this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2024
186 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5388 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sanewashing.

It’s pretty rare for the Columbia Journalism Review and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban to be dishing on the same topic. But media critics touched a nerve this week with accusations that the political press suffers from a “coherence bias,” particularly as it relates to Donald Trump: the tendency of reporters and editors to take his verbal diarrhea and transform it, through the magic of elision and omission, into statesmanship. TNR contributor Parker Molloy has an even better word for this practice: “sanewashing.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The useful way to report on Donald Trump is to identify him as a fascist and his mass deportation plan as ethnic cleansing.

Reporters think it violates journalist integrity if they correctly identify the MAGA movement as a fascist movement. As if a view point from no where would be biased by the act of calling a fascist a fascist. We should not want the news to have a neutral view point on fascists. There is nothing neutral about an ideology that will kill us all. A viewpoint from no where isn't something we should even want. Rather than being unbiased the news should be biased in favor of the people's common interests.

Trump's tariffs will hurt the economy. We know this because when faced with new tariffs countries raise tariffs in response. There is historic evidence for this, the most recent is Trump's first term. When Trump raised tariffs on China, China responded with their own tariffs and American farmers paid the price.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/12/27/trump-china-tariffs-farmers-subsidies/

News that attempts to make equivalency between Kamala Harris' and Donald Trump's policies in the pursuit of an unbiased viewpoint is not useful to the American people because it's not accurate. Donald Trump's policies are bad for the economy and news reporting that explains that to the American people would be useful because it's provably true information.

The news media should be a mechanism on delivering measurable, falsifiable, verifiable reality to the American public. Not a balancing act of attempting to appear unbiased from a political perspective. There is no utility in a institution that can't call out a death cult like MAGA for what it is. We are on the tipping point between incrementally improving society and death camps. Meanwhile the news media is worried they might be accused of media bias if they point that out to the public. edit: typo

[–] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reporters think it violates journalist integrity if they correctly identify the MAGA movement as a fascist movement.

Even your comment is still beating around the bush a little bit. Let's state it plainly: it violates journalistic integrity that they don't!

The media is not misguidedly trying to be "neutral" here; it's worse than that. They are actively carrying water for the fascists.

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah, giving some random equal time to spout nonsense as an actual subject matter expert is malpractice.