211 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Do you want them to interview everyone in the country?

At least polling more than somebody's grandmother would be nice. The point isn't simply that it basically a human interest story with no tangibly broad significance but that it is written simply to suggest a completely unfounded idea - that Obama's stance is actually changing the perception of an entire community across the nation - and then, once it suggests that idea, it throws up like one or two people as if to say "look, see! It's happening. It's really happening."

[Jim Ohara]

You mean like the two Pew polls quoted in the article?

[Christian U]

But bad reporting implying a seismic shift with no evidence for it is far worse than Obama changing a few minds.

That's a more general problem though, and a completely different matter, really. Also, this is an editorial with The Daily Beast, it's not exactly the New York Times, you know?

[Johnny Henning]

You mean like the two Pew polls quoted in the article?

One from 2008 and one from April?

Again, it's misleading, connecting two polls from the past to what Obama said on this past Wednesday as if they reflect a direct reaction to recent news.

That's a more general problem though, and a completely different matter, really. Also, this is an editorial with The Daily Beast, it's not exactly the New York Times, you know?

Still, it's important to point out what articles are really saying. When they are making political points using deceptive means rather than being truly informative, it's important to acknowledge it because this is not the only forum where that article is going to be cited.

[Christian U]

One from 2008 and one from April?

Again, it's misleading, connecting two polls from the past to what Obama said on this past Wednesday as if they reflect a direct reaction to recent news.

That's actually not implied in the article, no. The poll shows that there's already been a development, and then the article adds

Petersen believes attitudes among blacks will continue to evolve with Obama’s well-publicized support of gay marriage.

It also talks about different matters before mentioning the April poll; the context is pretty clear. The only really misleading thing about the article is the headline, really.

Still, it's important to point out what articles are really saying. When they are making political points using deceptive means rather than being truly informative, it's important to acknowledge it because this is not the only forum where that article is going to be cited.

Sure. I think you're overemphasising a bit here, though, because to me at least, the more interesting aspect about the article is that the black community has shifted in their opinions on gay marriage over the last years, and that this trend may at least possibly continue. I, at least, am for the moment more interested in that than in journalistic discourse.

[Johnny Henning]

Sure. I think you're overemphasising a bit here, though, because to me at least, the more interesting aspect about the article is that the black community has shifted in their opinions on gay marriage over the last years, and that this trend may at least possibly continue. I, at least, am for the moment more interested in that than in journalistic discourse.

You do have a point there - except it seems a bit self-defeating to put your interest in a trend that is suggested by an article that is otherwise completely biased and untrustworthy. Whether there is a trend or not, I wouldn't trust a word of what that article says to actually reflect the truth primarily because it is so manipulative in the way it makes its points.

Which is just to say, I think people should approach news with the vague idea that these stories are not being generated by some generic, unbiased archetypal reporter, but these are being written by and published by people with definite interests and agendas and worldviews and I think its beneficial to treat these stories with the same criteria you would someone posting here or telling it to you in a bar. If you find a person untrustworthy, it taints whatever they impart, doesn't it?

And . . .?

The point is that you are overestimating those who oppose gay marriage compared to those who support it. The actual broad numbers are pretty even as far as intensity. Most of those who oppose it certainly do not consider it a priority to the exclusion of all else just as most who support it do not make it their single decision point. In the end, Obama loses nothing and gains strong support among his base - and clearly shows that he can respond to unexpected controversy with a moral decision.

[Christian U]

You do have a point there - except it seems a bit self-defeating to put your interest in a trend that is suggested by an article that is otherwise completely biased and untrustworthy.

It's an editorial, to be fair. Editorials are opinion pieces.

Whether there is a trend or not, I wouldn't trust a word of what that article says to actually reflect the truth primarily because it is so manipulative in the way it makes its points.

I was mainly referencing the polls it refers to. That said, I think we've seen many examples of worse and more manipulative reporting. Like I said, it's mainly the heading and the lead-in that are misleading, the rest of the article doesn't really jump to the kind of conclusions that are suggested there.

Which is just to say, I think people should approach news with the vague idea that these stories are not being generated by some generic, unbiased archetypal reporter, but these are being written by and published by people with definite interests and agendas and worldviews and I think its beneficial to treat these stories with the same criteria you would someone posting here or telling it to you in a bar. If you find a person untrustworthy, it taints whatever they impart, doesn't it?

I completely agree, and it is something I am acutely aware of with all newspaper articles I read. Any information I get, really.

Edited by Christian U, 12 May 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[Todd Gross]

This is quite disappointing:

Marines sold stolen combat weapons to gangs, China

American troops sold $2 million worth of weapons and combat gear, including assault rifles and night vision goggles to street gangs and to foreign countries, including China, in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy uncovered by a Navy probe, according to military officials.

A two-year undercover investigation has implicated more than 60 individuals, an official with the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) told The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C. Many of those involved were stationed at Camp Lejeune, a sprawling coastal Marine Corps installation that is home to special operations and expeditionary forces.

Some of the equipment was sold over eBay and Craigslist, though weapons and ammunition were also sold at yard sales and in secretive face-to-face meetings, according to the paper.

The Navy probe eventually spilled into other military branches, including the Army and Air Force.

In all, $1.8 million worth of equipment has been recovered as a result of the investigation. Officials said that in addition to the assault rifles and night vision goggles, $800 flashlights were recovered as a result of the probe.

“We’re talking about sophisticated, high-tech flashlights that cost the government up to $800 per unit. The temptation and ease with which to steal and sell them, for some, is irresistible,” an unnamed military official told Stars & Stripes, which confirmed the report.

