OT: I live in the US and I voted today!

yowza

@cian said:

@yowza said:

Not everything is quite so black and white

Based on your own NSHO? It appears you’ve already got everything figured out. Must be incredible to be omniscient and all knowing and superior to the rest of us mere mortals

I don't think I have everything figured out. I was merely pointing out that just because Murdoch owns something doesn't mean everything it does is terrible. The WSJ was a great newspaper that has become less great under his ownership. Fox actually has one part of it's operation that's very good. You were the one who claimed that if Murdoch owned something then it had to be terrible.

I made no such claim, maybe someone else?

I’m very skeptical about everything and don’t think I know very much at all so I don’t tend to make claims like this newspaper is better than that one.

ExAsperis99

@cian said:
The depth of reporting and breadth of coverage that you get in the business press just tends to be greater than you get in NYT/WP type newspapers. They tend to be less regional in scope (e.g. the WP/NYT have a lot more coverage of the east coast, and are fairly light on coverage of the south/Mid-west). On international news the business press just have more journalists. If you want to know what's going on in Kenya, say, then the FT will have far richer coverage. The only western newspaper to cover Russia well over the past 20 years has been the FT - partly I suspect because they were willing to leave Moscow/St Petersburg.

Also the FT and WSJ (traditionally more than it does now) have always invested more heavily in investigative journalism, and on anything involving business/economics there's really no competition. They're not great on war coverage though if that's your thing.

This is — forgive me — just not true. The WSJ is indeed an excellent paper, but how could you possibly come to the conclusion that a business paper would give more breadth than a general newspaper, especially a behemoth like The Times? By definition it has less scope. Its business reporting is without question better. The NYT business desk basically does (in the memorable phrase of the late David Carr) "corporate portraiture."

But it has far more resources than the WSJ could hope to have. Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner basically spent years, with a devoted team (as I understand) reporting on ONE STORY, Trump's taxes. No other newspaper in the world could have broken that story. It was a published as a series of articles that will absolutely win the Pulitzer, as did the story that launched #MeToo and took down Harvey Weinstein.

And why would the FT be more authoritative about Kenya when the FT has no bureaus or reporters in Africa at all? The NYT has at least two, AFAIK.

Russia — you're not wrong, but I think that depends on the bureau chief but also the government. And that's a problem with the NYT, too, that it trades a lot on access journalism. It's a huge problem, but it's a lot different than the WJS's editor in chief telling reporters to take it easier on Trump.

I mean, it's probably too big for its own good, it's not diverse, it definitely has East Coast bias, it definitely can be played by conservatives into following "fairness" off a cliff. But I'm with Noam Chomsky, who said that The New York Times was the first thing he looked at in the morning: "Despite all its flaws—and they're real—it still has the broadest, the most comprehensive coverage of I think any newspaper in the world."

I think it's fashionable to bash the Times, but can you think of any publication in the world whose absence would be more disastrous?

Sorry for the rah-rah screed. Hometown paper and all.

ExAsperis99

@JohnnyGoodyear said:

cf

LinearLineman

So much is in the language used.

As I recall, the real Civil War in this country involved quite a few states seceding, with no overriding National Guard to keep the Confederate violence in line. So, calling it a “CIVIL WAR” gives it a lot more credibility than it deserves. Just like accepting “MILITIA” as a description for these clubs, gangs, gunlovers, white supremacists, whatever, gives legitimacy to their lowbrow, insecure, self interested, aggressive needs. Words legitimize them. If the media changed its language it would do a lot to give the a more valid perspective. I know black leaders have had a problem with the ill chosen “defund the police” slogan,

I have no doubt if the exDonald gives a call for these groups to rise up they mostly will punk out, or
they will be put down with an efficacy that the Chinese government will admire.

And now Trump will have to increasingly share the news cycle with Biden’s pre-inaugural actions, as well as Fox’s cooling toward him. The long shot Senate would make a huge difference (I get to vote in it!) and McConnell’s past relationship with Biden could make it a bit better.

audiblevideo

“Voter fraud!” Screams the orange menace. “Donate to help us fight our legal battles!”

