What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

5 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Let's not.  I'm not interested in spending my time here debating and trying to narrow down a definition that we all agree on.

I believe you know what I meant.  But, I'll restate my thought, anyway. 

Yes, I'll agree that in general a certain amount of regulation is necessary.

However, the govt shouldn't be going out of it's way to overregulate one industry while doing the same to prop up another.  

 

OK. I will just continue to post as if we are using the same definition. 

I wonder if you think that the fossil fuel industry was over regulated by the federal government and was not propped up by government investment and that's why you are uncomfortable with investing in renewable energy development now. Currently the federal government spends somewhere around $15 billion/year subsidizing oil alone.  That adds up to trillions of dollars per year that the federal government gives to petroleum-based business.  That hefty sum doesn't include the monetary and economic ways that states like mine provide incentives for fossil fuel business. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

6 hours ago, Tweety said:

I can't disagree.  

Biden is not advancing the Republican conservative agenda and it's their media informing their side on how he is not doing that.  And yes, they especially along with Fox News and their huge audience is quite effective.  

But sometimes saying "pfft look at the source" and totally dismissing it doesn't sit well with me.  

 

Yeah...it's an uncomfortable point in any online discussion when the quality of the information that influences people is examined.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to discuss the value in choosing media sources which are known for accuracy rather than titillating rhetoric.  I'm betting that we were all raised with the old adage of "garbage in = garbage out".  Some Americans don't seem to be applying any critical thought or discernment to the quality or accuracy of the media that they utilize to inform their opinions.  They latch onto things that are published which support their current beliefs and offer them up as evidence that their beliefs are true (ie: "Fauci was wrong and Trump was right" following the meta-analysis reveal in conservative circles).

As long as we have millions of people who are utilizing propaganda and political rhetoric to inform themselves it remains important to discuss the media outlets that are frequented.  There's a reason that millions of Americans are so poorly informed and reactionary about current events, politics and science in this country. 

[Beerman, BSN]

40 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

OK. I will just continue to post as if we are using the same definition. 

I wonder if you think that the fossil fuel industry was over regulated by the federal government and was not propped up by government investment and that's why you are uncomfortable with investing in renewable energy development now. Currently the federal government spends somewhere around $15 billion/year subsidizing oil alone.  That adds up to trillions of dollars per year that the federal government gives to petroleum-based business.  That hefty sum doesn't include the monetary and economic ways that states like mine provide incentives for fossil fuel business. 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

If you think we need reform that does away with subsidies for fossil fuel industry, I won't argue against it.

[Beerman, BSN]

32 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yeah...it's an uncomfortable point in any online discussion when the quality of the information that influences people is examined.  That doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to discuss the value in choosing media sources which are known for accuracy rather than titillating rhetoric.  I'm betting that we were all raised with the old adage of "garbage in = garbage out".  Some Americans don't seem to be applying any critical thought or discernment to the quality or accuracy of the media that they utilize to inform their opinions.  They latch onto things that are published which support their current beliefs and offer them up as evidence that their beliefs are true (ie: "Fauci was wrong and Trump was right" following the meta-analysis reveal in conservative circles).

As long as we have millions of people who are utilizing propaganda and political rhetoric to inform themselves it remains important to discuss the media outlets that are frequented.  There's a reason that millions of Americans are so poorly informed and reactionary about current events, politics and science in this country. 

Interesting post from someone who just linked to a Vox article as a source. 

25 minutes ago, Beerman said:

If you think we need reform that does away with subsidies for fossil fuel industry, I won't argue against it.

Really? I wonder if you are saying that so that you can somehow justify not investing in the renewable energy sources of the future, today, like we invested in the energy sources of the past.  Would your approved reduction or removal of fossil fuel subsidies be accompanied by your approval to subsidize renewable energy sources going forward?

20 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Interesting post from someone who just linked to a Vox article as a source. 

Yeah...do you want to compare Vox to the Daily Wire or the NYPost in terms of accuracy or bias? 

National Archives had to retrieve Trump White House records from Mar-a-Lago

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/07/trump-records-mar-a-lago/

Quote

President Donald Trump improperly removed multiple boxes from the White House that were retrieved by the National Archives and Records Administration last month from his Mar-a-Lago residence because they contained documents and other items that should have been turned over to the agency, according to three people familiar with the visit.
The recovery of the boxes from Trump’s Florida resort raises new concerns about his adherence to the Presidential Records Act, which requires the preservation of memos, letters, notes, emails, faxes and other written communications related to a president’s official duties.

Quote

The Archives has struggled to cope with a president who flouted document retention requirements and frequently ripped up official documents, leaving hundreds of pages taped back together — or some that arrived at the Archives still in pieces. Some damaged documents were among those turned over to the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.
“The only way that a president can really be held accountable long term is to preserve a record about who said what, who did what, what policies were encouraged or adopted, and that is such an important part of the long-term scope of accountability — beyond just elections and campaigns,” presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky said.

Trump advisors and spokespeople insist that this was simple error...including official documents with personal mementos.  Sure. Maybe it was a mistake given that Trump's team repeatedly proved themselves to be sloppy, inattentive to detail, and intellectually lazy. But we know that Trump himself thumbed his nose at the requirement and expectations for preserving all documents related to the activities of the president...so that makes it much more likely that it wasn't so innocent. 

[Beerman, BSN]

43 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Really? I wonder if you are saying that so that you can somehow justify not investing in the renewable energy sources of the future, today, like we invested in the energy sources of the past.  Would your approved reduction or removal of fossil fuel subsidies be accompanied by your approval to subsidize renewable energy sources going forward?

Yeah...do you want to compare Vox to the Daily Wire or the NYPost in terms of accuracy or bias? 

You're funny.  Contonue to think I'm saying whatever for whatever reasons you want.  Nothing new, is it?

I think I've made it clear I'm not for subsidies for either.  Let the market decide.  That would be pretty consistent to comments I've made over the years in these forums.

There is a media chart that's been posted here before.  Perhaps, by you.  I believe NY Post, Washington Examiner, and a few others are less to the right than Vox is to the left, according to that chart. 

Perhaps as one who comments on a daily basis about their perception of how conservatives are influenced by biased media choices, maybe you should be more careful in the sources you cite.

Don't do it for me, though.  I'm already well aware of the animal that is liberal hypocrisy. 

Heritage Foundation, former powerhouse of GOP policy, adjusts in face of new competition from Trump allies

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/02/07/heritage-foundation-trump-republicans/

Yikes.

Abandoning their historical conservative principles in order to find favor with a Trump loving audience...this is unsettling.  

Quote

The Heritage Foundation has long shaped mainstream Republican policy in Washington. It drafted much of Ronald Reagan’s agenda to slash federal spending and launched a ferocious campaign to repeal Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
But in recent months, the venerable think tank in the shadow of the U.S. Capitol has revamped its leadership after its former president, Kay Coles James, was subject to a torrent of criticism from a prominent conservative cable host. Heritage replaced James with a Texas firebrand more determined to fight pandemic restrictions, “critical race theory” in schools, and “teaching transgenderism to kindergartners,” bending the institution toward issues that have resonated with former president Donald Trump and his allies.
The leadership changes mark a retreat from traditional but stodgy fiscal and foreign policy issues in favor of the hot-button education and vaccine debates that increasingly defined the Republican Party in the era of Trump. The change also comes as Heritage is struggling to compete for right-wing dollars while new think tanks are cropping up around town, including several launched by such Trump acolytes as former White House budget chief Russ Vought and top domestic policy aide Brooke Rollins.

 

10 minutes ago, Beerman said:

You're funny.  Contonue to think I'm saying whatever for whatever reasons you want.  Nothing new, is it?

I think I've made it clear I'm not for subsidies for either.  Let the market decide.  That would be pretty consistent to comments I've made over the years in these forums.

There is a media chart that's been posted here before.  Perhaps, by you.  I believe NY Post, Washington Examiner, and a few others are less to the right than Vox is to the left, according to that chart. 

Perhaps as one who comments on a daily basis about their perception of how conservatives are influenced by biased media choices, maybe you should be more careful in the sources you cite.

Don't do it for me, though.  I'm already well aware of the animal that is liberal hypocrisy. 

I wonder why you didn't talk about accuracy or reliability of the content of those compared media outlets.  It must be that bias is the most important element in your critique of media, eh? That would explain why you are fond of outlets like the Daily Wire and NYPost, right? The fact that they are unreliable and inaccurate in their reporting isn't as important to you as is the right leaning bias? I  wonder if you've ever noticed that I occasionally link to right leaning articles or analysis. The bias isn't the draw for me, the accurate content is the draw. When people inform themselves from highly biased but inaccurate media their opinions tend toward biased and inaccurate positions. That's true no matter which side of the political spectrum you prefer.  Would you agree? 

Yeah...you keep whining about hypocrisy.  Wouldn't you rather have a discussion about the topics introduced here?

It's nice of you to clarify your opinions occasionally rather than just engaging in snarky replies. But snarky seems to be the way you'd rather interact here so I'm happy to oblige while still attempting to have some sort of a dialog with you.  

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

I like Vox as a news source.  It's founder Ezra Klein is a known liberal that I used to watch on Morning Joe.  So yes, it's definitely slanted left.

A quick look though at articles about the Biden administration on Vox show not necessarily love and tolerance for him.  There's an article criticizing Biden on his Saudi Arabia policy, criticizing Biden on how immigrants are treated during Omicron and critical of how he stranded Haitians.

 It certainly doesn't engage in rhetoric type reporting like the Daily Wire that seems to think someone campaigning in Michigan that took a selfie without a mask is big news enough to be on their homepage.  Fox News has a similar story on their home page, not one but two "Dems End School Mask Mandates as Libs Caught Breaking Their Own Rules", "Dems Keep Getting Caught Maskless While Americans Are Forced to Mask Up".  But I understand masks are a huge deal with conservatives and "liberal hypocrisy" is important to point out.  At least they are covering the supermarket shooting and the Russia situation.

I can read Fox News though and other conservative sites to a point.  When I can tell it's rhetoric with a slant or twist that doesn't make sense I stop reading.  Like when an article starts with "Biden's open border policy......" I stop.  Or a liberal zine that starts with similar type rhetoric.  I don't mind a slant to the left or right as long as it's true and reported factually and maturely.

 

 

 

[Beerman, BSN]

27 minutes ago, Tweety said:

I like Vox as a news source.  It's founder Ezra Klein is a known liberal that I used to watch on Morning Joe.  So yes, it's definitely slanted left.

A quick look though at articles about the Biden administration on Vox show not necessarily love and tolerance for him.  There's an article criticizing Biden on his Saudi Arabia policy, criticizing Biden on how immigrants are treated during Omicron and critical of how he stranded Haitians.

 It certainly doesn't engage in rhetoric type reporting like the Daily Wire that seems to think someone campaigning in Michigan that took a selfie without a mask is big news enough to be on their homepage.  Fox News has a similar story on their home page, not one but two "Dems End School Mask Mandates as Libs Caught Breaking Their Own Rules", "Dems Keep Getting Caught Maskless While Americans Are Forced to Mask Up".  But I understand masks are a huge deal with conservatives and "liberal hypocrisy" is important to point out.  At least they are covering the supermarket shooting and the Russia situation.

I can read Fox News though and other conservative sites to a point.  When I can tell it's rhetoric with a slant or twist that doesn't make sense I stop reading.  Like when an article starts with "Biden's open border policy......" I stop.  Or a liberal zine that starts with similar type rhetoric.  I don't mind a slant to the left or right as long as it's true and reported factually and maturely.

 

 

 

I wasn't judging the source.  A biased source doesn't neccessarily mean that it's wrong.

I was simply pointing out the irony of someone who spends a remarkable amount of time pontificating about others' choices of media sources decides to use a far-left one to make his point.

3 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I wasn't judging the source.  A biased source doesn't neccessarily mean that it's wrong.

I was simply pointing out the irony of someone who spends a remarkable amount of time pontificating about others' choices of media sources decides to use a far-left one to make his point.

Why is it ironic for me to speak out against inaccurate and inflammatory media outlets and then cite a reliable and accurate media outlet?