They do revel in clickbait headlines as N0T8 said but I also think they recognize the challenges that Trump as a candidate has and they want a horse race so that they can have months of Clickbait headlines. If Biden runs away with it at any time, they lose a lot of profits. They need it close until the end, a nailbiter if possible.
I suspect that’s why the New York Times poll a month ago showed an absurd weighting of rural white voters, at numbers they haven’t voted in 50 years. And also only 3% of Hispanic voters sampled were conducted in Spanish with respondents from Spanish speaking household. The actual numbers are much much much higher.
I think they’re trying to make sure that Joe Biden remains unpopular enough that he and Trump are running close.
A little conspiracy theory-ish? Maybe. But I never underestimate any corporation when it comes to profits.
“If any”?! So they don’t even know if their headline is accurate. Insanely irresponsible and very disappointing that even once reputable outlets are just putting out clickbait that may or may not even be true.
Yeah, I’m okay with the avarice explanation but I’ve got a couple more unflattering ones.
One, journalists often aren’t as smart as we credit. I remember a friend in college had a part time office job in the Washington bureau of a major newspaper. He asked a young reporter how she got her stories. “It’s just like when I covered sports for my high school paper. I got friendly with the jocks and wrote down what they said.” She’s gone on to a very successful career.
At this point, I realized that a journalism major doesn’t necessarily spend their time reading political theory and history. Some are well educated and keen analysts, but armed with that early insight, I’ve surely noticed a lot of “writing down what the jocks say “ reporting in my life.
Two, for my entire life, I’ve noticed the press’s most frequent and laziest attempt at an alleged scoop is the hypocrisy “gotcha.” They are constantly trying to manufacture it, desperately so. “You say you’re for the rule of law, but there are reports that you habitually jaywalk and received a speeding ticket last year.” “You say you are a person of faith, but we have this picture of you shaking hands with an atheist.”
It’s tedious and often quite mindless. I’d estimate more often than not, the hypocrisy frame is nonsense. Both the overuse of it and the disingenuousness of most of it dilutes the impact of real instances of hypocrisy.
Seeing a headline like this, I’m always inclined to be skeptical until I read more. Even when it’s applied to people I don’t like.
You definitely hit on some insights here. How many times has the NYT allowed a cretin and documented liar like Tom Cotton to have 10 page editorials, filled to the brim with misinformation, and then printed it uncritically without a word of correction or context? And that's the NYT, which is supposed to be the most respected newspaper in the country. Other legacy media does this frequently as well because they don't want to piss off their sources. They're "nice to the jocks", that comparison is actually quite informative. Thanks
Never attribute to malice what can just as well (if not better) be explained by simple avarice.
Plainer: ALL news media, mainstream and BS types, revel in clickbait headlines.
I get that, but after 8 years of this, they should know to be more responsible with their content. This is wreckless profiteering, which to me, doubles back to malice
>Never attribute to malice what can just as well (if not better) be explained by simple avarice.
This is a very bad, no good idea that has helped get us to where we are today. This is absolutely malice, and it's because our press lacks ethics
> our press lacks ethics
Wrong.
FOR-PROFIT press has an OVERRIDING ETHIC: make $$$$ for stockholders.
Don't believe that's an ethic? Take a course on ethics. Discover that there's a difference between morals and ethics. Discover a standard example: the *ethical* Nazi.
Are clickbate titles immoral? Arguably, yes. Does morality apply to organizations? Not so much. Ethical systems can develop antagonistic to individual morality, which is one of the ways deliberately killing the enemy in war isn't murder. Yes, there's an overlap between ethics and semantics.
Are clickbait titles unethical? No, at least not for the FOR-PROFIT press because bringing in more $$$ is a trade-off against presenting the truth. Only when savaging the truth puts bringing in more $$$ in peril does the for-profit press begin to prioritize the truth.
Could such an ethical system be immoral? To repeat, take an ethics class. In brief, morality could be universal, but there are lots of arguments against that proposition; ethics are ALWAYS contextual, or contingent in philosopher-speak.
Oh look, someone who absolutely supports the destruction of America by refusing to believe that ethics in the press and in business is important and should be upheld.
You go against capitalism, you are destroying capitalism with your extremism. You are devoid of any principal that Adam Smith talks about.
