My heart weeps for my home state.
A year-old article and bad research as well.
That’s what I was saying. I was countering this opinion:
I agreed with that poster that Hillary IS being used as a deflection from Russia, BUT that even if there were no Russia investigation to inspire a need for deflection, DT would still be bashing Hillary. Because: fun and profit and happy happy rally crowds!
That is one deeply biased article, and makes a huge leap to conclude NC is not a functional democracy.
Yes, there’s been gerrymandering issues, but on both sides.
Yes, the outgoing governor was a real pissant and arranged for his successor to have less government positions to appoint, but that just means we paid more consultants than office holders.
Yes, the HB2 bill was a debacle, but it was mainly a pissing contest between the pissant governor (who is now gone) and the city of which he used to be mayor. It wasn’t a deliberate denial of rights to the transgendered because
A) it couldn’t be enforced, according to the state attorney general who is now governor and
B) the former pissant governor was using fake outcry to justify his actions and the GOP voted along party lines, much as they currently do on the federal level. Does that disqualify all of the USA from being a functional democracy as well? Just because the majority opinion isn’t what you wanted doesn’t mean the state is no longer a democracy. It’s a consequence of a government system we’ve been using and amending for over two centuries.
The examples cited don’t make NC on the same level as Iran and Venezuela. The author references his own viewpoint as fact much like Jack Chick did in his Chick Tracts.
Which is impressive, because they fucked their economy out of millions of dollars in the process.
Did you seriously use the existence of bipartisan gerrymandering to argue that democracy is healthy in North Carolina? If you have 1) a persistent duopoly, in which 2) both parties have resorted to cheating just to win, then you don’t have a functional democracy anymore, if indeed you ever did have. You have some kind of fake democracy.
Yes, like the USA.
That’s the major newspaper in Charlotte.
Wikileaks accused New York Times reporter Scott Shane of “colluding” with the Clinton State Department to release classified documents. Donnie Junior retweeted the claim. Shane replied with a series of tweets in which he said he, Hillary, AND WIKILEAKS worked together on the cables to react the names of people who might have gotten into trouble in their home countries if their names had been reported.
The article in the link is biased, but it does show the tweets involved.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2018/01/01/trump-jr-kicks-off-2018-with-a-psycho-twitterconspiracy-rant-like-a-mental-patient/
It’s not widespread across the entire state. It did result in me losing the ability to vote for my usual district rep, but it wasn’t an end to democracy. The article made it look like the problem was universal and one-sided. How about your state, or any other of the 50? Did the party in power change a voting district or two? Did it end democracy? It’s the motherfucking goddamned hyperbolic tone of the article that has everybody assuming the worst. Again, the researcher was referring to his own conclusions and metrics as established fact.
Should that be “redact”?
Actually, Raleigh. What does location have to do with it anyway? What newspaper doesn’t have biased opinion pieces?
The author is a professor who was involved at one time in ME democracy efforts. As such, in a follow-up piece, he describes the response to his first editorial, the gets rolling with
Oh. Um, yeah. TBF, he adds
and goes on to say that Springs can take a while before we see lasting progress.
Cite?
This is the Pit? :smack: I see more crazy talk over in GD.
Maybe this confusion is why I keep getting Mod Warnings.
So… colluded with a newspaper to attempt to do journalism. I am SHOCKED. Shocked I say!
Seriously though… we as a society need to lay off the Wikileaks bashing. It’s coming from both sides of the aisle AND other journalists. I can easily foresee an even bleaker future for our media if we keep attacking those who attempt to expose secrets that embarrass our corrupt government. Every time we trash Wikileaks or leakers such as Edward Snowden, we’re pushing ourselves further into to a future where all outlets talk about the Kardashians and the possibility of missing planes falling into black holes 24 hours a day.
If Wikileaks were a neutral arbiter, that would be fine, but they have clearly shown that they are pro-Russia and anti-USA, so no, we shouldn’t stop trashing them when they deserve to be trashed, which is most of the time.
Frankly, I don’t give a shit what their bias is. I don’t care what the bias of any outlet is.
All I care about is whether the information the outlet presents is accurate. I have yet to catch Wikileaks spreading fabricated documents, lies, and propaganda. If they go the route of Fox News and start doing so, I’ll agree with everyone else about Wikileaks.
If anti-US sentiment is what’s motivating them to release the documents they do, so be it. We’re a democracy, we deserve to see, for example, video of war-crimes committed by U.S. soldiers, systemic torture by the CIA, and proof of the NSA spying on millions of Americans. Without transparency, democracy is no better than dictatorship.
Bias can be very important, since you can skew a story without ever fabricating anything or lying. If you can’t determine the bias, you can’t know where to look for other pieces of the story.
If Wikileaks deliberately gathers and publishes incriminating documents from one party (or viewpoint, etc.) but not another, that’s as misleading as any other sort of biased reporting.
David Clarke was temporarily blocked from Twitter for calling for his supporters to punch reporters and “give them a taste of their own blood”. His account was unblocked once he took down the tweets in question.