Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

Hypothetical headline, I think you get the point.

I don't see the point because I can't think of any articles like that, at least that don't come from a site like shareblue/other 98% etc. which are hot-garbage and note remotely mainstream.

It's pearl clutching over a hypothetical, and not remotely of value in the slightest. Show an example of what you're complaining about, otherwise you're just complaining for the sake of complaining without having a point.

[unfilteredJW]

Can we please shoo the pigeon away from the checker board?

[Endus]

So you refuse to answer the question, got it.

Literally did answer the question, I just didn't fall for the bait you'd tied into it.

Should I apologize for that?

It's like you asked me "when did you stop beating your wife?", and I answered "I've never beaten my wife, that's a stupid question", and then you tried to lambast me for "not answering the question". Calling out your bait as bait is answering it, it's just not the answer you wanted.

[Flarelaine]

Did you just compare two different stories? ‘Trump saves factory jobs’ isn’t a fact...

That does not mean there isn't a headline somewhere saying that.

A line giving Trump head.

[Breccia]

Iran claims all the oil in their oil tanker mentioned before has been sold.

"Well, who bought it?"

They didn't say.

"Where is the oil going?"

They didn't say.

"How do we know if they're telling the truth, if they say something very good for the country happened but withhold all the evidence?"

Well, if you're a Trump supporter, you have to do this without reservation.

Iranian oil sales are restricted. In theory, whoever bought that oil could face penalties by the US. If Iran is able to sell oil off to unknown buyers, that really opens up some options, and the US is left with fewer. Who would have thought "just sell the oil and don't disclose the buyer" would be so effective?

"But surely there must be some way to see how much money they're getting, because what they claim they got, and what they actually got, might not be the same."

Well, I guess Iran could release its taxes. Don't hold your breath.

[Bodakane]

Facts and bias don't exactly mix. For example, the headline reads "Trump saves factory jobs" and one outlet is reporting about how that is happening, while the other is saying, "but, but Russia! But, but, Nazis!"

So it's not so black and white now is it?

That has not one fucking thing to do with what we were discussing. You people don’t get to change the subject anymore.

You said it’s not the media’s job to give facts. Respond to that.

[Rasulis]

So let's talk about Kim Davis.

"Who?"

Oh, right, it's been a while. Remember that in Kentucky (because of course it's Kentucky) there was a clerk who violated federal law and denied a marriage application because it was against God's word?

"Oh right, yeah. I forgot about her."

Well, I can name two hundred twenty-four thousand reasons why her name is back in the news.



"I suppose the pardon will happen any second."

Nope. This was a federal crime, and Trump sold her out long ago.

This is why, unless you are certain that you are going to win or have deep pocket, you don’t tangle with the ACLU.

Technically government bodies are protected from adverse monetary judgements. Except in Civil Right cases (Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976). Conservatives hate this one so much because it allows ACLU to sue for attorney fees, but not the other way around. In essence, this allows ACLU to throw unlimited resources into their civil right cases without regard for finances, knowing that they are going to get compensated when they win. Maybe I should have used the word “if” instead of “when.”

[Breccia]

Politico has a list of over 100 dumping sites for coal ash, that FEMA has declared are in flood zones.



"That can't be good."

It isn't. Coal ash tends to contain things like arsenic, mercury and lead. You don't want to drink the stuff.

The assessment said flooding risk is particularly acute in the Southeast and along rivers in the Midwest. That’s where 90 of the sites in FEMA’s high-risk flood zones reside, POLITICO’s analysis found. The National Climate Assessment noted that extreme precipitation spiked 42 percent in the Midwest and 27 percent in the Southeast between 1958 and 2016, and said the Midwest and parts of the Southeast will see another 40-plus percent increase by 2100 if emissions trajectories go unchanged.

"Existing flood map boundaries do not account for future flood risk due to the increasing frequency of more intense precipitation events, as well as new development that would reduce the floodplain's ability to manage storm water,” the climate assessment said of the Southeast.

Bolded for "please see map above".

Some states have already taken action, but Trump's EPA has intentionally reduced/removed regulations on exactly this topic. And in those states where action is being taken, duh, the coal companies are fighting it because dealing with their toxic smoke/ash would break the narrative of clean, beautiful coal.

For more information as to why this is a growing problem, in case "arsenic, mercury and lead" wasn't enough, please consult this article U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record – again. It's by the NOAA. It's from July. As in, "last month" July.

I live in NYState, which as you can see, is clear of this specific risk. Y'all fucked down there.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, this Duke study from 2009 (check Duke on the map above) details some of the things coal ash can do to you. Also, apparently in contains radium, too. But the study was mostly about being inhaled. The study was done because, big surprise, a coal ash storage site broke open, took six years and a billion dollars to fix, and killed 30 people with brain cancer and shit in Dec 2008.

That was one flood.

[Rasulis]

Politico has a list of over 100 dumping sites for coal ash, that FEMA has declared are in flood zones.

A companion map to the coal ash map - cancer cluster map.

[Breccia]

A companion map to the coal ash map - cancer cluster map.

That's cool, but I prefer this lung cancer map.



Be careful with correlation and causation, of course. Just because an airborne contaminant known to cause cancer is more common in some states, and those same states are proven to have more lunch cancer, doesn't mean one causes the other. For all we know, Kentucky just has too many cancer-causing noisy windmills.

[Rasulis]

That's cool, but I prefer this lung cancer map.



Be careful with correlation and causation, of course. Just because an airborne contaminant known to cause cancer is more common in some states, and those same states are proven to have more lunch cancer, doesn't mean one causes the other. For all we know, Kentucky just has too many cancer-causing noisy windmills.

Well, Kentucky also has the second highest rate of adult cigarette smokers in the nation (West Virginia is #1). It is #1 for teen cigarette smokers in the nation. That may have something to do with the high lung cancer rate.

The Toll of Tobacco in Kentucky

On the other hand, tobacco farming used to be big business in Kentucky.

Tobacco's 'Special Friend': What Internal Documents Say About Mitch McConnell

[Wyrt]

The problem is that journalists of old fought it to try being neutral (where issue might be sensitive) and factual (sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully).

And journalists of today say "f**k it, there is no neutrality, it's our agenda all the way, every time!"

"There is no ultimate truth, so it's fine to push entirely subjective lines of thinking into every piece", thinking like that.

No. Journalists are supposed to be objective, not neutral. If 1 politician objectively lies more than another then there should be more negative stories on that politician.

Being "neutral" would mean they'd have to present the same number of positive and negative stories about both politicians regardless of the facts.

[Kiri]

You're saying that objective science cannot exist. And yet we're talking half a world apart through scientific and engineering advances achieved by it.
What rda (and others) talk about isn't really enforcing true, absolute neutrality, it's more about aggregators themselves not being able to put their thumb on the scales to their own ends. And being able to see when they try to do that. As experiment(s) shown, it's isn't entirely impossible, even if it is hard.
You understand that corporations have their own agenda, right? Wouldn't it be good journalism to know what driven Google to do what they did? To expose what kind of influence they truly wield?
Wouldn't it be prudent for lawmakers to know the same? To close loopholes that allowed essentially unlimited influence campaigns not reported as actual campaign or PAC expense through being connected with Google?

Well, if you want to be technical, most science is approximation influenced by our own perspective and perception. It's often a good enough approximation that we don't care, so we don't use quantum physics for everything and accept that a normal coin has a 50% chance of landing tails. That chance is really dependent on a lot of factors, but it would be too bothersome to calculate them for every throw.

But let's not get even more off-topic. It is certainly a good goal to not have aggregators induce bias, but actually doing that is a bit harder. Identifying bias in and of itself is hard enough - I wouldn't believe any experimental data not extensively peer-reviewed and replicated, since it is stupidly easy to introduce bias into social science experiments - but giving lawmakers the ability to police information in any way is incredibly dangerous. That's why I am not advocating for shutting down Sinclair's antics, either. It opens the way for one party to just increase its potential to stay in power.