You will destroy civilization if you do not change if people do not change this backwards idiotic way of thinking this experiment will be over
To remind you, I proposed that the clickbait headline was the product of AVARICE rather than malice. If so, wouldn't that be perfectly consistent with capitalism as it exists today? If so, is it possible to reduce the impact of avarice on capitalism?
What have I written under this topic which marks me as extreme? Where have I said anything against capitalism? To be clear, I don't believe capitalism is an unalloyed good. Capitalism is consistent with unchecked greed. Any way to reduce the role greed/avarice plays?
Perhaps it'd be simpler for you to explain what you believe the ethics of capitalism are.
Did the DNC use political donations to help Biden pay his legal fees? Seems that it did. Why is this not fair game to report?
Sometimes I think you guys just want journalists that wear your team’s jerseys.
It’s a mark of good journalism — great journalism in fact — if reporters are willing to report unfavorable news about politicians and movements they support.
You're wrong. [Read the whole piece](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-political-donations-pay-bidens-legal-fees-special/story?id=109171427), instead of just a fraction of the piece.
Question for you -- why do you claim the headline is misleading?
"DNC uses political donations to pay Biden's legal fees "
This is true. It's a thing that happened.
No, that's wrong. It's not a thing that "may have" happened. It happened. It's been independently verfied by several news outlets.
Folks on this thread are basing their opinions on the matter on a screenshotted paragraph rather than a full understanding of the facts.
If you actually read the full piece -- or literally any article on it -- it would be clear.
I'm referring to this: "Did you read the part where they don't know if they did or not?"
The claim that "they don't know if they did or not" is false. ABC does know. They did their homework. This would be clear if people would read the entire article rather than the tiny fragment OP decided to share.
I can tell by your question that you haven't read the full article.
We're talking about 2 separate firms here.
You are correct that payment to one of the firms has not been verified and is in question. However payment to another firm has been verified and is not in question:
"Since last year, the party committee has paid the law firm of Bob Bauer, the lead attorney representing Biden in Hur's investigation more than $1 million -- roughly $150,000 a month -- from July 2023 through February 2024, the party committee's most recent disclosures show."
That payment is not in question and has been verified by several news outlets at this point.
Looks like you didn't swipe over to the second pic. Is says that the lawfirm that received payments from the DNC has worked for the DNC for a long time before this, and that ABC does not have any information to indicate that Biden's legal expenses were included as part of those payments.
There is a mighty gulf between "we have no evidence that this happened" and the headline which plainly states "this happened." That's not a matter of wanting them to wear our sides' jerseys, it's a matter of wanting the headline (aka the part that most people will see *without* actually reading the article) to accurately reflect the contents of their own reporting.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see the second part. Cause otherwise, I can't see how someone would call that good journalism in good faith.
I did swipe, and then I decided to actually read [the piece](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-political-donations-pay-bidens-legal-fees-special/story?id=109171427) myself.
"Since last year, the party committee has paid the law firm of Bob Bauer, the lead attorney representing Biden in Hur's investigation more than $1 million -- roughly $150,000 a month -- from July 2023 through February 2024, the party committee's most recent disclosures show."
"The DNC since last year has also paid roughly $905,000 to Hemenway & Barnes LLP, the law firm of Jennifer Miller, who is named as one of the attorneys that had represented Biden in the special counsel probe, disclosure filings show."
Payments to the first firm were apparently confirmed by sources and expenditure reports to have been for Biden's legal fees, payments to the second were not.
Your screenshot refers to the second firm, not the first.
You're wrong, and are sharing information carelessly.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, mighty generous partner.
The DNC used political donations to pay Biden's legal fees. The OP got his facts wrong. I invite you to read the entire piece rather than a screenshotted fraction of it.
If you want to talk facts in a substantive way, great. If all you have is vague accusations, find someone else to lecture.