It’s a scam (just like his entire presidency)

SNystrom

The really funny thing is that over half of the funds Trumpofiles donate to the cause are being diverted to pay-off the debt of the failed re-election fund.

Evil incarnate.

cian

@ExAsperis99 said:

This is — forgive me — just not true. The WSJ is indeed an excellent paper, but how could you possibly come to the conclusion that a business paper would give more breadth than a general newspaper, especially a behemoth like The Times?

I guess I came to the conclusion by reading the FT irregularly for 20+ years.

The FT and WSJ do not just cover 'business' (whatever that means). They are newspapers whose main audience are international business people, financiers and technocrats. THeir writers assume that you're reading it for professional reasons, which allows them to go into considerable depth. The NYT is primarily something people from New York read over breakfast for entertainment and to feel informed.

This means that they have a different emphasis. You'll get way more on Weinstein the NYT, and far more on flooding in Midwestern states (affects commodities prices and insurance after all) in the FT/WSJ. If there's a trade treaty then the coverage in the FT will be far superior to the NYT. If you wanted to understand Brexit the NYT was useless - the FT was astonishingly informative. You want to understand EU/Russian relations at the moment, the FT has had a lot of coverage of this.

But it has far more resources than the WSJ could hope to have. Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner basically spent years, with a devoted team (as I understand) reporting on ONE STORY, Trump's taxes.

The FT and WSJ regularly do stories like that. Before Murdoch took it over the WSJ did rather more than it does now (some of the best journalists left sadly).

No other newspaper in the world could have broken that story.

Of course they could. Plenty of newspapers break stories as big and bigger.

And why would the FT be more authoritative about Kenya when the FT has no bureaus or reporters in Africa at all? The NYT has at least two, AFAIK.

No idea. Maybe they have better freelancers, maybe they're just prepared to give more space on stories about Africa?

Russia — you're not wrong, but I think that depends on the bureau chief but also the government.

NYT foreign coverage is pretty awful. Always has been.

I mean, it's probably too big for its own good, it's not diverse, it definitely has East Coast bias, it definitely can be played by conservatives into following "fairness" off a cliff.

I mean it's fine, it just has a ridiculously over inflated sense of it's own importance, takes stories that only interest privileged New Yorkers way too seriously and in practice tries to avoid rocking the boat too much.

I think it's fashionable to bash the Times, but can you think of any publication in the world whose absence would be more disastrous?

I don't think it would be a good thing, but I doubt anyone would notice outside the US. Even in the US it's not read widely once you leave the North East.

kobamoto

Multiculturalism was not the experiment that some would have you believe, the real experiment was Superiority and that experiment has failed... There is nothing wrong with the constitution just adhere to it and allow it to apply to everyone equally

I_sip_cupps

What are the odds that Trump can overturn the results with recounts and such? I have a growing fear that he can still retain his presidency...

michael_m

Very little chance with zero evidence of election fraud.

I think this is way more about ego and arrogance than it is about a well thought out legal strategy.

ExAsperis99

@cian said:

@ExAsperis99 said:

This is — forgive me — just not true. The WSJ is indeed an excellent paper, but how could you possibly come to the conclusion that a business paper would give more breadth than a general newspaper, especially a behemoth like The Times?

I guess I came to the conclusion by reading the FT irregularly for 20+ years.

The FT and WSJ do not just cover 'business' (whatever that means). They are newspapers whose main audience are international business people, financiers and technocrats. THeir writers assume that you're reading it for professional reasons, which allows them to go into considerable depth. The NYT is primarily something people from New York read over breakfast for entertainment and to feel informed.

This means that they have a different emphasis. You'll get way more on Weinstein the NYT, and far more on flooding in Midwestern states (affects commodities prices and insurance after all) in the FT/WSJ. If there's a trade treaty then the coverage in the FT will be far superior to the NYT. If you wanted to understand Brexit the NYT was useless - the FT was astonishingly informative. You want to understand EU/Russian relations at the moment, the FT has had a lot of coverage of this.

But it has far more resources than the WSJ could hope to have. Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner basically spent years, with a devoted team (as I understand) reporting on ONE STORY, Trump's taxes.

The FT and WSJ regularly do stories like that. Before Murdoch took it over the WSJ did rather more than it does now (some of the best journalists left sadly).

No other newspaper in the world could have broken that story.

Of course they could. Plenty of newspapers break stories as big and bigger.

And why would the FT be more authoritative about Kenya when the FT has no bureaus or reporters in Africa at all? The NYT has at least two, AFAIK.

No idea. Maybe they have better freelancers, maybe they're just prepared to give more space on stories about Africa?

Russia — you're not wrong, but I think that depends on the bureau chief but also the government.

NYT foreign coverage is pretty awful. Always has been.

I mean, it's probably too big for its own good, it's not diverse, it definitely has East Coast bias, it definitely can be played by conservatives into following "fairness" off a cliff.

I mean it's fine, it just has a ridiculously over inflated sense of it's own importance, takes stories that only interest privileged New Yorkers way too seriously and in practice tries to avoid rocking the boat too much.

I think it's fashionable to bash the Times, but can you think of any publication in the world whose absence would be more disastrous?

I don't think it would be a good thing, but I doubt anyone would notice outside the US. Even in the US it's not read widely once you leave the North East.

Agree to disagree. But I suspect you’re the guy who argues wholeheartedly that George Harrison was the best Beatle.

(But… The Times is not widely read once you leave the Northeast? The paper has something like 6 million digital subscribers. And MANY millions more read without a subscription. As a point of comparison, the Financial Times has about 750,000 subscribers. That has nothing to do with the quality of the paper at all. But it just seems like a weird assertion that the New York Times isn’t read outside of the Metropolitan area.)

michael_m

Well George Harrison produced the best solo Beatles album, so it depends how you look at it. There’s no real correct answer to any “what is the best...” question, as you’ll often get as many answers as you ask questions.

JohnnyGoodyear

@ExAsperis99 said:

@cian said:

@ExAsperis99 said:

This is — forgive me — just not true. The WSJ is indeed an excellent paper, but how could you possibly come to the conclusion that a business paper would give more breadth than a general newspaper, especially a behemoth like The Times?

I guess I came to the conclusion by reading the FT irregularly for 20+ years.

The FT and WSJ do not just cover 'business' (whatever that means). They are newspapers whose main audience are international business people, financiers and technocrats. THeir writers assume that you're reading it for professional reasons, which allows them to go into considerable depth. The NYT is primarily something people from New York read over breakfast for entertainment and to feel informed.

This means that they have a different emphasis. You'll get way more on Weinstein the NYT, and far more on flooding in Midwestern states (affects commodities prices and insurance after all) in the FT/WSJ. If there's a trade treaty then the coverage in the FT will be far superior to the NYT. If you wanted to understand Brexit the NYT was useless - the FT was astonishingly informative. You want to understand EU/Russian relations at the moment, the FT has had a lot of coverage of this.

But it has far more resources than the WSJ could hope to have. Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner basically spent years, with a devoted team (as I understand) reporting on ONE STORY, Trump's taxes.

The FT and WSJ regularly do stories like that. Before Murdoch took it over the WSJ did rather more than it does now (some of the best journalists left sadly).

No other newspaper in the world could have broken that story.

Of course they could. Plenty of newspapers break stories as big and bigger.

And why would the FT be more authoritative about Kenya when the FT has no bureaus or reporters in Africa at all? The NYT has at least two, AFAIK.

No idea. Maybe they have better freelancers, maybe they're just prepared to give more space on stories about Africa?

Russia — you're not wrong, but I think that depends on the bureau chief but also the government.

NYT foreign coverage is pretty awful. Always has been.

I mean, it's probably too big for its own good, it's not diverse, it definitely has East Coast bias, it definitely can be played by conservatives into following "fairness" off a cliff.

