• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

On the political divide in the US

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Rifter said:
There is only one reality, show video of said reality and let the viewers draw their own conclusions if you cant come up with words to go along with it that are truthful and factual.
Click to expand...

I'm for daily or more fact-checking. For example Trump tweeted
Republicans will totally protect people with Pre-Existing Conditions, Democrats will not! Vote Republican.
Click to expand...

Since it has been determined that Trump's tweets are official statements they are relevant. It is possible to find out what actions have been taken by Democrats and Republicans and report the facts. Let people draw conclusions from them, not just statements by pols. BTW, I'd do this for Feinstein as much as Trump or Mitch or Schumer. Statements dissected daily and contextually explored.
 
Moonbeam said:
MSM? Are those the mystical spiritual messages I keep hearing that tell me Trumps brand is 666? If so, how is that fake news?
Click to expand...

Actually I'm in the process of making MSM tower speakers. It's a design configuration, but no shooters in the towers.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'm for daily or more fact-checking. For example Trump tweeted

Since it has been determined that Trump's tweets are official statements they are relevant. It is possible to find out what actions have been taken by Democrats and Republicans and report the facts. Let people draw conclusions from them, not just statements by pols. BTW, I'd do this for Feinstein as much as Trump or Mitch or Schumer. Statements dissected daily and contextually explored.
Click to expand...

I do hope the media ditches its various euphemisms for ‘lie’. The tweet you show for example is a bald faced lie and there’s no arguing it. The headline should simply read ‘President lies about protecting pre-existing condition protections while working to undermine them’
 
fskimospy said:
I do hope the media ditches its various euphemisms for ‘lie’. The tweet you show for example is a bald faced lie and there’s no arguing it. The headline should simply read ‘President lies about protecting pre-existing condition protections while working to undermine them’
Click to expand...

I'd love that, but then we introduce bias into the headline however accurate that may be.

How about "Trump tweets", give the statement if short enough or an objective summary without opinion, and then completely dissect the shit out of it. In the body "Trump says- Fact Check reveals... I could have a ball with that format and never once use an inflammatory word.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
I'd love that, but then we introduce bias into the headline however accurate that may be.
Click to expand...

But if it's accurate then it's not biased?

How about "Trump tweets", give the statement if short enough or an objective summary without opinion, and then completely dissect the shit out of it. In the body "Trump says- Fact Check reveals... I could have a ball with that format and never once use an inflammatory word.
Click to expand...

I think this would provide a very strong incentive for politicians to lie. Most people don't read beyond the headline or the first paragraphs so for most people they would simply get Trump's statement with a mainstream media 'endorsement'. Trump has exploited this sort of weakness towards not calling out obvious lies since he declared his candidacy.

I think context and perspective is just as important as the 'straight facts' when you are trying to print what is true. In this case Trump is lying and we all know he is lying as the president is saying he is protecting pre-existing condition protections at the same time his administration has taken a radical move in court to try and ensure they are removed. To pretend otherwise for the sake of 'objectivity' is bias in and of itself. Good journalism will always require editorial judgment and I think the media has been cowed into not exercising it due to a multi-decade propaganda campaign by the right that attempts to accuse it of bias against conservatives. It doesn't mean printing 'Trump lies again' every day (although they could!) but when the situation is this clear it is their duty to the country to not let such egregious and impactful lies go without calling them out directly.
 
We could maybe enact a constitutional amendment that any person shown to have lied in a political context will be publicly flogged.
 
fskimospy said:
But if it's accurate then it's not biased?



I think this would provide a very strong incentive for politicians to lie. Most people don't read beyond the headline or the first paragraphs so for most people they would simply get Trump's statement with a mainstream media 'endorsement'. Trump has exploited this sort of weakness towards not calling out obvious lies since he declared his candidacy.

I think context and perspective is just as important as the 'straight facts' when you are trying to print what is true. In this case Trump is lying and we all know he is lying as the president is saying he is protecting pre-existing condition protections at the same time his administration has taken a radical move in court to try and ensure they are removed. To pretend otherwise for the sake of 'objectivity' is bias in and of itself. Good journalism will always require editorial judgment and I think the media has been cowed into not exercising it due to a multi-decade propaganda campaign by the right that attempts to accuse it of bias against conservatives. It doesn't mean printing 'Trump lies again' every day (although they could!) but when the situation is this clear it is their duty to the country to not let such egregious and impactful lies go without calling them out directly.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how people respond to provocative headlines? They form opinions which are akin to "but" in a sentence except it excludes everything that follows.

