World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
What do you think about news reporting in the US or wherever you are?
That is terrifying Philip. That sounds like 'join our fight, or we'll make you join our fight.'
Yes, and the Press Gangs were frightening. Conscription without any nicetieshttps://welcometoportsmouth.co.uk/pre...
My guess is that if you wanted to go to a bar in England at the time, avoiding bars in port cities or suburbs would be a good idea.On a more general note, the position of the US in favour of the French made a lot of sense because the Napoleonic wars were really about the right of kings to rule as they wanted, and the interesting thing was, although the French lost, so, in England, did kings. It was not very long after the wars that parliament really reigned supreme, and when you look more closely at England, parliament was the important part even before these wars. England probably joined the war simply because that was a thing to do with respect to France, and of course, for the desire to have French colonies.
Ian wrote: "My guess is that if you wanted to go to a bar in England at the time, avoiding bars in port cities or suburbs would be a good idea.On a more general note, the position of the US in favour of the ..."
It was bars and flop houses anywhere that the Royal Navy made port, hence the term, "shanghaied".
The US relationship with France in the early Federal period was much fonder than our current relationship. You have to remember that the major power which sold arms and provided aid during the Revolutionary War was France.
Ian wrote: "Scout wrote: "Thinking about what you said, J., it brought to mind what Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ..."Happiness in the Declaration of Independence was more of the right to secure and use property. That being said, we were losing even our lawful assemblies due to the King of England deciding that he didn't want us to have them.
As for Pres. Jefferson's slave holding, people tend to focus on the one Virginia law that said you could free your slaves, while ignoring the other -- I think it was 6-- laws that dictated how the freed slaves were to be handled by the former owner. Pres. Jefferson referred to slavery as 'holding the wolf by the ears'.
J. wrote: "Ian wrote: "My guess is that if you wanted to go to a bar in England at the time, avoiding bars in port cities or suburbs would be a good idea.On a more general note, the position of the US in fa..."
It would be natural for France to be supporting the American revolution. The Americans were fighting the British, as were the French. The British would hardly supply the Americans with arms and hardly anyone else had a good-sized merchant navy
I meant the US was fond of France. The "special relationship" between the US and the UK is a product of the 20th century. In the early Federal period we were far more likely to side with France than Britain.
People like Jefferson in particular were, but again that was because the French had got rid of kings, and "liberty, equality and fraternity" fell right in place with the founding fathers. The Brits were still trying to get out of being under a king's thumb. The Americans were more enterprising and got on with it and some looked to Paris for inspiration. Fortunately, they did not look hard at the initial stage of the French Revolution.
The way I understand the war of 1812 was really on two fronts. The gang pressing of American sailors and national honor. The British for better or worse need sailors and took up to 15,000 American sailors and cargoes for the Napoleonic wars. They also had a policy of constraining American advancement to the west. At this point it was only about 20 years since independence and the memories are still fresh. America is finding it ways on the international stage and looking for its place. The British also had grievances against the Americans over a few incidences.The Americans declared war. Much of the war changed nothing. It was one stalemate after another on both sides. Yet, the Americans gained renewed identity as an independent nation.
The big losers were the American Indians. They lost pretty much everything for both losing the war, but also the British no longer backing them and leaving them to their fate by deciding to deal with the Americans and accommodate them instead.
The one big lesson to America was it needed a very big navy and it started to build it then.
Papaphilly wrote: "The way I understand the war of 1812 was really on two fronts. The gang pressing of American sailors and national honor. The British for better or worse need sailors and took up to 15,000 American ..."The research I did and the history I was taught, it was 10,000 impressed, but regardless of which number is correct, the British agreed to stop 2 days before America declared war. So that issue was moot. However, the trade embargos put into place by the British did upset the American shippers and that was a big issue.
We agree on the western frontier expanding with Americans pushing out the natives and the British joining with the American Indians with both hoping to keep the northwest territory open to the British.
It is said that neither side won this war but after the Treaty of Ghent was the Battle of New Orleans. Winning that battle made us feel we had won. The British did burn down the White House and captured D.C. But, what really changed was the tribes joined forces but were left more scattered with less lands and Canada became one country with US/Canadian border unchanged. Without the War of 1812, I wonder if Canda would exist.
(If anyone has an alternate reality book in which Canada did not become a single country, I don't want to know.)
They might have agreed to stop, but missives took more than two days to get across the Atlantic at the time. So, England should have stopped sooner. Did you know that a tornado hit Washington D.C. when the Brits took her? That would have been freaky.
Jeff Bezos used his ownership of the Washington Post to make himself the hero of a story that started with him sending lewd selfies to his mistress.https://youtu.be/IuErSZ3ACJI
Yeah, the Press is trustworthy...
A case of "make me look good or you're fired"?
The Washington Post is a joke of its former self. But then, they all are a shadow of their former selves.
Graeme wrote: "To answer your question. If I relied upon the news, I would be cast adrift upon a sea of illusion."I like your posts -- all spot-on. TV news is garbage!
