Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[mtutiger]

2 minutes ago, Sports_Freak said:

So the government is going to censure the media? There's no way this isn't fascism, pure and simple. Suing newspapers and magazines that criticize the absolute corruption of the Trump administration? The media is their enemy. 

Yeah, the discussion of whether Carr, obo Trump, technically has the right to do this kinda glides past the question of whether he should do it in the first place. Or what it says about this administration and how it feels about speech it doesn't like.

Either way, one thing that distinguishes this action from Colbert is that that action was more subtle... and the talking point about his shows profitability muddied the waters enough to make it seem innocuous. The smoking gun (ie. Carr's appearance on Benny Johnson) makes it is pretty clear what happened here. People shouldn't be obliged to play dumb about any of it

[oblong]

Just now, mtutiger said:

Yeah, the discussion of whether Carr, obo Trump, technically has the right to do this kinda glides past the question of whether he should do it in the first place. Or what it says about this administration and how it feels about speech it doesn't like.

Either way, one thing that distinguishes this action from Colbert is that that action was more subtle... and the talking point about his shows profitability muddied the waters enough to make it seem innocuous. The smoking gun (ie. Carr's appearance on Benny Johnson) makes it is pretty clear what happened here. People shouldn't be obliged to play dumb about any of it

Very courageous to stand behind the “well technically they probably can so I don’t see the issue here” argument isn’t it?

I still haven’t learned what he said that was so problematic.  Yes it does matter. Not some abstract bull**** that it’s just about making a boss happy. 

[mtutiger]

13 minutes ago, oblong said:

I still haven’t learned what he said that was so problematic.  Yes it does matter. Not some abstract bull**** that it’s just about making a boss happy. 

It's not even clear the bosses know what was problematic...

Edited September 18 by mtutiger

[CMRivdogs]

12 minutes ago, oblong said:

Very courageous to stand behind the “well technically they probably can so I don’t see the issue here” argument isn’t it?

I still haven’t learned what he said that was so problematic.  Yes it does matter. Not some abstract bull**** that it’s just about making a boss happy. 

This is what I got from ChatGPT

Quote

rom the Monday, September 15 episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Kimmel commented on the recent tragic killing of Charlie Kirk (a conservative activist/figure).

 

Some key excerpts:

 

“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

 

“In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”

 

He then showed a clip of Donald Trump responding to reporters about Kirk’s death. When asked how he was holding up, Trump said, “I think very good.” Shortly afterward, he mentioned, “by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.“

 

Kimmel followed with:

 

“He’s at the fourth stage of grief: construction.”

 

And:

 

“This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

 

 

 

 

Additional Comments / Followups

 

 

On Tuesday’s show, Kimmel also criticized people in “MAGA land” for trying to “capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

He also pushed back on a claim by JD Vance (a conservative politician/commentator) that many of the “lunatics” in American politics are on the far left, asking rhetorically who had supported or participated in January 6, etc.

 

 

[CMRivdogs]

More concise from ChatGPT 

Quote

 

Extended Summary & Key Quotes

 

 

• Kimmel opened by noting how over the weekend, people aligned with MAGA were trying to “characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them”, and “doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
• He added: “In between the finger-pointing, there was grieving.”
• He then described how the White House flew flags at half-staff. He said there was criticism of that, but “on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.”
• Next, he played a clip of Donald Trump being asked how he was holding up after the shooting. Trump responded: “I think very good, and by the way, right there where you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House.”
• After the clip, Kimmel returned with sarcasm:
  “Yes, he’s at the fourth stage of grief, construction.” 
  “Sconces you wouldn’t believe.” 
  “There’s something wrong with him, there really is. Who thinks like that?”
• He asked rhetorically why the White House was building a $200 million ballroom, suggesting it might be a diversion from other controversies.
• He also said: “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.”

 

 

[Tigermojo]

Must be the ballroom. Can't make America great again until you have a ballroom.

[Deleterious]

17 minutes ago, oblong said:

Very courageous to stand behind the “well technically they probably can so I don’t see the issue here” argument isn’t it?

I still haven’t learned what he said that was so problematic.  Yes it does matter. Not some abstract bull**** that it’s just about making a boss happy. 

That's what adults do.  Children sit there and complain that shouldn't happen because I don't like it.

[Deleterious]

 

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, Deleterious said:

Children sit there and complain that shouldn't happen because I don't like it.

Does that make Republicans children for every time they complained about something Obama or Biden did? 

[CMRivdogs]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Does that make Republicans children for every time they complained about something Obama or Biden did? 

Or complained incessantly about "cancel culture"

It seems like they're getting a big kick out of pretending to be offended. 

[Deleterious]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Does that make Republicans children for every time they complained about something Obama or Biden did? 

If Obama and Biden had the law behind them?  Yes.  

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, Deleterious said:

If Obama and Biden had the law behind them?  Yes.  

Does Trump have the law behind him here? It's an open question.

Either way, taken to its logical conclusion, merely disagreeing with any political action by any President makes one a child so long as it's technically legal. That's dumb and not how politics has ever worked.

[pfife]

Remember hashtag twitter files

Funny

[mtutiger]

Incredible stuff

[oblong]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

That's what adults do.  Children sit there and complain that shouldn't happen because I don't like it.

That’s not far from what they said at Nuremberg.  

Adults are the ones to distinguish between right and wrong, not just fall back on “legal and illegal”. 
 

[oblong]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

Does Trump have the law behind him here? It's an open question.

Either way, taken to its logical conclusion, merely disagreeing with any political action by any President makes one a child so long as it's technically legal. That's dumb and not how politics has ever worked.

It’s the artificial intelligence of political analysis.  “Just computing it boss”

[Deleterious]

12 minutes ago, oblong said:

That’s not far from what they said at Nuremberg.  

Adults are the ones to distinguish between right and wrong, not just fall back on “legal and illegal”. 
 

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

[VegasTiger]

3 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

Was it legal to drive the train?

[mtutiger]

6 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

The Nazi Party controlled Germany and were the ultimate arbiters of what was legal and illegal within Germany until they fell from power.

[mtutiger]

Among the de jure Nuremberg Laws was prohibiting Germans and Jews from marriage and intercourse.

That's a terrible law that infringed upon the rights of the German population. But it was legal, so...

[mtutiger]

Another blast from the past lol

[Tigeraholic1]

Jimmy Kimmel getting benched has the left more fired up than a political assassination. 

[romad1]

8 hours ago, Deleterious said:

It was never leagl to hunt and murder Jews, you dumb ****.

80 years of Holocaust scholarship have been a pitched battle over various questions.  Few Holocaust scholars except the denialists would say it wasn't "legal" in Nazi Germany given the Nuremburg Laws and subsequent directives of the Final Solution.  

Here is a helpful list of historians and celebrities who support that denialist position (see Kanye West):

Who's Who of Holocaust Denial | ADL

The other main argument was between the "Functionalists" and the "Intentionalists"

Functionalism–intentionalism debate - Wikipedia

Put into a bumper sticker: 

Functionalists: To some degree the Nazis hated Jews but the actual Final Solution was more part of various organs of power slipping into the decision to commit genocide because it seemed to fit with the overall war or just they felt they were interpreting Hitler and other leading Nazi's views. 

Intentionalists:  Hitler may have never signed any directive but everything that happened was because he wanted it to happen. 

The degree to which these battles were fought and were tinged with political hues of left/right etc.  And to which some of the best scholars (e.g., Raul Hilberg) were tainted because they were somehow less tough on the Nazis for being "Functionalists" is just weird in hindsight.   Hilberg wrote a MASSIVE accounting of the process of the Holocaust which is an amazing document.  Just a massive tesseract of historical work.  He counted each train, each arrival, each order he could find.  He knew all about the size and shape of the Holocaust.  

At the end of the day...my heart is in both academic camps and despairs of the conflict.  Clearly Hitler was sociopathic toward the Jews and none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it to happen. 

[mtutiger]

 

 

[mtutiger]

38 minutes ago, romad1 said:

80 years of Holocaust scholarship have been a pitched battle over various questions.  Few Holocaust scholars except the denialists would say it wasn't "legal" in Nazi Germany given the Nuremburg Laws and subsequent directives of the Final Solution.  

Here is a helpful list of historians and celebrities who support that denialist position (see Kanye West):

Who's Who of Holocaust Denial | ADL

The other main argument was between the "Functionalists" and the "Intentionalists"

Functionalism–intentionalism debate - Wikipedia

Put into a bumper sticker: 

Functionalists: To some degree the Nazis hated Jews but the actual Final Solution was more part of various organs of power slipping into the decision to commit genocide because it seemed to fit with the overall war or just they felt they were interpreting Hitler and other leading Nazi's views. 

Intentionalists:  Hitler may have never signed any directive but everything that happened was because he wanted it to happen. 

The degree to which these battles were fought and were tinged with political hues of left/right etc.  And to which some of the best scholars (e.g., Raul Hilberg) were tainted because they were somehow less tough on the Nazis for being "Functionalists" is just weird in hindsight.   Hilberg wrote a MASSIVE accounting of the process of the Holocaust which is an amazing document.  Just a massive tesseract of historical work.  He counted each train, each arrival, each order he could find.  He knew all about the size and shape of the Holocaust.  

At the end of the day...my heart is in both academic camps and despairs of the conflict.  Clearly Hitler was sociopathic toward the Jews and none of this would have happened if he had not wanted it to happen. 

The academic research is interesting, but it's really just the difference between a liberal democracy and illiberal/totalitarianism...

In a liberal democracy, we have the rule of law. In totalitarianism, the laws are irrelevant, what the government says is the law is the law.

We aren't to the latter yet... But there is no doubt in my mind that if this administration has its way, it's where they want us to end up.