politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I saw the Guardian report that "Biden campaign accuses Trump of parroting Hitler"
How about, Trump parrots Hitler? Why this Biden campaign accuses Trump of.
the media are a bunch of pussies hedging their bets with the audience, also willing to skew anything to cause controversy as long as it doesn't come back to bite them. Sensationalism sells.
Likely liability... Saying "X" puts you in the way of more lawsuits than "so-and-so says 'X'"
You're possibly correct, though my understanding is journalism gets enough freedom for it to be OK, but that potentially has to be resolved in court which takes money. They'd rather not be totally honest than lose a little profit.
That title is totally honest though? They are reporting the fact that the Biden campaign said X. Deciding whether or not that is an accurate portrayal of Trump is a matter for opinion and analysis section not news.
Also the Guardian is a UK publication, defamation is slightly easier to win in the UK, thus more likely to be costly for the defendant. Truth is not an absolute defense like it is in the US.
As described in The Newsroom, a great show I personally love, the media is “biased toward fairness.”
This is most likely due to the need to be as profitable as possible, although now that business model is changing in the Trump/Fox/MSNBC-Hyper-Partisan era and we are seeing more catered viewpoints. But the “bias toward fairness” is what has helped shift the Overton window so far to the right. They ignore basic factual truth to appear “fair,” taking this floating viewpoint that insists on looking at everything through the amorphous, yet binary, political lens.
The example used in the show was about flat earthers (this was, actually, a time when that was an absolutely absurd example): “if half of the Republican caucus walked onto the house floor tomorrow and said ‘the earth is flat,’ The Times would lead with ‘Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on shape of earth.’”
It’s one of the many, many, many, many issues with modern society that stack up to give us the overarching problem…of everything going on today. I dunno, maybe this is just me, but any time I think about any nuanced, hyper-specific issue like this, with such far-reaching consequences, our problems seem insurmountable. Because this issue is connected to larger issues and much smaller issues and THE largest issue and the consequences are devastating…it just seems like modern society has become so stacked and complicated that you can’t unravel one problem without digging up and figuring out a million others. And we’re running out of time. But even saying THAT is a multifaceted conversation…it’s all so exhausting.