|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 17, 2017 20:06:18 GMT -6
I agree. That's what the ACA attempted to do, but in some ways it was like taking baby steps - it didn't go far enough in regulating private insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries, both of which are big business. Funny thing is, is that the results of a number of surveys conducted over the years show that, for the most part, the people surveyed like benefits granted to them under the ACA...but don't like anything about Obamacare, not even realizing they are one and the same. Constantly surprised, though I shouldn't be I guess, how something that should be pretty basic, like decent and affordable health care, keeps getting screwed up time and again. It was state by state, sometimes even county by county within some states - I think the first state to legalize it was Massachusetts in mid-2000ish, followed by a number of other states not until around 2013. It wasn't until June 2015 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot ban gay marriage, making it legal nationwide. Beat us by about two and a half years then; well at least we got there finally which is the main thing I guess, now just have to hope the country doesn't go to rack and ruin.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Nov 19, 2017 9:37:07 GMT -6
That surprises me actually; I thought as a whole, Australia as much more progressive a country than the U.S..
I'm not quite sure I understand the recent vote there either....so it was a preliminary vote? More like an opinion survey, if you will, than a vote that decides an outcome. Does the vote hold any weight when Parliament votes, or can it turn out to be a kind of 'this may be what the people want, but we know best' result?
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 20, 2017 23:22:58 GMT -6
That surprises me actually; I thought as a whole, Australia as much more progressive a country than the U.S.. The people "maybe" but there's a fair conservative streak never the less, and although the majority have been in favour of marriage equality for some time, getting the pollies to act on it is a another matter altogether. As it explains in the link provided below, in 2004 the Liberal government (just to confuse you further, the Liberal party are actually conservatives, while the Labor party are liberals, got it? ) anyway they changed the Marriage Act to specify marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, and this only got overturned by the High Court in 2013. I'm not quite sure I understand the recent vote there either....so it was a preliminary vote? More like an opinion survey, if you will, than a vote that decides an outcome. Does the vote hold any weight when Parliament votes, or can it turn out to be a kind of 'this may be what the people want, but we know best' result? A non binding survey I guess is the best way to describe it, and although it passed comfortably it still has to go before Parliament for a vote before it becomes law. This (hopefully) explains it fairly clearly .......... www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/everything-you-need-to-know-about-gay-marriage-plebiscite/news-story/5806925c44d44363e8ae5c0329b874f9The "compulsory plebiscite" was knocked on the head so they went ahead with plan B, a non compulsory postal vote.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Nov 21, 2017 7:39:45 GMT -6
Now, I do! I would have been confused if you hadn't explained it before I read the article!
All the time, energy, and money spent - not just there, but here as well - on something that allows a country's citizens equality. I never understood the fuss against it...or rather, I understood what the opposing arguments are, but there is no validity to them in terms of a government's legalization of gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Nov 23, 2017 19:37:30 GMT -6
All the time, energy, and money spent - not just there, but here as well - on something that allows a country's citizens equality. I never understood the fuss against it...or rather, I understood what the opposing arguments are, but there is no validity to them in terms of a government's legalization of gay marriage. I don't think it's whether something is right or not (which this obviously was IMO) it's more about the pollies having the political will to tackle something that may be seen as controversial (though why marriage equality would be seen in that light escapes me) This was the reason the Prime Minister, who was in favour of it, went ahead with an expensive postal vote, to placate the more extreme members of his own party, rather then having the fortitude to simply put it to a vote in Parliament. Guess it's like gun reform in your country, it's obviously needed, but the people who could make it happen are more concerned about keeping their jobs then doing the right thing.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Nov 24, 2017 7:39:30 GMT -6
Finish that thought with "to simply do what's right" and you've got politics mostly covered.
You certainly hit the nail on the head with that one, Katina!
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Dec 11, 2017 7:29:38 GMT -6
Australia's Parliament gave many an early Christmas gift, when they legalized gay marriage last week.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Dec 11, 2017 20:51:51 GMT -6
Australia's Parliament gave many an early Christmas gift, when they legalized gay marriage last week. They did indeed (took em long enough) but now it's official, couples can register their intent to marry now and the first marriages will take place in January, while couples who have married overseas will have their unions recognised immediately, so as you say, an early Christmas gift indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Dec 12, 2017 7:09:19 GMT -6
At first, I thought Christmas came even earlier. A day or two before your Parliament voted, I read an article stating same-sex marriage had been legalized. It wasn't until after the first paragraph though, that I realized I'd read the headline wrong. Gay marriage in Austria was legalized last week too (although I believe it won't actually take effect until 2019).
