Political Discussion In The 20s

Topic

Let’s reboot this thing. Have at thee.

Replies

Anonymous wrote:

Centrism is a bad word these days, but I think it’s the best way. Looking for a broad consensus and stability and only implementing slow gradual change.

As long as there is change. Centrism in Germany has led to two decades of virtually no positive change. And here we are, with climate change barrelling down on us and an eroded health service dealing with a pandemic (and yes, although the German health situation is still better than many other countries, things have continuously been eroded especially when it comes to nurses and their working conditions).

The problem seems to me that centrism doesn’t really allow for change; someone has to come in demanding actual change for things to move even gradually.

1 user thanked author for this post.

lorcan_nagle

The term Centrism presupposes that it is a necessary consequence of all democracies to be diametrically opposed ans therefore must meet in the middle.

That’s a destabilising idea that really works against the fundamentals of democracy going back to Perakles. And, frankly, it has nothing to do with passing policy. Policy making is bilateral and generally (but not always) bipartisan. It is not binaric.

So I think youre both wrong. Youre both wrong wrong heads and my way (let’s call it The Third Way) is the correct way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

What about some old-fashioned gerrymandering and everyone has to do as I tell them?

Anthony Giddens wants a word.

1 user thanked author for this post.

If you couldn’t tell that post was deliberately tongue-in-cheek.

Suffice to say that, if you think about politics in terms of two-sides, you’ll never feel like it is a successful institution unless your side is declaratively “winning” – which it never will.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Ben

But of course, still too good an opportunity for me to also be playful.

1 user thanked author for this post.

A very good one.  High risk, but high opportunity.

I almost got it right. I thought you were referring to Jimmy Carter’s influence.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Bernie Sanders is dropping out.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

[Todd]

After the last set of primary losses, Bernie’s run was essentially dead.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by Todd.

Christian wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Centrism is a bad word these days, but I think it’s the best way. Looking for a broad consensus and stability and only implementing slow gradual change.

As long as there is change. Centrism in Germany has led to two decades of virtually no positive change. And here we are, with climate change barrelling down on us and an eroded health service dealing with a pandemic (and yes, although the German health situation is still better than many other countries, things have continuously been eroded especially when it comes to nurses and their working conditions).

The problem seems to me that centrism doesn’t really allow for change; someone has to come in demanding actual change for things to move even gradually.

A lot of so called centrist politicians and policies are unfortunately pretty crappy and not in any way moderate, like the regime change agenda that the Hilary people got associated with. I can’t call that centrist at all. It’s pretty extreme.

I think there is quite a good consensus that things like climate change and healthcare pose real problems and they have to dealt with. In that sense someone like Bernie is more of a centrist than say Mitt Romney is.

 

One of the worst things is the neocons using Trump to paint themselves as moderates. Bill Kristol is a democrat now.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

To me there’s little doubt it’s going on, the question is more how effective it may be.

A couple of years back The Guardian did an audio investigation where they actually went to one of the troll farm. It was in Belarus, they’d tracked it down by tracing IP addresses on comments and how they were pretty much unrelated to the locality. They had teenagers basically who did it while still studying and had a good command of English, itwas cheap by western standards but pretty good pay for kids in Belarus. They were quite open that they had scripts to work from and were often asked to play both sides.

It’s not even that subtle, you can spot the bots very easily, they almost always have 8 digits in their name, they have next to no followers. I see 2 or 3 in my Twitter feed every day. It still works though, even though I ignore anything with that profile they get retweeted in anger all the time and the stirring works.

I just checked a post from Boris Johnson’s account and here you go, about 10 posts down, a volatile comment from a bot.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Christian, Todd

Bezmenov is a good watch, even though he might be a bit right wing, it is about the same things Adam Curtis talked about regarding Putin and Surkov. I think it’s a kind of radical doubt until you’re prepared to overthrow the society you live in, saw off the branch you sit on, and do the bidding of your opponent. I watched those videos a few times and the last couple of times I was watching Jimmy Dore, I thought shit, this is exactly what he was talking about.

 

I kinda recognize those feelings in myself, Is there anything I’d defend? Is there anything good the society I live in has to offer? I think you have to believe it does. But it is hard sometimes not to be demoralized.

 

Like I said, Bezmenov is a bit right wing and an Americanophile, but I think the method he describes is real. It was also kind of confirmed by a documentary the New York Times did.

 

 

edit: hm, it’s funny how positive they are about the Reagan administration and their commitment to “The Truth”. I think there is little doubt the US did much of the same against communist countries. And many other dirty tricks.

 

 

garjones wrote:

I just checked a post from Boris Johnson’s account and here you go, about 10 posts down, a volatile comment from a bot.

To be fair to the bot, I know people who cheered too.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

We’re not going to come back from the outrage economy. Even the people I know who have a professional understanding of how it works are still drawn by the things that upset them, which they then share, both privately and publicly.

But we can stay aware of it, we can call it out and we can legislate, as we go along.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

rory wrote:

Bernie Sanders is dropping out.

Wow! Do you think it was because of my post?

1 user thanked author for this post.

njerry

DavidM wrote:

To be fair to the bot, I know people who cheered too.

I’m sure they did but the point is that he or she is deliberately putting in something that inflames strong emotions and polarises debate. It doesn’t necessarily have to be lies but 30 or 40 of these are peppered into every post a major political figure makes.

Anonymous wrote:

Suffice to say that, if you think about politics in terms of two-sides, you’ll never feel like it is a successful institution unless your side is declaratively “winning” – which it never will.

Pft. You people and your two-party systems. I’ve been voting for the same party ever since I was old enough to vote, and it was neither of the big two.

garjones wrote:

DavidM wrote:

To be fair to the bot, I know people who cheered too.

I’m sure they did but the point is that he or she is deliberately putting in something that inflames strong emotions and polarises debate. It doesn’t necessarily have to be lies but 30 or 40 of these are peppered into every post a major political figure makes.

Yes, the tactic is a deliberate one. Instead of having a reasoned debate, derail it. Get people annoyed, off-topic and distracted.

This is the best thing I have seen on BBC news for years.

Emily Maitlis with powerful words that needed saying tonight. pic.twitter.com/yqNgxlHoJU

— Huw (@ed_son) April 8, 2020

6 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Dave, lorcan_nagle, DavidM

Christian wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Suffice to say that, if you think about politics in terms of two-sides, you’ll never feel like it is a successful institution unless your side is declaratively “winning” – which it never will.

Pft. You people and your two-party systems. I’ve been voting for the same party ever since I was old enough to vote, and it was neither of the big two.

Great! I hope that means they’ve managed to have some power over that time

Anonymous wrote:

Great! I hope that means they’ve managed to have some power over that time

…weeeeeelllllll………

No, seriously though, the Green Party has actually been doing fairly well in Germany.

I’ve only been reliably voting for a single party for the last 5 years or so, and that’s partially because I got to know my local candidate and she’s a fantastic activist.  Before that the parties I voted got claimed to be left-wing, joined a centre-right party in a coalition and then proceded to give up on their manifesto and just prop up some bullshit.

30 years ago, a guy I worked with said “I won’t vote in a General Election until there’s a left-wing candidate to vote for again.” I pointed out that the Labour party was still standing candidates in his constituency, and he just laughed.

It probably took ten years before I understood why.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle

Whose fault it is that the COVID-19 virus is killing Americans and devastating the US economy:
* The Chinese people
* The Chinese government
* World Health Organization
* Centers for Disease Control
* “Lame stream” media
* State government
* Local government
* The Democrats who led the impeachment process
* Hillary Clinton’s e-mails
* Barack Obama

Whose fault it ISN’T:
* Donald “I accept no responsibility” Trump

5 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, Christian, Hank Cannon, lorcan_nagle, Todd

More stupidity from Republicans: War over Easter: Kansas lawmakers revoke Gov. Kelly’s order limiting church gatherings

2 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, lorcan_nagle

They want to meet Jesus? Welcome to the express checkout.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Hank Cannon, Todd

garjones wrote:

This is the best thing I have seen on BBC news for years.

Still, I think people need to remember the news casters and companies were behind the curve and at least as much a part of the problem as the slow response of the political authorities. Now, they are acting like they have some moral authority but are still reporting with the subtext that it is our responsibility to mitigate the virus while they and our national governments have allowed it to spread with poor reporting and late policies.

Here in California, our state and local governments decided to act early to the point that it surprised a lot of the nation. However, even before the shelter in place orders were in place, most people had already started working from home and stopped going to bars, movies or large events. Many conferences were preemptively canceled or converted to virtual only attendance while the news was still very vague on what to expect or what was the right thing to do.

Now, they’re acting like that never happened and that they’ve taken this seriously from the beginning. And I expect to see more reports on individual misbehavior, like a few churches staying open or a few people going to a park or beach, as if that’s more important than the failures of the media and the government from the beginning of this. Early individual and business reaction to this is what pushed the government to act and changed the media narrative. Doctors and medical channels on YouTube were way ahead of the large news conglomerates when the Coronavirus first broke out of China, and it’s hard to really rely on the news to get the best information anymore, but especially for any moral guidance on anything.

