There's a difference between the Op-Ed page and the reporting. All of the complaining is coming about the Op-ed page.
They have stopped the tip-toeing around Trump for sure (a lot less racially tinged comments or there is no evidence to support the statement and more racist comment and lying).
But if the New York Times isn't the middle ground - who is in the middle ground? No one?
Go ahead and cite some examples of Lee Fang saying racist things.
This broadening schism between the "Bernie bro", blue-collar, class-focused progressive left (in which Fang squarely sits) and the upper-middle-class, college educated, mostly white, woke-focused elitist progressive left has been quite a thing to see this past year.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Hardly. I have a friend who worked there through the News Corp purchase and had to resign because they were told what to report on, how to report on, what spin was to be employed, and what sources to use. They are corporate shills and abandoned journalistic practices over a decade ago. Any publication that denies science holds no credibility.
Go ahead and cite some examples of Lee Fang saying racist things.
This broadening schism between the "Bernie bro", blue-collar, class-focused progressive left (in which Fang squarely sits) and the upper-middle-class, college educated, mostly white, woke-focused elitist progressive left has been quite a thing to see this past year.
I said borderline racist and I'm sure your google machine works as well as mine.
The point is that its not a guy who posted a random video who all the sudden got jumped. Its a guy who's pushed certain narratives and got called on it.
And the guy is still working and pushing out articles - so I'm confident he's fine.
Traditional news media hasn't been profitable in ~15 years and have no value other than a tremendous ability to influence public opinion. Is it really a surprise to anyone that they've all degenerated into being megaphones for the 4-5 corporate conglomerates they're pretty much all a part of?
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
Traditional news media hasn't been profitable in ~15 years and have no value other than a tremendous ability to influence public opinion. Is it really a surprise to anyone that they've all degenerated into being megaphones for the 4-5 corporate conglomerates they're pretty much all a part of?
Traditional news media has never been profitable. The news division was always considered a lost leader and providing such content was a service to the community and a part of keeping people informed of important matters that affected their lives. Only after the Fairness Doctrine and deregulation made it possible for large corporate interests to buy up media across the country did anyone believe they could turn this function into a profit center. Again, the Fox News Effect comes into play as Fox won the right to tell the public what ever it wanted, regardless of the truth, and as a result was able to cut the new gathering organs to the bone. All they needed was some talking heads and a creative writing staff to broadcast the "news." Its all been down him since then, and Sinclair has taken it to new lows.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Traditional news media hasn't been profitable in ~15 years and have no value other than a tremendous ability to influence public opinion. Is it really a surprise to anyone that they've all degenerated into being megaphones for the 4-5 corporate conglomerates they're pretty much all a part of?
New York Times is the exception to that. Revenue and profit has grown in recent years (profit by a good chunk).
Okay, your turn. Empirically back up your assertion that educated people have more diversity of thought and opinion.
Naturally they don't have such diversity of thought and opinion, because in their minds they only hold universally correct opinions, because they're more educated and have the pieces of paper to back it up!
Okay, your turn. Empirically back up your assertion that educated people have more diversity of thought and opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Naturally they don't have such diversity of thought and opinion, because in their minds they only hold universally correct opinions, because they're more educated and have the pieces of paper to back it up!
I don't believe I actually have to do this. Living in a western democracy where everything we take for granted is because of education, where our institutions are framed by those who went on to achieve success in higher education, and where much of what we know is because of the contributions of those who learned their lessons in higher education. To question that people who went through the system of learning to learn, develop advanced critical thinking skills, develop a continual thirst for more knowledge, and expose themselves to the experiences of others to better understand issues, as not having a greater insight or diversity of opinion is falling for the ridiculous messaging coming from the extreme right. The intellectual dark web is nothing more than an intellectual cesspool. What a sad statement on our society, and more importantly, those that went to school to supposedly learn. But here we go anyways.
Education affects opinions and more education has a positive effect on those opinions.
The Effects of Education on Political Opinions: An International Study
"Education influences most political opinions; the effects can be summarized by saying that it promotes individualist values. Education is associated with somewhat lower confidence in most institutions. The relationship between education and confidence becomes weaker with economic development, while the effects of education on a number of political views shift to the left with economic development. The results suggest that education deserves more attention in explanations of national differences and historical trends in opinion."