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Jan 25, 2018 21:02:04 GMT -6
Not really about politics, but thought this was the best place to post this.
Wondering if any of you guys have seen this, and a warning, it's extremely graphic so watch at your own discretion ..............
There are literally scores of videos on You Tube in a similar vein, which got me wondering, what does someone do if they're in trouble, if it was me the last thing I'd do is call the cops.
Of course I realise they're not all like the ones in the videos, but you're playing Russian roulette getting involved with them for any reason.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jan 26, 2018 8:14:51 GMT -6
I hadn't seen the video....and I wish I wouldn't have watched it. It's extremely disturbing.
BP showed me a police brutality video quite a while ago that was posted on some social media platform almost as soon as it happened - it was so graphic, I honestly at first thought it couldn't be real. I checked the Internet though, and all the major news sources were reporting it.
It involved a brutal and unnecessary beating rather than a shooting, but was similar to the video of the man getting shot in the hotel, in that the citizen didn't follow the exact orders of the police, which escalated the situation; the officer told him to 'face away', and I guess he didn't face the way the officer wanted. He was beaten long after being subdued, and it continued even after he was on the ground and handcuffed. This was just during a traffic stop.
It does make you wonder if you'd hesitate in trusting them if you became involved in a situation with the police.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jan 26, 2018 8:44:42 GMT -6
I found it - actually there are two videos; one taken by the dash cam in the police car which shows the beginning of the incident, and another, much longer video, from a different angle that was taken by a bystander, and shows a lot of footage (including having his head slammed against the concrete) out of range from the dash cam. The man was charged with resisting arrest, along with failing to signal at the stop and having a suspended license. In the bystander video, the man's companion can be heard screaming for the man to stop (squirming, I'd assume). How it is possible to have your head slammed on pavement and be beaten, and just lay still? One of the saddest parts of this, I think, is the voice of the little kid in the bystander's video, asking "Mommy, what are the police doing?" How is that kid going to grow up trusting the police? Police dash cam footage: video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-100&hsimp=yhs-100&hspart=mozilla&p=ohion+man+beaten+by+police#id=3&vid=64f835999c3cfa2b65593669338e8a0f&action=clickBystander footage: video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-mozilla-100&hsimp=yhs-100&hspart=mozilla&p=ohion+man+beaten+by+police#id=8&vid=e974115433e9fa439c2f5344c8a5afbf&action=view
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Jan 26, 2018 20:44:48 GMT -6
I hadn't seen the video....and I wish I wouldn't have watched it. It's extremely disturbing. Debated whether I should post it, because as you say, it is extremely disturbing, which is why I put the warning, sorry if it was upsetting. What's hard to believe, at least in my view, is that the cop didn't get convicted, if not for murder then surely negligent homicide or some lesser charge. The problem seems to be that there's no/very little accountability for whatever the police do, and when on the rare occasion they do get charged and go to trial juries, for whatever reason, are reluctant to convict; you may have seen the video of the black man who was shot six times in the back while running away after an altercation with a cop, and although it was clearly captured on film his trial ended in a mistrial. Looked at the video you linked to (not very pleasant) and it's remarkably similar to many I've been watching on You Tube, a simple situation escalated by the cop even though the person "seemed" to be complying with his instructions. A law onto themselves in many cases unfortunately, where using unnecessary force seems commonplace, and then lying about what happened routine. End of rant.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jan 27, 2018 11:31:00 GMT -6
An abuse of authority is present in any profession I think, but is especially disturbing when it's done at the hands of someone that is supposed to be trusted with the public's safety and well-being - police, teachers, doctors (just look at Larry Nassar, who was just sentenced to life in prison for having abused over 150 young gymnasts, while a doctor at Michigan State University and for the U.S. Olympic Gymnastic teams).
It was by coincidence, we watched a movie last night that deals with this very topic. "The Standford Prison Experiment" is a film that accurately depicts what happened in an actual experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971. If you're unfamiliar with the movie, or the notorious experiment the basic run-down is that a psychology professor and his research team construct a jail in one of the campus buildings vacated for the summer, in which paid volunteers - college-age male students who were screened for mental stability - are assigned to be either prisoners or guards for a two-week period. Cameras are set up so the psychologist, Dr. Zimbardo, and his team can monitor what's going on in the "prison". Things get out of hand quite quickly, with some of the guards showing sadistic behavior toward the prisoners, despite not being able to use physical force (although it happened). The mental state of both prisoners and guards devolved to a point where it wasn't an "experiment" anymore, but a reality for them. Even the doctor, acting also as the prison supervisor, got so immersed in the role, that he couldn't separate himself from what was actually happening.
