The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[Alefroth]

Yeah, that was really weird. I shared it several places and it switched on all of them. I've updated it with another link. If you look at the comments on the coloring book one, they still apply to the O'Donnell video.

[LordMortis]

It's long, but it contains Harris' speech in full. O'Donnell doesn't pull any punches in calling out the media's deference to Trump.

Not an MSNBC guy but so far (3 minutes in) he's right on the money. I'll likely be watching this in its entirety soon.

UAW in Wayne... That would explain why my drive home yesterday suggested I drive around, pass my house and then circle backwards rather than use Michigan Ave... Glad I used the GPS.

Harris sounds a little slurred to me. Still I'll take that over nutty senile rambler.

[gilraen]

She sounds fine to me. She sounds like someone who's slightly short of breath, probably because she's been doing more public speaking than she's used to. (I find myself short of breath and similarly having to put extra effort into speaking when I have to talk too much on Teams meetings, which usually ends up with me in a coughing fit).

[Grifman]

[Isgrimnur]

Is it time to talk about how Maureen Dowd is too old to be headlining a internationally-read paper?

[Grifman]

Failure in logic:

[Kurth]

Failure in logic:

Who are these people? How did they get these jobs? How does this pass editorial muster, or, in our zeal for real time “reporting,” does no one review this stuff?

It’s insane that this passes for fact checking.

[waitingtoconnect]

By that logic Terrance Howard should be the secretary for education.

1 x 1 = 2

In his words you can't conform when you know innately that something is wrong.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/peop ... 02365.html

[Grifman]

It just keeps getting better:

[waitingtoconnect]

Depends on what character means to you I guess. If you want a serial liar and philanderer by all means.

Another one right now is USA todays fact check saying that an association between trump and project 2025 is false solely based on trumps denial.

[Holman]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

[Jaymann]

My thought is they are hedging in case DonOld wins that he won't send them to the death camps. As if.

[Isgrimnur]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

Rich Lowry.

'Laugh-out-loud funny': Experts guffaw as Times op-ed asserts Trump can win 'on character'

Dmitry Grozoubinski likened Trump to a villain in a James Bond-based video game from the 1990s.

"Trump couldn't win on character even if the election were Goldeneye 64 and we let him play Oddjob," replied the former Australian diplomat.

"I actually agree that Trump can win on character," political commentator Anand Giridharadas added. "All he has to do is time travel and unborn himself."

[Smoove_B]

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

It's like all the negging TFG did on the NYT finally has them doing anything they can to support him now. It's insane. Between their OpEds and Maureen Dowd railing against Biden, I think the only thing left not pushing for another Trump administration is the daily crossword.

[Isgrimnur]

Don't give them any ideas.

[El Guapo]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

[Kraken]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

The editorial page is traditionally where newspaper editorial boards state their positions on the issues of the day, at the tacit forbearance of their publisher. The opinion page is for supporting and dissenting viewpoints, and for the public's two cents as letters to the editor. They're complementary, or are supposed to work that way. Here's our opinion/here are some other opinions. One can frequently find fault with the opinions they choose for publication, but the continuing act of publishing other opinions is justified if they are still publishing their own.

[GreenGoo]

My thought is they are hedging in case DonOld wins that he won't send them to the death camps. As if.

Death camps for everyone! Including and especially former toadies. It's the drumpfian way!

[Kurth]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

The editorial page is traditionally where newspaper editorial boards state their positions on the issues of the day, at the tacit forbearance of their publisher. The opinion page is for supporting and dissenting viewpoints, and for the public's two cents as letters to the editor. They're complementary, or are supposed to work that way. Here's our opinion/here are some other opinions. One can frequently find fault with the opinions they choose for publication, but the continuing act of publishing other opinions is justified if they are still publishing their own.

Agree with all this, but that opinion . . . It just feels like it’s a bridge too far. The NYT opinion page isn’t an open soap box in Cambridge Square. It’s not like anyone with any idiotic thought can just get published there. NYT is vetting that shit, and there are distinct barriers to entry. Apparently, if you are editor of National Review, those barriers are nonexistent. Because that was one of the stupidest and least defensible opinions I’ve seen in a long time. It was also pernicious. For the NYT to shine light on an opinion that Trump should win the election by doubling down on character attacks on Harris is wrong on so many levels, it kind of defies belief.

I defend the NYT frequently. But this is indefensible.

[Kraken]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

The editorial page is traditionally where newspaper editorial boards state their positions on the issues of the day, at the tacit forbearance of their publisher. The opinion page is for supporting and dissenting viewpoints, and for the public's two cents as letters to the editor. They're complementary, or are supposed to work that way. Here's our opinion/here are some other opinions. One can frequently find fault with the opinions they choose for publication, but the continuing act of publishing other opinions is justified if they are still publishing their own.

Agree with all this, but that opinion . . . It just feels like it’s a bridge too far. The NYT opinion page isn’t an open soap box in Cambridge Square. It’s not like anyone with any idiotic thought can just get published there. NYT is vetting that shit, and there are distinct barriers to entry. Apparently, if you are editor of National Review, those barriers are nonexistent. Because that was one of the stupidest and least defensible opinions I’ve seen in a long time. It was also pernicious. For the NYT to shine light on an opinion that Trump should win the election by doubling down on character attacks on Harris is wrong on so many levels, it kind of defies belief.

I defend the NYT frequently. But this is indefensible.

I didn't read the offending piece so I won't speculate on why the editors chose it. I was only responding to El Guapo's musings about why opinion pages even still exist.

[El Guapo]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

The editorial page is traditionally where newspaper editorial boards state their positions on the issues of the day, at the tacit forbearance of their publisher. The opinion page is for supporting and dissenting viewpoints, and for the public's two cents as letters to the editor. They're complementary, or are supposed to work that way. Here's our opinion/here are some other opinions. One can frequently find fault with the opinions they choose for publication, but the continuing act of publishing other opinions is justified if they are still publishing their own.

Agree with all this, but that opinion . . . It just feels like it’s a bridge too far. The NYT opinion page isn’t an open soap box in Cambridge Square. It’s not like anyone with any idiotic thought can just get published there. NYT is vetting that shit, and there are distinct barriers to entry. Apparently, if you are editor of National Review, those barriers are nonexistent. Because that was one of the stupidest and least defensible opinions I’ve seen in a long time. It was also pernicious. For the NYT to shine light on an opinion that Trump should win the election by doubling down on character attacks on Harris is wrong on so many levels, it kind of defies belief.

I defend the NYT frequently. But this is indefensible.

I didn't read the offending piece so I won't speculate on why the editors chose it. I was only responding to El Guapo's musings about why opinion pages even still exist.

I get the ostensible purpose of having an op/ed section. It just seems of questionable value because it inevitably brings controversy over whose opinions the newspaper chooses to elevate (remember the Tom Cotton op ed?) and the value of the opinions that are in the NYT op-ed section versus what's generally available elsewhere is questionable.

If the NYT really *needs* to publish this stuff for some reason they should put it in the New York Times magazine. The opinions would still be out there but wouldn't have quite as much of the stature and imprimatur that comes with being in the newspaper of record.

[YellowKing]

I thought of this thread when I saw a CNN headline this morning that said "The return of Trump's legal quagmire to center stage presents new challenges for Harris." I mean....huh?

[Kurth]

I thought of this thread when I saw a CNN headline this morning that said "The return of Trump's legal quagmire to center stage presents new challenges for Harris." I mean....huh?

It's CNN. That may be some of their best work.

[Kurth]

The writer of that piece is an editor of National Review.

The question is why the NYT is handing over a quarter of their own opinion page to someone who already has their own dedicated opinion magazine.