It's not like science and politics mesh well to begin with. Just look at other topics that have seen much more extensive study already. Climate change, the effects of smoking, friggin' vaccines, all areas with huge bodies of work and you will still see politicians disregarding the scientific consensus. You really want to throw the policing of information into that mix, too?
Corporations have agendas, yes. So have politicians and scientists. Suggesting any form of policing is just putting the fate of information into the hands of other people with agendas. I personally would trust no one with that.

[Thepersona]

And who do you think is doing all the lying, according to your logic?

The person (or people) who does not back up their claims with facts.
In this case, It's Trump, the GOP and the wider conservative/republican base who are divorced from the truth

[Paranoid Android]

Politico has a list of over 100 dumping sites for coal ash, that FEMA has declared are in flood zones.



"That can't be good."

It isn't. Coal ash tends to contain things like arsenic, mercury and lead. You don't want to drink the stuff.



Bolded for "please see map above".

Some states have already taken action, but Trump's EPA has intentionally reduced/removed regulations on exactly this topic. And in those states where action is being taken, duh, the coal companies are fighting it because dealing with their toxic smoke/ash would break the narrative of clean, beautiful coal.

For more information as to why this is a growing problem, in case "arsenic, mercury and lead" wasn't enough, please consult this article U.S. has its wettest 12 months on record – again. It's by the NOAA. It's from July. As in, "last month" July.

I live in NYState, which as you can see, is clear of this specific risk. Y'all fucked down there.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, this Duke study from 2009 (check Duke on the map above) details some of the things coal ash can do to you. Also, apparently in contains radium, too. But the study was mostly about being inhaled. The study was done because, big surprise, a coal ash storage site broke open, took six years and a billion dollars to fix, and killed 30 people with brain cancer and shit in Dec 2008.

That was one flood.

Yeah on one twitter feed I saw 10 of the 15 poorest counties in America are in Kentucky.

I remember seeing the political add of the Democrat running against McConnell on how how he blew off coal miners who were dying black lung disease, blah, blah, blah.

They will still vote for this guy. As with your post and many others, I don't have much confidence in the state of Kentucky on anything they do.

[Daelak]

So you are arguing that there is no bias in mainstream media? Wow ok.

- - - Updated - - -



No i never said that. I'm saying it's the media's job to report facts, without putting their political opinions within said facts.

You surely can see there is a difference. It's not the media's job to report their "fee fees" along with headlines. Save it for the opinion sections if they feel so inclined, not my fucking front page headlines.

Let's see an example.

[Nurasu]

Yeah on one twitter feed I saw 10 of the 15 poorest counties in America are in Kentucky.

I remember seeing the political add of the Democrat running against McConnell on how how he blew off coal miners who were dying black lung disease, blah, blah, blah.

They will still vote for this guy. As with your post and many others, I don't have much confidence in the state of Kentucky on anything they do.

So they're literally impoverishing themselves to keep two men from marrying. We should make it a reservation for primitive man and remove their senators.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's see an example.

Why isn't his made up example good enough for you? /s

[Wyrt]

Why isn't his made up example good enough for you? /s

It's the Ben Shapiro style of debate. Make up a fake example to make a point.

[Blur4stuff]

It's the same story for several southeastern US states. They all keep putting republicans in charge and their states remain some of the worst to live in. It's also true, to a point, for red states outside of the southeast. Although, their saving grave is that it isn't mixed with supply side Jesus/doomsday christians.

I can't speak for Kentucky, but in Alabama I could hear the exact same person claim to be a good christian while also wishing we would turn the entire middle east into glass and shoot brown people trying to cross the border.

[Edge-]

So you are arguing that there is no bias in mainstream media? Wow ok.

I argued that? Where? I just asked for an example of your hypothetical in reality, not a strawman that fits your narrative.