Dr. Zimbardo states of the film, which won 2 Sundance awards, the only inaccuracies are that, in editing for length, some of the worst incidents that happened in the real experiment were left out, and the ending of the movie didn't really depict how the experiment ending. That's probably one of the most frightening things about human behavior - without giving anything away in case you want to watch the movie, in it, the doctor realizes things have gone way too far after watching on camera a particularly disturbing incident in which the guards force the prisoners to degrade themselves and each other. In real life, it took an outside observer visiting the "jail" to argue with him until he realized it had gone too far...after only 6 days into the experiment. Chilling movie made even more chilling because it actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Jan 28, 2018 21:23:15 GMT -6
An abuse of authority is present in any profession I think, but is especially disturbing when it's done at the hands of someone that is supposed to be trusted with the public's safety and well-being - police, teachers, doctors (just look at Larry Nassar, who was just sentenced to life in prison for having abused over 150 young gymnasts, while a doctor at Michigan State University and for the U.S. Olympic Gymnastic teams). One hundred percent correct unfortunately, a Royal Commission into institutional responses to child abuse was recently concluded here and the amount of abuse, and just as disturbing, the cover up by those in authority, was staggering .............. www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-reportSaw that on the news the other night (Larry Nassar) staggering to think he could get away with it for as long as he did, at least they finally got him, which is some consolation at least for his victims. it was by coincidence, we watched a movie last night that deals with this very topic. "The Standford Prison Experiment" is a film that accurately depicts what happened in an actual experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971. If you're unfamiliar with the movie, or the notorious experiment the basic run-down is that a psychology professor and his research team construct a jail in one of the campus buildings vacated for the summer, in which paid volunteers - college-age male students who were screened for mental stability - are assigned to be either prisoners or guards for a two-week period. Cameras are set up so the psychologist, Dr. Zimbardo, and his team can monitor what's going on in the "prison". Things get out of hand quite quickly, with some of the guards showing sadistic behavior toward the prisoners, despite not being able to use physical force (although it happened). The mental state of both prisoners and guards devolved to a point where it wasn't an "experiment" anymore, but a reality for them. Even the doctor, acting also as the prison supervisor, got so immersed in the role, that he couldn't separate himself from what was actually happening. Dr. Zimbardo states of the film, which won 2 Sundance awards, the only inaccuracies are that, in editing for length, some of the worst incidents that happened in the real experiment were left out, and the ending of the movie didn't really depict how the experiment ending. That's probably one of the most frightening things about human behavior - without giving anything away in case you want to watch the movie, in it, the doctor realizes things have gone way too far after watching on camera a particularly disturbing incident in which the guards force the prisoners to degrade themselves and each other. In real life, it took an outside observer visiting the "jail" to argue with him until he realized it had gone too far...after only 6 days into the experiment. Chilling movie made even more chilling because it actually happened. I recall that, may have even seen some of it I think, disturbing example of how easily people can lose their humanity when placed in a position of power with no real accountability, which is exactly the problem with many cops I believe. This was another video I came across (no deaths in it but rather nasty just the same) ..... and it was described by prosecutors that he had 'acted professionally' and no charges were laid, if that's "acting professionally" I'd love to know what would be considered unprofessional. *Just found out that he was finally sacked after 29 monthh of paid leave.*
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Jan 29, 2018 10:55:58 GMT -6
Exactly! That was certainly what happened in the Nassar case (I bring him up again, because the court case is so recent). Both Michigan State University and U.S. Gymnastics received complaints of abuse as early as 1997 and did nothing about it, dismissing the complaints and sweeping filed police reports under the rug in order to protect the sterling reputations of those institutions, and in turn, because of a tarnished reputation, comes the possibility of losing funding. (And there are still people who say about a victim coming out years later 'why didn't she/he file a report when it happened? Because often times, nobody will listen.)
It's disgusting.