[garjones]

I think that’s true for many outlets and stories but I think the gist of that particular piece is the exact opposite. Which is why it was refreshing. It’s basically saying the little guy is bailing everyone else out. I’m not absolving the entire media because of it.

I definitely see the hitting down with people visiting parks etc in many reports but on the other hand the first mention of Coronavirus on this board was David on January 22nd complaining why something that had only killed 6 people was getting time on the news the night before.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by garjones.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Dave

I think we may need to have an amnesty of some kind or that post is going to haunt these coronavirus discussions for ever.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian

[SteveUK]

The thing with the Newsnight video is either it’s right or it isn’t?

Getting lost down these byroads is what we were discussing earlier. Whether it’s done by accident or design it diffuses the point being made.

Often trying to combine more than one issue at a time is not reinforcing those issues, it actually weakens their individual impact and engagement.

Who she is, what the BBC is, what the media, in general, are like, etc. is a separate issue. It’s not unimportant and it’s not uninteresting but it doesn’t change what she’s saying right there, in that video.

She’s either right about that, or not.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by SteveUK.

5 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Christian, Dave, garjones

[garjones]

Dave wrote:

I think we may need to have an amnesty of some kind or that post is going to haunt these coronavirus discussions for ever.

Sorry I don’t mean to dig it in to David. Not this time anyway, I did the first time.

I was just curious to check the date because the main accusation from Johnny is the media were slow and behind the curve. I think in truth it’s partly true but it isn’t one single entity. I have seen the Daily Show clip where they show the about face from Fox News presenters dismissing the whole thing and then pretending they always took it deathly seriously but they are really one of the worst examples of everything to do with the news.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by garjones.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave

SteveUK wrote:

Who she is, what the BBC is, what the media, in general, are like, etc. is a separate issue. It’s not unimportant and it’s not uninteresting but it doesn’t change what she’s saying right there, in that video. She’s either right about that, or not.

That’s what I disagree with. The content of what they say is not devoid of the context and implications as to why they are saying it. Does it make you more sympathetic to the grocery and maintenance workers? – I imagine you were already pretty sympathetic to them and didn’t need some news reporter to point it out. Instead, it now makes you sympathetic to the reporter and the reporting. The aim is not what she’s saying, but the impact of what she says has on your relationship to the network.

Is this really an authentic personal statement, or is it simply a ploy to make you feel sympathetic to them by saying something you agree with? There are editors and producers behind the camera deciding what you see and hear and their calculus isn’t necessarily authentic or honest. It’s like when politicians say something about our troops overseas. They aren’t saying to help the troops, but to get support for their platform. When a President says something like that, obviously, he’d like us not to mention that the reason they are fighting and dying overseas is because he sent them there.

It’s easy for us to see how Fox news manipulates its viewers, but it’s the same process with other news sources. If you’re liberal, you won’t be swayed by Fox news, but MSNBC and CNN have their own interests and whenever a news outlet expresses an opinion, it has targets and intentions behind it. They are all trying to sell something and remain influential, and that influence is and has been important in keeping people divided before and during this catastrophe.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Anonymous wrote:

If you’re liberal, you won’t be swayed by Fox news, but MSNBC and CNN have their own interests and whenever a news outlet expresses an opinion, it has targets and intentions behind it.

I heard someone say a channel like RT has a mix of genuine news and propaganda. 80 % is pretty good content, regular news and interesting, often left wing shows, with people like Chomsky, Assange and Zizek. And the other 20 % is straightforward propaganda. Stuff painting the West in a bad light mostly, and things to sow division among the European populace.

 

80 % is not a bad score though. ;)

1 user thanked author for this post.

I get the message Johnny, you don’t want to talk about the content of her message, you want to talk about media.

Ok, good topic.

But not what Gar originally posted.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd

SteveUK wrote:

I get the message Johnny, you don’t want to talk about the content of her message, you want to talk about media. Ok, good topic. But not what Gar originally posted.

This is the political thread, though, and news reporters – as representative of larger interests – should be examined with that in mind. That message definitely has a political intent. Poor people are affected by this far more than the middle class, so if you’re watching this then your interests and suffering don’t really matter and you should be ashamed if you are worried about losing your job or your house or anything like that. You’re not on the “front line.”

The underlying message is divisive. Actually, we are all on the front line. Staying home is fighting the disease. People staying home are losing their jobs and still might get sick and die from the disease.

