this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
682 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2116 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] retrospectology 278 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Oh, suddenly she can move quickly on something when there's political cover to do what she actually wants.

Unbelievable corruption. And the liberal media is going to be tripping over themselves to talk about this like it's some complicated issue, rather than straightforward political corruption.

[–] NateNate60 88 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

The "liberal media" is not "tripping over themselves to talk about this like it's some complicated issue".

The Washington Post called bullshit:

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon’s ruling is a remarkable win for Trump, whose lawyers have thrown longshot argument after longshot argument to dismiss the case. Other courts have rejected similar arguments to the one that he made in Florida about the legality of Smith’s appointment.

...

Cannon’s decision comes as Trump is preparing to be formally nominated as the Republican presidential nominee in this year’s election, with the Republican National Convention beginning in Milwaukee on Monday.

...

The legal theory that Smith was illegally appointed and funded has generally been considered far-fetched. Trump’s legal team didn’t adopt the argument in court until conservative legal groups pushed it.

This is as far as they can go in saying that "this decision is unhinged" while still maintaining their aura of objectivity. They're not going to do it explicitly in the main article, that will come in the opinion pieces that will be released in a few hours, surely

[–] retrospectology 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nowhere do they explicitly connect this to her political ideology. That's exactly my point, they're soft-selling it.

The liberal media (no quotes needed, they're corporate neoliberal) refuses to actually call a spade a spade.

This is not a critical article, this is just them shrugging and being like "Oh, well, it seems like tenuous grounds for dismissal but thems the licks."

[–] NateNate60 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Without intent to offend, perhaps neutral reporting isn't for you. They reported all the facts and leave you to come up with your own opinion, which is a mark of high-quality journalism.

They are a news agency. They are not here to tell you what to think of the news. You want your news to tell you what to think. I want my news to tell me what happened and give me the information necessary to form my own opinion.

If they said explicitly or implied that she did this because of her ideology, even if that is likely true, that would not be unbiased.

[–] t_chalco 11 points 5 months ago

This is an important detail often missed when discussing journalism, objectivity, bias, and, unfortunately, integrity. It's a necessary piece of fabric that has been fraying for years. As another lemmy post some month ago put it, with the loss of the Cronkite era folks lost faith in the fourth estate. The tragedy is that the stratification of news by party and by medium is that anything right of CNN, most of the fringe blogosphere, and nearly all of the AM stations is that they are presenting opinionated hot takes as journalistic facts. Moreover, this tends to galvanize an already consitent voter base. It seems like without an emotional appeal to resisting consrvative ideologues the rhetoric and relative baseline just keep slipping.

[–] retrospectology 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There is no such thing as neutral, unbiased reporting. Believing that there is is a mark of media illiteracy. Making the choice not to discuss the obvious conflict of interest is a choice, it is a form of bias. Journalists cannot be unbiased, that's not a possibility with the job.

We should not be allowing a dismantling of our democracy because "you have to be fair to bothsides".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

On the one side, this man is accused of murdering 30 people. On the other side, he's been called a lover of puppies. Let's meet in the middle and say he's a bad driver.

[–] grue 4 points 5 months ago

"Maintaining an aura of objectivity" is itself blatant pro-fascist bias!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

"objectivity" is bullshit and will end up getting hundreds of millions of people killed.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart 24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This sounds like a constitutional question for the Supreme Court, right?

[–] dhork 51 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Absolutely, we know that they will decide based on the time-honired precedent of which side provides the biggest RV as a "gratuity"

[–] AbidanYre 19 points 5 months ago (2 children)

John Oliver offered a pretty big RV but Thomas didn't take him up on it.

[–] barsquid 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He has to weigh that against the luxury fishing vacations.

[–] JustZ 8 points 5 months ago

Now that's not fair, there are also hunting vacations.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's because it wasn't a motor coach. Clearance Thomas has standards.

[–] Viking_Hippie 4 points 5 months ago

It was, actually. Blew the rest of the season's budget on it too lol