SaysWho? Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 https://apnews.com/9bf4541d89e6444783814e53302ce479 Quote At least 10 attorneys general joined conservation groups in protesting an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction. A draft version of the changes released last year included ending blanket protections for animals newly deemed threatened and allowing federal authorities for the first time to consider the economic cost of protecting a particular species. Another change could let authorities disregard impacts from climate change, one of the largest threats to habitat, conservation groups said. The final rule broadly sticks to those changes, according to a person briefed on the changes who was not authorized to publicly speak about them. Conservationists promised legal action. “This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it’s a gift to industry, and it’s illegal. We’ll see the Trump administration in court about it,” Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyPiranha Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 No fucking shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 You know what I am sick of? The media phrasing things in the most passive way possible. "Critics say Hitler may be going too far by caging the Jews, but he insists he is only fulfilling the mandate given to him by voters." "Mao has been accused by some of harassing those with opposing views." "Leader Joseph Stalin is praised by many within his own country, yet opponents now accuse him of acting in a controversial way by moving across the border into neighbouring Poland." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 11 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: You know what I am sick of? The media phrasing things in the most passive way possible. "Critics say Hitler may be going too far by caging the Jews, but he insists he is only fulfilling the mandate given to him by voters." "Mao has been accused by some of harassing those with opposing views." "Leader Joseph Stalin is praised by many within his own country, yet opponents now accuse him of acting in a controversial way by moving across the border into neighbouring Poland." They’re probably afraid their credentials will be pulled and they will no longer have White House Access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 18 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said: They’re probably afraid their credentials will be pulled and they will no longer have White House Access. Or they don’t want a headline to be an editorial in of itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 45 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: Or they don’t want a headline to be an editorial in of itself. As sensationalist as the news networks are, it is kind of funny seeing print try to be reserved. 24 hour networks: “Trump to murder all Mexicans.” NYT: “Trump has final solution for immigrants. Some disagree.” 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said: Or they don’t want a headline to be an editorial in of itself. It's no different than all those headlines about cops with hair triggers killing people that read "Office involved in a shooting that left one dead". It's technically correct, but it also leans so hard into neutral it comes up on the opposite side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 “Officer involved in shooting hopes nobody cares. News Papers happy to help.” - tag below the fold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 36 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: It's no different than all those headlines about cops with hair triggers killing people that read "Office involved in a shooting that left one dead". It's technically correct, but it also leans so hard into neutral it comes up on the opposite side. I REALLY don’t want papers / news outlets to editorialize the actual delivery of the facts anymore than they already do. I struggle to understand why anybody would, it seems so obviously problematic and prone to bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: I REALLY don’t want papers / news outlets to editorialize the actual delivery of the facts anymore than they already do. I struggle to understand why anybody would, it seems so obviously problematic and prone to bias. There's a difference between being neutral and going so "both sides" that you normalize behavior that any normal and decent human being would find objectionable. Trump and his ilk have taken advantage of this. Trump can blatantly lie to the press and nobody wants to call him out on it for fear of seeming bias. You don't have to say "Trump lied because he's a lying liar and he stupid and ugly", but there had got to be a place between there and "Some say Trump may have misrepresented some of the facts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 10 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: There's a difference between being neutral and going so "both sides" that you normalize behavior that any normal and decent human being would find objectionable. Trump and his ilk have taken advantage of this. Trump can blatantly lie to the press and nobody wants to call him out on it for fear of seeming bias. You don't have to say "Trump lied because he's a lying liar and he stupid and ugly", but there had got to be a place between there and "Some say Trump may have misrepresented some of the facts". Exactly. Something like: "all evidence points to Trump in clear disinformation campaign against the media" would be a much more honest headline. The mainstream press have a neutrality bias, rather than true objectivity . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 17 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: There's a difference between being neutral and going so "both sides" that you normalize behavior that any normal and decent human being would find objectionable. Trump and his ilk have taken advantage of this. Trump can blatantly lie to the press and nobody wants to call him out on it for fear of seeming bias. You don't have to say "Trump lied because he's a lying liar and he stupid and ugly", but there had got to be a place between there and "Some say Trump may have misrepresented some of the facts". I think a lot of the articles I’ve read in some of the places people have been dogpiling lately (NYT, WaPo) have been pretty clear that Trump regularly makes false claims, misrepresents facts, etc. Maybe I’m projecting or employing selective memory. That said I think there’s a difference between stating that Trump is wrong, as he often is, and claiming that Trump is lying, which is (often) an assumption. Or in the case of a police shooting, I really don’t think we want news reporters to make assumptions about intent when documenting what happened. When it comes to the action Trump is taking on green card holders, NYT today said: Quote Monday’s announcement is part of President Trump’s concerted assault on the nation’s system of immigration laws and regulations. For much of the past three years, the president has railed against what he calls the dangers of illegal immigration. But administration officials have also sought to impose new limits on legal immigration into the United States. I don’t think that’s neutral language. The NYTimes.com headline for this topic today is, “U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act” Maybe I’m nuts but I think editorializing the news is something we need way less of, cable news has too much stroke already, I’ve got negative interest in the cableization of written journalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted August 12, 2019 Author Share Posted August 12, 2019 Critics say headlines shouldn't have word 'critics' in it. Kal disagrees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greatoneshere Posted August 12, 2019 Share Posted August 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Kal-El814 said: I think a lot of the articles I’ve read in some of the places people have been dogpiling lately (NYT, WaPo) have been pretty clear that Trump regularly makes false claims, misrepresents facts, etc. Maybe I’m projecting or employing selective memory. That said I think there’s a difference between stating that Trump is wrong, as he often is, and claiming that Trump is lying, which is (often) an assumption. Or in the case of a police shooting, I really don’t think we want news reporters to make assumptions about intent when documenting what happened. When it comes to the action Trump is taking on green card holders, NYT today said: I don’t think that’s neutral language. The NYTimes.com headline for this topic today is, “U.S. Significantly Weakens Endangered Species Act” Maybe I’m nuts but I think editorializing the news is something we need way less of, cable news has too much stroke already, I’ve got negative interest in the cableization of written journalism. Suggesting that the mainstream media has been aggressive enough on holding Trump accountable is quite the hot take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted August 13, 2019 Share Posted August 13, 2019 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.