Octopus Overlords

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:13 pm I'm going to get an "Enemy of the People" shirt printed up!

Stoping is the process of extracting the desired ore or other mineral from an underground mine, leaving behind an open space known as a stope.[1] Stoping is used when the country rock is sufficiently strong not to collapse into the stope, although in most cases artificial support is also provided.

The IRS is complicated. So is running a 148-year-old newspaper in 2019.

Three weeks and one New York Times profile after announcing its shift to staffers and readers, Utah’s Salt Lake Tribune officially submitted its bid to the IRS to become a nonprofit May 30. The Tribune joins a small handful of newspapers in North America relying on nonprofit status (mostly by being owned by a nonprofit rather than being a nonprofit themselves), but it’s making a new case to the IRS.

“This ability to give to seek and share information that’s difficult for residents to do on their own is a fundamental purpose of journalism and it is fundamental of a 501(c)(3),

Kraken wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:55 pm Forbes and The Hill are right-wing? The Hill runs opinions across the spectrum. I'd call Forbes center-right.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:48 am

We needed to deliver a nuanced message in a very small space under tight deadlines, and unfortunately, our first attempt at that did not hit it right.

When a group of top editors received an email with the first edition of the front page last night, we saw the headline, realized that it was not a good one and decided to change it. It’s not uncommon for our masthead editors to adjust headlines as we go.

As this conversation was happening among Times editors, readers began discussing the initial headline on Twitter. They rightly pointed out that the initial headline didn’t reflect the story accurately.

NY Times wrote:We needed to deliver a nuanced message in a very small space under tight deadlines, and unfortunately, our first attempt at that did not hit it right.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:09 pm It's not that much different that doxxing. It depends on the context, really.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:26 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:09 pm It's not that much different that doxxing. It depends on the context, really.

You can't dox something that is already public information. Personally I would have left off the retired folks and left it as a list of businesses to boycott. That aside, the larger point is that there is little evidence of violence on the left that could be inflamed here.

Even if you were fair and talked about how the Dayton shooter was 'leftist', it apparently had little to do with the violence as he had at least an anecdotal if not documented history of mental illness with violent urges. There has been no (public) evidence of political motive. That one of the NY Times top Trump reporter thinks that there is some equivalence on the left is what I think most people are wondering about here. It is a bit of evidence of the bothsides mentality that has broken discourse across large swaths of the main news media.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:43 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:26 pm

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:09 pm It's not that much different that doxxing. It depends on the context, really.

You can't dox something that is already public information. Personally I would have left off the retired folks and left it as a list of businesses to boycott. That aside, the larger point is that there is little evidence of violence on the left that could be inflamed here.

Even if you were fair and talked about how the Dayton shooter was 'leftist', it apparently had little to do with the violence as he had at least an anecdotal if not documented history of mental illness with violent urges. There has been no (public) evidence of political motive. That one of the NY Times top Trump reporter thinks that there is some equivalence on the left is what I think most people are wondering about here. It is a bit of evidence of the bothsides mentality that has broken discourse across large swaths of the main news media.

Of course you can.

That's the whole point of doxxing. To make it easy for idiots to harass someone. In this case, they didn't add contact information so it's certainly not horrible, but I can understand why it makes people uncomfortable.

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:00 pm This headline is journalistic malpractice. Influential voices in the media are incomprehensibly incompetent in the face of this guy. They literally just megaphone whatever empty bullshit falls out of his 'mouth'.

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:40 pm If you click through to their story, you'll find accurate, level-headed reporting. So Reuters wrote a neutral headline. It is not American media.

WaPo wrote:The tweet seemed harmless enough to David Karpf. The associate professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University took a story that bedbugs had infested the New York Times newsroom as an occasion to dig at his least favorite Times writer, the conservative columnist Bret Stephens.

“The bedbugs are a metaphor,” Karpf wrote on Monday. “The bedbugs are Bret Stephens."

The tweet got nine total likes and zero retweets, Karpf said. So the professor was surprised when an email from Stephens himself popped in a few hours later.

Then, he noticed his provost at GWU was copied on the email. And Stephens was furious.

“I’m often amazed about the things supposedly decent people are prepared to say about other people — people they’ve never met — on Twitter. I think you’ve set a new standard,” Stephens wrote. “I would welcome the opportunity for you to come to my home, meet my wife and kids, talk to us for a few minutes, and then call me a ‘bedbug’ to my face. That would take some genuine courage and intellectual integrity on your part.”