It comes off as a kind of sermon by beginning with “debunking” an argument that everyone is suffering equally from the pandemic? Are people making that argument? Everyone is certainly suffering, but it seems more strawman to make a point minimizing the suffering of the great middle of the population. You can point out the way the lower class is suffering and working through it without also minimizing the middle class struggles, but they included that at the beginning, so there was an intent there to make a political point.

 

I don’t think it’s minimising anything, I think it’s challenging some of the trite rhetoric around this crisis that too often goes unchallenged. There are still inequalities here and this pandemic isn’t affecting everyone in the same way.

1 user thanked author for this post.

I think it does minimize the experience of the majority of people who would be sitting in watching that segment. However, which of us is right? It’s impossible to argue conclusively either way.

My point really is that the news – especially when it’s expressing an opinion rather than reporting on actual stories or expressing a point of view – needs the same critical examination as any politician making the same points would get from us.

Who is the audience for that speech? I don’t think it is the people she’s saying are on the front line. I think it is the middle class viewers who are responsibly staying home and keeping safe and keeping others safe by doing so. At the end, she vaguely alludes to a “social settlement” but would any of these viewers expect to get a fair social settlement for their own losses in the context of that speech? It seems to me to be part of a platform already lining people up for who “deserves” attention and who “doesn’t deserve” it.

Are they actually reporting on the people they refer to in that or or they using them generally to make a point? That seems as rhetorical – and manipulative – as the point that she’s supposedly debunking. If you’re suffering, it deserves attention.

If you or Gar or Steve said the same thing here on the thread, I’d give it a like. Comment on it supportively and so on, because I know your interests are honest. However, this is a TV show with lots of production and people behind it with interests I strongly question. That’s what I;m getting at – whenever I see anything on the big news channels, I first ask, “what are they trying to sell to the audience?” It’s not just about the content when it’s on television.

Critical examination of the news is fine and is important, but sometimes that critical examination will result in a conclusion that the news has in fact got it right, and is making a relevant and well-reasoned point.

Criticism doesn’t have to necessarily be negative criticism. And being rhetoric doesn’t make that opening statement inherently wrong.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Ben, garjones, Todd

I think Johnny’s point isn’t that it isn’t true, but rather it is kind of a truism? Are there really many people, other than a few idiots, claiming this affects everyone equally? Often certain groups suffer more, and often it’s the poor.

 

It’s true but kind of “kicking in an open door”.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Dave wrote:

Criticism doesn’t have to necessarily be negative criticism. And being rhetoric doesn’t make that opening statement inherently wrong.

However, it does cast the context of what follows as “you are not the one on the front line.” More importantly, there is a continuity of action here. Has the BBC actually done much to point to the situation of the poor before the outbreak and are they even really reporting much on their actual condition now? It’s fairly empty to say “we praise but otherwise ignore your efforts” unless the real intent is to lecture the viewers.

Reporting the news is what I expect, but I don’t think it is appropriate for the news to pretend to a morally superior stance than their audience. When they do that, I think the motives are similar to the ways that politicians manipulate emotions to persuade people to ignore their own interests.

Again, it’s a television show and even though there is some truth to what they say, the way it is framed is more about how they look when they say it than what is said. Like Arjan points out, it is the type of thing you’d say when you want to look good even though you’re no real advocate for the interests of the people you’re using to make yourself look good.

There really isn’t an equivalent for Fox and OAN on “the left”.  Well, there are some dumb podcasts but that’s it.

Fox is declaratively partisan.  CNN is not.  Neither is MSNBC.  They are critical of Trump but they were critical of Obama too.

Frankly, the same extends to the BBC.

I was a journalist, and if I haven’t parroted on about it enough, my Dad is quite a celebrated one here in Australia.  Most journalists (excepting Fox and other tabloid journalists – and there are many here too) would punch you in the face for accusations that they are partisan.  They may have a political party but ultimately the JOB is to lay down the facts, not their political beliefs.

Frankly, I think the whole concept of “media agenda” is a load of utter bullshit.  Yes, there are the murdochs and kerry packers of the world nd yes they clearly sometimes push stories.  There are also layers upon layer of editorial staff between the journalist at the daily news and rupert and it’s more likely the editor pushing that particular story because it aligns with the papers culture, not rupert.

The same goes for Bezos.  If you think he’s calling up Martin Baron and telling him what to print in the Washington Post, you are allowed to think that, but you’ll have to bear in mind that there’s about a hundred investigative journalists on staff that are digging for stories they have pitched themselves and crafting them through sub-editors and so on and so forth.  Bezos isn’t calling up those journalists and saying “hey, I hear Trump is coluding with Russia, I want you to print something on this”.   Bob Sauerberg didn’t call up David Remnick to get him to make Ronan Farrow do a story on Weinstein.  It happens the other way around.  Journalists are journalists, not word processors.

