Ken in your article “Murder goes viral” can you supply a link for the source of your comment “The sheriff also refused to identify the type of weapon used in the killing.”
I was really sad to miss this talk because of a scheduling conflict. Thanks for covering it. I have read a few of Brooks’ books- he often draws from psychological sources that interest me. I have been watching him on the Newshour for years, and reading his columns. I appreciate his perspective, and enjoy the respectful dialogue with the other commentators. I especially loved Shields and Brooks.
You have been banished to the land of trolls! Goodbye. I wonder if that is how you treat other people at work, family, etc. There is no place for attacks like that.
I'm guessing you are just parroting another comment here. What do you know about FOX viewers? "Consumers of other outlets" - ya, other meaning other liberal outlets.
News media is overwhelmingly liberal. Wide range of sources? Wide range of sources that uphold what they already believe.
I've read many posts on conservative media that say they've left the left. I haven't left the left but, I give equal time to liberal and conservative media because I no longer trust them exclusively. It very well could be that FOX's ratings are due to same.
Please give us your definition of liberal. I think that is important for us to understand and discuss your point(s). Why do you think it is the case (in your opinion) that news outlets are “overwhelmingly liberal”. Why does that occur, do you suppose?
I’m really trying to understand. News reporting is played straight and news organizations like I worked for were always looking out for bias. My own experience over 40 years at community newspapers is that this is not true in my experience. Please provide specific examples.
<b>I would not blame Fox watchers for feeling used and disrespected by Fox. It’s clear that no one views Fox’s audience with greater contempt than the people who work at Fox. They believe that the people who watch their channel are foolish, irrational, and infantile. They believe that these people cannot grasp reality and that if they were confronted with reality, they would react with anger and petulance.
The people who run Fox believe that the people who watch Fox are dim, emotional, and unpatriotic bigots who must be coddled like particularly malevolent children.
And here’s the thing: Fox is right.</b>
That’s Jonathan Last writing The Triad at Bulwark today. The people running CNN, PBS, MSNBC and everywhere committed to information versus the disinformation from rightwing media do not have the contempt for their audience that Fox does.
He goes on to note in his Substack today that there’s no way Fox viewers could avoid knowing at least something of the Dominion lawsuit. I can’t imagine what would going on in someone’s brain that would allow them to accept that kind of treatment.
Brian Campbell’s comments are heartening, true, but he needs to think more deeply.
“Deep down we all want the same things, our freedoms and pursuit of happiness.”
I submit the almost religious focus of those on the right, but Americans in general on the concept of “freedoms” is a serious problem. We need to stop talking about the US as a place of “freedom.” Our founding documents do not emphasize freedom, they talk about establishing a just society and outline sets of laws and principles that restrain members of society from actions that threaten the common good. It is worth rereading the couple paragraphs of the Declaration and the preamble to the Constitution regularly. They’re short. Here’s the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Constitution is about restraint of action, not “freedom.” If it was about freedom it would be 4 words long: Do what ye wish.
That phrase acknowledges that Liberty is not a perfect good. Liberty has blessings, but Liberty also has a dark side. The Constitution is provided to limit expressions of Liberty to those that are Just for society.
Okay, this may be considered petty. I truly believe in excellent local journalism and its importance in our communities. I also believe that it has a responsibility to set a high standard in spelling and grammar. Nearly every day, when reading your digital publication, I find at least one or two errors. Today there are more. Please proofread your work more carefully. Keep those standards high!
I imagine the problem will improve with AI. Unfortunately, we humans without the benefit of proof readers are open to making mistakes even after much proof reading.
The NYT's ad by fox is pretty much an example of the dishonesty of advertising
That in a skewed way fox is 'trusted' by many (we need to go no further than so-so-phia).
And a full-page ad in the New York Times is a wonderful attack on integrity.
FEARepblicans can say that "that was in the NYTs" as if it was factual (as if it was true). And in the nuanced worked of people who are tethered to reality a very good joke.
Those who know
know fox lies and is only trusted by those who believe those lies
I did not see James Brooks speech, but I have seen him on PBS. And I have seen his name trend on twitter when various columns of his have trended.
So often I thought he was a liberal. Either because I agreed with what he was saying or because the people attacking him on Twitter were republicans and mostly conservative republicans.
I believe I need to disagree with the assessment that he “makes you think.” For me it has always been: “he makes me understand. “
And anyone who really listens to Mr. Brooks will likely understand his point, if not the issue he is speaking on. That is not to say you will agree.
One of the things I have seen of Mr. Brooks on PBS that falls into this category is not what makes sense, but what is the truth.
When he examines how a trumper will vote, he makes it clear it does not make sense, or that it is against their best interests. He will also point out the trump supporters do not think from the neck up (or from the neck down, for that matter)!
They don’t think.
The believe, what they want to believe and don the con (#pos_tefanik as well) will prey upon that.
One of the perfect examples is, not a single republican in #ny21 can tell you what #pos_tefanikkk’s gun policy is. Sure they will say she supports gun rights. That is an easy one, because stiffy says she supports gun rights.
But what is her doctrine about killing machines? Does she support background checks? Does she want the mentally ill to own guns? Does she want children to own guns?
(She doesn’t say, but her votes prove she is cool with that.)
Is she proud that the number one killer of children is guns?
Yes.
Her silence and voting record is a deafening: YES.
She has proven that, but ask a FEARepublican and they don’t know. She just justifies their fear of a car turning around in their driveway and gives them tacit permission to kill.
Where is Rep. Stefanik? The “responsible gun law legislation “ ball is teed up in her hometown . The opportunity is her’s to hit the ball! Or will she choose silence…
Mary, I agree with you. Where is Rep. Stefanik? Why isn't she responding to this tragedy that has happened in Wash Co. One that has even been reported on BBC besides NYT and CNN. And yet nothing from Stefanik. Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner had no problem being quoted in Post Star saying no one "should have to fear for their life just for taking the wrong turn."
Thanks for a great recap of Brook's speech. I wish I could have heard it and wonder if it was recorded and be made available (on the school website?). I consider myself a moderate Democrat but I find myself agreeing with David more and more, on social, fiscal and political issues. His pursuit of knowledge, through reading and deep conversations are inspirational. I rarely miss him and Capehart on the newshour, but confess to missing Mark Shields.
I'm not a FOX listener, still I understand their increased ratings. ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC & MSNBC, and PBS have pushed us away with their relentless attacks on Trump. Something has gone amuck. Their reporting has become untrustworthy. Granted Trump is intolerable but, so isn't their reporting. It isn't reporting at all, it's political activism. You may say ya but, FOX lies. Manipulation, lies, it's all the same to me.
Again, if you are going to say that every major network lies in news broadcast, you certainly must be able to give specific examples. I do not see what you are seeing.
It’s false equivalence and real news outlets make corrections. Fox still won’t say Trump lost the election. Elise Stefanik won’t either. She put out a weaselspeak statement congratulating Biden/Harris on “being sworn in.” That’s as close as she’s come to saying Trump lost. She’s as afraid of the Trump voters as Fox is.
She doesn't post a rebuttal because it seems she has none
And something I can't prove -- she says she isn't a fox listener. I don't want to be politically incorrect if she is blind, but one watches fox news.
that said, it is clear her talking points are all fox news
talking points rooted in dishonestly. There is nothing more to say about so-so-phia but to understand she has no facts... and perhaps is facts-intolerant
Ken in your article “Murder goes viral” can you supply a link for the source of your comment “The sheriff also refused to identify the type of weapon used in the killing.”
I was really sad to miss this talk because of a scheduling conflict. Thanks for covering it. I have read a few of Brooks’ books- he often draws from psychological sources that interest me. I have been watching him on the Newshour for years, and reading his columns. I appreciate his perspective, and enjoy the respectful dialogue with the other commentators. I especially loved Shields and Brooks.
Interesting how you word this post. "Please give US," "is important for US to understand"
Clearly, you are speaking for the liberal mob. Screw you.
You have been banished to the land of trolls! Goodbye. I wonder if that is how you treat other people at work, family, etc. There is no place for attacks like that.
Yay! She was not listening anyway.
I'm guessing you are just parroting another comment here. What do you know about FOX viewers? "Consumers of other outlets" - ya, other meaning other liberal outlets.
Sounds as if it was a very good talk. It’s unfortunate that the kids couldn’t appreciate it.
News media is overwhelmingly liberal. Wide range of sources? Wide range of sources that uphold what they already believe.
I've read many posts on conservative media that say they've left the left. I haven't left the left but, I give equal time to liberal and conservative media because I no longer trust them exclusively. It very well could be that FOX's ratings are due to same.
Please give us your definition of liberal. I think that is important for us to understand and discuss your point(s). Why do you think it is the case (in your opinion) that news outlets are “overwhelmingly liberal”. Why does that occur, do you suppose?
I’m really trying to understand. News reporting is played straight and news organizations like I worked for were always looking out for bias. My own experience over 40 years at community newspapers is that this is not true in my experience. Please provide specific examples.
You posted the ratings. FOX is highest. What does that say to you?
In my experience FOX viewers do not change channels. Consumers of other outlets tend to vary what they watch, thus splitting their ratings.
It says a lot of people believe what Fox says is true. But the lawsuit they lied repeatedly! Do you disagreed?
<b>I would not blame Fox watchers for feeling used and disrespected by Fox. It’s clear that no one views Fox’s audience with greater contempt than the people who work at Fox. They believe that the people who watch their channel are foolish, irrational, and infantile. They believe that these people cannot grasp reality and that if they were confronted with reality, they would react with anger and petulance.
The people who run Fox believe that the people who watch Fox are dim, emotional, and unpatriotic bigots who must be coddled like particularly malevolent children.
And here’s the thing: Fox is right.</b>
That’s Jonathan Last writing The Triad at Bulwark today. The people running CNN, PBS, MSNBC and everywhere committed to information versus the disinformation from rightwing media do not have the contempt for their audience that Fox does.
He goes on to note in his Substack today that there’s no way Fox viewers could avoid knowing at least something of the Dominion lawsuit. I can’t imagine what would going on in someone’s brain that would allow them to accept that kind of treatment.
<b>You posted the ratings. FOX is highest. What does that say to you?</b>
It says that people on the left, independents and moderates get news from a wide range of sources and the people dependent on Fox don’t.
Occam’s razor.
Ha, ha. "We are willing to listen". Oh please, 'respectful'?
Folks here cannot hear a differ opinion without seeking to prove it wrong.
You posted the ratings. Liberals like me are leaving liberal activist reporters.
Can you name those reporters. Really trying to understand how you came to this conclusion.
Fox viewers don't change. Even after they have been slapped in the face with a mackerel.
Brian Campbell’s comments are heartening, true, but he needs to think more deeply.
“Deep down we all want the same things, our freedoms and pursuit of happiness.”
I submit the almost religious focus of those on the right, but Americans in general on the concept of “freedoms” is a serious problem. We need to stop talking about the US as a place of “freedom.” Our founding documents do not emphasize freedom, they talk about establishing a just society and outline sets of laws and principles that restrain members of society from actions that threaten the common good. It is worth rereading the couple paragraphs of the Declaration and the preamble to the Constitution regularly. They’re short. Here’s the Preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The Constitution is about restraint of action, not “freedom.” If it was about freedom it would be 4 words long: Do what ye wish.
*the first couple paragraphs of the Declaration* emphasize first.
“…secure the Blessings of Liberty…”
That phrase acknowledges that Liberty is not a perfect good. Liberty has blessings, but Liberty also has a dark side. The Constitution is provided to limit expressions of Liberty to those that are Just for society.
Okay, this may be considered petty. I truly believe in excellent local journalism and its importance in our communities. I also believe that it has a responsibility to set a high standard in spelling and grammar. Nearly every day, when reading your digital publication, I find at least one or two errors. Today there are more. Please proofread your work more carefully. Keep those standards high!
I imagine the problem will improve with AI. Unfortunately, we humans without the benefit of proof readers are open to making mistakes even after much proof reading.
We can deal.
The NYT's ad by fox is pretty much an example of the dishonesty of advertising
That in a skewed way fox is 'trusted' by many (we need to go no further than so-so-phia).
And a full-page ad in the New York Times is a wonderful attack on integrity.
FEARepblicans can say that "that was in the NYTs" as if it was factual (as if it was true). And in the nuanced worked of people who are tethered to reality a very good joke.
Those who know
know fox lies and is only trusted by those who believe those lies
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/
I did not see James Brooks speech, but I have seen him on PBS. And I have seen his name trend on twitter when various columns of his have trended.
So often I thought he was a liberal. Either because I agreed with what he was saying or because the people attacking him on Twitter were republicans and mostly conservative republicans.
I believe I need to disagree with the assessment that he “makes you think.” For me it has always been: “he makes me understand. “
And anyone who really listens to Mr. Brooks will likely understand his point, if not the issue he is speaking on. That is not to say you will agree.
One of the things I have seen of Mr. Brooks on PBS that falls into this category is not what makes sense, but what is the truth.
When he examines how a trumper will vote, he makes it clear it does not make sense, or that it is against their best interests. He will also point out the trump supporters do not think from the neck up (or from the neck down, for that matter)!
They don’t think.
The believe, what they want to believe and don the con (#pos_tefanik as well) will prey upon that.
One of the perfect examples is, not a single republican in #ny21 can tell you what #pos_tefanikkk’s gun policy is. Sure they will say she supports gun rights. That is an easy one, because stiffy says she supports gun rights.
But what is her doctrine about killing machines? Does she support background checks? Does she want the mentally ill to own guns? Does she want children to own guns?
(She doesn’t say, but her votes prove she is cool with that.)
Is she proud that the number one killer of children is guns?
Yes.
Her silence and voting record is a deafening: YES.
She has proven that, but ask a FEARepublican and they don’t know. She just justifies their fear of a car turning around in their driveway and gives them tacit permission to kill.
Where is Rep. Stefanik? The “responsible gun law legislation “ ball is teed up in her hometown . The opportunity is her’s to hit the ball! Or will she choose silence…
There’s not much you can say when your political persona is based on supporting gun laws to the right of Florida and Texas.
Mary, I agree with you. Where is Rep. Stefanik? Why isn't she responding to this tragedy that has happened in Wash Co. One that has even been reported on BBC besides NYT and CNN. And yet nothing from Stefanik. Assemblywoman Carrie Woerner had no problem being quoted in Post Star saying no one "should have to fear for their life just for taking the wrong turn."
Thanks for a great recap of Brook's speech. I wish I could have heard it and wonder if it was recorded and be made available (on the school website?). I consider myself a moderate Democrat but I find myself agreeing with David more and more, on social, fiscal and political issues. His pursuit of knowledge, through reading and deep conversations are inspirational. I rarely miss him and Capehart on the newshour, but confess to missing Mark Shields.
I’m with you 100 percent.
I'm not a FOX listener, still I understand their increased ratings. ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC & MSNBC, and PBS have pushed us away with their relentless attacks on Trump. Something has gone amuck. Their reporting has become untrustworthy. Granted Trump is intolerable but, so isn't their reporting. It isn't reporting at all, it's political activism. You may say ya but, FOX lies. Manipulation, lies, it's all the same to me.
Are you saying that FOX doesn’t attack Biden, constantly?
Again, if you are going to say that every major network lies in news broadcast, you certainly must be able to give specific examples. I do not see what you are seeing.
It’s false equivalence and real news outlets make corrections. Fox still won’t say Trump lost the election. Elise Stefanik won’t either. She put out a weaselspeak statement congratulating Biden/Harris on “being sworn in.” That’s as close as she’s come to saying Trump lost. She’s as afraid of the Trump voters as Fox is.
you can ask so-so-phia 100 more times.. it is clear she can't live up to reality
PBS = highly factual
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/pbs-news-hour/
ABC = highly factual
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/
CBS = highly factual
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cbs-news/
NBC = highly factual
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/
MSNBC mixed BUT when using NBC reporting
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
CNN = mostly factual
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left/cnn-bias/
She doesn't post a rebuttal because it seems she has none
And something I can't prove -- she says she isn't a fox listener. I don't want to be politically incorrect if she is blind, but one watches fox news.
that said, it is clear her talking points are all fox news
talking points rooted in dishonestly. There is nothing more to say about so-so-phia but to understand she has no facts... and perhaps is facts-intolerant
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/