So far, 47 service members and 21 civilians have been charged. About half of those have been to trial, with many pleading guilty to the offenses, Ed Buice, an NCIS spokesman, told The Daily News.

Two Marines have been convicted in the case, The Daily News reported.

Sgt. Daniel Adam Reich was convicted Monday of selling and attempting to sell military property as well as conspiracy. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison and given a dishonorable discharge.

Capt. Donald E. Pump Jr. last week was convicted of attempting to sell military property and conspiracy. He was dismissed from the Marine Corps and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

[Lucian Von Dooom]

This is quite disappointing:

Marines sold stolen combat weapons to gangs, China

American troops sold $2 million worth of weapons and combat gear, including assault rifles and night vision goggles to street gangs and to foreign countries, including China, in a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy uncovered by a Navy probe, according to military officials.

A two-year undercover investigation has implicated more than 60 individuals, an official with the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) told The Daily News in Jacksonville, N.C. Many of those involved were stationed at Camp Lejeune, a sprawling coastal Marine Corps installation that is home to special operations and expeditionary forces.

Some of the equipment was sold over eBay and Craigslist, though weapons and ammunition were also sold at yard sales and in secretive face-to-face meetings, according to the paper.

The Navy probe eventually spilled into other military branches, including the Army and Air Force.

In all, $1.8 million worth of equipment has been recovered as a result of the investigation. Officials said that in addition to the assault rifles and night vision goggles, $800 flashlights were recovered as a result of the probe.

“We’re talking about sophisticated, high-tech flashlights that cost the government up to $800 per unit. The temptation and ease with which to steal and sell them, for some, is irresistible,” an unnamed military official told Stars & Stripes, which confirmed the report.

So far, 47 service members and 21 civilians have been charged. About half of those have been to trial, with many pleading guilty to the offenses, Ed Buice, an NCIS spokesman, told The Daily News.

Two Marines have been convicted in the case, The Daily News reported.

Sgt. Daniel Adam Reich was convicted Monday of selling and attempting to sell military property as well as conspiracy. He was sentenced to 40 months in prison and given a dishonorable discharge.

Capt. Donald E. Pump Jr. last week was convicted of attempting to sell military property and conspiracy. He was dismissed from the Marine Corps and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

Disappointing but sadly, not surprising.

[Rory Abel]

G.O.P. ‘Super PAC’ Weighs Hard-Line Attack on Obama
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attackPresident Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.

The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.

“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.

The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”




The rest can be seen here. The weird part is that there doesn't seem to be anything here that didn't come up in the previous campaign. Would it really sway people this time now that the bloom is off the rose? Or with Romney fundraising almost in line with Obama, is he more vulnerable than we thought?

Edited by Rory Abel, 17 May 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[Arjan Dirkse]

G.O.P. ‘Super PAC’ Weighs Hard-Line Attack on Obama
WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attackPresident Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.

The plan, which is awaiting approval, calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign.

“The world is about to see Jeremiah Wright and understand his influence on Barack Obama for the first time in a big, attention-arresting way,” says the proposal, which was overseen by Fred Davis and commissioned by Joe Ricketts, the founder of the brokerage firm TD Ameritrade. Mr. Ricketts is increasingly putting his fortune to work in conservative politics.

The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”




The rest can be seen here. The weird part is that there doesn't seem to be anything here that didn't come up in the previous campaign. Would it really sway people this time now that the bloom is off the rose? Or with Romney fundraising almost in line with Obama, is he more vulnerable than we thought?

All that money in SUPER PACS but they really don't have a clue. I don't see how this campaign is going to win a lot of votes.

[Robert B]

Reverend Wright again? How is this a new attack?

[Ricardo_C]

I love the smell of GOP meltdown in the morning.

[Rory Abel]

Reverend Wright again? How is this a new attack?

That's kind of my point. I don't see anything new in this. But is the idea that with Obama's popularity down that this kind of attack may have a greater affect on independents? Otherwise I can't understand where they're going with it.

[Jim Ohara]

Joe Rickets. Shit at running the Cubs. And shit at politics. Every so often you see an incredibly wealthy person and wonder how the hell that happened.

Of course he's bitching about government spending while asking the city to pay $200 million to fix up Wrigley Field. Arsehole.

[Chewy Sun]

The plan isn't actually by Ricketts, it is by some group that wants Ricketts to fund it.







Chewy............................................. which is stupid, considering that Rev. Wright bullshit didn't work the first time, still doesn't work now, especially since Obama hasn't destroyed america....oh wait, according to any idiot that would listen to the Rev Wright stuff, Obama has destroyed the country.

[Todd Gross]

No, Chewy, he's on the VERGE of destroying America. Only voting Republicans into office will prevent that.

I saw that Romney doesn't want to go the Rev Wright route. He knows if that happens, some liberal SuperPAC is going to bring up how he led the beating of a gay man. That, I think, is still going to haunt him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris D]

No, Chewy, he's on the VERGE of destroying America. Only voting Republicans into office will prevent that.

Yep, it's pretty common knowledge that Obama has been waiting for his second term to destroy America. The first term was all about subterfuge and making people think he was actually an American. He's a sneaky one, that Obama.

[Ogul]

Stay classy, Republicans.

[Will Carper]

Is there a way for an Obama detractor to use Obama's middle name and not seem like they're trying to incite some racist BS? Would they have used Clinton's middle name in an attack ad? Do liberals constantly refer to Ronald Wilson Reagan when decrying Reaganomics?