I prefer to analyze and evaluate a news event on my own. I am not fond of others attempting to influence my thinking.Most often, I access the Associated Press (AP) wires directly. They are succinct and brief, and not the least bit entertaining since they present only the basic facts associated with the event and do not attempt to offer any explanation or commentary or editorialize .
On those occasions I obtain news from either the television or radio, I watch a Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) or listen to a National Public Radio (NPR) station.
Just wondering if you think NPR is unbiased.
Scout wrote: "Just wondering if you think NPR is unbiased."Personally, I do not believe that anyone, regardless of profession, is capable of being completely unbiased. It is human nature to have prejudices. That said; NPR always invites guests with both pro and con opinions of the specific situation being discussed.
Listeners are encouraged to listen to both sides and determine for themselves with which they agree. The commentator remains neutral, or at least as neutral as a human being is capable of being.
Scout wrote: "Just wondering if you think NPR is unbiased."I see them as center left. They do a pretty good job, but do have left leanings. I tend to see them as the same as USA today. Not bad and not unreasonable or unfair.
Papaphilly wrote: "The Washington Post is a joke of its former self. But then, they all are a shadow of their former selves."They're letting the Biden administration approve, and even edit quotes if they want to report them with attribution.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/...
J.J. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "The Washington Post is a joke of its former self. But then, they all are a shadow of their former selves."They're letting the Biden administration approve, and even edit quotes..."
yeah i saw this. I can only hope it is not true.
Found this interesting on US Police training comparison to other countrieshttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-c...
In fairness to US police, the outcomes of police interactions also depends on what the criminals do. If the criminals resort to guns, the police shooting them is understandable. In NZ police shooting people is rare (still undesirable) but this has usually occurred when the criminal has already fired shots. If someone points a gun at your general direction you have to assume they will move it more in your direction and pull the trigger.
To give you an idea of how partisan the US MSM has become, here's an examination of yet another occurrence.https://youtu.be/RWS-sqpQ9No
Thanks for that clip, J. More proof that mainstream media is partisan and goes with stories that support their liberal position rather than researching the source who, in this case, had no power to do the things she claimed to have done.
Some concerning revelations about the behavior of Australian ABC reporters:https://youtu.be/2n_A3A_eL-Y
Any thoughts?
J. wrote: "Some concerning revelations about the behavior of Australian ABC reporters:https://youtu.be/2n_A3A_eL-Y
Any thoughts?"
It doesn't surprise me.
Too little information to know exactly what is going on, but apparently in Samoa they had an election in which the ruling party tied with the opposition, with one independent as "kingmaker". Apparently independent went with the opposition, wherein the ruler noted in the Constitution there had to be so many women MPs and they were one short, so he created a new constituency and appointed a woman that would vote for him. The Supreme Court rejected that procedure, so the next step was to say Parliament would not sit. The Supreme Court told him it would. Not sure what will happen next. However, it shows the stupidity of a constitution that prescribes for a certain outcome that the voters can avoid by voting against sockpuppet candidates.
One day later, the Samoa issue moves onwards. The Supreme Court ordered the parliament to sit so when the previous opposition but now the majority turned up they found the door locked and the previous speaker had run away with the key! No problem - they swore themselves in on the front lawn (and judging by the robes etc, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was the agent of swearing in). The outcome: the previous PM has accused the newly installed government of having run a coup and hence accused them of treason. The new PM has apparently responded by accusing the ex PM and speaker of treason for not upholding the constitution . Given the the Chief justice of the Supreme Court was involved, this makes subsequent court prodeedings interesting.
Couldn't someone slip in through a window and unlock the door from the inside? Couldn't they get a locksmith to open it...or break open the door? Was the outdoor swearing in just for show?Also, how does the old PM expect to keep power if the courts ruled against him? Are the military and police likely to back him? Sounds like at this point, I'm waiting to hear if he gets arrested.
First, sorry, a small correction. The Chief Justice did not swear them in. He turned up, found the locked door and went away. As for a locksmith, my question is, surely there are other keys. If someone locked it and accidentally forgot to hand over the key when he went on a flight somewhere, governance stops. It turns out only the Head of State can carry out the swearing in. He is some sort of "Great Chief" I think. Anyway, he was the one who took the case to the Supreme Court, asked for the parliament to sit, but then in the weekend fled Apia to some village.The Attorney general of the old parliament has claimed this is illegal procedure (maybe he is right, but so is his party's). Then old Prime Minister claims he is the caretaker government and has called for fresh election, but the Supreme Court ruled against that, saying this election gave a clear winner and it wasn't him.
Arguably, the outdoor swearing in was for more than show because the Constitution states the election winner has to be sworn in within 45 days of an election. That was the last day, and had the period expired and no attempt to form a government had occurred, there might be another legal nightmare in that the winners had not completed their obligations under the Constitution and had walked away. Hard to know how that would work out, but why risk it?
There is no military, so the Police Commissioner will have some awkward decisions to make soon. The Samoan way is probably to try and bring people to their senses, but if that does not happen the police will have to do something. I am waiting for the rather interesting charge: theft of a key!
J.J. wrote: "Couldn't someone slip in through a window and unlock the door from the inside? Couldn't they get a locksmith to open it...or break open the door? Was the outdoor swearing in just for show?Also, h..."
Now all we need is a capital riot and we have American politics....8^)
Found this source earlier today, and it indicates the police don't plan to take sides.https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/samo...
Also, it's described that the ceremony was done in a tent, but from the picture, it was an elaborate setup. It probably would have been quicker to gain access to the building through alternate means...
The handling of the origins of the COVID pandemic by the media is highly illustrative of just how the media works as a (mis)information system.QUOTE: "That the Covid pandemic could’ve leaked from a lab in Wuhan went from terrible, racist conspiracy theory to plausible overnight for the mainstream media, without a shred of accountability.
If you don’t believe me, look at these stories side-by-side, then vs. now."
The number one reason people misunderstand how the media functions is that they assume the media is there to present facts (inform you) rather than entertainment (attract and hold your attention).
REF: https://twitter.com/DrewHolden360/sta...
However, remember the media reports what someone tells them. Actually checking the facts is becoming less common, but the Wuhan story is more difficult to check since the Chinese are not welcoming fact checkers.
Facts are opinions, after all, or is that opinions are facts?? :-)
Ian wrote: "However, remember the media reports what someone tells them. Actually checking the facts is becoming less common, but the Wuhan story is more difficult to check since the Chinese are not welcoming ..."Or they choose to follow one story over another due to their inherent bias.
That too, P.There are multiple motivating factors that shape the media flow.
[1] Attract attention and get ratings $$$ - "If it bleeds it leads. Fear Sells. etc"
[2] Groupthink, bias, etc shaping acceptable stories.
[3] Editorial/Producer bias driven by the owners...
[4] Audience desire for stories of certain flavours. - I.e. Audience bias too.
Graeme wrote: "That too, P.There are multiple motivating factors that shape the media flow.
[1] Attract attention and get ratings $$$ - "If it bleeds it leads. Fear Sells. etc"
[2] Groupthink, bias, etc shapin..."
Missed the public interest compared to of interest to the public. media focuses on the latter. In a pandemic/war/crisis the former is necessary but the media is not set up to do it. This is why focus is on stories about politicians not policies and weight of opinion is given to any celebrity rather than an expert
The U.S. Constitution says that there are no restrictions on what the press can do, so they've taken full advantage of that. The founders didn't see what was coming. I'd ask if the press has become part of the political process, i.e. endorsing candidates by non-reporting or biased reporting. Maybe have become too powerful and influential? Is there any solution besides hoping that people think for themselves and not believe everything reported as truth?
I suspect that part of the problem is that newspaper readership is way down, and the readers that remain are a specific section of society, and as such the newspapers give them the sort of opinions they think the readers want. It is not so much that the media has become too powerful, but rather it is under too much pressure.Unfortunately, many sections of society do not buy papers. The newspapers are the breeding ground for journalists, and the rest of the media suffers from the same trend.
The newspapers (turning paperless) are less of a problem, in my opinion. First, if they are biased - right/left, one would already know it and relate accordingly and second - they are still liable for libel, so they do exert at least a minimal caution.Most problematic seem to be fake news or fabricated facts disseminated through social networks, which gain credibility through their sheer expansion.
Nik wrote: "The newspapers (turning paperless) are less of a problem, in my opinion. First, if they are biased - right/left, one would already know it and relate accordingly and second - they are still liable ..."Or from general gullibility and the sort of masochistic desire to believe "THEY" are out to get them and the total inability to think logically. As an example, think of those who believe these vaccinations have nanobots that allow "THEM" to track wherever they go. Same people will carry a mobile phone around with them!
veritas means truth. Truth has no agenda.
Ian wrote: "I suspect that part of the problem is that newspaper readership is way down, and the readers that remain are a specific section of society, and as such the newspapers give them the sort of opinions..."I think you are half right. The other half is that American media has had to become a revenue producer and that was not always the past. Since then, it leads directly to what you mention. I tend to think we are in a sea change on how media operates and that it will come full circle sooner than later.
Jeffrey Toobin's Return to CNNhttps://youtu.be/8noCAW7z5Bk
The first thirty seconds of this clip say everything you need to know about these people.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Beautiful Things: A Memoir (other topics)Slanted (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jeffrey Toobin (other topics)Matt Taibbi (other topics)
Tucker Carlson (other topics)
Don Lemon (other topics)
Friedrich Nietzsche (other topics)
More...
The British Empire saw Napoleon (and his expansionism in Europe) as a far bigger issue than the actions of a renegade colony. Any Navy however flagged, unless allied to the empire, was fair game and had been since the days of Walter Raleigh. Thus any alignment with the French would be seen as hostile wherever in the World that was happening. Two of the Empire's greatest commanders Wellington and Nelson fought Napoleon not the rebel colony (priorities of effort and resources)
https://www.britishbattles.com/napole...