Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2019 8:13:00 PM (view original):
If you are temporarily poor, it is misfortune and bad circumstances. If you are permanently poor, you are bad with money.

strikeout, while I agree many poor people are just bad with money, to lump all poor people like that is wrong. Some of them just don't have enough money to be bad or good with.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/19/2019 8:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2019 8:13:00 PM (view original):
If you are temporarily poor, it is misfortune and bad circumstances. If you are permanently poor, you are bad with money.

Agreed 100%.

Charge the 2%

Even if strikeout's theory on poor people is correct (I don't think it is), adding more taxes to them doesn't make sense.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

Posted by cccp1014 on 2/19/2019 7:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 2/19/2019 7:36:00 PM (view original):
I think cccp's definition of poor is - they don't exist. they are just gaming the system, or they are bad with money.

The poor pay state tax when they buy stuff. Another 2% won’t make a difference to 95% of the people.

again, you have no idea how it will affect poor people since you are not poor.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

Really, so you think most journalists report the facts exclusive from their own bias?

Posted by wylie715 on 2/20/2019 12:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/19/2019 8:13:00 PM (view original):
If you are temporarily poor, it is misfortune and bad circumstances. If you are permanently poor, you are bad with money.

strikeout, while I agree many poor people are just bad with money, to lump all poor people like that is wrong. Some of them just don't have enough money to be bad or good with.

If they go through life without enough money to be bad or good with it then they didn't make choices that put them in a situation to earn money. America has more than enough opportunity to go around. People just have to take advantage of the opportunities.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

If you are saying that Journalism never had integrity, then I agree with you. It didn't die because journalistic integrity was never born.

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 1:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

Really, so you think most journalists report the facts exclusive from their own bias?

You're moving the goalpost. There is no way and never has been a way for any person to report a story and completely remove their own point of view.

For the most part, the big bias in news orgs is towards eyeballs and money. Big stories bring readers and subscription and ad revenue. If, for example, Harris gets the nomination and in July of 2020 a story breaks involving some sort of scandal, do you think the NYT or Wapo will try to bury it? No ******* way. They will report the **** out of it, even if it could potentially cost Harris the election.

They reported on all of Clinton's scandals before 2016 to the extent that they brushed aside actual scandals in the Trump campaign.

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

If you are saying that Journalism never had integrity, then I agree with you. It didn't die because journalistic integrity was never born.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying plenty, if not most, journalists go out of their way to be ethical.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

If you are saying that Journalism never had integrity, then I agree with you. It didn't die because journalistic integrity was never born.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying plenty, if not most, journalists go out of their way to be ethical.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between the journalist and the editor/producer/grand poobah paying the bills. The journalist may have integrity when doing the legwork. The end product (what we read or see) is probably not exactly what the journalist submitted and has been modified to fit a particular agenda by the not-so-integrity-driven axe grinders.

(gomiami1972 alt ID)

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 2/20/2019 8:49:00 AM (view original):
Topic of the day: Journalistic integrity. When did it die?

In the last couple of weeks, we have had the media report two false stories. The Jussie Smollett and the Covington Catholic story. Both turned out to be false. The major media outlets refused to take blame for the major inaccuracies in both stories. How do we revitalize journalistic integrity as this is essential to our freedoms?

When did it die?

It didn't.

If you are saying that Journalism never had integrity, then I agree with you. It didn't die because journalistic integrity was never born.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying plenty, if not most, journalists go out of their way to be ethical.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between the journalist and the editor/producer/grand poobah paying the bills. The journalist may have integrity when doing the legwork. The end product (what we read or see) is probably not exactly what the journalist submitted and has been modified to fit a particular agenda by the not-so-integrity-driven axe grinders.

(gomiami1972 alt ID)

If we're limiting this discussion to reputable organizations like the NYT or Wapo, then no, I don't think that's true at all.

And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

I wasn't going to limit it to the major outlets becasue most people consume "news" from alternative sources these days. I would concede that the Gray Lady probably tries a lot harder to be accurate as compared to the Huffington Post.

Gary Hart was the start of it in contemporary times

Posted by usf_bulls on 2/20/2019 1:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 2/20/2019 1:30:00 PM (view original):
And that doesn't mean they never get stories wrong or **** things up. I just don't think they are doing it with an agenda. Getting **** wrong is bad for them.

I wasn't going to limit it to the major outlets becasue most people consume "news" from alternative sources these days. I would concede that the Gray Lady probably tries a lot harder to be accurate as compared to the Huffington Post.

I can't vouch for HuffPost and the fact that people get their news from a facebook page titled RealNoBiasNewsForRealPatriots.com is a major problem. But if we're talking about the broad topic of journalistic ethics, we should probably limit the scope of the discussion to traditional new orgs. The kinds of places where, when you see an A1 headline, you tend to believe it.

I'd list the following under that standard:

NYT
Wall St Journal
Wapo
AP
Reuters
The Guardian
NPR
LATimes
CSPAN
CBS/NBC/ABC
Maybe even Politico and The Hill


I would not include in that list:

Fox News
MSNBC
HuffPost
Washington Times
National Review
The Intercept
Mother Jones
Drudge
Weekly Standard
The Federalist
Daily Kos
Even CNN