• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

royalan

Member
Sirpopopop said:
This is the same type of logic the folks over at my college sports board use to prove that the local paper is against them. It's a stretch based on sinister assumptions there, & it's similar here. There isn't the type of alignment across the spectrum to make that case.

It could be as simple as them agreeing with you that the first headline was ridiculous. It's probably not anything as sinister as them trying to suck up to the Trump, or apologizing for him. If that's the case, they need to can their entire editorial page.
Click to expand...

I dunno.

I could see if they just swapped a few words around. But there's an definite change of time between the first and final title
 
J

jtb

Banned
but this isn't a sports game. this isn't theater.

maybe if the New York Times stopped viewing our government and people's lives through the childish lens of triablistic games, then they wouldn't be fucking garbage. But they do, and they are.

P.S. I'll miss Kakutani, but she was a trash critic. come at me
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Sirpopopop said:
This is the same type of logic the folks over at my college sports board use to prove that the local paper is against them.

It could be as simple as them agreeing with you that the first headline was ridiculous. It's probably not anything as sinister as them trying to suck up to the Trump, or apologizing for him. If that's the case, they need to can their entire editorial page.
Click to expand...

It's just bad journalism, is it what it is. If the story (and thus the headline) changes so drastically that you need to alter the headline twice, with the initial headline being something so subjective that they can't legitimately keep it up, then maybe the story isn't what they thought it was.

And if the story isn't what they thought it was, maybe they need to look at their writers, and their editorial guidance, to see why.

Edit: I can see stories changing drastically in the event of a natural phenomenon, but I don't think Trump's actions changed drastically enough for them to change the story/headline.
 
C

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
Sirpopopop said:
This is the same type of logic the folks over at my college sports board use to prove that the local paper is against them. It's a stretch based on sinister assumptions there, & it's similar here. There isn't the type of alignment across the spectrum to make that case.

It could be as simple as them agreeing with you that the first headline was ridiculous. It's probably not anything as sinister as them trying to suck up to the Trump, or apologizing for him. If that's the case, they need to can their entire editorial page.
Click to expand...

It's not that there's a conspiracy, but (a) their editors seem to be routinely incompetent while (b) likely having an innate need to appear even-handed, which leads to unintended distortions in the perspectives of their articles.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
jtb said:
but this isn't a sports game. this isn't theater.

maybe if the New York Times stopped viewing our government and people's lives through the childish lens of triablistic games, then they wouldn't be fucking garbage. But they do, and they are.

P.S. I'll miss Kakutani, but she was a trash critic. come at me
Click to expand...

Why would you miss someone whom you describe as a trash critic? You just respected her as an institution or something? You'd become accustomed to her presence?
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
jtb said:
but this isn't a sports game. this isn't theater.

maybe if the New York Times stopped viewing our government and people's lives through the childish lens of triablistic games, then they wouldn't be fucking garbage. But they do, and they are.

P.S. I'll miss Kakutani, but she was a trash critic. come at me
Click to expand...

yikes @ kakutani hate
 
L

Lord_Byron28

Member
Pixieking said:
NYT links should be auto-removed at this point, it's so trash and forgiving of Trump. Or, at the very least, for anything that's being reported across media, alternative articles from WaPo, LATimes or CNN should be linked to instead.
Click to expand...
NYT and WAPO have been responsible for 90% of the leg work for the Russian-Trump investigation and WH leaks. They are the ones that have been leading the charge on the Trump-Russia stuff since before Trump even won the election. CNN has done far more damage with their opinion segments and said far worse things on here than anything NYT has done or said.

I dislike Trump as much as everyone else in here. However, most everyone in this thread is in full "Look at that bitch eating crackers" mode, in regards to Trump and his response to the hurricane. Now we're calling for bans of NYT for them saying something positive about Trump. We all know damn well that this man only cares about himself. He is more motivated by optics and political points than genuine care and concern for other Americans. However, we all knew this from day one. I am fully bracing myself for the worst on Tuesday when he visits. I expect him to bash Bush/Hurricane Katrina situation, praise himself and brag about how much larger this storm was than Katrina.


Personally speaking, I'm just thankful and appreciative that FEMA has been prepared and how well they've been working to save people. I'm thankful this isn't a Hurricane Katrina level disaster. There are more important things in both politics and in regards to Hurricane Harvey to discuss than pettiness over Trumps tweets on the matter.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Lord_Byron28 said:
NYT and WAPO have been responsible for 90% of the leg work for the Russian-Trump investigation and WH leaks. They are the ones that have been leading the charge on the Trump-Russia stuff since before Trump even won the election. CNN has done far more damage with their opinion segments and said far worse things on here than anything NYT has done or said.