To ram the point home, my family has been personally sued for defamation more than a handful of times.  In his personal capacity.  He keeps making the stories he does because he believes in the integrity of the truth.  It’s certainly not an enjoyable thing to go through, so I assure you it’s not done for publicity and the papers and TV shows he works for generally don’t want to have to deal with lawsuits either.  But that’s what journalists do and channels like the BBC pay them to do it.  They don’t pay them to fossick about an agenda to the public for their own nefarious political purposes of one day ruling the world or improving the quality of their shareholders loans.

7 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, DavidM, Ben, Christian, garjones, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Fox is declaratively partisan.  CNN is not.  Neither is MSNBC.  They are critical of Trump but they were critical of Obama too. Frankly, the same extends to the BBC.

I think it’s actually more pronounced and there’s a significant difference between the US and UK here. In the UK all the blatantly partisan and agenda led reporting is in the printed press (and it’s often appalling). The television news is audited by Ofcom to at least attempt political neutrality. Rachel Maddow’s show would not be allowed on British TV news, let alone stuff like Hannity.

Hence when Murdoch shed a lot of his assets to Comcast he let them have Sky News but retained The Sun and The Times to push his agendas.

Probably why the ‘it’s a show’ argument made by Johnny isn’t resonating quite as well with those across the pond. Newsnight is a very serious programme with no tendency to ‘showboat’. You also have to take those words in the context of the recent rhetoric of Priti Patel on ‘low skilled’ and ‘low value’ workers.

That’s not to be naive that all news doesn’t have some inherent bias, even it it’s unconscious and institutional, but why I find it harder to buy into the ‘show’ argument for driving specific agendas and personal gain. I kind of feel it leaves you in a place where no reporting can ever be valid, sincere or useful.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Dave, Todd, Ben

Anonymous wrote:

Reporting the news is what I expect, but I don’t think it is appropriate for the news to pretend to a morally superior stance than their audience. When they do that, I think the motives are similar to the ways that politicians manipulate emotions to persuade people to ignore their own interests.

I think there is something inherently wrong with that statement. As the fourth power in a democracy, a big part of the media’s job is actually to question the ethics of politics, and to point out failure to act ethically by politicians and corporations alike. They are on the other hand not in a position to actually do anything about the issues they raise; trying to get people to care about the things that are going wrong is all the media can do. If you question their moral right to do that fundamentally (because the media themselves may be hypocritical), you are erasing all ethical discourse from society, basically.

In this example, yes, someone has to fucking point out who is bearing the brunt of the current situation because these people have to be compensated by political decision-makers. This is the time to talk about proper working conditions in delivery jobs, this is the time to talk about appropriate salaries for nurses, and so on. Rejecting those points on – what, general principle? That would also be wrong if it was a politician making the argument (as some are doing) provided you can’t show that the very same politician has actually created the conditions we are addressing. Which is NOT a case you can make for the BBC, because…

https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c347895qxj8t/poverty

 

Oh, and finally, about the argument itself:

Anonymous wrote:

The underlying message is divisive. Actually, we are all on the front line. Staying home is fighting the disease. People staying home are losing their jobs and still might get sick and die from the disease.

I agree that all that most of us can do is stay home and that we don’t have to feel bad about that. But it’s not the message that is divisive; the message is about pointing out that society is divided. This talk about divisiveness is what the American right (I know you’re not on that spectrum, Jonny, but it is one of their major talking points) always says when social disparity is pointed out, and it tries to make reality rhetorical. It’s not. It’s the real conditions, and talking about those isn’t the problem. By trying to make it about the discussion, they want to make sure that the problems aren’t addressed.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Dave, lorcan_nagle

Anonymous wrote:

I was a journalist, and if I haven’t parroted on about it enough, my Dad is quite a celebrated one here in Australia.  Most journalists (excepting Fox and other tabloid journalists – and there are many here too) would punch you in the face for accusations that they are partisan.

Charming.

Wait a sec, Newsnight did that Prince Andrew interview. I knew the lady looked familar.

 

Top class journalism there.

 

 

2 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was a journalist, and if I haven’t parroted on about it enough, my Dad is quite a celebrated one here in Australia.  Most journalists (excepting Fox and other tabloid journalists – and there are many here too) would punch you in the face for accusations that they are partisan.

Charming.

A response clearly designed to irritate. Maybe you’ll find satisfaction in knowing it was succesful.

But if you couldn’t read that as a shorthand message that impartiality is a cornerstone of every good journalists job then you are significantly less intellectual then I had assumed.