There are styles which convey truths more effectively than others. There are trigger words like one like ******, a word for blacks. Why? Because of perception and perception matters when trying to reach people. Rather than immediately turning off people with pejoratives, however accurate, omit the "L" word. like the "N" one. Yeah, it's wordplay but effective communications require taking the audience into account.

Instead of "Trump lies again about lying Republicans position on pre-existing coverage" we say "Trump mistakes Republican position on health care for sincerity and compassion on their part"? If that doesn't draw the eye in better I'd be surprised.

Note that I haven't said Trump lied. There is no trigger word. Mistakes happen. But the hilarious result is that I've called him out accurately on more than simply lying, but called him incredibly foolish or else he's lying, but in any case, he's an idiot.

Obviously, I'm partial to my own style but "he lied- again" is something I mentally turn off because it's like saying water is wet. One can assume a level of sophistication and utterly demolish with the truth if that's what the truth demands.
 
Moonbeam said:
We could maybe enact a constitutional amendment that any person shown to have lied in a political context will be publicly flogged.
Click to expand...

Within reasonable limits. "Mr. President, are we going to launch military strikes..." probably isn't fair as it may put people in the way of danger.

We could just go with Tweets to start with though, and oh yeah, bring back stocks and the pillory.
 
SMOGZINN said:
Sure, who gets to decide if something is a lie? A judge? One appointed by a politician? Someone voted in?
The problem we have is not that they lie, it is that to many want to be lied to.
Click to expand...
Not really the issue in my opinion. Liars may lie because people want to be lied to, because that means they won't get punished. With my constitutional amendment, I also will want Trump to lie to me. And a lie is easy to judge. It is a statement that is counter to fact. To say that 2 + 2 equals 5 is a lie. To work to destroy insuring preconditions and claim you want to protect them is a lie.
 
sandorski said:
Here is an appropriate presentation by Robert Reich on the subject.

Click to expand...

Excellent! Reich points out that the all this began with the flattening of median incomes starting 40 years ago and has morphed into the very real fear of economic disenfranchisement. Politicians and the media have observed and tapped into that fear in order to reap power and money and, in the process, further fanned the flames of discontentment into other issues in public discourse. Until we unite around policies to bring back economic 'fairness', we are doomed to remain divided.
 
Everyone is so mad at mainstream media when it is the little brother of advertising that is ruining Democracy. Once politicians saw how effective negative ads were there was no turning back.
After watching campaign ads who could you vote for? It is actually some small time politician grabbing a higher rung on the ladder and not Lex Luthor vs the Joker. Ads should say what you are for and let opposition speak for themselves.
After the mail bombing attempts I wonder who feels bad about being left out? I expect The Real Housewives of Bombing Victims next year.
Tee (I am Spartacus) Jay
 
Rifter said:
Until you guys rein in the MSM and force them to actually report the truth not party line BS i dont think much is going to change. The biggest issue is all the fake news and people to dumb to realize whats fake and whats not. Very easy solution, stop the fake news.
Click to expand...
What do you recon the truth is? and where can I read about it?
 
SMOGZINN said:
There is no longer a way for us to reconcile. The other team is the enemy, and it does not matter if they are right or not, they are the enemy and must be defeated. For almost half of Americans it does not matter how their side wins as long as it does. The topics don't even matter anymore, it is just about choosing sides. At this point it is my opinion that second civil war is inevitable.
Click to expand...
Dunno about that. The Civil War happened because of an economic conundrum -- slavery. What could fuel a civil war now in the USA?
 
soulcougher73 said:
I say we just split the country into 2 right down the middle. Republicans can run one half into the ground and dems can prosper on the other. Everyone move to their respective side they align politically with for free as part of the country split costs ;p

Honestly I don’t ever see things getting back to a political norm with social media,
Click to expand...
It can't be done geographically. The left coast is blue. The right coast is blu-ish. The middle is red. CA could leave the union, there's been serious action towards that.

What's needed is a return to real integrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top