Knights & Knaves Alehouse

An opinion piece is not an article, and propaganda is not journalism.

(A derogatory usage of the term matches the definition by which the above statements would be false -- writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.)

T. Foster wrote:You guys are teh funney. Do we have to look forward to a couple of these "ZOMG the sky is falling!!!1!" every week for the next four/eight years?

Oh man, I hope not. I hate threads like this because I find them hard to resist, and they can suck up a lot of my time, so eventually I just say no. (I bowed out of that other one early on, but I failed my saving throw for this one.)

Normally, I'd join you in chuckling at chicken littles, but in this case I do think there are some massive changes coming, and I personally don't think they're going to be anything good (or even necessarily the kind of change that Obama and his supporters have in mind). I won't go so far as to say the government will fall, but I won't pooh-pooh the doom-saying, in this case; it strikes me kind of like the reactions to Peter Schiff's predictions of economic woe.)

For the record, when I say that I think the U. S. federal government will cease to exist by mid-century, I am not being a doom-sayer. I'm being optimistic.

Dwayanu wrote:What I disagree with is the BS of calling something what it's not and treating it as a proper replacement.

If you really don't know the difference, then maybe you won't notice that we don't have a paddle. "Isn't that what we use to play Nintendo?"

Damn, dude, I think you're going overboard on this. Like I said, I agree the Newsmax...uh...thing...was sub-par. And I assure you, I do know the difference between a factual piece and an opinion piece, whether they're called articles or not.

Dwayanu wrote:An opinion piece is not an article, and propaganda is not journalism.

(A derogatory usage of the term matches the definition by which the above statements would be false -- writing that reflects superficial thought and research, a popular slant, and hurried composition, conceived of as exemplifying newspaper or popular magazine writing as distinguished from scholarly writing: He calls himself a historian, but his books are mere journalism.)

Dude, thats the definition of journalism. Ever watch CNN? Ever read a newspaper? Its SOP for the broadcaster or writer to present his slant as fact (carefully presenting the objective facts in such a way as to inject his opinion), this can make reading supposedly nuetral sources very difficult...what are they leaving out, what are they playing down? I actually prefer it when the person writing the article admits their disposition (liberal or conservative). When you here both passionate arguements you can draw your own conclusion (and sorry that is both an article and journalism, assuming each side is familiar with the bill or what have you.

D, if in doubt, Look at the political persuasion of the staff and owners and it should give you a pretty good indication of bent.

Why not be really "optimistic," then? Why not hope for the collapse of state, county and municipal government as well? Is not medieval feudalism the ultima Thule, a world lit only by fire -- preferably from a burning village?

Sorry, Philotomy; it's one of those things that bother professionals precisely because giving enough of a damn to draw the distinction is essential to professionalism. Plus, ignoramuses are always using their mushing of everything together to condemn as "bad reporting" an "article" that's actually a column or letter in the opposite-editorial pages, or even a paid ad. Of course, they pay no mind to the actual reporting. It gets tiresome.

So does the insistence from some readers and some bean-counters alike that the line between advertising and news should be removed so that everything is self-censored to support someone's preferred view.

There is a place for pundits, hacks and just plain fruitcakes. Unfortunately, a lot of crappy "reporting" is really just the result of laziness. "He said, she said," is a whole lot less work than actual investigation.

Dwayanu wrote:Why not be really "optimistic," then? Why not hope for the collapse of state, county and municipal government as well? Is not medieval feudalism the ultima Thule, a world lit only by fire -- preferably from a burning village?

I'd settle for the restoration of Christendom circa the 1200s, but I realize I'm in a distinct minority around here.

Flambeaux wrote:

Dwayanu wrote:Why not be really "optimistic," then? Why not hope for the collapse of state, county and municipal government as well? Is not medieval feudalism the ultima Thule, a world lit only by fire -- preferably from a burning village?

I'd settle for the restoration of Christendom circa the 1200s, but I realize I'm in a distinct minority around here.

Theocracy's had their turn. Now it's someone else's turn to fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NMu1mFao3w

Interesting. Start at 2:20 for the good stuff.

Thanks for the link.

That woman made far more sense then Mr. confidence.

The most sensible recent presidential campaign ad I recall was from Paris Hilton (concerning "energy policy").

That's scary.

Dwayanu wrote:The most sensible recent presidential campaign ad I recall was from Paris Hilton (concerning "energy policy").

That's scary.

Hey! Take your medicine and switch the channel, already!

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

The $500-per-worker credit for lower- and middle-income taxpayers that Obama outlined during his presidential campaign was scaled back to $400 during bargaining by the Democratic-controlled Congress and White House. Couples would receive $800 instead of $1,000. Over two years, that move would pump about $25 billion less into the economy than had been previously planned.

Officials estimated it would mean about $13 a week more in people's paychecks this year when withholding tables are adjusted in late spring. Next year, the measure could yield workers about $8 a week. Critics say that's unlikely to do much to boost consumption.

"The most highly touted tax cut in the original proposal now translates into $7.70 a week for middle-class workers," said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Yeah, there's some change you can believe in... pocket change.

Semaj Khan wrote:Yeah, there's some change you can believe in... pocket change.

Reminds me of the first raise I ever received in corporate America. It worked out to $0.25 per week -- before taxes.

I can laugh or I can cry. I'm choosing to laugh, just so y'all know I don't think any of this "stimulus" nonsense is a good idea.