I’m done with this. Enjoy your thought processes, whatever they may conspire to be.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Ben

I get my news from the Steak-ummm Twitter account:

just gonna come out and say it: vulnerable people are always the most susceptible to propaganda, misinformation, and conspiracy, especially in times of cultural anxiety, and if there is a way to help them out of these traps, targeted self-righteous vilification isn’t it

why do people believe in conspiracies? why do they follow cult personalities or seek contrarian opinions? because they’re vulnerable. they feel bullied or left behind or isolated or exploited or abused or inadequate and they’re looking answers, community, security, and identity

when you hold a fringe belief or become part of a tightly-knit outcast group, you feel like you have some secret, valuable information that the world needs. you feel important for knowing it. and anyone on the outside becomes a vague, intangible enemy, often referred to as “they”

the best way to reach vulnerable people who wholeheartedly believe they know the “truth” is by consistently sharing evidence-based information with the intent of helping, not disparaging. they already have a compelling story; they need to be told one that is better and more true

leading propagandists and conspiracy theorists need to be directly challenged, but many of their followers are just victims of circumstance who were exploited. they still have a chance to leave their group *if* they feel welcomed into a new group of those reaching out

when we hear people’s concerns over the current economic devastation, skepticism toward politicized media narratives, or any other signs of vulnerability, we need to listen and form solidarity with them before some charismatic propagandist or fringe group does

steak-umm bless

I never thought the day would come when the voice of reason would come from a company that sells frozen meat strips.

3 users thanked author for this post.

Miqque, Rocket, Todd

Dave wrote:

I think we may need to have an amnesty of some kind or that post is going to haunt these coronavirus discussions for ever.

I admit I was wrong about the impact of the virus, and I’m perfectly happy to have that post repeated forever if it helps illustrate a point.

As long as it’s understood that I still think the impact of the prevention methods could be worse than the direct impact that virus itself will have.

 

Anonymous wrote:

Are there really many people, other than a few idiots, claiming this affects everyone equally?

Well, the government for a start.

Oh hold on, you covered them when you said “a few idiots”

 

4 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, garjones, Todd, Dave

I think it’s good and healthy to have a critical conversation about journalism and the role it plays in society, because it’s a broad spectrum ranging from the worst kind of gutter tabloid journalism to the best kind of world-changing investigative reporting, and we need to acknowledge that and challenge it where necessary.

However, I am noticing increasingly in recent years that there is a tendency even among intelligent and informed people across the entire political spectrum to dismiss journalism as a whole with a broad brush and suggest that it’s all as worthless and self-serving as the worst examples are.

That simply doesn’t bear scrutiny, and if your response to any kind of journalism is to try and undermine it on the basis that it’s inherently not worth listening to because it’s being spoken (or written) by a journalist, then you probably have to start examining your own biases and wondering why you’re so preoccupied with the messenger rather than the message.

It’s glib and overly simplistic to say this but I do think that it’s no coincidence that the increase in the prevalence of these kinds of attitudes has accompanied the rise (on both side of the Atlantic) of politicians who have consistently and systematically sought to undermine the role of the free press in society.

4 users thanked author for this post.

garjones, DavidM

Deleted for the sake of my own mental health.

This is probably more personal and sensitive for me then any one else here, so if the conversation continues to be about “the media” without any awareness that it is not a conglomerate then I’m not going to take part.

Suffice to say I think it’s sometimes better to hear from primary sources then incidental voices.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben

Anonymous wrote:

Deleted for the sake of my own mental health.

This is probably more personal and sensitive for me then any one else here, so if the conversation continues to be about “the media” without any awareness that it is not a conglomerate then I’m not going to take part.

Suffice to say I think it’s sometimes better to hear from primary sources then incidental voices.

A little something for your mental health:

3 users thanked author for this post.

njerry, Ben

There’s an Irish newspaper called The Impartial Reporter. I always liked the name.

i was blowing kisses to Tim, but the puppies get some too :)

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was a journalist, and if I haven’t parroted on about it enough, my Dad is quite a celebrated one here in Australia.  Most journalists (excepting Fox and other tabloid journalists – and there are many here too) would punch you in the face for accusations that they are partisan.

Charming.

A response clearly designed to irritate. Maybe you’ll find satisfaction in knowing it was succesful.

But if you couldn’t read that as a shorthand message that impartiality is a cornerstone of every good journalists job then you are significantly less intellectual then I had assumed.

I’m done with this. Enjoy your thought processes, whatever they may conspire to be.

