they point out that media has a negativity bias and if they're reporting on a person's dishonesty, they shouldn't be dishonest about it
if doing a piece on credibility (or lack of) don't sacrifice or compromise your own in the process
politicians (especially in the white house) have a long history of making illegitimate use of legit arguments (talking points, etc.)
it can take a lifetime to build up trust, and about ten seconds to destroy it
if we have high standards (and we should) we should not compromise those even if we're dealing with abrasive insulting jackass
if so that jackass will simply turn around and point it out and use it in some sort of sophistry or confirmation bias
peace
I see your point and you never want to see the pot calling the kettle black. In the ideal world, everyone's behavior and execution of good intent is above reproach.
We also must recognize that Matthew 7:5 rules the day in this regard, no?
But I do agree with you that the truth must speak for itself and is not aided at all by stooping even a bit toward the liars and cheats it means to expose. I guess I just hoped that the article would be genuinely balanced...
So you don't see a pro-Trump bias in this article? Because they criticize a lot of the actions of left-leaning media (and some of those criticisms are clearly founded), but they don't examine Trump's absolutely clear falsehoods and they don't provide any similar treatment of Fox News and similar. It seems pretty skewed, IMO. I was really looking for something genuinely balanced here.
coffee thoughts
two things
the principles and the examples
they point out that media has a negativity bias and if they're reporting on a person's dishonesty, they shouldn't be dishonest about it
if doing a piece on credibility (or lack of) don't sacrifice or compromise your own in the process
politicians (especially in the white house) have a long history of making illegitimate use of legit arguments (talking points, etc.)
it can take a lifetime to build up trust, and about ten seconds to destroy it
if we have high standards (and we should) we should not compromise those even if we're dealing with abrasive insulting jackass
if so that jackass will simply turn around and point it out and use it in some sort of sophistry or confirmation bias
Kind of got his pt. - media doing no service to legitimate attacks on trump by not maintaining their standards - up until p 12...then he went a bit off the rails. And yes, he seemingly discounts the Russia issue, and the possibility that Putin has something on Trump.
So you don't see a pro-Trump bias in this article? Because they criticize a lot of the actions of left-leaning media (and some of those criticisms are clearly founded), but they don't examine Trump's absolutely clear falsehoods and they don't provide any similar treatment of Fox News and similar. It seems pretty skewed, IMO. I was really looking for something genuinely balanced here.
You are correct. Seems to have been dictated by the Oval Office; doesn't miss a single talking point. No collusion!
So you don't see a pro-Trump bias in this article? Because they criticize a lot of the actions of left-leaning media (and some of those criticisms are clearly founded), but they don't examine Trump's absolutely clear falsehoods and they don't provide any similar treatment of Fox News and similar. It seems pretty skewed, IMO. I was really looking for something genuinely balanced here.
I recently found myself thinking that maybe political parties should be abolished. Candidates run as themselves and not a rep for a larger entity.
That is somewhat how it worked at first, but the presidency grew too powerful, even during George Washington's administration, so that it soon became necessary to control it to get anything done. And the best way to control the presidency was to form political parties.
the way he sums up the problem because no one in DC socializes with each other seems to be a bit far fetched I see the problem as both sides trying to legislate culture and that is completely impossible and drives wedges between us
(...) NOSEK: If I am in a place where I feel like I belong, where people are like me, then there's good evidence that my health outcomes will be better, that I will get along better with other people, that I will actually perform better on tasks because I'm feeling like this is a community where I fit in, I feel like I'm part of the community.
(LAUGHTER)
INSKEEP: So OK, political polarization is good for you. That's the finding there.
(LAUGHTER)
VEDANTAM: Well, I mean so there is the downside. The downside is that if this mobility phenomenon is real, it means that the more mobile we get as a society, the more polarized we're going to become. Red states are going to get redder. Blue states are going to get bluer. The United States is going to get less united. (...)