I dislike Trump as much as everyone else in here. However, most everyone in this thread is in full "Look at that bitch eating crackers" mode, in regards to Trump and his response to the hurricane. Now we're calling for bans of NYT for them saying something positive about Trump. We all know damn well that this man only cares about himself. He is more motivated by optics and political points than genuine care and concern for other Americans. However, we all knew this from day one. I am fully bracing myself for the worst on Tuesday when he visits. I expect him to bash Bush/Hurricane Katrina situation, praise himself and brag about how much larger this storm was than Katrina.


Personally speaking, I'm just thankful and appreciative that FEMA has been prepared and how well they've been working to save people. I'm thankful this isn't a Hurricane Katrina level disaster. There are more important things in both politics and in regards to Hurricane Harvey to discuss than pettiness over Trumps tweets on the matter.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between NYT reporting and NYT opinion pieces. The latter have been trash for months as they've gone all-in on "both sides" pieces. I agree that the former has been relentless; a real credit to the field. But the latter is an embarrassment and should be regarded no differently than someone comparing BLM to Nazis.
 
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
Prof. Bathtub said:
See: Opioid emergency "declaration" hasn't actually happened, but he gets his headlines all the same.
Click to expand...

Yup. The federal government is so wiffle balled right now by the rotten POTUS and the crooks and kooks he attracts that they couldn't if they tried.

Also remember how his napkin math budget cut opioid relief aid? Yup.

Brawly Likes to Brawl said:
That there are people who still want to believe in the pivot after all this time explains exactly how America got into this mess.
Click to expand...

People are so desperate for normalcy. I get it...but that's not going to happen. We'll have a New Normal in his wake. In fact, it's going to get worse before he'd be pryed from that desk to get there.

In fact, the whole desire for a normalcy worries me even when he's gone like, "Oh, we don't have to keep fighting; back to GoT!" when it really, really ain't. Russia, racism, Big Money in politics, institutional damage...every day will be three days of cleaning up.
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
Lord_Byron28 said:
NYT and WAPO have been responsible for 90% of the leg work for the Russian-Trump investigation and WH leaks.They are the ones that have been leading the charge on the Trump-Russia stuff since before Trump even won the election. CNN has done far more damage with their opinion segments and said far worse things on here than anything NYT has done or said.
Click to expand...

Obligatory:

nytsat.png
Click to expand...

This ought not become an either/or - CNN did massive damage normalising Trump during the campaign. But the point here is that the NYT trades on the perception of journalistic integrity whilst completely ignoring their own role in both the campaign and the continuing "Trump is presidential" narrative. Yes, they continue to break news that negatively affects Trump, but that should not give them a free-pass for their continual normalisation of Trump, Trump's behaviour, or Trump's viewpoints (Bret Stephen's infamous opinion piece on climate change, for example).

Lord_Byron28 said:
Now we're calling for bans of NYT for them saying something positive about Trump. We all know damn well that this man only cares about himself. He is more motivated by optics and political points than genuine care and concern for other Americans.
Click to expand...

Thing is, I'd argue that he isn't motivated by optics and political points, because those are political traits, and Trump is as far removed from being a politician as it is possible to get. He is motivated by racism, greed, notoriety, cronyism. I fully believe that he saw Obama's presidency and thought "I can do better than that black guy". He is the walking embodiment of white privilege, in the sense that he just assumed he's better because he's white.

Edit:

AntraxSuicide said:
There's a difference between NYT reporting and NYT opinion pieces. The latter have been trash for months as they've gone all-in on "both sides" pieces. I agree that the former has been relentless; a real credit to the field. But the latter is an embarrassment and should be regarded no differently than someone comparing BLM to Nazis.
Click to expand...

The problem I think is that one taints the other. How can you say Trump's denial of climate change threatens the planet, when you run an opinion piece denying climate change?
 
J

jtb

Banned
The Times' opinion pages are even worse than their politics desk.

Autodidact said:
Why would you miss someone whom you describe as a trash critic? You just respected her as an institution or something? You'd become accustomed to her presence?
Click to expand...

As an institution, she was a Force For Good. An entertaining writer and reviewer, limns and all.

But she was just a terrible critic. She looked at everything through an incredibly binary lens, and she'd spit out a judgement by the end of the piece. Very little engagement with the text or the broader literary context they exist within. Dwight Garner had been doing far more interesting books and reviews than Kakutani for years now.

