A Shaky Future?
-
@taiwan_girl said in A Shaky Future?:
@bachophile I agree with a lot of your summary. I will have to read that book at some point.
In my (very small) observations, the standing of the US on the world stage is lower than it has been since I can recall. In terms of respect, good feelings, willingness to work with, fear, etc. President Trump has not done a good job at all in regards to foreign affairs.
Our relationship with adversaries is (generally) worse than before
Our relationship with allies is (generally) worse than beforeFrom talking to locals and government officials in various countries to having access to (semi) confidential white papers on foreign leaders opinions of the US, there is not a whole lot of positive thoughts about President Trump.
I agree that President Trump is a narcissist and like Larry says, all President are. However, I believe that President Trump takes it to a whole other level. And that clouds his abilities to really be effective and understand/analyze situations and peoples.
His ability to understand and analyze situations and people is far far better than you know.
As for our relationship with adversaries: obviously you'd prefer we went back to kissing their asses and letting them run all over us.
As for our relationship with allies: 1. What you think does not alter the fact that you're wrong, and 2. Don't mistake the grumbling you hear because they're being expected to pay their share as a problem with our relationship with that country.
The news media pushes a dishonest narrative, and you parrot that narrative to a T.
-
The truly intellectual root of being anti Trump is trying to preserve globalism, some call it the New World Order.
Of course all read about is fascist, racist, Russian agent, narcissist, mentally ill blah blah blah.
It would be much more interesting to debate the real issue but the dems and media must be terribly afraid of that, or learned that cheap talking points are more effective in consolidating the low information base.
-
@Loki said in A Shaky Future?:
The truly intellectual root of being anti Trump is trying to preserve globalism, some call it the New World Order.
Bingo...
-
I am not going to add much except two points.
One, China sits on Russia's sparsely populated SE border and is an important customer for Russian raw materials. Putin is all about stability, he does not want the Russian far east in any way unstable. It is in Russia's interest to have strong relations with the PRC, regardless of whether Moscow actually trusts Bejing.
Two, it was the West that assumed and actually came to to believe that China would embark on liberalisation and democraticisation as it grows economically. The Chinese Communists had no such intention, never did and probably never will. We in the West are just beginning to wake up to the fact that they have remained orthodox Marxists - Leninists all along. The economic policy is a only means to modernize and strengthen the Party's hold on power.
-
@Renauda said in A Shaky Future?:
Two, it was the West that assumed and actually came to to believe that China would embark on liberalisation and democraticisation as it grows economically.
Renauda, at the time, did you think there was a hope that "liberalization and democratization" might work? I stress "at the time" because 20/20 hindsight and all that.
I thought it might i.e., capitalism would enrich their middle class, those at the top of the hierarchy would still enjoy wealth and power, everybody happy enough, the ruthless nature would dissipate over the decades.
Good idea though, eh? Worth the attempt?
-
Woke up this morning with trembly eyeshine and asked myself, "Things are pretty bad. Aren't they?" My Self answered, "Well . . . yeah."
Then I asked, "And gonna get worse?" Self: "Well . . . yeah."
Me: "Time to stick a fork in us?" Self: "Well . . . yeah."
Me: "You're not a whole lot of help, you know that, right? Self: "Well . . . yeah."
How about it? Is it fork time? Yesterday Mik opined that he feels driven to vote for Trump because the alternative is too awful. I thought about this, then I switched sides, asked the same question, and got the same answer! Vote X because the alternative is too awful. We go down no matter who's in the driver's seat. Bound to be bloody either way.
Phase One: A weak, half-crazy neophyte and budding demagogue conned his way into the White House and opened the floodgates to Phase Two: BLM and its attendant destruction and death swept in like debutantes at the ball, all a-twitter and swinging their crowbars. And along comes Joe Biden, who may or may not be mindfully capitalizing on this development, either because he wants the office for his very own or because he's letting himself get herded toward it, and thanks so much for your conviction and enthusiasm, Joe. Just what we freaking need right now.
I found this JAVA Mah-Jong game online, free. So now I sit and play this game hour after hour and think about nothing, except sometimes I curse the despicable MSM, who may be the guiltiest of all. We can't catch a break from the avalanche. Can't get our breath long enough to form a constructive thought. Come on, people; lift your heads from the ratings trough long enough to recognize what you're doing, the havoc you're wreaking. Is that asking too much?
