad precedent towards both community engagement and transparency.

The solution is easy, allow certified journalists the opportunity to license police scanners which can decrypt some, if not all, traffic. I'm just thinking out loud here, but maybe also put them on GPS when powered up and receiving a signal, in case they are being misused (say stolen, or in the hands of the wrong people).

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Wed Jan 23, 2019 6:53 pm Colorado Crime Journalists have a problem with encrypted police radio

encrypting all radio communications makes it harder to cover crime. Journalists usually don’t use scanner traffic directly in their reports, but they often use the traffic to learn about and respond immediately to breaking news. In that sense, expanding encryption reduces transparency.

“If you’ve ever worked in a newsroom, you know how important the police scanner is to covering a community,” Chip Stewart, a media law professor at Texas Christian University, says. “You can’t get out to cover something if you don’t know it’s happening, and journalists would be at the mercy of police public information officers. Do we want the first draft of history dictated by police PIOs?”

I think that these communications should be encrypted, however, I do see this as a bad precedent towards both community engagement and transparency.

The solution is easy, allow certified journalists the opportunity to license police scanners which can decrypt some, if not all, traffic. I'm just thinking out loud here, but maybe also put them on GPS when powered up and receiving a signal, in case they are being misused (say stolen, or in the hands of the wrong people).

Social media does a lot of what scanners do. They can find out about a lot of breaking news without scanners but with a bit more efdort. I'd prefer scanners too if I were a journalist but it's not about making their job easier.

Plenty of people are tweeting the scanner.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:13 pm Fox headlines I have refused to click on:

"Is America really safer with George Papadopoulos in Jail?"

Fuck you, Fox.

Fuck you for attempting to undermine the justice system because your guy got his comeuppance. You want to talk about the pros and cons of putting Papadopoulos in jail, do that. Don't narrow the context to a single, isolated facet of justice and then discuss it like the only facet that matters is the one you chose.

Tucker Carlson asks "is America safer now that Roger Stone has been arrested?".


It is literally a play in their playbook. Honest journalism or even honest opinion never enters into it.

How do we spin the world so it matches our view of it? That's the biggest difference between Fox bias and other MSM bias.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:03 pm
Tucker Carlson asks "is America safer now that Roger Stone has been arrested?".

Well that explains why I've been seeing people on FB say that.