Media Bias

[JimC]

See what price you can get for them first...

[L'Emmerdeur]

Apropos of rummaging through the entrails of dead squirrels--

"A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote," wrote Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump-appointed District Court judge in Wisconsin. Ludwig called Trump's election challenge "bizarre" and added, "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits." Steven Grimberg, a Trump-appointed district court judge in Georgia, wrote, "To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and potentially disenfranchisement that I find has no basis in fact or in law."

[source]

Pertinent points: 1. 'lost on the merits' 2. 'no basis in fact or in law'

These rulings by Trump-appointed judges translated from legalese tell us that the evidence presented did not support the allegations made by Trump's lawyers. The judges examined the evidence in order to make this determination. Fortunately for the republic, these rulings (and similar rulings from '86 judges--including 38 Republican appointees [among which were six others] chosen by Trump himself') carry more weight than those of the bloviating wannabe autocrat.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah but Crowder says it was fraud.

[Joe]

Apropos of rummaging through the entrails of dead squirrels--

"A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for re-election has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote," wrote Brett H. Ludwig, a Trump-appointed District Court judge in Wisconsin. Ludwig called Trump's election challenge "bizarre" and added, "This court allowed the plaintiff the chance to make his case, and he has lost on the merits." Steven Grimberg, a Trump-appointed district court judge in Georgia, wrote, "To halt the certification at literally the 11th hour would breed confusion and potentially disenfranchisement that I find has no basis in fact or in law."

[source]

Pertinent points: 1. 'lost on the merits' 2. 'no basis in fact or in law'

These rulings by Trump-appointed judges translated from legalese tell us that the evidence presented did not support the allegations made by Trump's lawyers. The judges examined the evidence in order to make this determination. Fortunately for the republic, these rulings (and similar rulings from '86 judges--including 38 Republican appointees [among which were six others] chosen by Trump himself') carry more weight than those of the bloviating wannabe autocrat.

And just to be clear, since Cunt is understandably not well versed in the finer points of American civil law, the defendants asked Judge Ludwig to dismiss Trump's suit for lack of standing, and he said no.

So when Trump claims he didn't have a chance to prove fraud in court, he's lying. He did, and lost fair and square.

[Cunt]

No media bias in discussing voting irregularities. Case closed.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Fox News tends to take cultural stories and ride them right into the ground. See for instance the War on Christmas, which has been a perennial favorite rant topic on Fox News since 2005. I don't think the War on Dr Seuss will have the same durability, but they're milking it for all they think it's worth. A peek into week three:

[Cunt]

Whenever a corporation says they are banning something from a morals place, I like to look straight to the rest of the horrible shit they don't ban, and judge their actions by it.

In other news, have you ever heard of offensive art? Some of it is deliberately offensive.

[Brian Peacock]

"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." -- Spiderman

[Hermit]

Whenever a corporation says they are banning something from a morals place, I like to look straight to the rest of the horrible shit they don't ban, and judge their actions by it.

My preference is to take the shortcut. Regardless of whether a ban can be considered the moral thing to do, or if it is consistent with stuff a corporation does not ban, I regard the action as directly or indirectly motivated by safeguarding or enhancing the bottom line.

[Cunt]

Spoken like a stockholder. Sounds cynical, but that's for a good reason.

[JimC]

No media bias in discussing voting irregularities. Case closed.

For you, I suppose that a lack of media bias would only be apparent if there was an exactly equal number of media stories claiming fraud, compared to stories claiming no fraud.

The problem with this is that the actual facts (failed court cases etc. etc.) are overwhelmingly showing no evidence for fraud, so the proportion of media stories stating this has an obvious, clear and rational cause.

[Joe]

Yeahbut, how many likes and views do those courts get? Crowder is LouderTM, so he must be right!

[JimC]

Whenever a corporation says they are banning something from a morals place, I like to look straight to the rest of the horrible shit they don't ban, and judge their actions by it.

My preference is to take the shortcut. Regardless of whether a ban can be considered the moral thing to do, or if it is consistent with stuff a corporation does not ban, I regard the action as directly or indirectly motivated by safeguarding or enhancing the bottom line.

Spoken like a stockholder. Sounds cynical, but that's for a good reason.

You don't have to be a stockholder (and I doubt Hermit would be, anyway) to analyse business processes in a dispassionate way. Noting the financial motivations within the capitalist system does not necessarily mean approving that system, no matter what one might think of any given decision.

[Joe]

We hear a lot about media from the big name journo's and commentators, but what about the workaday folks in the business. How do they deal with the changing, and not so friendly, media landscape?

Here's and interesting rumination from Maddy Butcher, a veteran reporter and equestrian.

The Return of Wild West Journalism

You might think we journalists struggle more than other folks when accusations of “fake news” and “alternative facts” splash across our virtual desktops.

That’s because the attack is not just on liberal news outlets but on media and the propagation of information in general. It’s an attack on journalism’s basic mission to fairly inform readers.

I may be a reporter but I’m also a reader. And when university research shows that most people think that we journalists are actually enemies of the state, well, let’s just say I can take a hint. (For those of you who are so darn persnickety about sources, I’m referring to the recent Suffolk University poll which shows that two-thirds of Fox News watchers believe that mainstream media is the enemy of the people.),

I’ve seen a lawyer! I’ve seen the light!

Party line! Party on!

Wild West journalism is so much more fun anyway. Remember when frontier reports promised water and farmland aplenty to any Easterner with an ear to bend? Remember when reports of “Gold in Them Thar Hills” was the real, honest-to-god headline on news stands?

Author Timothy Snyder reminded me of Wild West journalism in a recent interview. He said:

“In the descent from a world of factual discourse into a world of emotions and alternative realities, the first step you take… [is to] manufacture lots of stuff that isn’t true. The second step is that you claim that everyone is like this. You spread this kind of cynicism that you shouldn’t really trust anybody…Once that belief spreads we’re then in the world …which is ripe for fascism.”

His book is called “On Tyranny” and he teaches at Yale. But the guy lacks a sense of humor, don’t you think?

We need writers and reporters who are more easy-going and have better senses of humor. More and more, I look at my old journalism life and laugh.

I remember, for example, reporting on a large, intense animal cruelty case. Thanks to the coverage, the animal welfare officials investigated. Thanks to the coverage, the county District Attorney prosecuted. Scores of horses, goats, pigs, and other animals were removed from the abusers’ possession and the couple in question was convicted.

Not surprisingly, these folks did not appreciate the coverage and called it untrue and “fake news.”

I see their point of view now. More and more, the truth is just so much trouble. More and more, I prefer the news to reflect my social media newsfeed: sound bites and images that affirm my beliefs. No questioning or contrariness please. Embracing an ideology of doubt? No thanks!

More...

[Brian Peacock]

Whenever a corporation says they are banning something from a morals place, I like to look straight to the rest of the horrible shit they don't ban, and judge their actions by it.

My preference is to take the shortcut. Regardless of whether a ban can be considered the moral thing to do, or if it is consistent with stuff a corporation does not ban, I regard the action as directly or indirectly motivated by safeguarding or enhancing the bottom line.

Spoken like a stockholder. Sounds cynical, but that's for a good reason.

You don't have to be a stockholder (and I doubt Hermit would be, anyway) to analyse business processes in a dispassionate way. Noting the financial motivations within the capitalist system does not necessarily mean approving that system, no matter what one might think of any given decision.

Don't dis the passionate.