Aw chill. It seemed needlessly aggressive to me. If by “punch someone in the face” you really meant “discuss the issue in a cordial manner”, then I misunderstood and I apologize.

DavidM wrote:

As long as it’s understood that I still think the impact of the prevention methods could be worse than the direct impact that virus itself will have.

I actually think that’s very possible too, the only issue is that I don’t see any other choice because the medical system can’t handle any other option.

2 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave

Ah, no, I did not mean discuss in a cordial manner.

I meant tell them they were fucking wrong and offended at the suggestion.

I think you’re not really grasping that being anything less than objective is a fucking cardinal sin to most serious journalists.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Ben

Anonymous wrote:

Ah, no, I did not mean discuss in a cordial manner.

I meant tell them they were fucking wrong and offended at the suggestion.

I think you’re not really grasping that being anything less than objective is a fucking cardinal sin to most serious journalists.

OK, be mad dude, have fun.

Frankly, Arjan, if I was in your shoes and I was dealing with a poster who was clearly offended by my posts and who evidently has a personal connection to the topic, I would probably would not opt to be dismissive in an attempt to preserve my ego.

Ill be giving your opinion less benefit of the doubt in future.

Hopefully it’s done now but guys, just take a break from each other and move on. Isolation can get people agitated, try not to transfer it to this board. Nothing written here is really important in the great scheme of things.

5 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, Dave, Rocket

Ah damn, I thought about it and I was wrong. You’re right Tim, saying a journalist is partisan is attacking their integrity and could be seen as a personal attack. I’m sorry I didn’t realize this earlier.  I hope I didn’t upset you unduly.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Dave, Ben, garjones

garjones wrote:

Nothing written here is really important in the great scheme of things.

Well, except for PUPPIES!!!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Martin Smith

We’ve all got those areas where, if someone is posting stuff we know, on a day-to-day basis to be totally wrong – because we’re doing the job in question, and doing it well – then yes, it is going to set things off.

For Tim, it’s probably a combination of law and journalism; for me and Todd, people going on about government bureaucrats; for Gar it might be IT or banking; I think Dave’s active in medical journalism?

In these areas, where wrong info is concerned, it’s not ‘well, that’s just your opinion dude’.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Dave, Todd

[garjones]

To a degree Ben. There were hints of this being stated before but I think everyone should be respected and understood but not be deemed as irreproachable as they work in a certain area. Expertise is often specific and if the orthodoxy cannot be questioned then we’re saying we live in a utopia, which we don’t. I’m not the perfect font of tech expertise. I know more than most but there’s loads I don’t know, I can’t program for toffee.

Speaking to Mike on another forum he’s being retrained on front line adult medical care because he hasn’t done it for years.

However it is healthy to understand where everyone comes from and respect that without it being decreed from on high. I think in that case though we should ask those question and ask for answers. When Arjan asks whether ‘Brand’ is important in buying a PC (it isn’t) I’m not asking him to follow me religiously but explain why it is.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by garjones.

5 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, DavidM, Dave, Ben

True, I think most of us here are mostly willing to meet someone halfway and, on most areas, that’s not hard to do.

How is Mike doing?

garjones wrote:

Expertise is often specific and if the orthodoxy cannot be questioned then we’re saying we live in a utopia, which we don’t.

Im always in favor of questioning the orthodoxy, people not being experts doesn’t mean they should have to swallow everything the experts say. And criticism is always allowed as long as it doesn’t come with name calling or personal attacks. That’s the thing here, i didn’t realize that if you accuse a journalist of being partisan you’re not just criticizing the work, you’re accusing them of being duplicitous. After those few posts I just suddenly realized how saying that can be hurtful.

 

It’s like the difference between saying the doctor made an honest mistake, like he gave you the wrong medicine by accident, and deliberately poisoning you.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian

[JRCarter]

Why Joe Biden Should Pick One of These Two Black Women as His Vice President

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by JRCarter.

garjones wrote:

on another forum

Are you cheating on your own forum? Is it the London crew? Hanging with the cool kids while managing the kids’ table(us). I am just kidding about that and apologize if anyone took offense. I don’t know or want to know why most of them left but maybe with the change in ownership and membership they might want to stop by. Their camaraderie was one of the things that made early MW so attractive to me.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Todd

It is partial isolation.  It is a particularly raw topic for me, and for everyone that catches my posts on facebook may know that integrity and truth in journalism is an ongoing and consequential factor in my life.

I am more than happy to tear lawyers to shred, but journalistic ethics in particular has deep-seated emotional resonance with me for family reasons.  I will happily talk about the content of journalism too, but I will defend the integrity of the profession.