Taking that to the international stage and looking at a problem associated with ignorance and intolerance, education acts as a drag on terrorism for a plethora of reasons, which will be covered not only in this research but also by Borgen.
Great Expectations and Hard Times: The (Nontrivial) Impact of Education on Domestic Terrorism
"Lower education tends to promote terrorism in a cluster of countries where socioeconomic, political, and demographic conditions are unfavorable, while higher education reduces terrorism in a cluster of countries where conditions are more favorable."
On the opposite extreme is that education greatly impacts ideals and leads to greater understanding of each other and peace.
Education and civil conflict: a review of the quantitative, empirical literature
"Most of the arguments presented in the literature on education and conflict pertain to levels of education, or government investment in education. What these propositions have in common (with few exceptions) is that more education fosters peace."
"Socioeconomic inequality is among the factors frequently used to measure grievances, and is often seen as giving rise to conflict. General theories of relative deprivation posit that whereas absolute poverty may lead to apathy and inactivity, comparisons with those in the same society who do better may inspire radical action and even violence (Gurr, 1970). In line with such theory one should expect that uneven distribution of education could breed grievances that could potentially cause conflict. Ferranti et al. (2004) argue that education is in fact the main driver of socioeconomic inequality in a society."
"Education is often used by people to shape their ‘social identity’, framing their understanding of themselves and their relationships with other people. A positive, affirming social identity is associated with a range of positive outcomes in life, such as increased wellbeing, health, social trust and political engagement."
"Higher levels of education are associated with a wide range of positive outcomes - including better health and wellbeing, higher social trust, greater political interest, lower political cynicism, and less hostile attitudes towards immigrants.
Level of education is the strongest predictor of outcomes (compared to age, gender, income, employment status, and marital status) in all models, except for the outcomes of wellbeing and health.
This ‘education effect’ is both robust and relatively stable over time, with little variation in the surveyed population across a range of 25 years. The effect is particularly marked for the outcome of social trust, becoming stronger within the same people as they age.
Across all education levels - low or high - people who report that they are satisfied with their education level and have incorporated education as part of their identity are benefiting psychologically."
And then the Borgen Project, focusing on the global plight of poverty, identifies the top ten effects of education on society.
"Education is important in the creation of any democratic society. As Franklin D. Roosevelt says, “Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.” People need a good education if they want a good democracy.
Education is needed to make a society geopolitically stable. Without a proper educational system available to everyone, terrorists could use free education as a way to radicalize people. In other words, geopolitical stability is one of education’s most powerful effects on society.
Education leads to economic prosperity in the global marketplace. One of the most important effects education has on society is giving the people who live in a society the skills they need to compete in the global marketplace, and the skills they need to produce technological goods that can be sold on the open market. Socrates best expressed this idea when he stated: “Prefer knowledge to wealth, for the one is transitory, the other perpetual.”
Education gives people the knowledge they need to elect capable leaders. Plato stated, “In politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill… we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one.” Education helps the members of society see through the manipulations used by politicians to get votes so that the members of the society can vote for the leader who is best able to run the society.
Education helps promote tolerance in a society and helps reduce common conflicts between diverse populations in an urban setting. Helen Keller said that “The highest result of education is tolerance.” Educating members of society about other people who either live in the society or its neighboring states have the power to reduce many conflicts.
Education has the power to help societies, and the world in general, change for the better. According to Nelson Mandela, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. Malcolm X says that: “Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today.” Education is a powerful tool that can be used to make the world a better place to live in.
Education is important because it helps members in a society learn from the mistakes of the past. Plato has stated that geopolitical stability cannot be created by forming a democratic government; if the government is established by force or because of overthrowing an old regime, the new government could transform from a government that encourages peace and democracy into a new government that uses force to maintain power. Having an education is important because good education allows members of a society to learn from past mistakes and prevent the same mistakes from happening in the future.
Education is the first step a society needs before giving rights to women and other minority groups. Education is a powerful tool that enables women and other minority groups to gain fundamental civil rights. It is important to treat women and other minorities with respect in the classroom. Abraham Lincoln stressed the importance that education has in helping people who live in a society to more fundamental civil rights when he said, “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation is the philosophy of government in the next.”
Education reduces violence and crime in societies. Teaching people to read has been shown to prevent people from engaging in crime. In fact, the Melissa Institute for Violence Prevention and Treatment is a charity group uses education to combat violence and crime.
Education creates hope for the future. Giving people hope that they can improve their lot in life is one of the more powerful effects education has on a society. John F. Kennedy best expressed the power of a good education when he said: “Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our nation.” JFK’s words about America apply to every society on Earth."
Each and every one of these points speaks to education providing greater diversity of thought and more diverse opinions on important matters. Without our education systems, and especially our higher education system, we would not be churning out the leaders of tomorrow that will hopefully foster the continual evolution of our society to a place where everyone is considered an equal.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Go ahead and cite some examples of Lee Fang saying racist things.
This broadening schism between the "Bernie bro", blue-collar, class-focused progressive left (in which Fang squarely sits) and the upper-middle-class, college educated, mostly white, woke-focused elitist progressive left has been quite a thing to see this past year.
It's the Bernie Bros vs. The Warren Hufflepuffs or whatever Harry Potter #### they're branding themselves as.
Krystal is really dumb sometimes. There's absolutely no reason to think that the people she's talking about wouldn't completely oppose that law. Show some evidence that they're actually hypocritical on this and you might have a point. I suspect that none exists.
Maybe, I don't know, ask them? They're all on twitter...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Many of the signatories of the Harper’s letter have been outspoken critics of conservative censuring of speech for decades.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone can oppose orthodoxy and suppression of speech from everysource? Why the assumption of hypocrisy and partisan agendas?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Many of the signatories of the Harper’s letter have been outspoken critics of conservative censuring of speech for decades.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone can oppose orthodoxy and suppression of speech from everysource? Why the assumption of hypocrisy and partisan agendas?
You know Noam Chomsky has been a bootlicker for years constantly standing up for the right agenda and silencing the left, it's only now that he's started to speak up once they started censuring his right wing ideology.
Krystal is really dumb sometimes. There's absolutely no reason to think that the people she's talking about wouldn't completely oppose that law. Show some evidence that they're actually hypocritical on this and you might have a point. I suspect that none exists.
Maybe, I don't know, ask them? They're all on twitter...
It's not necessarily explicitly hypocritical but it does come across as disingenuous. It's not like this anti-BDS or the quashing of pro-Palestinian sentiment and labeling it as anti-semitic in American politics is particularly new, but I've yet to hear anything about it from the people in question. Am I to seriously believe that it's completely off their radars?
It's not necessarily explicitly hypocritical but it does come across as disingenuous. It's not like this anti-BDS or the quashing of pro-Palestinian sentiment and labeling it as anti-semitic in American politics is particularly new, but I've yet to hear anything about it from the people in question. Am I to seriously believe that it's completely off their radars?
... Yes? It's a ####ing state law in Missouri. It was completely off mine until I watched that. I'm not even sure what google alert I could have had in place that would have alerted me to it.
But regardless, is that the standard we're asking for here? If you stand up for a principle, you must then be ever vigilant for any news story that might engage that principle, at which point you must immediately publicly state, "hey, remember how I said I was for X? Well, that applies in this case too!" Completely ridiculous.
Again, it's not hard: you're supposed to be a journalist. Ask for a comment. Hell, I'd bet you could even get a few people, Ben Shapiro for example, who praised the signatories of the Harpers letter to say something contradictory here. Then you'd at least have a reasonable target to aim your ire at.
Do you seriously think if you asked Thomas Williams (the author of the Harpers letter), or any of its major signatories - say, Pinker, Rushdie, or Haidt - if they think these principles apply in the case of labeling criticisms of Israeli policy as anti-semitic, they'd say, "no, that's a different situation"? If so, you're out of your mind.
Just a general rule of intellectual honesty: if you want to label someone a hypocrite, you cannot assume they hold a position they haven't expressed simply because you haven't heard them say the opposite.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Anyway, the character assassination to discredit her point has begun in earnest, so expect no lessons to be learned here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
It's simply easier to take shots at her personally in the hopes that that will distract from the point, which is, as noted, the reason for the immediate resort to character assassination.
Interesting points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
Krystal is really dumb sometimes.
Huh. Funny how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Many of the signatories of the Harper’s letter have been outspoken critics of conservative censuring of speech for decades.
Why is it so hard to believe that someone can oppose orthodoxy and suppression of speech from everysource? Why the assumption of hypocrisy and partisan agendas?
It feels like a couple of you watched the video, but focused only what you wanted to listen to. The issue is, of course, that someone resigning from the New York Times because of presumed free speech issues is dominating the conversation, it's all self-proclaimed free speech advocates want to talk about. However, actual laws against and restrictions of free speech are being largely ignored. Do you have to talk about everything? No, but when self-proclaimed free speech advocates decide to go on long winded rants about the radical left and their thought policing based on liberal indoctrination from college (oh, hey Cliff!) and can barely get up to write two sentences about laws restricting protesting that effectively eliminates the ability to do so, it's see-through.
She rightly called it a rhetorical weapon that people without actual principles use, and surprise, some of the people who do that most often on this board are taking issue with it (oh, hey again Cliff, you keep popping up!). That's why it's hard to believe. Some of these people (not all, and that goes for public figures and posters here) that apparently care about free speech have a real habit about being loud on the unimportant things (reporter quits cause of the lib thought police!) and weirdly quiet on the important things (lawmakers pass actual laws that restrict free speech. It's hard to believe, because if it was based on principles, the energy you speed talking about it would reflect that.
In short, nobody buys your phoney complaining about free speech when you use it as a rhetorical weapon. Sucks to have your cover blown, I guess, but c'est la vie.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
... Yes? It's a ####ing state law in Missouri. It was completely off mine until I watched that. I'm not even sure what google alert I could have had in place that would have alerted me to it.
31 states have similar laws on their books. And again, it's not like the chilling of anti-Israel speech is brand new, and it's probably far more pervasive and insidious than a lot of the "cancel culture" stuff that the right loves to get on their soapboxes about.
Quote:
But regardless, is that the standard we're asking for here? If you stand up for a principle, you must then be ever vigilant for any news story that might engage that principle, at which point you must immediately publicly state, "hey, remember how I said I was for X? Well, that applies in this case too!" Completely ridiculous.
I don't think that's the standard, but if you make it your brand and go after every single example of it that comes from the left, while ignoring any examples from the right or center, you're disingenuous (e.g. Peterson and Rubin).
Quote:
Hell, I'd bet you could even get a few people, Ben Shapiro for example, who praised the signatories of the Harpers letter to say something contradictory here. Then you'd at least have a reasonable target to aim your ire at.
Shapiro's hypocrisy has been on full display for years. There's nothing new there.
Quote:
Do you seriously think if you asked Thomas Williams (the author of the Harpers letter), or any of its major signatories - say, Pinker, Rushdie, or Haidt - if they think these principles apply in the case of labeling criticisms of Israeli policy as anti-semitic, they'd say, "no, that's a different situation"? If so, you're out of your mind.
No, I don't think Margaret Atwood is pro anti-BDS policies. I don't think that every signatory of that letter is expected to speak on the topic. I think you're smart enough to know that that's not really the point of argument either and the argument isn't restricted to just signatories of the letter.
We have a blatant example of free speech suppression being enacted by the State, not the fabricated compelled speech nonsense that JP made is career on, nor some abstract idea of chilled speech caused by twitter trolls, and the people who are supposed to be the most diligent opponents of this stuff are nowhere to be found.
If you want to give the same people who will rail against every little obscure example of cancel culture on college campuses a free pass on this one, I can't stop you. I see it as more evidence that the Petersons, Rubins, Shapiros, etc. of the world are self-serving grifters and/or ideologues.
Last edited by rubecube; 07-16-2020 at 01:00 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
