this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
399 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3254 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I feel like the media would roll this out in the most bad-faith and then evolve it in the most malignant way possible:

  • Both candidates discuss 2+2
  • Person B passionately argues values on 2+2
  • Is person A too ingrained in the establishment to consider new ideas on 2+2?
  • Person B campaign staff says person B will likely "soften tone on 2+2" after they win election
  • Person B supporters wear "5" to latest rally
  • Experts weigh in on the true meaning of 4 1/2
  • Person B says "4 is low-energy just like person A"
  • Should a 4-believer really be president just because person B is a rapist and a felon?
  • Person B won the election and it's all your fault
[–] aesthelete 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They write completely content-less headlines and articles that are so "neutral" they look like they were written by an extraterrestrial attorney.

Guy A shoots guy B with a gun and they write it up as "spectators allege that the bullet that happened to strike B may likely have originated from the barrel of a gun that A has been said to have held in or around the same period where B happened to be struck".

I took journalism in high school and the instruction at the time was not to use the fucking passive voice...but that's all the motherfuckers use...even when covering extremely high stakes shit.