Widgets Magazine
Page 6 of 44 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 1087
  1. #126

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    I figure this only hardens the DNC's resolve not to have a debate on Fox, especially if Bernie has anything to say about it.
    The DNC's resolve not to have a debate on Fox only shows that they have no idea where and how the debate actually happens, today. It's all Twitter and cable news and political filter sites on the in internet. If you want to have a nuanced, complicated discussion, then you've already lost.

    If they want to "win", they have to boil it down to 260 characters or less and repeatedly hammer it on all "influencer" channels. They could win that way, but we'd all still lose. They just still don't understand that people respond best when the message fits on a hat, or within a narrow wiki definition of an ideology, or something that someone can boil down to a clever meme that goes go viral. No one wants to hear a comprehensive, historically based, justification for a complex strategy. That takes reflection and introspection. They just want a gif with which they can zing social media friends and message boards.

  2. #127

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    I really like what you have to say and it's very insightful. Unfortunately, l am more cynical and believe the DNC refuses to have a FOX debate because they are afraid of being challenged. They know on every other network, the moderator(s) will be liberals and will softball the Democrats while challenging Republican responses as we've seen multiple times.

    There is also the general viewpoint and effort that if the Dems agreed to a FOX debate, it would legitimize FOX.

    I think Republicans should make a FOX debate a requirement for participation in any debate. An alternative may be an all-network series of debates in which a FOX moderator participated on equal footing with another moderator.

  3. #128

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    I really like what you have to say and it's very insightful. Unfortunately, l am more cynical and believe the DNC refuses to have a FOX debate because they are afraid of being challenged. They know on every other network, the moderator(s) will be liberals and will softball the Democrats while challenging Republican responses as we've seen multiple times.

    There is also the general viewpoint and effort that if the Dems agreed to a FOX debate, it would legitimize FOX.

    I think Republicans should make a FOX debate a requirement for participation in any debate. An alternative may be an all-network series of debates in which a FOX moderator participated on equal footing with another moderator.
    Fox is not a legitimate news network and thus I agree with the DNC’s decision. A Fox moderator such as Shepherd Smith or Chris Wallace would be acceptable as co-moderator, IMO.

  4. #129

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Fox is not a legitimate news network and thus I agree with the DNCís decision. A Fox moderator such as Shepherd Smith or Chris Wallace would be acceptable as co-moderator, IMO.
    Right, CNN provides the questions to their candidate ahead of time we should use them (sarcasm)

    óóó

    USA Today Poll Finds Fox News is the Most-Trusted Outlet in America

    Almost Twice as trusted as CNN

    MSNBC: 8.1
    Fox: 27.9
    CNN: 15.0
    ABC: 5.0
    NBC: 5.4
    CBS: 4.9
    PBS: 8.5
    Undecided: 21.4

    https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosob...ed%3Fpage%3D16

  5. #130

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    I don't think the increasing polarization is healthy for our country. But the Dems' refusal to debate on Fox News only ensures that the Republicans will likewise refuse to debate on CNN. It's a sign that we're nowhere near the end of it.

    I also believe that's why the Democrats have lost two of the last five elections despite winning the popular vote. Instead of being competitive in most states, they've got a handful of really large states where they'll win by huge landslides. But that leaves them vulnerable to what used to be a trivia question. When I was in school, the electoral college was something no one ever expected to make a difference. But as red states get redder and blue states get... bluer?, we're likely to see it happen again.

  6. #131

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by hoya View Post
    I don't think the increasing polarization is healthy for our country. But the Dems' refusal to debate on Fox News only ensures that the Republicans will likewise refuse to debate on CNN. It's a sign that we're nowhere near the end of it.

    I also believe that's why the Democrats have lost two of the last five elections despite winning the popular vote. Instead of being competitive in most states, they've got a handful of really large states where they'll win by huge landslides. But that leaves them vulnerable to what used to be a trivia question. When I was in school, the electoral college was something no one ever expected to make a difference. But as red states get redder and blue states get... bluer?, we're likely to see it happen again.
    This is an accurate assessment in my opinion.

    And if FOX is illegitimate, then so is every other network. Please people. Don't be like this. It is OK to have networks that have essentially taken sides. I do appreciate MSNBC being pretty much up front about the fact that they are going to have a left take on things. I don't think FOX is particularly coy in this regard either from the other side. CNN however is essentially playing the part of a straight news network, but the result is propaganda with pundits delivering the "hard news" with a take on the side.

  7. #132

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    This is an accurate assessment in my opinion.

    And if FOX is illegitimate, then so is every other network. Please people. Don't be like this. It is OK to have networks that have essentially taken sides. I do appreciate MSNBC being pretty much up front about the fact that they are going to have a left take on things. I don't think FOX is particularly coy in this regard either from the other side. CNN however is essentially playing the part of a straight news network, but the result is propaganda with pundits delivering the "hard news" with a take on the side.
    Fox is not right leaning anymore, they are outright state propaganda and do not deal in facts. You might as well read RT as Fox anymore.

  8. #133

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Swake View Post
    Fox is not right leaning anymore, they are outright state propaganda and do not deal in facts. You might as well read RT as Fox anymore.
    They are no less credible that CNN or MSNBC. They are what they are. And still employ a couple of the most respected names in straight news in the business.

  9. #134

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Fox is not a legitimate news network and thus I agree with the DNCís decision. A Fox moderator such as Shepherd Smith or Chris Wallace would be acceptable as co-moderator, IMO.
    I dont watch it any more than l do anyone else but you just show the same closed-mindedness as all the rest who legitimize only those who they agree with. Fox presents things that are sometimes questionable but no more than CNN, MSNBC Nor any NBC affilliate), or the free networks. They are all guilty of the same things so before you say something open your eyes and mind.
    I guess that old bastion of quality reporting, Reuters, was just providing all the intelligence, quality and human expertise, doing the right things at the right time (their own quality and mission statements) when their reporter sat on, for 2 years until after the election was over, the fact Beto O`Roarke was part of one of the most notorious hacking groups out there when he was a teenager? You think that might not have had some bearing? Some importance? Violated the voters right to know?
    There is nothing FOXNEWS does that the other networks are not just as guilty, if not more guilty of - all of them. For that reason I virtually never watch FOXNEWS but watch a variety including NEWSY, SmartNews, BBC and al Jazeera just so l am NOT pidgeonholing myself.

  10. #135

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    They are no less credible that CNN or MSNBC. They are what they are. And still employ a couple of the most respected names in straight news in the business.
    Dream on. That's why Trump has been critical of nearly all the personalities on there other than Hannity and Carlson recently - and they aren't even journalists.

    Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong post to reply to. Should be post 132.

  11. #136

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    This is an accurate assessment in my opinion.

    And if FOX is illegitimate, then so is every other network. Please people. Don't be like this. It is OK to have networks that have essentially taken sides.
    I agreed with your assessment for a second but that last sentence stood out mainly because it's something I've heard from both sides and in my opinion it's one of the things that's lead to the increasing polarization of the political landscape. Journalism in of itself is about presenting both sides of an issue rather than taking sides. Here's a good quote from the US Press Association Code of Ethics, "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

    What this move towards "taking sides" or "counteracting the coverage of another station" has done is contrary to the whole idea of what journalism should be. It's fine to throw in a blurb about your opinion at the end of a piece that's examined both sides of a story but presenting your opinion and using the news to try to validate and back up that opinion is where we've totally gone sideways. Thus saying it's ok that they've taken sides is a dangerous precedent to set I think. I'd rather not accept that as the new norm even if it is. This isn't limited to just Fox news either. It's silly that we have to read the news from two sources, blend, and then read between the lines to figure out what really happened.

  12. #137

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivalyn View Post
    I agreed with your assessment for a second but that last sentence stood out mainly because it's something I've heard from both sides and in my opinion it's one of the things that's lead to the increasing polarization of the political landscape. Journalism in of itself is about presenting both sides of an issue rather than taking sides. Here's a good quote from the US Press Association Code of Ethics, "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

    What this move towards "taking sides" or "counteracting the coverage of another station" has done is contrary to the whole idea of what journalism should be. It's fine to throw in a blurb about your opinion at the end of a piece that's examined both sides of a story but presenting your opinion and using the news to try to validate and back up that opinion is where we've totally gone sideways. Thus saying it's ok that they've taken sides is a dangerous precedent to set I think. I'd rather not accept that as the new norm even if it is. This isn't limited to just Fox news either. It's silly that we have to read the news from two sources, blend, and then read between the lines to figure out what really happened.
    I get you, and I'd like to end world hunger as well, but it just ain't gonna happen. To have what you are suggesting would mean we would have to wipe out pretty much all of journalism as we know it.

    I don't watch news (on any channel) any more, but used to be around family that perpetually had FOX on TV. Daytime FOX was not overly biased (all though I'm sure some selection bias was going on), however after 5 or so in the evening the opinionators would come on (O'Reilly/Hannity & Colmes/etc) and they were pretty clear about what the programs were going to be.

  13. #138

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    I just miss the old headline news. News with no commentary or opinion.

  14. #139

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Killing the EC and lowering the Voting Age to 16?

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/19/p...voting-age-16/

    Seems like the Woke Left is getting a bit desperate.

  15. #140

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    They are no less credible that CNN or MSNBC. They are what they are. And still employ a couple of the most respected names in straight news in the business.
    Shep Smith I like. Chris Wallace can be good. Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Imgraham, Fox and Friends: they’re “entertainers” on a mission with only slightly more legitimacy than Alex Jones. But I long ago stopped watching any cable “news”, just like I don’t look at National Enquirer headlines. I use the chart below and try to keep as close to the middle as possible. Print journalism is generally better than television hyperbole.

    https://www.adfontesmedia.com

  16. #141

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by chuck5815 View Post
    Killing the EC and lowering the Voting Age to 16?

    https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/19/p...voting-age-16/

    Seems like the Woke Left is getting a bit desperate.
    If the right would stop gerrymandering and suppressing voters, likely no one would mention this. I think it’s silly though. But seriously, you read the Daily Caller????

    Have a look: https://www.adfontesmedia.com

  17. #142

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    Shep Smith I like. Chris Wallace can be good. Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Imgraham, Fox and Friends: they’re “entertainers” on a mission with only slightly more legitimacy than Alex Jones. But I long ago stopped watching any cable “news”, just like I don’t look at National Enquirer headlines. I use the chart below and try to keep as close to the middle as possible. Print journalism is generally better than television hyperbole.

    https://www.adfontesmedia.com
    I'd quibble with the placement of some of those sources. I don't think CNN is nearly as centrist as the chart shows. But like you, I stopped watching any kind of cable news a long time ago.

    All the major networks are fairly accurate when it comes to reporting "XYZ event happened". It's when they have talking heads begin to provide analysis that their bias comes out. That, and what they choose to report vs what they choose to stay quiet about. I try to read a variety of different sources and look to see what each side is not talking about.

  18. #143

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    If the right would stop gerrymandering and suppressing voters, likely no one would mention this. I think itís silly though. But seriously, you read the Daily Caller????

    Have a look: https://www.adfontesmedia.com
    I'll one up you.

    If there was a chance in hell this would ever change, they wouldn't be talking about it either.

  19. #144

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by betts View Post
    If the right would stop gerrymandering and suppressing voters, likely no one would mention this. I think it’s silly though. But seriously, you read the Daily Caller????

    Have a look: https://www.adfontesmedia.com
    Two wrongs don’t make a right and the left always love to say “well they’re doing this too” and that isn’t a good excuse in justifyingpoor decisions like lowering the voter age to 16.

  20. #145

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda View Post
    Two wrongs don’t make a right and the left always love to say “well they’re doing this too” and that isn’t a good excuse in justifyingpoor decisions like lowering the voter age to 16.
    If a 16 year old can be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult and put into adult prison then shouldn't that 16 year old have the right to vote? Incarceration without representation is just as wrong as taxation without representation. And as you like to say, "two wrongs don't make a right'. You just been stewed!!!
    Don't hassle me, I'm local.

  21. #146

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    ^^^ And taxed like one also.

  22. #147

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Stew View Post
    If a 16 year old can be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult and put into adult prison then shouldn't that 16 year old have the right to vote? Incarceration without representation is just as wrong as taxation without representation. And as you like to say, "two wrongs don't make a right'. You just been stewed!!!
    No,

    All 16 year olds are not tried as adults in fact most are not.

    On the flip side we have 18 year olds who die in service of our country and they can’t buy or drink beer (legally) for 3 more years when they turn 21

    I think you should stew on that for a bit

  23. #148

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Boss View Post
    ^^^ And taxed like one also.
    There is no age threshold for income taxation. There is however a way to shelter a limited amount of income to children.

    This is a poor reason to change the voting age to anything. A parent or guardian is understood to speak for minor's. This isn't some third world tyranny style tactic. It's common sense. But I forget who I am talking to, so I digress.

  24. #149

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Stew View Post
    If a 16 year old can be tried as an adult, sentenced as an adult and put into adult prison then shouldn't that 16 year old have the right to vote? Incarceration without representation is just as wrong as taxation without representation. And as you like to say, "two wrongs don't make a right'. You just been stewed!!!
    I don’t agree with that logic.

  25. #150

    Default Re: 2020 Presidential Race

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivalyn View Post
    I agreed with your assessment for a second but that last sentence stood out mainly because it's something I've heard from both sides and in my opinion it's one of the things that's lead to the increasing polarization of the political landscape. Journalism in of itself is about presenting both sides of an issue rather than taking sides. Here's a good quote from the US Press Association Code of Ethics, "Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context."

    What this move towards "taking sides" or "counteracting the coverage of another station" has done is contrary to the whole idea of what journalism should be. It's fine to throw in a blurb about your opinion at the end of a piece that's examined both sides of a story but presenting your opinion and using the news to try to validate and back up that opinion is where we've totally gone sideways. Thus saying it's ok that they've taken sides is a dangerous precedent to set I think. I'd rather not accept that as the new norm even if it is. This isn't limited to just Fox news either. It's silly that we have to read the news from two sources, blend, and then read between the lines to figure out what really happened.
    For some reason, we have totally accepted this idea that there really is "two sides to every story" and that journalism is tasked with presenting both of those "sides" equally and impartially, no matter what they are or by what supports the positions.

    And, on top of that, we've accepted that those "sides" are defined by how the information affects two political brands, Republican or Democrat.

    But the real burden of journalism is, or once was, not to present both "sides", but to gather and present information agnostic to the effects it may have on a politics. The fundamental ideal of "freedom of the press" as a civilian check on government was not motivated by the idea that it would be a mouth piece for a side, and certainly not "both sides". It was that it would have a completely different motivation than those in government and provide a counter to the interests of tyranny, to be dramatic.

    But, maybe most importantly, there are not two sides to every story and it is not within the ideals of journalism to make sure to find and present two sides, no matter the information uncovered by the investigative efforts of a journalist.

    That is to say that a journalist who has thoroughly investigated and done research that leads them to know and understand that the world is round is under no journalistic obligation to present in equitable fashion that the world is flat. That is, after all, "both sides".

    But, honestly, I am totally prepared to witness a government representative question the idea of Earth being round, in part because he watched a cable news segment or YouTube video that questioned the earth's roundness and decided it was best for his/her constituents to know that they consider "both sides".

    That's basically where we are...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Midterms and 2020...Who is Next?
    By mkjeeves in forum Politics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-23-2017, 01:23 PM
  2. OKC in 2020 predictions?
    By bchris02 in forum Current Events & Open Topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-27-2015, 02:01 PM
  3. OKC livable without a car by 2020?
    By bchris02 in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 11-19-2014, 07:14 PM
  4. Pawlenty Drops Out Of Presidential Race
    By Prunepicker in forum Politics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 06:16 PM
  5. Presidential race (2-1-2007)
    By mranderson in forum Politics
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 07:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO