|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 23, 2017 18:36:58 GMT -5
Does Michael Moore count? *provides link to the last half of Fahrenheit 9/11*
(I so wanted to love that film, but it was, to me, an object lesson in spoiling the message by being a d-.. er, jackwagon)
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 22, 2017 19:05:49 GMT -5
Just flat-out couldn't stomach the thought of it. Which is not an entirely responsible position, I know. My one real new year's resolution is to read news directly, and keep the hell out of the facebook news feed. Good, bad, real or fake, facebook just leaves me feeling sick and sad now.
No, I'm not fifteen, and I'm kinda waking up to that.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 12, 2017 19:24:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't be surprised if after 4 years Trump is bored and decides not to run again. In which case, it'll be an open field like this time. ... I've been wondering since the election if Trump has any interest in governing, beyond being the Winner. He's shown a lack of policy specifics, and he has little to no interest in intelligence briefings. He appears preoccupied with ratings and Twitter wars and seems to prize the spotlight and applause. Given, too, his apparent lack of concern for consequences for anyone but himself (even his wives are expendable, it would seem), I've imagined that he'd rather go play President and let the staff do the actual governing. [Whether that's actually preferable, I'm not sure.] I can imagine him wandering away when it all gets too tedious, and it gets too unpleasant to front a media and public that don't all play along with the script. Could he even walk away before the end of term, and go back (exclusively) to business?
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Jan 11, 2017 19:44:36 GMT -5
"Buzzfeed" - sigh. Why did it have to be through Buzzfeed?
What really makes me shudder is that it doesn't matter. There's no pleasing his opponents, and there's no shaking his support. It would appear that he's now inoculated against scandal.
It's terrifying that no news is credible news anymore; the corollary is that anything flung skyward *might* be true.
On the other hand, the other view of this is that maybe now people will become as discerning about news sources as we should have been all along.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Dec 13, 2016 20:38:44 GMT -5
White as a control? These guys have never seen a woman in a man's dress shirt, obviously. Brings to mind Annette Bening in 'The American President'.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 20, 2016 20:08:00 GMT -5
Now I know why they call it Yahoo News.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 17, 2016 20:12:09 GMT -5
Read the first article, and part way through the second. Thank you for the thoughtful post and the links.
Trying to separate my need for comfort from my need to understand.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 16, 2016 18:38:27 GMT -5
This aspect of the Twitter culture boggles my mind. People broadcast crap like this in full public view, and then they're somehow wrongfooted when someone calls them on it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 15, 2016 0:57:13 GMT -5
It seemed the Bernie/Wasserman/superdelegate shemozzle was significant too. As obnoxious and pouty the whole "this election is rigged" spiel was, the Democrats couldn't claim much moral high ground.
On reflection, the fact that so much energy went to bringing Bernie voters into the fold - against a candidate like Trump - is just astonishing. From my comfy seat overseas, I can't fathom it, as dull, Establishment, or swampy Hillary was. Christ, it was TRUMP they were facing, and the Bernie folks STILL had to be cajoled.
Unless, of course, they didn't think they could lose, even without the Bernie vote. And we're back to hubris.
eta: First, it surprised me that Bernie folks would be that reluctant about giving up and backing the party candidate. Then, it surprised me how much distaste there was, not just for the DNC dealings, but for Hillary. Not being hugely into politics, I just didn't see the animus.
Finally, I recalled hearing in 2008 that some Hillary supporters were saying they'd rather vote McCain than Obama.
So, it made me wonder how these people ever get a candidate elected. RE-elected, sure. But that first step's a big one.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 14, 2016 0:44:34 GMT -5
I've tended to jump at Facebook links too -- it's so easy to do. It's one of the reasons I've disabled my news feed (though kept the account, as I like having friends). I've resolved, belatedly, to make an effort to avoid using Facebook as a news source. Other reasons: - "Others shared": more articles like the same, leading to confirmation bias - Fitness for purpose: Facebook for me was originally social only, and it's crept into 'news' space. And, Number 1: The sandstorm of news and divisive responses is just sapping my soul, which I'm not ready to give up just yet. Jeff Zuckerberg apparently acknowledges* that Facebook has been a conduit for fake news, and needs to do better. *: This 'article' is founded on a Zuckerberg post, and it asserts without substantiation that most of the fake news is pro-Trump. Consult your local reputable news source.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 13, 2016 22:47:12 GMT -5
That article is from June 14. Any thoughts on whether that makes any difference at all to its relevance now? I mean, he said it, and he referred to the Committee by name, knowing its connotations. But Gingrich said it in June, not yesterday, and I didn't find it in Trump's plan for the first 100 days.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 11, 2016 1:52:32 GMT -5
If we're here in four years to talk about how it all went, I'll probably be good with that..
Also, to respond to Cassandra, I wonder if we're in the age of the echo chamber, and pollsters and campaign machines suffer the same effect? In, say Google or Facebook, you click one link, and the engine feeds you more that are like it. You're served what you already looked for, not the diverging view. So, confirmation bias on one side, and people with different viewpoints operate with vast sets of opposing - and mutually exclusive - information.
Similarly, maybe poll/campaign methods lag the technology of news information? Or it's like an eighties film -- a room full of MBA's, none of whome has been on a farm or a factory floor. I imagine not, but there's clearly something missing.
The last thing would be, as tanstaafl maybe that people discount what they see if it doesn't support their expected result. In the election's aftermath, I realised that as repugnant as Trump is to me as a person, I didn't really do my due diligence on Hillary Clinton, if I'm fearless about it.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 10, 2016 18:27:28 GMT -5
*waves* I'm Angie, and I suck at debating but like reading and learning from others' discussions. Oh, good, you've started a section for that! *joins*
|
|