As far as abusive cops go, their actions tarnish the reputation of the police force as a whole, do a huge disservice to all the outstanding services provided by policemen and women dedicated to protecting the public, and who do their jobs well.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Jan 31, 2018 19:34:47 GMT -6
Exactly! That was certainly what happened in the Nassar case (I bring him up again, because the court case is so recent). Both Michigan State University and U.S. Gymnastics received complaints of abuse as early as 1997 and did nothing about it, dismissing the complaints and sweeping filed police reports under the rug in order to protect the sterling reputations of those institutions, and in turn, because of a tarnished reputation, comes the possibility of losing funding. (And there are still people who say about a victim coming out years later 'why didn't she/he file a report when it happened? Because often times, nobody will listen.) It's disgusting. That's exactly what happened with a lot of the cases examined by the Royal Commission; it was especially prevalent within the Catholic Church, where known/suspected abusers were simply moved from parish to parish where they continued to prey upon children. Disgusting as you say, those in authority you could have stopped it are as much to blame as the perpetrators. As far as abusive cops go, their actions tarnish the reputation of the police force as a whole, do a huge disservice to all the outstanding services provided by policemen and women dedicated to protecting the public, and who do their jobs well. Yeah, I have to pull myself up at times and remember the cops in the videos are a small sample, still way to many for sure but a small percentage none the less.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 1, 2018 8:56:21 GMT -6
Stereotypes can develop because the actions of a few - in the end, the group suffers as a whole. It's been more than a year now since I first thought about posting the following link, and throughout the chaotic first year of Trump's presidency, revisited the thought periodically. I am so tired of people applying the term "Fake News" to news stories or sources they disagree with, and "Real News" to what they want to hear...or people confusing talk shows, and op-eds with actual news. (Following an article i read the other day, there was an abundance of people in the comment section screaming FAKE NEWS!!!; the article was clearly labeled satire.) I bring it up now because I had the unfortunate experience of being involved in a taping of a segment aired by Fox News. I wouldn't call it Fake News, but the final piece was very misleading and manipulated. The point is you've got to know what you're reading or watching (opinion, commentary, news, etc), and the credibility of the news source. I use "Media Bias Fact Check" to determine the credibility of what I read: mediabiasfactcheck.com/ I like the site because it not only tells you if the news source slants left, center, or right, but also rates the factual reporting of the source, and is up-to-date on re-rating the sources. I rarely watch the news on television, but read a ton of it from a very wide variety of sources, from those that fall into "left", "left-center", "center", and "center-right" categories. Happy to note that regardless of which slant they take, every news source I read has either a "very high" or "high" factual reporting rating except one; I frequently read articles from "Think Progress", but keep in mind that they get a "mixed" rating on factual reporting.
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Feb 1, 2018 21:41:10 GMT -6
MEMEME!!
Thought I'd jump in and make a random comment on the previous topic of police brutality.
You are right , there will always be those in any profession that abuse their power or privilege. We have them too. For me it depends on the expectations and other co workers around you. When we have someone who does something inappropriate with regards to what we do the county may drag it's feet but the people who work with them make a point of telling them how wrong they were. There is s level of shame involved and it takes a very long time for the person to be trusted again if at all. It's hard to work in a place like we do when you aren't respected or trusted. Often people are shunned out. Or they make amends and do much better.
Not all cops are bad. The people they work with should hold them to standards. If I were a cop and I found out one of my fellow cops had done something like that I would for sure not protect them or treat them like any other co worker. It's the culture they live in. They protect each other when bad things happen instead of holding them accountable. Also training them to me mini soldiers is for sure going to produce men (yes I said men) who have a hard time controlling their emotions when it comes to anger or frustration. Find me a woman who has beat the crap out of someone because they didn't comply. I bet a lot fewer and far between.
As far as Fake News is concerned. I'm not above watching at least on uber liberal show that allows me that sense of self righteous indignation. (Rachael Maddow) I do however recognize that the "news" I get from there is badly biased and I do spend a lot of time wondering how true some of it is. My go to statement is: I want proof. When I want real not fake or biased news I hit BBC. They don't have as large a stake in what happens here. And I feel like its not in their interest to lie about when they are reporting on.
And for all that you can thank the removal of the FCC laws requiring balanced information.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 2, 2018 7:18:39 GMT -6
I agree, and it's most likely the same in any profession (look at all cr@p going on in Hollywood, for example). I think some of the 'protect your own' attitude may even come from a fear of retribution if you speak out against someone in the workplace. Shoot, that kind of mindset starts when you're a kid with the idea that 'you don't rat out your friends'.
Yeah, I have my guilty pleasures too - Vox and Salon. Though they both get high marks in factual reporting, they are most definitely righteously left-without-a-doubt, Salon more so than Vox. Oh, and though it's just comic political commentary, I cannot resist watching with "self-righteous indignation" Trevor Noah and Stephen Colbert.
I read a lot of BBC too, along with Reuters, Al-Jazeera, AP, and The Christian Science Monitor for non-biased news.
My personal opinion is that in order to get a balanced view, you have to read the 'other side' too. The Wall Street Journal is my go-to for news and opinions from the right. For politics affecting our state, I'll read articles from The Detroit News (right), and compare them to the Detroit Free Press (left); my parents always got both newspapers and it's habit. Articles from Fox on occasion, though I stay away from their opinion or commentary pieces which I find rabid.
For the same reason, I don't read Newsweek (more gossipy than news), MSNBC, and CNN...although if I watch news rather than read, or some big thing is 'breaking news' it's usually CNN basically because it airs 24 hours...and I might have a teeny-tiny bitty crush on Anderson Cooper.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 5, 2018 19:39:28 GMT -6
Stereotypes can develop because the actions of a few - in the end, the group suffers as a whole. It's been more than a year now since I first thought about posting the following link, and throughout the chaotic first year of Trump's presidency, revisited the thought periodically. I am so tired of people applying the term "Fake News" to news stories or sources they disagree with, and "Real News" to what they want to hear...or people confusing talk shows, and op-eds with actual news. (Following an article i read the other day, there was an abundance of people in the comment section screaming FAKE NEWS!!!; the article was clearly labeled satire.) I bring it up now because I had the unfortunate experience of being involved in a taping of a segment aired by Fox News. I wouldn't call it Fake News, but the final piece was very misleading and manipulated. The point is you've got to know what you're reading or watching (opinion, commentary, news, etc), and the credibility of the news source. I use "Media Bias Fact Check" to determine the credibility of what I read: mediabiasfactcheck.com/ I like the site because it not only tells you if the news source slants left, center, or right, but also rates the factual reporting of the source, and is up-to-date on re-rating the sources. I rarely watch the news on television, but read a ton of it from a very wide variety of sources, from those that fall into "left", "left-center", "center", and "center-right" categories. Happy to note that regardless of which slant they take, every news source I read has either a "very high" or "high" factual reporting rating except one; I frequently read articles from "Think Progress", but keep in mind that they get a "mixed" rating on factual reporting. Hello what's this, more information please. As far as where to get our news from, as you and Scrappy were talking about, I find I'm becoming more and more cynical each and every day, finding a 100% impartial news source is like searching for a needle in a haystack. I still watch the ABC news each night, which has a slight left leaning bias, other then that I just don't bother that much, although at times I will watch Fox (Hannity or Tucker Carlson) just for the sheer absurdity of it.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 7, 2018 9:03:17 GMT -6
Katina, I will get back to this, but ARGH! I was almost finished with the post, when I hit something that brought me to a 'drop files here' page (or something like that). It happens to me often actually, and I can't seem to get out of it unless I hit the back-arrow key, which of course, brings me back to a blank post. Aggravating!!!! (I need to ask Joxie about that, because it drives me nuts!)
Have to go shovel snow for a while before I do anything else though!
|
|
|
Post by Mini Mia on Feb 7, 2018 18:06:59 GMT -6
... ... , but ARGH! I was almost finished with the post, when I hit something that brought me to a 'drop files here' page (or something like that). It happens to me often actually, and I can't seem to get out of it unless I hit the back-arrow key, which of course, brings me back to a blank post. Aggravating!!!! (I need to ask Joxie about that, because it drives me nuts!)
It's probably the 'Add Attachment' function. Most popups have an X you click on to close them. I've had a problem with it myself though, but can't recall how I got out of it. It usually hits me when I'm trying to copy/paste. I don't know what makes it pop up, or how to prevent it from getting in the way for future posting. (I could look to see if it can be turned off. However there are a few files saved there. Not sure if anyone downloads them, so was hesitant to seek out if it was even possible to turn off.)
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 8, 2018 9:29:43 GMT -6
No X, and I've tried clicking in the corners where an X should be. I don't know why it pops up either - yesterday, all I was doing was typing, so who the heck knows what keys or combination of keys I hit that brought it up. It's irritating that I can't figure out how to get out of it (the escape key doesn't work either), without hitting the back arrow and losing what I've written.
Lemme try again - and I'll try to keep it to a condensed version this time (I b!tched about it to poor Scrappy enough last week to fill up pages).
Fox announced they were going to do a report in town the morning ahead of the State of the Union address to get the public's view on how the president has done during his first year. They decided on our town because it's the largest in the county - it's a large county, and though we're a small town, much of the rest of the county is very rural. The county is considered a swing county in a state that's now considered a swing state after the last election.
The place they chose to film is interesting. There's a very popular coffee shop in town, and a restaurant that is always very busy during breakfast. Both are a short walk from the place Fox chose - a cafeteria-style restaurant attached to a bakery, that though it's busy in the summer with tourists, it's fairly dead in winter. Mostly what you'll see on a winter morning is a couple tables of retired men talking politics and world events over bottomless cups of coffee while Fox News blares non-stop from a wall-mounted television. My co-workers and I, who meet once a week for coffee in the winter, used to go here because the coffee is good, refills are free, and we could always find a table; we stopped going here years ago, because the political conversations from the other tables often were peppered with racial slurs about Obama. Opposing views of politics is fine; racism is anything but. The establishment as a whole is well-known in town to have conservative views.
The establishment posted on their Facebook page that Fox News was going to film there, and it spread like wildfire across social media. Given the restaurant's conservative leanings and that Fox is the mouthpiece of Trump, members from a progressive group in town planned on attending, as well as many other liberal individuals - the idea being, of course, that the Fox report wouldn't be as one-sided if both sides were well represented. My co-worker and I had planned to have coffee that morning anyway, so instead of our regular hang-out, we decided to go back to the one we'd abandoned.
The place was packed. The room was very divided right down the middle, almost comically because the Trump supporters all sat on the right side of the room, and the liberals on the left, with a kind of no man's land in the center; the only empty table was a long one right in the middle of the room. The left was way more crowded than the right; we were practically sitting on top of each other. It wasn't by design, it's just the way it ended up.
There were people outside the restaurant carrying signs such as "The Facts, Fox, Just the Facts", "I watch Fox News on Comedy Central", and "Sanity not Hannity".
To be clear, those opposed to Trump's policies weren't there to Trump-bash, but rather to express their concerns for the state of the county under his presidency. Fox interviewed people on both sides of the room, and what I heard were concerns expressed about his environmental, education, immigration, and health policies to name a few. After concerns were expressed, Fox followed up by asking the interviewees questions that had nothing to do with those concerns - odd questions, maybe loaded, such as asking someone who is opposed to Trump's policies something like "do you think that people who voted for him because they wanted change, are happy with their decision?" Each interview lasted about 3-5 minutes, though it was understood the entire segment that was to air would only be 2-3 minutes long.
What aired on television was an inaccurate portrayal of the interviews. Not a single concern made it to the final report, although accolades from the right side of the room aired. The only things heard from people who weren't Trump supporters were snippets of answers to the questions Fox asked - snippets of course, that didn't paint him in a bad light.
The reporter's narrative was the worst. 'A place where Trump supporters gather' accompanies a camera shot of the left, more notably crowded, side of the room. 'In a place with a large force of migrant workers, people here want a resolution to immigration' followed by the Trump supporter saying she wants the border secured for example, implies that somehow the migrant work force is feared or unwanted here, or taking away our jobs, which is far from reality. The 'resolution to immigration' that was echoed throughout the room was a clean DACA resolution without the attachment of funding for the wall; there was no mention of that in the report. The very end of the report is what irked most people I've talked to since - 'the majority here feel that Trump gets them'. WTF majority was he talking about?! The majority of one side of the room? The majority of one table on one side of the room? It certainly wasn't the majority of the people in the room!
If you consider "a lie by omission is still a lie" the report was full of lies. Most people interviewed felt they were played. Never-the-less, it was extremely misleading, and few people showed up for follow-up interviews that were to be conducted the morning after the report aired. Those that did go, expressed their anger and disappointment about how Fox manipulated things, and apparently the Fox reporter got "rather combative" in his line of questioning. The follow-up report never aired.
Sorry. I guess that wasn't a condensed version after-all.
