Message from @Vannevariable
Discord ID: 528255543362584596
My problem with the article is it written to push a narrative and the headline states, _ us added to list of most dangerous countries_ the section in the Reporters without borders is the List of Deadliest countries.
The report the article source and link to is the annual report from Reporters without borders.
The report contains three main sections. Reporters death. Reporters jailed, and reporters held hostage.
As I understand the facts laid out. The six reports death registered in the US consist of an a cameraman and news anchor killed during a storm. A reporter killed over a long running personal fued. The rest is the Gazette incidents.
@caykoh my reply above
My personal feeling. The article is written with the purpose to push the narrative that the USA is a dangerous countries for journalist. And to convey the message that it is one of the worst countries in that regards.
My feelings don’t care about your facts.
Wait say that last part again? Your feelings dont care about my facts ? Are facts that elastic to be "mine"
Compounded and weighted data points
Not “yours” per se but all facts. The saying goes facts don’t care about feelings. It is also possible to deduce that feelings don’t care about fact. Since in current year we are more emotional, facts are worthless.
"More and more democratically-elected leaders no longer see the media as part of democracy’s essential underpinning, but as an adversary to which they openly display their aversion. The United States, the country of the First Amendment, has fallen again in the Index undebbcr Donald Trump, this time two places to 45th. A media-bashing enthusiast, Trump has referred to reporters “enemies of the people,” the term once used by Joseph Stalin."
The above statement is a quote.
Yes from reg, sorry
Rsf
Correction to some of my statements above. I am a bit rusty since I longer have any interactions with RSF. I was not aware that the annual report of freedom index have been made into a website. I used to read the paper report. The RSF report that the article quoted was not the annual report but a _special_ report, as I assumed.
I think the site and its summaries and thoroughness are quite worth the read.
it seems like a viable argument, though in terms of actual deaths of our reporters I would argue we're not that high
the issue is that the legacy media is on the decline, so they're declining in quality as well.
soon they'll be tabloids.
hm...
perhaps the inevitable collapse can be prepared for using something like an independant journalist's guild?
that being said, it's very true that all it takes to be a journalist now is a camera
a phone
and accounts in social media of some kind.
if that works... why not make a kind of union? have the members follow a uniform standard of quality, but work for themselves.
“ Russian 2016 influence operation targeted Africa-Americans on social media “
By Scott Shane and Sheera Frenkel
The NYT claims that “ The Russian influence campaign on social media in the 2016 election made an EXTRAORDINARY EFFORT to target African-Americans..”
This is hyperbolic. It was reveled in that Senate hearing that only $4,600 was spent. This was in an election where 6.8 billion was spent. Watch the attached video for proof. Fake news.
http://archive.today/dNk2d
https://youtu.be/fELg3ws7aj4
please, that 4.7K isn't an actual serious attempt to influence america, it's effectively paying for a media circus that putin will watch as primetime entertainment
It's not fake news the Russians did do this.
But it had nothing to do with voter suppression it may have had that effect though.
@Exiled Sentinel The Russians used social media to create division in the US, they didn't care about the lines.
It’s fake news that this was an “ extraordinary effort”
No reason to believe it had any effect at all. Billions were being spent to get blacks to vote for and against Hillary. 4.7k spent to get them to not vote at all is like thinking you can flood the ocean by peeing into it.
... I like that analogy.
also, this was on my firefox
Vox is proposing 18-year terms, and I can't help but feel it's a democrat's response to fear of their own political agenda being reversed
Yeah, nothing cynical at all about Vox's about-face on judicial supremacy as soon as Hillary lost in 2016.
Want to see something dumb?
yep. Stupid at a glance
racism exists.
you know it. I know it.