Wish they had Wesley Morris on a regular critic beat. Great writer, but I almost feel like there's too many targets for him to draw the same kind of cogent cultural criticism in the essay form in this shitty world
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
PixieKing - They are not normalizing Trump's behavior. They have issued continued rebukes for Trump's behavior:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/joe-arpaio-trump-pardon.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/opinion/trump-arizona-republican-congress.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/19/...latest&contentPlacement=8&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/...atest&contentPlacement=20&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/...atest&contentPlacement=26&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/...atest&contentPlacement=52&pgtype=sectionfront

(That's just from this month, and I'm only scanning stuff from The Editorial Board.)

That doesn't count as anything close to normalization of Trump's behavior or his viewpoints.

Even with the global warming editorial you linked, for that one Bret Stephens editorial, everything else they write is most certainly not trying to normalize Trump's viewpoint.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/opinion/sunday/the-rush-to-exploit-the-arctic.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/...search&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-editorials

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-editorials

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-editorials


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/...llection/sectioncollection/opinion-editorials
 
P

Pixieking

Banned
*shrugs* Agree to disagree, I guess. :)

(edited out the slightly argumentative sentence I had here)

Late edit, and on a completely different note:

Barack Obama‏Verified account @BarackObama

Barack Obama Retweeted American Red Cross

Thank you to all the first responders and people helping each other out. That's what we do as Americans. Here's one way you can help now.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/901946021437206528

Link to American Red Cross in the tweet.
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
1. What if the NYT, like all institutions, is deeply flawed enough to tragically damage our country and perhaps even the world but still gets enough right to justify its continued existence in the face of worse alternatives?

160609-hillary-clinton-blackberry-ap-1160.jpg
 
S

shinra-bansho

Member
It's a shit story. And the Times has the occasional habit of trying too hard to prove they're not liberal biased Soros media. It's not necessarily sinister. It's just shit.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
I don't know. I think post-Katrina it's really hard for any President to really bungle the response to a natural disaster. All these politicians and handlers are keenly aware how bad the backlash can be if there's a poor response, so any Hurricane is going to get their attention. Also, our government agencies have learned their lessons from Katrina, so unless we have a natural disaster that causes more devastation than Katrina, I doubt we'll be as caught off guard.

As for Trump, as others pointed out, he likes easy political wins that require minimal effort. Trump doesn't really have to do much except give the thumbs up to let Federal resources be available and then make sure to make some timely public statements and appearances. He doesn't really have to do much. Now if there was a major earthquake in California, then Trump might be too scared to step foot in the state. But Texas is a red state and voted for him last election, so Trump won't have any hesitation appearing in the state.
 
L

Loudninja

Member
The Chosen One said:
I don't know. I think post-Katrina it's really hard for any President to really bungle the response to a natural disaster. All these politicians and handlers are keenly aware how bad the backlash can be if there's a poor response, so any Hurricane is going to get their attention. Also, our government agencies have learned their lessons from Katrina, so unless we have a natural disaster that causes more devastation than Katrina, I doubt we'll be as caught off guard.

As for Trump, as others pointed out, he likes easy political wins that require minimal effort. Trump doesn't really have to do much except give the thumbs up to let Federal resources be available and then make sure to make some timely public statements and appearances. He doesn't really have to do much. Now if there was a major earthquake in California, then Trump might be too scared to step foot in the state. But Texas is a red state and voted for him last election, so Trump won't have any hesitation appearing in the state.
Click to expand...
What ? he already bungle it.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
Trump is going to San Antonio. Why go to Texas at all, then? Oh god, he's going to fly low over the area in air force one, isn't he? He's got to have at least one advisor smart enough to tell him to not clone a W-era PR disaster.
cartoon_soldier said:
Tweeting isn't really bungling it. What matters now is how he behaves in the aftermath.
Click to expand...
Tweeting links to your racist friend's racist book during the worst of it is quite arguably "bungling." Even that has a substory-- He linked to Amazon which he shits on regularly for no logical reason. Even while being a bumbling fool he can't stay consistent with his ignorance.
 
The Chosen One

The Chosen One

Member
I gotta agree, tweeting alone isn't bungling it. Also Presidents are suppose to juggle multiple issues even when there's a castrophe, so I don't really think it's a big deal Trump made some unrelated tweets. That's not really going to affect the response of local, state, and federal officials.

With Katrina, it was a cascade of mistakes from the mayor, FEMA, Army Corp. of Engineers, all the way to the President. It was one of the rare instances where shit actually rolled up hill.

As I said, the media exaggerated Trump's role in managing this disaster. There's only so much he can actually do. If local, state, and federal officials do their job, then this is pretty much a layup for Trump. That said, if stories start coming out of people not doing their jobs or there's mis-management that makes this disaster worse, then the public will put it on Trump's coat and his non-relevant tweets may come back to bite him.
 