Katina! I never realized you were such a masochist! I've tried to watch Hannity a few times, but I've never made it very far into the show before turning it off in fear that I'd hurt my eyes by rolling them too much. Scary thing is that the 'sheer absurdity of it' is what his viewers believe as actual news.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 10, 2018 20:58:26 GMT -6
Lemme try again - and I'll try to keep it to a condensed version this time (I b!tched about it to poor Scrappy enough last week to fill up pages). Fox announced they were going to do a report in town the morning ahead of the State of the Union address to get the public's view on how the president has done during his first year. They decided on our town because it's the largest in the county - it's a large county, and though we're a small town, much of the rest of the county is very rural. The county is considered a swing county in a state that's now considered a swing state after the last election. The place they chose to film is interesting. There's a very popular coffee shop in town, and a restaurant that is always very busy during breakfast. Both are a short walk from the place Fox chose - a cafeteria-style restaurant attached to a bakery, that though it's busy in the summer with tourists, it's fairly dead in winter. Mostly what you'll see on a winter morning is a couple tables of retired men talking politics and world events over bottomless cups of coffee while Fox News blares non-stop from a wall-mounted television. My co-workers and I, who meet once a week for coffee in the winter, used to go here because the coffee is good, refills are free, and we could always find a table; we stopped going here years ago, because the political conversations from the other tables often were peppered with racial slurs about Obama. Opposing views of politics is fine; racism is anything but. The establishment as a whole is well-known in town to have conservative views. The establishment posted on their Facebook page that Fox News was going to film there, and it spread like wildfire across social media. Given the restaurant's conservative leanings and that Fox is the mouthpiece of Trump, members from a progressive group in town planned on attending, as well as many other liberal individuals - the idea being, of course, that the Fox report wouldn't be as one-sided if both sides were well represented. My co-worker and I had planned to have coffee that morning anyway, so instead of our regular hang-out, we decided to go back to the one we'd abandoned. The place was packed. The room was very divided right down the middle, almost comically because the Trump supporters all sat on the right side of the room, and the liberals on the left, with a kind of no man's land in the center; the only empty table was a long one right in the middle of the room. The left was way more crowded than the right; we were practically sitting on top of each other. It wasn't by design, it's just the way it ended up. There were people outside the restaurant carrying signs such as "The Facts, Fox, Just the Facts", "I watch Fox News on Comedy Central", and "Sanity not Hannity". To be clear, those opposed to Trump's policies weren't there to Trump-bash, but rather to express their concerns for the state of the county under his presidency. Fox interviewed people on both sides of the room, and what I heard were concerns expressed about his environmental, education, immigration, and health policies to name a few. After concerns were expressed, Fox followed up by asking the interviewees questions that had nothing to do with those concerns - odd questions, maybe loaded, such as asking someone who is opposed to Trump's policies something like "do you think that people who voted for him because they wanted change, are happy with their decision?" Each interview lasted about 3-5 minutes, though it was understood the entire segment that was to air would only be 2-3 minutes long. What aired on television was an inaccurate portrayal of the interviews. Not a single concern made it to the final report, although accolades from the right side of the room aired. The only things heard from people who weren't Trump supporters were snippets of answers to the questions Fox asked - snippets of course, that didn't paint him in a bad light. The reporter's narrative was the worst. 'A place where Trump supporters gather' accompanies a camera shot of the left, more notably crowded, side of the room. 'In a place with a large force of migrant workers, people here want a resolution to immigration' followed by the Trump supporter saying she wants the border secured for example, implies that somehow the migrant work force is feared or unwanted here, or taking away our jobs, which is far from reality. The 'resolution to immigration' that was echoed throughout the room was a clean DACA resolution without the attachment of funding for the wall; there was no mention of that in the report. The very end of the report is what irked most people I've talked to since - 'the majority here feel that Trump gets them'. WTF majority was he talking about?! The majority of one side of the room? The majority of one table on one side of the room? It certainly wasn't the majority of the people in the room! If you consider "a lie by omission is still a lie" the report was full of lies. Most people interviewed felt they were played. Never-the-less, it was extremely misleading, and few people showed up for follow-up interviews that were to be conducted the morning after the report aired. Those that did go, expressed their anger and disappointment about how Fox manipulated things, and apparently the Fox reporter got "rather combative" in his line of questioning. The follow-up report never aired. Sorry. I guess that wasn't a condensed version after-all. If it was I'd really love to see the extended version. Now I'm not one to doubt your version of events Phalon, but are you really telling me that Fox manipulated the segment to give a false impression of what actually happened, because it so I find it hard to believe that the "fair and balanced" channel would do such a thing. Seriously though, sounds like a classic example of their totally biased, one eyed view of the world in general, and politics in particular, where "lying by omission" is their stock in trade. They're not stupid enough to tell outright porkies (lies) but you can do almost the same thing by distortion, just ask Ann Coulter, an absolute master of the art. Katina! I never realized you were such a masochist! I've tried to watch Hannity a few times, but I've never made it very far into the show before turning it off in fear that I'd hurt my eyes by rolling them too much. Scary thing is that the 'sheer absurdity of it' is what his viewers believe as actual news. Oh yeah, after footy, self flagellation is my favourite form on fun. I find it hard also, well impossible really, to sit through more then a segment or two at a time, the tune never changes, and if you watch Hannity and Carlson back to back (you need a strong stomach to try that) it's like watching the same thing rehashed only with different talking heads. As you point out, it's staggering that anyone accepts it as anything more then what it is, a propaganda outlet for the Republican party and anything conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 11, 2018 10:10:43 GMT -6
If nothing else, it was interesting to see how the manipulation is done. I don't doubt that the report could have been written and narrative already recorded before the interviews were even conducted - and all they had to do was plug in snippets to fit the narrative. Not saying that's actually what happened, but it doesn't take much imagination to see how it could be done.
Ann Coulter - I get her mixed up with Laura Ingraham (sp?); same look, same narrative, different name.
Being a footy fan and a masochist are pretty much one and the same, no? Oh, wait...that would be a football fan...specifically a Detroit Lions football fan (or a Detroit Tigers fan, for that matter); you'd have to be a masochist to continue watching either team season after season.
|
|
|
Post by Phalon on Feb 26, 2018 12:44:58 GMT -6
Katina, this one is for you the next time you pop in....
In the aftermath of our country's latest school mass shooting, gun law reform debate has once again entered the forefront in the news, with multiple sources citing how other countries have handled the issue; Australia seems to lead the pack in these discussions as an example of how reform has had positive results. All except for your and my favorite news source (extreme sarcasm), Fox News, of course, who claims it's all exaggerated.
Just wondering what your opinion is an Australian?
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 26, 2018 22:39:52 GMT -6
Katina, this one is for you the next time you pop in.... In the aftermath of our country's latest school mass shooting, gun law reform debate has once again entered the forefront in the news, with multiple sources citing how other countries have handled the issue; Australia seems to lead the pack in these discussions as an example of how reform has had positive results. All except for your and my favorite news source (extreme sarcasm), Fox News, of course, who claims it's all exaggerated. Just wondering what your opinion is an Australian? Was following it here (the Florida shootings) and although I guess I shouldn't have been was never the less dumbfounded by the reactions of some. The worst was a meeting of a group including some of the victims relatives with Trump, which was theater of the absurd, someone espousing arming teachers while Trump sat there looking more then a little deranged, pursed lips, eyes almost closed and nodding his head as if this was the best idea he'd ever heard (I see he's now fully embracing the idea) Apparently it's the fault of the mental health system, inadequate background checks, Hollywood, the liberal media (Fluoride in the water perhaps) everything except the availability of guns that have only one purpose, to kill people as efficiently and quickly as possible. I honestly don't see it changing, the NRA put the right to own any sort of gun ahead of the lives of kids, and the Politicians put their job security ahead of those same lives as I see it. I think the general view in Australia is now one of resigned acceptance. I realised the situation in your country was bad, but this article I came across is still truly horrifying ........... www.theweek.co.uk/91679/us-gun-violence-in-six-chilling-statistics Here's a few links regarding gun control here, plus one (the last) with a politicians view. fortune.com/2018/02/20/australia-gun-control-success/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australiawww.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/26/17049406/australia-us-gun-control-port-arthur-massacre
|
|
|
Post by Scrappy Amazon on Feb 27, 2018 8:08:42 GMT -6
Did you know that there is a law on the books making it illegal for congress to give money for gun violence research?
Yeah that's where were at. Thankfully the next generation is finally so pissed they will be voting soon.
|
|
|
Post by katina2nd on Feb 27, 2018 21:27:34 GMT -6
Did you know that there is a law on the books making it illegal for congress to give money for gun violence research? Nope had no idea, figured I'd do a bit of detective work on the subject and found this interesting article, which points out that while there is "technically" no ban, the results are never the less the same as if there was one ............ www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.htmlYeah that's where were at. Thankfully the next generation is finally so pissed they will be voting soon. Just hope they can maintain the rage until they have a chance at the ballot box to do something.
|
|