Well . . . yeah.
-
From Politico: "It is of course ironic that [these historical] figures . . . are now deemed evil by the progressive ideologues of the new Democratic Party.
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how the nation would have developed without these extraordinary men.
"It is also ironic that when leftists condemn these historical figures, they are using freedoms and rights that would not exist without the leadership of those selfsame giants of our past."
Yes, monstrously ironic.
Well, Dr. Franklin, when y'all gave us a Republic "if we can keep it", you weren't whistling Dixie, were you?
-
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
I think the fix is pretty simple...First, reinstate what the country had for many years. Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody. Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast. Third, if the media knowingly prints or broadcasts a lie as news, make them criminally liable, with fines and mandatory jail time for second and further offenses. Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
"Phase One: A weak, half-crazy neophyte and budding demagogue conned his way into the White House and opened the floodgates to Phase Two: BLM and its attendant destruction and death swept in like debutantes at the ball, all a-twitter and swinging their crowbars. And along comes Joe Biden,"
If that's how you see things, I feel sorry for you.
-
@Jolly said in A Shaky Future?:
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
Fixing the problem requires proper diagnosis, which means you've got to do some things that aren't very fun.
There are two things that are hammered into you when you're in j-school: the collective liberal slant, which is pervasive in the industry, but much more than that you're brainwashed with the idea that you're a champion of the Truth, you're the fourth estate, and it's your God-given responsibility to serve the public interest. These people by and large want to be the next Edward R. Murrow; they don't want to be clickbait machines. If you only focus on the liberal slant, then you care more about feeling good because you hate the right people than you do trying to understand the situation. Reporters absolutely hate click-bait, too.
So while keeping that in mind:
Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody.
Sure.
Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast.
That requires buy-in from the managers (that is, not the reporters and not their editors, but their bosses), and they have no incentive to do this. Retractions and corrections don't increase readership. So that's going to be a hard one to implement.
Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
Good luck with that. Advertorials and the like have been a thing for quite some time now. The only way to stop it is to regulate by money trail, not by content. If a news agency (or hell, some influencer) gets money or free stuff, they need to be explicit about that in their reporting. Influencers already started doing this because their audiences demand it; news and media companies have been a lot less forthcoming.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive. Neither would Anne Coulter.
Go ahead and start your own fact-based news agency if you don't believe me. Get all Bob Woodward or Matt Drudge up in there. You won't make it a year because no one's going to care. If it's a choice between getting informed about a global pandemic to keep your family safe and reading hunting memes on Facebook, the latter will win almost every time. They'll never get around to reading your stuff.
-
@Aqua-Letifer I like that you "tell it like it is".
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive.
Aqua makes interesting points. I wish I (we) knew more about exactly what he does, and why he seems to be on an inside track of what goes on in print news and online.
The reason for my selective quote of what Aqua said, is that it reminded me of observations made by the two guys on ADV China. They point out that EVERYTHING is under the auspices of the CCP, and the mainland Chinese know it. Yet, they believe what they are told, even though the people know it might not be true.
So, even if you (mainland Chinese) know the news is not true or factual, they do believe that it's true and factual. Hard to figure, but I guess that's part of human nature: if someone says something, believe it's true, even if you know it's propaganda.
Of course we're also dealing with that post-modernist bullshit of "speak your truth" because, well, my feelings are just as right as that science nonsense, if not more so.
-
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
So, even if you (mainland Chinese) know the news is not true or factual, they do believe that it's true and factual. Hard to figure, but I guess that's part of human nature: if someone says something, believe it's true, even if you know it's propaganda.
wasn't that the whole idea of the German Socialists in the 2nd War? Tell people a lie enough times and it will become the truth?
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
@Jolly said in A Shaky Future?:
It's not that hard to fix. And it centers around the First Amendment and the press. I have no problem with freedom of the press. I have a huge problem with opinion touted as hard news. I also think the MSM has abandoned any semblance of fairness or impartiality.
Fixing the problem requires proper diagnosis, which means you've got to do some things that aren't very fun.
There are two things that are hammered into you when you're in j-school: the collective liberal slant, which is pervasive in the industry, but much more than that you're brainwashed with the idea that you're a champion of the Truth, you're the fourth estate, and it's your God-given responsibility to serve the public interest. These people by and large want to be the next Edward R. Murrow; they don't want to be clickbait machines. If you only focus on the liberal slant, then you care more about feeling good because you hate the right people than you do trying to understand the situation. Reporters absolutely hate click-bait, too.
So while keeping that in mind:
Make the press adhere to the same level of slander and libel rules for everybody.
Sure.
Secondly, make the press liable for getting their facts wrong in a news story...Retractions or corrections must be on the front page of a website or newspaper and must be the first item on a broadcast.
That requires buy-in from the managers (that is, not the reporters and not their editors, but their bosses), and they have no incentive to do this. Retractions and corrections don't increase readership. So that's going to be a hard one to implement.
Fourth, it's fine to have opinions or endorsements, but they must be prominently labeled as such.
Good luck with that. Advertorials and the like have been a thing for quite some time now. The only way to stop it is to regulate by money trail, not by content. If a news agency (or hell, some influencer) gets money or free stuff, they need to be explicit about that in their reporting. Influencers already started doing this because their audiences demand it; news and media companies have been a lot less forthcoming.
The role of the press is to be society's watchdog, but a watchdog that lies when it barks, is no good. Put the facts before the American people and let them decide what they want, instead of being a wing of a political party.
Fox is no longer competing with CNN for your attention. It's competing against CNN, Instagram, Etsy, YouTube, Netflix, and God knows what else. The only way to win with that kind of intense competition is to play to your emotions and make you read their bullshit. Tucker Carlson would have no career if he wasn't abrasive. Neither would Anne Coulter.
Go ahead and start your own fact-based news agency if you don't believe me. Get all Bob Woodward or Matt Drudge up in there. You won't make it a year because no one's going to care. If it's a choice between getting informed about a global pandemic to keep your family safe and reading hunting memes on Facebook, the latter will win almost every time. They'll never get around to reading your stuff.
As I wrote in another thread, it all starts with the First Amendment and a hard look at the responsibilities that go along with those rights. If the press lies in a factual story, it seems to me that whether it be in omission or commission, the legal remedy must be there to help insure compliance to a standard. An honest mistake? Retraction or correction in a prominent spot. No retraction? Then the legal gate should open. And so on...
-
It’s tough to acknowledge Aqua’s point that social media has become a primary news source for many (most?) people. Social media by definition is POV and not unbiased news. I miss those days but I am slowly coming around to accept the reality and the MSM existential threat. I do think that CNN for example acts as social media and is very close to flat out admitting it outloud.
-
@Rainman said in A Shaky Future?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in A Shaky Future?:
Aqua makes interesting points. I wish I (we) knew more about exactly what he does, and why he seems to be on an inside track of what goes on in print news and online.
I've been switching between working as a journalist and a copywriter for about 13 years, and I've worked for a large handful of magazines and websites. Some extremely small, some get quoted here sometimes. My current day job is a very silly place that has nothing to do with this, or anything else, really, so I still freelance because I like it.
My opinions about the above just come from what I know from colleagues and my own biased and limited experience. I've some relatively boring stories I rather tell in person, but basically I hate the downward spiral our reporting sources are in now, and I'm not sure anyone here knows more first-hand about how media bias works than I do. But that's not the only thing there is to contend with if we're to fix the problem. My buddy Matt and I spent many, many a lunchbreak trying to figure it out from a revenue perspective. Never got very far.
-
Imagine if this thread in which we are participating, was a correspondence between Jefferson and Adams. Our back and forth perspectives take place in a matter of hours. In their day, the same took place, but would take months. Yeah, I know, "duh."
But I don't think anyone has come close to understanding the bad, in the good and bad of instant communication. Adams or Jefferson would have thought about something for days, pondered, let it sit, and then write their thoughts.
In today's world, it's immediate. I can't help but think THAT is a central part of all problems and issues, and that maybe historians years from now will point to this as the "novel" catalyst which caused a civil war to occur in the 2020's.