I also don’t think anyone is irreproachable except to say Gar is wrong about CSR and I am right.  And that Will is wrong about Bernie Sanders and I am right.  I am also right about the economy.  Okay, I am probably irreproachable but the rest of you are totes reproachable probably.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Christian, Todd

[JRCarter]

JRCarter wrote:

Why Joe Biden Should Pick One of These Two Black Women as His Vice President

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by JRCarter.

I really like Harris and I spruiked this as a ticket way back when, It’d be coole if it happens.

Frankly, I have no idea how november will go.  I can see Trump leaning hard into the “war time” President thing notwithstanding he’s clearly shit at it.

Anonymous wrote:

I can see Trump leaning hard into the “war time” President thing notwithstanding he’s clearly shit at it.

This really hasn’t been “wartime” in what previous Presidents experienced. This is happening all across the country and there is no “enemy” he can send troops to fight. He is being outshined by governors who, in many states, took the lead. He has fucked this up from jump street and is continuing to do so. The economy is tanking hard which is why he is pushing so hard to get businesses back going sooner than may be safe. The economy will still be bad by November.

Trump has problems.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Hank Cannon, Ben

However, Trump is pretty much filling the news daily, but I’m not seeing Biden that much. I don’t think his lead over Trump in approval ratings is that much higher anyway even with the pandemic.

I’ve actually seen more about Sanders dropping out than Biden. Is he keeping a low profile? This is a serious time for the United States and he may be the next president, so it would be nice to see him. At the same time, depending on how deep the recovery from this will be, does he still want to be President? I think it is possible that any democrat elected this year would lose in the next election. However, I don’t want to see what Trump will do once he doesn’t have to worry about winning the next election.

I think a lot of us would like to see Cuomo or Newsom in the White House rather than Trump or Biden.

garjones wrote:

Nothing written here is really important in the great scheme of things.

Well I never!

Personally, what I expect is, when I get to the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter will be standing there asking why I should be let in and I’ll say, just look at all my fucking posts on Millarworld and The Carrier, and that’ll be that.

7 users thanked author for this post.

Miqque, Will_C, DavidM, Todd, Martin Smith, Dave, garjones

[garjones]

Approval ratings are interesting. The Guardian podcast discussed that however well they are handling the situation every sitting leader is getting a boost in what was first named in the 1950s as the ‘rally round the flag’ reaction. Johnson, Trump, Macron, Merkel have all had boosts (Merkel is at a crazy 79% even after 15 years in office). Leo Varadkar in Ireland has never been so popular even though he was effectively voted out earlier this year and is there in a caretaker role while they form a new coalition.

The conclusion was it doesn’t actually mean that much at the moment as the history shows the phenomenon cannot be sustained over the long term.

It may actually be a good move for the opposition leaders in this time to take a bit of a back seat and let it pass. Some have criticised newly appointed UK Labour leader, Kier Starmer, for not being aggressive enough in criticising the government but in truth it may be the best bet to sit the period out rather than be seen to disrupt the national effort. Starmer though has a lot of time on his side with no election scheduled for 5 years, Biden doesn’t have that luxury.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 8 months ago by garjones.

3 users thanked author for this post.

DavidM, Todd, Dave

garjones wrote:

DavidM wrote:

As long as it’s understood that I still think the impact of the prevention methods could be worse than the direct impact that virus itself will have.

I actually think that’s very possible too, the only issue is that I don’t see any other choice because the medical system can’t handle any other option.

 

I agree with you there too. I wish I had an alternative solution to pose, but at this point I don’t think anybody has that.

No, not without a time machine. We’re past the point where contact tracing method and a lesser lockdown could have been done.

‘Lesser’ is also a key word, there was never any way to avoid economic hard times just by dint of the virus’ existence. The biggest fall in stock prices for the FTSE was on 12th March. 11 days before the UK called a lockdown.

Whatever any government did or didn’t do the whole tourism and hospitality industry is fucked for the next year at least. Apparently though the doorstep milk delivery business can’t keep up with new demand so that’s the thing to get into.

1 user thanked author for this post.

DavidM

hello @bbcnickrobinson @bbclaurak @huwbbc @MishalHusain

Welsh🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 & Scots Govts 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿include people in CARE HOMES who've DIED of COVID19 in their figures – Westminster i.e. England, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 don't.

➡️Can you include Care Home deaths in England in reports? People in Care Homes count too. https://t.co/wN0bhzjrYJ

— YesCymru 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (@YesCymru) April 11, 2020

I wonder which one of these is run by the Conservative Party?

3 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle, DavidM

Holy shit Placeboing is back to meme the hell out of 2020: