Just two things. First a good portion of the population does not put much faith in what the media says anymore so no problem there. And 2nd, so much for what these professors are teaching future lawyers in law school. Wall Street needs to make their assessments of a company on other criteria. Sorry they were and are made fools of. Their pride was hurt.
For me though, it is just another example of the kind of stups that are running VW. So itās the people running the company not a silly announcement. Onward onward to GM.
I find the ānormalā media correct the great majority of the time, the āalternativeā media the opposite. Folks that claim otherwise just donāt like hearing their beliefs have no basis in fact.
Weāve had this discussion before, but if you do some searching and listen to actual videos etc. of events, you will find a good portion is just simply not reported. Seen any pictures from down south on ABC lately, or the picture book used at the news conference, missiles from Korea, Russia assembling troops, brain freezes, stairway problem, etc? Didnāt think so. You can fool some of the people all the time but not all the people all the time.
Lttās start with stair problems. 45 Epic Stair Design Fails That May Result In Some Serious Injuries (New Pics) | Bored Panda
Iāve seen all that daily on regular news sources. Iāve also seen repeated old lies from the alternative sources. No comparison.
When mainstream media organizations make mistakes, they acknowledge them. At least the news feeds I read and watch do. The worst case of this was during the second Gulf War when the administration pushed the WMD lie. They had enough interviews from more than one course that they fooled the large mainstream media. The small market mainstream media wasnāt fooled. IIRC, Knight-Ridder found the truth about WMDs, and big media outlets noted their own errors.
The media gets things wrong all the time. Itās usually less-significant details that donāt really change the overall truth of the story. An example from awhile back was when Columbia broke up on re-entry. I think it was CNN that ran a crawl across the bottom that said it was going 18 times the speed of light. Which would certainly explain why it broke up but not why it didnāt destroy the planet at the same time.
That was a stupid mistake from some producer who didnāt understand science, but it didnāt really change the base facts as reported - that being we just killed 7 more astronauts.
Pretty much anyone who has deeper-than-surface knowledge on any given subject can often find accuracy problems in news reports. Which isnāt surprising; if you have a PhD in aerospace engineering itās pretty likely youāre gonna know more about airplanes than the 23 year old general-assignment reporter talking about the plane crash.
Journalism definitely has major problems at the moment, but intentional deception by mainstream media outlets isnāt high on the list. One particular exception: I do not trust reporting from any station owned by Sinclair, because Sinclair has a history of ordering its journalists to make political statements that Sinclair drafts. One of the stations I used to work for was bought out by Sinclair, and Iām very glad I was long-gone when it sold, because if Iād still been there Iād have had to quit.
Not quite right there in my humble opinion.
Iāve been around for over 7 decades and have seen many changes. Believe it or not, at one time news was reported as accurately as could be carefully researched and reported to the public. The public would read/listen/view it, and form individual opinions on what they read/heard/viewed, often based on intelligence, life experiences, references, education, etcetera.
Now, the news is often āreportedā by leading with an opinion or spin, followed by unresearched, uncorroborated ānewsā, likely from unidentified sources.
I get a chuckle when they start with "In a highly controversialā¦). Often itās the ānewsā provider that makes something controversial or just reports that it is.
Recently a story here in Florida being reported, started with āThe Florida Legislature is trying to restrict voting byā¦ā
The story was about the legislature trying to restore voting to a recent time (very recent) when voters had to be verified as legally qualified to vote, actually with fewer restrictions than to board an airplane, not to make restrictions.
I get my news from sources that donāt tell me what to think of the reported ānews,ā before, during, or after its delivery. Iāll make those decisions based on accurately reported factual news, just like the good old days.
So, you see, itās not just what gets reported (facts), but itās also about what is not reported, (purposely or accidentally) left out, and about telling consumers how to interpret it or not telling them how, but rather letting them do that.
CSA
A local company for me, and I agree completely. Because they are local, Sinclair gets a lot of attention in print around here, and itās not complimentary.
The voting violations these legislators claim they are fighting is far less than 1% of the votes cast. The votes they prevent from being cast are far greater than that, IMO. To me, those reasons make it much more likely the legislators are trying to make it easier for their colleagues to get re-elected by decreasing the possible votes from those they want to keep away from the poles.
Not to be picky but āpollsā not poles as in the guy that was selling the trailer with the pole mounted on it. My mother always worked at the polls and never worked the poles. Suggesting otherwise would have not ended well. Iām small but well armed. Never the twain shall meet.
Eh. Alright. Iāll bite:
No, if itās the law I think youāre talking about, it was trying to restrict voting-by-mail, largely because 2020 was the first election in which more Democratic voters than Republican voters voted by mail. Or in other words, the right-leaning government never had a problem with mail-in voting until its opponentsā constituents started using it more.
Regardless, whether you agree with that assessment or not (donāt worry, I already know you donāt, and we really shouldnāt go into it here) tightening requirements for mail-in voting - even if your claim that itās going back to previous standards were true - is by definition a restriction. Itās therefore not improper to call it such in a news story.
After all, if your kid is grounded, and then you end his punishment, and then you ground him again a week later, youāre not going to tell him āthis isnāt actually a restriction seeing as itās the same condition you were in last week,ā because it would make your kid think you were insane.
In journalism class, everybody would write their long articles with their flowery language and be very proud. Then the teacher would say to start editing your articles to take out all the crap and extraneous material. A full page would end up as just a paragraph after that to fit in the paper. Then I remember him saying, after a number of kids wrote āI thinkā or āin my opinionā, that nobody cares what your opinion is, they just want the facts. It was tough being talked to like adults and some kids were crushed that no one cared what they thought, but the teacher was right (write, rite).
ā¦ and yet, there was a recent POTUS (who shall go unnamed) who tweeted an allegation several months ago about āvotes being counted after the poles had closedā. Is it wise to insult Polish-Americans?
I agree and already considered that. However, ārestrictiveā (apparently your point of view) and ārestorativeā (partly my point of view) should be left for us to decide. the ānewsā media should only be reporting the news, not giving their bias, your bias, nor mine, accidentally, nor intentionally.
As of yet, I am not a legal Florida voter. Could I/do I vote in Florida? I am legally registered to vote up north and am in the process of voting absentee there, as we communicate. Voting is quite carefully safe-guarded and an I.D. process is quite rigorous (restrictive? No, I consider it wise). I just supplied all kinds of personal I.D. because my absentee ballot application never arrive here, as my wifeās had. Restrictive? No, necessary.
You donāt suppose there are any votes cast in U.S. elections by non-authorized people (I was going to say citizens, but even that is not required, now) individuals?
The problem with the the idea that itās okay if only a handful of folks vote illegally because of loose regulation is that it creeps upward over time. We are a nation of laws, laws that must be enforced.
CSA
Carolyn will shut this down soon. But in the mean time all these new laws ( to protect the integrity of voting are just for suppression ). There is no reason all voting canāt be done by mail or well spaced drop boxes . Seems strange that some orange clown was against absentee ballots but that is how he voted.
Texas is going the voter suppression route too. New laws to limit hours and days the polls are open. Nothing to do with election security.
Almost all voting in Arizona is by mail, isnāt it? That was acceptable to the Republican Party in Arizona until too many voters chose Democratic Party candidates instead. Iām not a Democrat, BTW, Iām unaffiliated. Oh, and this is a follow-on the post I responded to.
Nothing wrong with mail in absentee as long as the person has been documented as a registered voter. Its when the envelopes are destroyed and canāt be matched or the signatures all look the same, or the printing was done in China and not the selected printer, or a trunk load is found a week later, or a truck load came in overnight from NY to Pennsylvania that canāt be accounted for, or or or. Pay attention now. Oh and the emperor has no clothes regardless of what ātheyā say.
Personally, Iād like to see the purple ink on the finger method like we have to do in corrupt countries. See my finger? I voted, but you can only have one purple finger sir. Oh nuts. Well how about my dead relatives? Oh I suppose if you can dig them up before the polls/poles close.
No legitimate organization or court, including numerous Republican ones, found any reason to contest any stateās election. Yet here we are with Republican voter suppression bills in the name of making the vote secure.