I mean it's fine, it just has a ridiculously over inflated sense of it's own importance, takes stories that only interest privileged New Yorkers way too seriously and in practice tries to avoid rocking the boat too much.

I think it's fashionable to bash the Times, but can you think of any publication in the world whose absence would be more disastrous?

I don't think it would be a good thing, but I doubt anyone would notice outside the US. Even in the US it's not read widely once you leave the North East.

Agree to disagree. But I suspect you’re the guy who argues wholeheartedly that George Harrison was the best Beatle.

(But… The Times is not widely read once you leave the Northeast? The paper has something like 6 million digital subscribers. And MANY millions more read without a subscription. As a point of comparison, the Financial Times has about 750,000 subscribers. That has nothing to do with the quality of the paper at all. But it just seems like a weird assertion that the New York Times isn’t read outside of the Metropolitan area.)

Absoutely. There are at least three or four of us here in Texas...

SNystrom

(But… The Times is not widely read once you leave the Northeast? The paper has something like 6 million digital subscribers. And MANY millions more read without a subscription. As a point of comparison, the Financial Times has about 750,000 subscribers. That has nothing to do with the quality of the paper at all. But it just seems like a weird assertion that the New York Times isn’t read outside of the Metropolitan area.)

The New York Times has staff all over the world. Although not as robust as they were in the 70's and 80's, The Times is certainly not just a product for the northeast.

Here in California, they have a very strong presence.

In fact, they produce an extraordinarily popular weekday newsletter specifically focused on the state:

Not only can you receive the electronic version, you can also purchase the print edition throughout the entire state — unlike any of the major California newspapers.

I'm certain the Times has a larger circulation here than the total 750,000 circulation of the Financial Times.

chocobitz825

@kobamoto said:
Multiculturalism was not the experiment that some would have you believe, the real experiment was Superiority and that experiment has failed... There is nothing wrong with the constitution just adhere to it and allow it to apply to everyone equally

seems so simple...

LinearLineman

Stock market soars today and last week. It was supposed to crash if Biden got elected. So said exDonald Trump. They must not have heard Biden won.

chocobitz825

@LinearLineman said:
Stock market soars today and last week. It was supposed to crash if Biden got elected. So said exDonald Trump. They must not have heard Biden won.

Fake News! Recount the stock market! Stop the count! There are dead people on the stock market! Trump is going to sue the stock market!

cian

@ExAsperis99 said:

I've gone way of my original point, which is my fault, which is that the WSJ is a serious newspaper which does very good point (the original comment I was responding to was that it was a propaganda rag of Murdoch, which isn't true).

Last I checked the NYT subscriber base was heavily based in the NORTH EAST (NE, not the NY metropolitan area). That was a while ago before they significantly grew their digital subscription base so maybe things have changed since then. I didn't say that it wasn't read outside the NE, merely that it's a lot more marginal once you leave that part of the US.

It's a decent enough newspaper, I just find the whole self-importance of "The Gray Lady" and its journalists rather ridiculous.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

michael_m

@Max23 said:
Hihi, the orange man must be scared as shit.
After 20th January he is a mortal again like you and me
Meaning bye bye Donald’s Twitter account for hate speech, yay no more rubbish from that man

30 or so process against him
The orange man may end up in jail.
The list is long from sexual abuse to deception to tax evasion.
Oh poor Donald. /s

Popcorn anyone?

I’m also wondering if more will come out of the woodwork after he leaves office who didn’t initiate cases because they knew he was protected by his office

TheOriginalPaulB

He may soon be out of the White House, but I don’t think he’ll disappear any time soon. He’s had a taste of real power and is now the cult poster boy for the right wing bigots and racists. He’ll buy his way out of legal entanglements and reinvent himself as the racist messiah for the new reich...

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

JohnnyGoodyear

@Max23 said:

@TheOriginalPaulB said:
He may soon be out of the White House, but I don’t think he’ll disappear any time soon. He’s had a taste of real power and is now the cult poster boy for the right wing bigots and racists. He’ll buy his way out of legal entanglements and reinvent himself as the racist messiah for the new reich...

He is broke. As I understand it he is living on borrowed 💰.
And after all the stunts we’ve seen nobody is going to give him 💰 anymore.
He is completely fucked up and has completely fucked up.
That man is done.

That why he is behaving like a tiger in a cage.
He thought they can’t touch because I am the president.
Well all that ends soon.
I will watch all of it closely and get a sadistic pleasure out of it.

Much as I often love your colorful certitude I think there may be some more areas of wiggle for your Orange Man. Having 70 million (supposed) supporters to speak to from your bully pulpit is worth much to many. At least for a year or two...

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

michael_m

He can probably get money if he needs it, and I’m sure he will cash in on being an ex-president as all of them have.

I think there’s more hope of the weight of criminal charges taking him down, so hopefully he doesn’t wriggle out from all of them.

0tolerance4silence

I think we’ll soon see him replaced with another puppet... everyone to abandon him, put a blame on him etc. and move on

JohnnyGoodyear

@Max23 said:

@JohnnyGoodyear said:

@Max23 said:

@TheOriginalPaulB said:
He may soon be out of the White House, but I don’t think he’ll disappear any time soon. He’s had a taste of real power and is now the cult poster boy for the right wing bigots and racists. He’ll buy his way out of legal entanglements and reinvent himself as the racist messiah for the new reich...

He is broke. As I understand it he is living on borrowed 💰.
And after all the stunts we’ve seen nobody is going to give him 💰 anymore.
He is completely fucked up and has completely fucked up.
That man is done.

That why he is behaving like a tiger in a cage.
He thought they can’t touch because I am the president.
Well all that ends soon.
I will watch all of it closely and get a sadistic pleasure out of it.

Much as I often love your colorful certitude I think there may be some more areas of wiggle for your Orange Man. Having 70 million (supposed) supporters to speak to from your bully pulpit is worth much to many. At least for a year or two...

Before he became president He didn’t get cash from American banks anymore.
He got over the years 20 billion from Deutsche Bank. They are fed up with him.
Who can he run to now? lol
The Saudis? China? Russia? Hahahaha

In case your inside the US. The orange man has lost his face.
He is a persona non grata in the rest of the world.

To be honest, my only concern regarding Donald Trump moving forwards (apart from him leaving the White Hosue without too much practical fuss) is that he stays alive for a year or two. No need for confederate flag martyrs of any kind...

TheOriginalPaulB

I truly hope that I’m not proved correct...

michael_m

@JohnnyGoodyear said:

@Max23 said:

@JohnnyGoodyear said:

@Max23 said:

@TheOriginalPaulB said:
He may soon be out of the White House, but I don’t think he’ll disappear any time soon. He’s had a taste of real power and is now the cult poster boy for the right wing bigots and racists. He’ll buy his way out of legal entanglements and reinvent himself as the racist messiah for the new reich...

He is broke. As I understand it he is living on borrowed 💰.
And after all the stunts we’ve seen nobody is going to give him 💰 anymore.
He is completely fucked up and has completely fucked up.
That man is done.

That why he is behaving like a tiger in a cage.
He thought they can’t touch because I am the president.
Well all that ends soon.
I will watch all of it closely and get a sadistic pleasure out of it.

Much as I often love your colorful certitude I think there may be some more areas of wiggle for your Orange Man. Having 70 million (supposed) supporters to speak to from your bully pulpit is worth much to many. At least for a year or two...

Before he became president He didn’t get cash from American banks anymore.
He got over the years 20 billion from Deutsche Bank. They are fed up with him.
Who can he run to now? lol
The Saudis? China? Russia? Hahahaha

In case your inside the US. The orange man has lost his face.
He is a persona non grata in the rest of the world.

To be honest, my only concern regarding Donald Trump moving forwards (apart from him leaving the White Hosue without too much practical fuss) is that he stays alive for a year or two. No need for confederate flag martyrs of any kind...

Definitely! He would be remembered for all the wrong reasons if he didn’t get the chance to experience a downfall

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.