So, for those of you into coal, why?
I don't think they're into coal so much as they're against market manipulation. Well, with the exception of West Virginia, where their entire economy is kind of built on coal.
Also, the push against coal pairs with the push against natural gas, and there's way more reasons to be against that push.
Maybe look under the large heading "Unsubstantiated claims" which lays out several examples known at the time the article was published
Please. Buried at the bottom of an article with a sensationalist headline and an assumption of truth in tone? I'm not going to hunt down dozens of more examples. I lived it. It was everywhere in the news, on every news site: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com...
"Key claims in the indictment, furthermore, snowballed into a big media story, raising specific concerns about reports in the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and ABC News â" as well as more general concerns about how outlets such as MSNBC, CNN, McClatchy and Mother Jones handled the story."
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Farchive.is%2FMqz1m
Any fact checking or doubting was always a footnote or an afterthought. Often, claims of "verification" and "corroboration" of the dossier were made (such as with CNN), when they were wholly untrue. You're either super young (and hence weren't there), or being deliberately obtuse.
Now shall we contrast that with a certain mainstream American press outlet's coverage of the Biden laptop?
Please do. Find me literally any outlet other than Fox News that was reporting on the laptop with any degree of seriousness in 2020 or early 2021. You won't find many, if at all. Moreover, whatever coverage you find will be written in a way that makes the claims seem ludicrous or "russian disinformation". It wasn't until late 2021 that any news site even started taking it seriously: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com%2Fnews%2F...
That same article calls out the way it was treated when it broke: "it was unclear what to make of the alleged leak of material from Hunter Bidenâ(TM)s laptop, especially after social media companies moved to restrict access to the story and a bevy of former U.S. intelligence officials dismissed it as likely âoeRussian disinformation.â
Look, I feel like I'm just repeating myself over and over, so we're clearly getting nowhere. You clearly see no difference between one news article based on uncorroborated hearsay and spread across a wide variety of news sites for months during an election campaign, and another also based on uncorroborated hearsay that was intentionally buried for about 9 months during an election campaign, purely based on "feels". We're never going to find common ground. Enjoy your bubble. I concur Fox News sucks and I think Trump is a terrible president, if that gives you any solace. But stop believing news media is somehow "fair". It's not. Trump is right when he says the news hates him and will come after him with any shred of damaging material they have. Very often, that material has merit. In this case, it did not. But they didn't care, and they plastered it everywhere anyway.
I think you might have misunderstood what actually happened in the two examples you cited. In both cases they say the mainstream press took a more cautious approach when the reliability of the sources was questionable.
And I believe that statement is incorrect. The Biden laptop story was first broached in October 2020. The Steele dossier was around December 2016. Go check how many news reports were written about the laptop in 2020-2021. Then check how many news reports were written about the dossier in 2017. The two don't even remotely compare. The dossier was not taken with a cautious approach. The laptop was.
This is nine months after the release of the dossier: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus...
Where, I ask, is the "cautious approach"?
All that proves is that hindsight is 20/20. At the time the story was suspected by experts to be bogus, and in your view an impartial news media would have run with it anyway?
No, it proves that there's a difference between treating one piece of hearsay as fact and and apologizing later vs treating another piece of hearsay as fiction and correcting later, purely based on political leaning. If you don't see a difference there, I don't think anything I could say would matter here. Both of these stories occurred during an election cycle with a strong motivation by both sides to tarnish the other's reputation, so in both cases, a political motive existed. One was squashed by the media, the other was amplified. That's just fact. I don't care about "what came out of it"...I care about the initial coverage and due diligence, which is what matters here. Particularly during an election cycle. Ask yourself why the dossier wasn't "suspected by experts to be bogus"...the evidence there was just as flimsy/unproven.
To start to answer it, you first need to answer this question: "What purpose do sex-segregated sports serve? Why do sex-segregated sports exist?"
For the same reason weight classes exist in boxing. For safety (likely most important) + competitiveness. I don't even want to know how many fatalities would occur if male boxers were facing off against women boxers. Or if a male linebacker in football was bearing down on a female quarterback. People would fking die.
Sure, it's fair and accurate to characterize the response to those issues by "the left" as such, but I was talking about "the press" which did no such thing.
The press didn't amplify the Steele dossier to 11? I heard about that shit practically every week for nearly half a year. On CNN at a minimum, as that's my primary news source. And the Biden laptop story was buried everywhere, including in the press. And you also vastly underestimate the role of social media in how people receive their news these days. Social media sites effectively are pseudo-press now, since there's someone effectively filtering what gets to your eyeballs.
Just compare how the media covered those two separate issues: the Steele dossier and the Biden laptop. Because at the time of their release, they were incredibly similar: politically damaging brand new information without substantial veracity or proof. Now here's how the laptop was handled: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FHunter_Biden_laptop_controversy
Shortly after the Post story broke, social media companies blocked links to it, while other news outlets declined to publish the story due to concerns about provenance and suspicions of Russian disinformation.[8] On October 19, 2020, an open letter signed by 51 former US intelligence officials warned that the laptop "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."[9] By May 2023, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.
"The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal stated that they could not independently verify the data provided by the New York Post.
In 2020, David Folkenflik of NPR observed that the New York Post story asserted as facts things it presumed to be true. He also noted that the credited lead author of the story, deputy political editor Emma-Jo Morris, had virtually no previous bylines in reporting.
Ryan Lizza of Politico wrote: "Reporters at the WSJ, Fox News, and NYP have all come to the same conclusion about these documents but they are being drowned out by bad faith activists on the opinion side at these Murdoch companies who favor Trump's re-election.
Now look at how the Steele dossier, with just as flimsy hearsay evidence was delivered. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F...
"On January 10, 2017, CNN reported that classified documents presented to Obama and Trump the previous week included allegations that Russian operatives possess "compromising personal and financial information" about Trump. CNN said it would not publish specific details on the reports because it had not "independently corroborated the specific allegations".[126][134] Following the CNN report,[135] BuzzFeed published a 35-page draft dossier that it said was the basis for the briefing, including unverified claims that Russian operatives had collected "embarrassing material" involving Trump that could be used to blackmail him. BuzzFeed said the information included "specific, unverified, and potentially unverifiable allegations of contact between Trump aides and Russian operatives".
BuzzFeed's decision to publish the dossier was immediately criticized by many major media outlets for releasing the draft dossier without verifying its allegations.[140][134][29][30][141] Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan called it "scurrilous allegations dressed up as an intelligence report meant to damage Donald Trump",[142] while The New York Times noted that the publication sparked a debate centering on the use of unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources.[143] BuzzFeed's executive staff said the materials were newsworthy because they were "in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media" and argued that this justified public release
You'll note one was immediately discredited without merit and promptly eliminated from all reporting outlets until many years later when the truth came out. The other, with just as flimsy supporting information, was spammed everywhere and run in the news cycle nearly 24/7 until the truth came out.
See the difference?
Fox News started this idea that political reporting always needs to treat both sides of an issue as equally valid, regardless of how closely either side adheres to facts and and good-faith arguments.
That's a pretty extreme example and not at all where the bar is. You get shouted down by the left by even trying to have a reasonable debate over trans participation in women's sports. You couldn't have an opinion on the border (like what was 90's bipartisan policy) without being labeled a racist. China COVID lab leak theories could not even be entertained (again, racist). Biden's laptop story was buried, intentionally. The Steele dossier was amplified to 11, despite not having one credible fact in it. Etc, etc. You like to pretend the right are just bitching that loony Pizzagate or space-laser shit is the kind of stuff being suppressed, but the bar is far far lower. And you just trot out the easy strawmen to deflect.
How are they the same?
Depends on the issue. On this particular topic (media trust/control), they're pretty identical. Democrats have no respect or desire for fair and reasonable debate. They want to squash, redirect, or respin any news that hurts them politically (e.g. biden laptop) or disagrees with their views (pretty much anything during the COVID times, like lab leak, govt shutdown, kids in schools, etc). If you think these kind of tactics didn't contribute to a lack of faith/trust in media, you're nuts. And yes, the Republicans do that shit too. Hence, both sides.
The whole game has SHIFTED TO THE "RIGHT" since the 90s, gradually. One would think the accelerated rate a decade ago would make it more visible but this has proven not to be the case. People actually think there is a left shift proving how delusional and gullible people are
You're just proving kaboom's point. Your claim is just blatently false. Gay marriage is legal now. Border wall policy prior to this administration was far to the left of 90s policy, where a secure border was a bipartisan stance. Fiscal restraint/conservatism was far more common in the 90s. Green energy adoption is far left of where it was in the 90s (you know, when we were building coal plants, electric cars were dead, synthetic meats weren't a thing, and gas stoves were embraced?). Trans acceptance in the 90s was nonexistent. Etc, etc, etc. I could go on. The point is that the country has moved left on some issues and right on others. Your attempt to neatly tie everything into a box that fits your world view just proves the point that you're blind to your own biases.
meanwhile our conservatives have spent decades demonizing them as places where kids get brainwashed into thinking that LGBTQ people should be respected just like anyone else who's never done you wrong or that Palestinians deserve the right to self determination just like any other people and don't deserve to be starved and butchered in mass because a small group of them did something awful
I see in your little rant here that you gloss over the critical point: the "brainwashing" you refer to clearly is occurring. You just seem to agree with the direction its taking. Colleges used to be institutions of diversity of opinion, critical thinking, and healthy debate. That is no longer true, and that is a problem.
They tend to be scared to try new things, un-interested in being at work on time or even during standard hours, entitled, and have no interest in paying their dues, often expecting a salary that is more appropriate for someone with 10 years of experience.
This is so true. Just read r/antiwork/ for a bit if you wanna see the state of the Gen Z labor pool
No child Left behind was explicitly designed to sabotage schools so that the right wing could privatize them.
Sheesh, got any more tinfoil for your hat there? You do realize the bill passed both the House and Senate with effectively full support of both parties? If anything, it was disproportionate voted in favor by Democrats (there were more Repbulican Nays than Democrat in both the House and Senate vote).
When your opposition is a felon that is disliked by most people and your opposition still gets elected that should speak VOLUMES to the choice your party made for a candidate.
Does it, though? Can you actually articulate some concrete flaws about Kamala?
It has zero percent to do with the individual and everything to do with what she ran on. Harris staked her presidency as Biden 2.0, with effectively the same policies he was running the past 4 years. Biden's policies were polling at like ~70% unpopular. It also didn't help her that she came off as super disingenuous and fake when she tried to pivot to the middle late in the game. One particular instance that comes to mind was when she tried to pretend she was pro-fracking late in the election cycle in an attempt to win over Pennsylvania voters. It stood in stark contrast to everything she was previously on the record on regarding the topic in the 2020 election. Ultimately it just seemed fake/political/pandering. I don't think people bought her shift to the middle as genuine, especially when she wouldn't even admit anything she would do differently than Biden.
I simply can't understand why people would opt for Trump over *any* other candidate.
It's because of the shitty two party system. Believe it or not, many of the issues Trump focuses on are still not unpopular. Merely the way in which he's addressing them is what's unpopular. For instance, just to give one example, people wanted the border secured. People wanted a crackdown on crime. To some extent, they wanted a pullback on DEI overreach. Biden's policies were deeply unpopular, and Harris pretty much said she'd run on the same platform. So that's not exactly setting yourself up for success. So the tldr is that in a shitty two party system, voters preferred Trump's platform, despite not liking the individual personally. I believe they were also expecting a presidency closer to his first term, which was largely grounded, rather than the unhinged stuff currently going on.
(null cookie; hope that's ok)
