Why the Mainstream Media Really Sucks

[Kyuss Apollo]

I think you're missing the point Mick. "Lashed out" is a poor choice of words by the NYT tweet to describe a well-argued dissenting opinion by a female supreme court justice, if you ask me. It makes her sound possibly unhinged by anger and is more like a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh way to put it.

[mickthinks]

There's usually more than one point and people who say "you're missing the point" are often talking at cross purposes. My point is that the NYT's tweet did not literally say Sotomayor lashed out by quoting words Trump spoke. So mostlybree's tweet was false.

I think the NYT's choice of words was poor, too. So that's a valid criticism, I think. That the NYT can be criticised doesn't mean that any and all criticism is valid and that we needn't care about the terms people use to criticise.

It's a point I have been making for a long time,

[lisarea]

Well, I have about a halfster's degree in linguistics*, but just being a native English speaker is sufficient to interpret an English language statement.

And that statement doesn't mention anything beyond the quotes, which could imply that's what they're talking about.

This is the tweet:

Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent of the Supreme Court's travel ban decision, lashed out at President Trump, quoting anti-Muslim statements that he made as a candidate and, later, as president

You're correct that it COULD be interpreted to mean that in the course of her 'lashing out,' she quoted Trump. It could also, however, be interpreted to mean that the 'lashing out' consisted of quoting him. It's just kind of strange wording.

I take more issue with them characterizing her as 'lashing out' at all, while everyone else's statements are described in neutral terms. They clearly want to focus on the strength of Sotomayer's dissent, but why not characterize it as a harsh rebuke or a strongly worded criticism or something? Lashing out has connotations of sudden violent attacks. They make it sound like she had a temper tantrum or something.

Also, they're missing a comma.

* Computational linguistics, though. ha ha.

[Kyuss Apollo]

I am not talking at cross purposes. I think the use of the words "lashed out" to describe Sotomayor's decision detracts (and distracts) from her actual argument by implying something about her personally. It is an emotionally-laden phrase. The entire point of the case revolved around how all the anti-Muslim comments Trump said on the campaign trail became unconstitutional executive branch policy once Trump was in power. Pointing out what Trump said is NOT lashing out, and when a tweet is all many people are ever going to see...I have read other modifiers for her dissent -- scathing, scorching, even remarkable -- those are fine, because are used to describe her supreme court decision, not her personal behavior.

But that she herself "lashed out" suggests something angry and negative about Sotomayor's herself.

Feel free to continue to disagree, but that's my issue with the NYT tweet.

[erimir]

It is ambiguous as to whether it's implying that.

But having read some of the excerpts from her dissent, that is a pretty fair reading of what they're saying.

There isn't anything I've seen from her dissent that could be described as lashing out at Trump aside from starkly laying out the case that he is motivated by anti-Muslim animus, and doing so by quoting his own words. And by not being "polite" enough to act like the justices who ruled the other way were operating in good faith (because they plainly weren't).

It's a stupid way to describe a very well-argued point. If you view it as impolite or a slur to call a spade a spade by pointing out that Trump is biased against Muslims, then sure, it's lashing out. But facts are facts. And the fact is that Trump is biased against Muslims (and that's putting it kindly!).

[But]

I find it weirdly satisfying to see Dump's retarded tweets, including the capslock shitfits, printed in the Supreme Court decision.

Also, if there was a way to send this quote back 20 years or so using a time machine, the only conclusion would be that at some point in the future, some really weird drugs would be invented.

In September 2017, President Trump tweeted that “[t]he travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific—but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

President Trump tweeted..

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Good enough thrad for this:

Just a heads up, this new account has been spreading a mountain of fake sh**.

You probably saw their post with a fake quote allegedly from the CEO of Harley.

Do what ya will but if you haven't independently verified the contents of their posts, you may be spreading disinfo. pic.twitter.com/gWyaE5BM5g

— The Hoarse Whisperer (@HoarseWisperer) June 28, 2018

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by Kyuss Apollo

Feel free to continue to disagree, but [that she herself "lashed out" suggests something angry and negative about Sotomayor's herself] is my issue with the NYT tweet.

[sigh] Yes, dude, I get that that is your issue. That isn't what the tweet from mostlybree that you shared says though:

This literally says she lashed out by QUOTING WORDS HE SPOKE.https://t.co/6fu6GdAaNt

— Bree (& ��) (@mostlybree) June 27, 2018

... and that was false. And I think the difference between truth and falsity matters, here at as much as everywhere else. If you disagree with me about that, just say so and we're done ...

[Crumb]

If it mattered to you, I think you might admit that the NYT tweet is ambiguous. There is no indication if there is an implied "and" or "by" there where the second comma is.

[mickthinks]

If it mattered to you, I think you might admit that the NYT tweet is ambiguous.

What if it matters to me and I think ambiguity is precisely why it is false to ascribe literality? Do you not see a contradiction between "it's not clear what it says" and "it literally says x", Crumbo?

[Crumb]

Ambiguous means it could be read either way, not that it is always read as ambiguous.

[mickthinks]

Er ... if it can be read either way, then it can always be read either way, dude! You are mangling the language into an Orwellian nightmare.

[Crumb]

Haha, ok. I guess you are right. It is impossible for someone to read an ambiguous statement one way and not notice the other reading. Anyone who pretends to do that must be up to something nefarious.

[mickthinks]

You are resorting to ironic capitualtion to insinuate a matter of continuing disagreement there, Crumbo. It's not honest, and it is highly ambiguous.


Try again without the irony?

[Crumb]

I'm sure you can figure it out, mick.

[mickthinks]

No, I can't make any sense of your irony. For what it's worth, I don't believe, I haven't said, and nothing I have argued hides a premise that no one has ever read an ambiguous statement one way while failing to notice the other reading.


Nor do I think that kind of binary ambiguity is at play in the NYT tweet.

[Crumb]

I guess you can't be helped then.

[ChuckF]

Oh, memories

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

You are resorting to ironic capitualtion

I guess you're rihgt.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This Dinesh fellow seems astute:

@DineshDSouza literally retweeted a post with #burnthejews pic.twitter.com/mYr2Vaxt7q

— smoobydog (@smoobydog) June 30, 2018

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Facebook, Google, and news.

How Facebook Punked and then Gut Punched the News Biz – Talking Points Memo

I have often been critical of Google. But Google operates very, very differently. It has built massive businesses in advertising and other media related fields. It clearly exercises monopolistic power. But its presence, business models and partnerships are much more consistent and reliable. Facebook and Google have both engrossed huge swathes of the advertising business. Yet TPM gets a mid-low 5-figure check from Google every month for the ads we run on TPM through their advertising services. We get nothing from Facebook. And though there are now some exceptions, that’s the standard. Facebook will sometimes jump in with offers of money and when they decide differently jump right back out. So for instance: April 21, 2017 “Facebook is offering publishers money to create produced video” … December 13th, 2017 “Facebook plans to stop paying publishers to make news feed videos“. Despite being one of the largest and most profitable companies in the world Facebook still has a lot of the personality of a college student run operation, with short attention spans, erratic course corrections and an almost total indifference to the externalities of its behavior.

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

Not the only operation in America this could be said of.

[lisarea]

I AM RIGHT HERE.

[The Man]

Fuck the fucking Vichy New York Times, the latest instalment in an infinite series:

Dems in trouble: above the fold.
Massive nationwide protest against Trump polices: A19 pic.twitter.com/WyiWtdhISG

— Schooley (@Rschooley) July 1, 2018

[davidm]

Say, did you look at the headline on the upper right on the front page that you just reproduced? That's called the "A hed." The A hed is the header for what the Times considers the most important news article of the day.

Did you, erm, read that story?

Or the story just below it, about Fox News and Trump?

Of course you didn't.



The idea that the NY Times is "Vichy" to Trump is so batshit nuts that at this point I have to question the sanity of TheMan. Do you read the Times editorial page?

But go ahead and keep it up. I check in from time to time to see how nuts you and erimir have become. It's amusing. What's especially incredible is to suppose that anyone who voted for Donald Trump would give a damn about what the NY Times says. Are you not aware that the Times endorsed Clinton for president? How many Red State stump jumpers did that persuade, d'ya think?