Political Crossfire Forums

This kind of stuff is exactly why I can't get onboard with the general liberal narrative that has lionized the work of outlets like CNN over the whole ordeal with how Trump treats the news media.

Yes, with Trump, it's purely coming from a place of authoritarian impulse in a man who cannot deal with criticism and thinks he should get to hold tremendous power without facing any scrutiny by the press. I fully understand how terrible that is and that it has a creepy similarity to the attitudes of autocrats in oppressive societies.

But even if the context of Trump's assault is that it's a dishonest one grounded in his narcissism and aversion to accountability it's not like f**k CNN or the Washington Post don't deserve to be called Fake News. It seems that we've allowed our standards to fall through the floor. If outlets like these just manage to report things that aren't objective made up falsehoods, they're brave noble heroic journalists doing the lord's work. News is supposed to be more than just writing with facts in it. It's supposed to include context and provide the reader with an informed understanding of situations. More importantly, it's supposed to characterize events in which interested parties peddle conflicting narratives, not with the goal of empowering any of the parties and their narrative, but of empowering the reader with a clear explanation of the situation, including context and relevant backstory regardless of how is reflects upon any of the competing narratives.

But that last point, I understand, can be incredibly difficult to do at times, and there are times when it'll be impossible to write a comprehensive account of a situation without accepting one side's premises in order to flesh out the matter. What does a worthwhile journalist do in such a situation? What best serves the public consciousness? Exactly what an outlet like CNN virtually will NEVER do on topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and many others: if there are competing narratives and less than perfect clarity, a good journalist's default should be to err against the power dynamic. In other words, the group that holds more power is the one whose narrative is a priority for being scrutinized. The group with less power does not deserve uncritical coverage, but the group on the advantageous side of the power-dynamic is the one should be held more accountable to answer criticism and defend their narrative, as their superior power makes their actions more consequential. Furthermore, the more powerful one is, the great their ability to reach the masses and make the case for their side of things regardless. Journalism's priority should be to give a other narratives that don't have such opportunities a chance.

Of course, CNN has a long history of being a lapdog for the powerful, while intensely scrutinizing the powerless who stand opposed to power, if not just ignoring them all together. They have anchors like Jake Tapper barely bothers to conceal his adoration for an array for an array of extremely powerful people and entities that he is supposed to be providing journalistic coverage of. As much as he professes his love for the powerful, he also has a history of giving absurdly critical and borderline hostile coverage to subjects with virtually no power.

Yeah, it's not the way Trump means it, but Fake News is completely appropriate.

f**k is inclined to dissect media but unable to be introspective. If Hurf looked inside his political soul he would define his mistakes without exterior complaint.

Philly? I could net tell you where i see him. It is a goulash.

Jimmy, you get all serious when talking to others about maturity and critical thinking etc when it comes to their political beliefs, but when it comes time for yours it's all masked in irony and edgy jokes.

Let's hear it. Give us your thinking man's political manifesto.

Looks like reading my OP and Philly and my subsequent reasoned posts gave jimmyz a mild stroke as his numbing fingers fumbled over the keyboard trying to type something while simultaneously fighting off a psychotic break. jimmyz's post degenerates from incoherent non-sequiturs to borderline full blown word salad in just under 40 words. Remarkable.

TBF, anyone who advocates for Palestinian nationalism is merely dooming those people to ever-greater suffering and failure, in order to oppose an outcome that is wholly unavoidable (the destruction of the Palestinian state and the removal of the Palestinian people from areas claimed by the Israeli state). The two-state solution will NEVER happen, as much as it genuinely does pain me to say. The Palestinians will NEVER be treated as equal citizens with equal rights.

The very best possible outcome is to figure out who is going to take these people in, and get them moved.

Or we could just continue advocating a solution that was rendered literally impossible in the 1980s, on the grounds that the state of Israel is racist and behaves atrociously (true).

Similar fallacious arguments were presented in opposition to dismantling South African apartheid for half a century. It was also similarly argued that recognition by and acceptance into the United Nations was utterly futile...until the General Assembly upgraded Palestine to "non-member observer state" and as recently as this past August 137 out of 193 member states, along with two non-member states, have recognized the State of Palestine. Progress is painfully slow and is intermittent, but it is occurring. The suggestion that the only feasible solution is for total ethnic cleansing and the removal of all Palestinians is the most impractical nonsolution ever proposed by an order of magnitude. It's equivalent to the preposterous "back to Africa" movement of the 19th century United States.

[edit:put songs in wrong post ]