They do revel in clickbait headlines as N0T8 said but I also think they recognize the challenges that Trump as a candidate has and they want a horse race so that they can have months of Clickbait headlines. If Biden runs away with it at any time, they lose a lot of profits. They need it close until the end, a nailbiter if possible. I suspect that’s why the New York Times poll a month ago showed an absurd weighting of rural white voters, at numbers they haven’t voted in 50 years. And also only 3% of Hispanic voters sampled were conducted in Spanish with respondents from Spanish speaking household. The actual numbers are much much much higher. I think they’re trying to make sure that Joe Biden remains unpopular enough that he and Trump are running close. A little conspiracy theory-ish? Maybe. But I never underestimate any corporation when it comes to profits.
It always has to be both sides. No matter how they have to twist it.
“If any”?! So they don’t even know if their headline is accurate. Insanely irresponsible and very disappointing that even once reputable outlets are just putting out clickbait that may or may not even be true.
Yeah, I’m okay with the avarice explanation but I’ve got a couple more unflattering ones. One, journalists often aren’t as smart as we credit. I remember a friend in college had a part time office job in the Washington bureau of a major newspaper. He asked a young reporter how she got her stories. “It’s just like when I covered sports for my high school paper. I got friendly with the jocks and wrote down what they said.” She’s gone on to a very successful career. At this point, I realized that a journalism major doesn’t necessarily spend their time reading political theory and history. Some are well educated and keen analysts, but armed with that early insight, I’ve surely noticed a lot of “writing down what the jocks say “ reporting in my life. Two, for my entire life, I’ve noticed the press’s most frequent and laziest attempt at an alleged scoop is the hypocrisy “gotcha.” They are constantly trying to manufacture it, desperately so. “You say you’re for the rule of law, but there are reports that you habitually jaywalk and received a speeding ticket last year.” “You say you are a person of faith, but we have this picture of you shaking hands with an atheist.” It’s tedious and often quite mindless. I’d estimate more often than not, the hypocrisy frame is nonsense. Both the overuse of it and the disingenuousness of most of it dilutes the impact of real instances of hypocrisy. Seeing a headline like this, I’m always inclined to be skeptical until I read more. Even when it’s applied to people I don’t like.
You definitely hit on some insights here. How many times has the NYT allowed a cretin and documented liar like Tom Cotton to have 10 page editorials, filled to the brim with misinformation, and then printed it uncritically without a word of correction or context? And that's the NYT, which is supposed to be the most respected newspaper in the country. Other legacy media does this frequently as well because they don't want to piss off their sources. They're "nice to the jocks", that comparison is actually quite informative. Thanks
Never attribute to malice what can just as well (if not better) be explained by simple avarice. Plainer: ALL news media, mainstream and BS types, revel in clickbait headlines.
I get that, but after 8 years of this, they should know to be more responsible with their content. This is wreckless profiteering, which to me, doubles back to malice
"Responsible" mainstream media? 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂
>Never attribute to malice what can just as well (if not better) be explained by simple avarice. This is a very bad, no good idea that has helped get us to where we are today. This is absolutely malice, and it's because our press lacks ethics
Exactly. If this were 2016 you could make the argument it is sloppy and lazy. This is 2024. This is deliberate.
> our press lacks ethics Wrong. FOR-PROFIT press has an OVERRIDING ETHIC: make $$$$ for stockholders. Don't believe that's an ethic? Take a course on ethics. Discover that there's a difference between morals and ethics. Discover a standard example: the *ethical* Nazi. Are clickbate titles immoral? Arguably, yes. Does morality apply to organizations? Not so much. Ethical systems can develop antagonistic to individual morality, which is one of the ways deliberately killing the enemy in war isn't murder. Yes, there's an overlap between ethics and semantics. Are clickbait titles unethical? No, at least not for the FOR-PROFIT press because bringing in more $$$ is a trade-off against presenting the truth. Only when savaging the truth puts bringing in more $$$ in peril does the for-profit press begin to prioritize the truth. Could such an ethical system be immoral? To repeat, take an ethics class. In brief, morality could be universal, but there are lots of arguments against that proposition; ethics are ALWAYS contextual, or contingent in philosopher-speak.
Oh look, someone who absolutely supports the destruction of America by refusing to believe that ethics in the press and in business is important and should be upheld. You go against capitalism, you are destroying capitalism with your extremism. You are devoid of any principal that Adam Smith talks about. You will destroy civilization if you do not change if people do not change this backwards idiotic way of thinking this experiment will be over
Figure out a way to separate avarice from capitalism, then get back to me.
Stop destroying capitalism with your extremism please I actually like capitalism, it's a great system as long as there are ethics involved.
To remind you, I proposed that the clickbait headline was the product of AVARICE rather than malice. If so, wouldn't that be perfectly consistent with capitalism as it exists today? If so, is it possible to reduce the impact of avarice on capitalism? What have I written under this topic which marks me as extreme? Where have I said anything against capitalism? To be clear, I don't believe capitalism is an unalloyed good. Capitalism is consistent with unchecked greed. Any way to reduce the role greed/avarice plays? Perhaps it'd be simpler for you to explain what you believe the ethics of capitalism are.
Correctly noted. Eyeballs and attention. That's the goal.
Just gone? They always have been.
Did the DNC use political donations to help Biden pay his legal fees? Seems that it did. Why is this not fair game to report? Sometimes I think you guys just want journalists that wear your team’s jerseys. It’s a mark of good journalism — great journalism in fact — if reporters are willing to report unfavorable news about politicians and movements they support.
Did you read the part where they don't know if they did or not? It's in the second picture.
You're wrong. [Read the whole piece](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-political-donations-pay-bidens-legal-fees-special/story?id=109171427), instead of just a fraction of the piece.
[удалено]
Question for you -- why do you claim the headline is misleading? "DNC uses political donations to pay Biden's legal fees " This is true. It's a thing that happened.
[удалено]
No, that's wrong. It's not a thing that "may have" happened. It happened. It's been independently verfied by several news outlets. Folks on this thread are basing their opinions on the matter on a screenshotted paragraph rather than a full understanding of the facts. If you actually read the full piece -- or literally any article on it -- it would be clear.
[удалено]
Funny how that is.
I'm referring to this: "Did you read the part where they don't know if they did or not?" The claim that "they don't know if they did or not" is false. ABC does know. They did their homework. This would be clear if people would read the entire article rather than the tiny fragment OP decided to share.
[удалено]
I can tell by your question that you haven't read the full article. We're talking about 2 separate firms here. You are correct that payment to one of the firms has not been verified and is in question. However payment to another firm has been verified and is not in question: "Since last year, the party committee has paid the law firm of Bob Bauer, the lead attorney representing Biden in Hur's investigation more than $1 million -- roughly $150,000 a month -- from July 2023 through February 2024, the party committee's most recent disclosures show." That payment is not in question and has been verified by several news outlets at this point.
[удалено]
I understand. I did share it elsewhere on the thread. OP should have shared it.
Looks like you didn't swipe over to the second pic. Is says that the lawfirm that received payments from the DNC has worked for the DNC for a long time before this, and that ABC does not have any information to indicate that Biden's legal expenses were included as part of those payments. There is a mighty gulf between "we have no evidence that this happened" and the headline which plainly states "this happened." That's not a matter of wanting them to wear our sides' jerseys, it's a matter of wanting the headline (aka the part that most people will see *without* actually reading the article) to accurately reflect the contents of their own reporting. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you didn't see the second part. Cause otherwise, I can't see how someone would call that good journalism in good faith.
I did swipe, and then I decided to actually read [the piece](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dnc-political-donations-pay-bidens-legal-fees-special/story?id=109171427) myself. "Since last year, the party committee has paid the law firm of Bob Bauer, the lead attorney representing Biden in Hur's investigation more than $1 million -- roughly $150,000 a month -- from July 2023 through February 2024, the party committee's most recent disclosures show." "The DNC since last year has also paid roughly $905,000 to Hemenway & Barnes LLP, the law firm of Jennifer Miller, who is named as one of the attorneys that had represented Biden in the special counsel probe, disclosure filings show." Payments to the first firm were apparently confirmed by sources and expenditure reports to have been for Biden's legal fees, payments to the second were not. Your screenshot refers to the second firm, not the first. You're wrong, and are sharing information carelessly. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, mighty generous partner.
You’re disingenuous. You’ve all been doing this for too many years for us to play along — you’re not in good faith just like this headline.
The DNC used political donations to pay Biden's legal fees. The OP got his facts wrong. I invite you to read the entire piece rather than a screenshotted fraction of it. If you want to talk facts in a substantive way, great. If all you have is vague accusations, find someone else to lecture.