Why does the NYT (or other major newspapers) have an opinion page at all? In the age of the internet there's no shortage of venues for public figures to get their opinions and views out.

The editorial page is traditionally where newspaper editorial boards state their positions on the issues of the day, at the tacit forbearance of their publisher. The opinion page is for supporting and dissenting viewpoints, and for the public's two cents as letters to the editor. They're complementary, or are supposed to work that way. Here's our opinion/here are some other opinions. One can frequently find fault with the opinions they choose for publication, but the continuing act of publishing other opinions is justified if they are still publishing their own.

Agree with all this, but that opinion . . . It just feels like it’s a bridge too far. The NYT opinion page isn’t an open soap box in Cambridge Square. It’s not like anyone with any idiotic thought can just get published there. NYT is vetting that shit, and there are distinct barriers to entry. Apparently, if you are editor of National Review, those barriers are nonexistent. Because that was one of the stupidest and least defensible opinions I’ve seen in a long time. It was also pernicious. For the NYT to shine light on an opinion that Trump should win the election by doubling down on character attacks on Harris is wrong on so many levels, it kind of defies belief.

I defend the NYT frequently. But this is indefensible.

I didn't read the offending piece so I won't speculate on why the editors chose it. I was only responding to El Guapo's musings about why opinion pages even still exist.

I get the ostensible purpose of having an op/ed section. It just seems of questionable value because it inevitably brings controversy over whose opinions the newspaper chooses to elevate (remember the Tom Cotton op ed?) and the value of the opinions that are in the NYT op-ed section versus what's generally available elsewhere is questionable.

If the NYT really *needs* to publish this stuff for some reason they should put it in the New York Times magazine. The opinions would still be out there but wouldn't have quite as much of the stature and imprimatur that comes with being in the newspaper of record.

Based on my understanding of the readership of the New York Times magazine, they would never publish a "Trump Can Win on Character" op-ed from the head of National Review. Never. Ever. Ever.

[Pyperkub]

Before the National Review had all of their writers who had any ounce of integrity leave, I could understand it.

But now, it's like any other zombie news site which has sold whatever quality they had for clickbait idiocy. The writers who are left will contort themselves exactly like this for clicks.

[Grifman]

[Grifman]

Trump has a housing shortage plan:

[Isgrimnur]

How is it that such a large percentage of people lack any sense of empathy?

[Pyperkub]

WTF MSNBC? maybe you need to be upfront with this garbage?

‘I Didn’t Know She Was Black!’ MSNBC ‘Mixed Race Voter’ Attacks Kamala Harris — Turns Out He’s Pro-Trump GOP Candidate

The kicker?

Update: an MSNBC source says yes, they were aware. Ali was a candidate prior to the Focus group.

[Blackhawk]

How is it that such a large percentage of people lack any sense of empathy?

Because they weren't taught compassion or empathy. Without someone guiding the way, it takes an introspective person to develop it naturally.

[Unagi]

How is it that such a large percentage of people lack any sense of empathy?

It's almost as if that's the problem.

[Kraken]

This race was always about compassion and empathy vs. fear and hatred, but Harris and Walz have brought the contrast front and center. It's really depressing that fear and hatred are doing so well.

[GreenGoo]

How is it that such a large percentage of people lack any sense of empathy?

This reminds me of a discussion long ago on this board, about a top high school girls basketball team playing the most amateurest of amateur teams. Like, they didn't have the basic skills yet, let alone any strategy or defense skills. The general consensus was that it wasn't the top team's fault they were matched up, and they should just steamroll the other team, never letting up, going hard until the score was 100-4 (as an example). Because competition, I think. Plus it would be insulting to the shitty team if the pro team didn't try its best.

It was just so foreign an idea, especially since I had played competitive sports for 2 decades when younger, and have been in both those teams positions at one point or another.

It was like, not destroying these beginners would be more harmful than being supportive and helpful and encouraging. Literally nothing was on the line, except a win/loss in regular season, and there was never any question about who was getting the win and who was getting the loss.

I am aware that many people here do not see that as a lack of empathy. I disagree. It always feels like a large swath of Americans see other Americans as competitors, rather than countrymen. Even when literally nothing is on the line. God help them if something is actually at stake.

I'm just reflecting on your question.

And just to be clear, there are lots of situations where I am less than empathic. I'm not special nor do I consider myself especially empathic. We just see things differently at times, and I think about this a lot.

[Unagi]

I think I'm most chilled by people who can't even give lip service to empathy. That just blows my mind... No one is perfect, I'm certainly not - and I'm probably as close as anyone will ever get (har, super funny joke there) - but striving for empathy is clearly the 'better' path. And the idea that any organized religion would get behind the Trump campaign and pretend to care about people - that blows my mind too...

[YellowKing]

I think it would be more accurate to say a lot of people lack empathy for strangers. They have plenty of love and compassion for family, friends, and people that look like them.

[LordMortis]

I think there's a continuum and it's a pretty broad part of it that I would avoid and am sad for which I am sad for what I believe the children will become or have to overcome. On the other end, there's people with so much empathy, it's got to be hard to cope. I'd imagine on the lack of empathy side, they think too much empathy is about most people with more than them and then take try to make it something they can benefit from or laugh at or exorcise from their children.

[Carpet_pissr]

How is it that such a large percentage of people lack any sense of empathy?

This reminds me of a discussion long ago on this board, about a top high school girls basketball team playing the most amateurest of amateur teams. Like, they didn't have the basic skills yet, let alone any strategy or defense skills. The general consensus was that it wasn't the top team's fault they were matched up, and they should just steamroll the other team, never letting up, going hard until the score was 100-4 (as an example). Because competition, I think. Plus it would be insulting to the shitty team if the pro team didn't try its best.

It was just so foreign an idea, especially since I had played competitive sports for 2 decades when younger, and have been in both those teams positions at one point or another.

It was like, not destroying these beginners would be more harmful than being supportive and helpful and encouraging. Literally nothing was on the line, except a win/loss in regular season, and there was never any question about who was getting the win and who was getting the loss.

I am aware that many people here do not see that as a lack of empathy. I disagree. It always feels like a large swath of Americans see other Americans as competitors, rather than countrymen. Even when literally nothing is on the line. God help them if something is actually at stake.

I'm just reflecting on your question.

And just to be clear, there are lots of situations where I am less than empathic. I'm not special nor do I consider myself especially empathic. We just see things differently at times, and I think about this a lot.

This example is VERY American, in my experience, as you allude to.

I'm not sure it's an empathy issue, but maybe it is. It is most definitely a hyper competitive drive issue, that if we had a stereotype that is true, that is definitely one of them. And yeah, that leads to situations like the above. Not defending it, because it results in a lack of empathy in situations, just trying to explain it.

My kids have been on dominant teams like that, and I have seen coaches do the empathetic thing (the right choice IMO), and the "do you expect me to ask them to not play so hard?!?" bs excuse thing. I much prefer the former.

[Blackhawk]

It always feels like a large swath of Americans see other Americans as competitors, rather than countrymen.

I absolutely agree with you. As a naturally non-competitive individual, it's always stood out like a sore thumb. Getting ahead is paramount, and 'success' in life is defined in such a competitive, materialistic manner that people are driven to walk over one another to get to where they want to be.

[LordMortis]

Growing up it was keep up with Joneses. Now it's a bit more than that. But course modern competition has taught us, "If you ain't cheatin you ain't tryin" and then came...



And all that followed.

And then you go to work and they both want to tell you work is "a family" but then make it a competition with your coworkers (thank goodness I was a department of one who wanted to avoid management but my merit pay still suffered with goals that didn't shine through)

[Smoove_B]

"...I always wanted something more than 50 hours every week
And a paid vacation on the jersey shoreline"
And he said
So when ambition turns into competition
I'll never be the better man