D

Diablos

Member
He made an extremely controversial pardon when a hurricane was threatening to hit Texas and then he plugged a book by one of his crazy friends and teased more about leaving NAFTA. Meanwhile Texas is having historic flooding while he tweets about it like a reality star.

How is this not fucking up during a time of crisis?

The bar is so low for this clown. It's infuriating
 
C

chadskin

Member
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Does anybody else get a "This is complete crap" vibe from the Axios articles? I can't put my finger on why, but it just comes off as fake to me.
 
D

dramatis

Member
Plinko said:
Does anybody else get a "This is complete crap" vibe from the Axios articles? I can't put my finger on why, but it just comes off as fake to me.
Click to expand...
It's because they're a gossip rag, not a proper policy one.

However Axios was started up by some Politico dude, so I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did have the connections to get all these weird stories.
 
G

Greigor The Fellhand

Member
It's weird seeing the Felix slater thing being confirmed when it was rumored months ago on twitterspehre.

certainly some things are being leaked to these people on twitter but I cant tell if its to obfuscate the seriousness of the news or to leak it out to the public at drip feed.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
The Chosen One said:
I don't think Trump's heard Nikki Haley lately. She's a few bottles of wine away from going rogue herself.

Almost from the start, Haley has been on almost a completely different page than Trump. If she gets the SoS job, she'll run it like an establishment Republican and won't last more than 3 months.
Click to expand...

Yeah this would ruin Haley's plan of being independent enough but still gaining FP experience. Tillerson while being a lazy SoS still has some common sense to the role, Haley would be too in the deep end and forced to walk Trump's line. She would sink pretty quickly.
 
R

RumbleHumble

Banned
Wilsongt said:
Good.

It's such a stupid, backwards policy with no value at all.

One day sexual orientation will become a protected class, but not in my lifetime.

Thanks, White people.
Click to expand...

As much as I loved Justice Kennedy's various decisions on homosexuality, his refusal to address the strict scrutiny standard and protected classes for homosexuality doesn't just undermine protections for LGBT people, it undermines the protections of strict scrutiny (and minority classes) as a whole.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Wilsongt said:
Good.

It's such a stupid, backwards policy with no value at all.

One day sexual orientation will become a protected class, but not in my lifetime.

Thanks, White people.
Click to expand...

Unless you're in your 60s, sexual orientation will become a protected class in your lifetime. It's going to happen within the next decade or so. State by state.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Greigor The Fellhand said:
It's weird seeing the Felix slater thing being confirmed when it was rumored months ago on twitterspehre.

certainly some things are being leaked to these people on twitter but I cant tell if its to obfuscate the seriousness of the news or to leak it out to the public at drip feed.
Click to expand...

Wilsongt said:
Good.

It's such a stupid, backwards policy with no value at all.

One day sexual orientation will become a protected class, but not in my lifetime.

Thanks, White people.
Click to expand...

I agree that the policy is stupid. But I'm not confident in it prevailing in court.

Even under strict scrutiny the courts tend to defer to national defense arguments. Unless there is a copious amount of evidence that trans service men and women don't affect the miltary at all (which I think is obvious, but they've only been opening serving since 2015). A court is not gonna want to second guess generals.

That being said, the animus argument might be pretty decent but still think they're gonna defer to the military.
 
B

Barzul

Member
@DavidWright_CNN

New: An aide to Rex Tillerson says "the secretary & president have expressed different points of view" on Charlottesville

@DavidWright_CNN

Tillerson aide tells @CNN: "[Rex] isn't being critical, but more so reestablishing without confusion what are known American values"

@DavidWright_CNN

Tillerson aide: "Did [Trump] do the best job ever responding to Charlottesville? Nope. But that doesn't mean America changes."
Click to expand...

Tillerson in give no fucks mode. He wants out clearly.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
Rex isn't being critical, he's just saying Trump's response doesn't represent America or American values.

fucking lol. He really is trying to get kicked out.
 
I

Ithil

Member
It's hard to put my finger on why, but somehow, something is giving me the feeling that old Rex doesn't really like his job.
 
A

AndyD

aka andydumi
NYCmetsfan said:
I agree that the policy is stupid. But I'm not confident in it prevailing in court.

Even under strict scrutiny the courts tend to defer to national defense arguments. Unless there is a copious amount of evidence that trans service men and women don't affect the miltary at all (which I think is obvious, but they've only been opening serving since 2015). A court is not gonna want to second guess generals.

That being said, the animus argument might be pretty decent but still think they're gonna defer to the military.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite. I think without concrete evidence there's actual harm, there's no way they can undo this. And I have not see any measurable harm in this situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
3K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
238
44K
Hrk69 replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
4K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom