The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39910
Peeps wrote:
it happened here in pittsburgh
imo the outrage of the zimmerman stemmed first from a young angelic african american was shot and then people were outraged over the SYG
that happens all the time. The idea that people would argue that a black kid getting shot becomes news boggles the mind. It's really the context that made this sensational.
Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am Posts: 8898 Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Peeps wrote:
it happened here in pittsburgh
imo the outrage of the zimmerman stemmed first from a young angelic african american was shot and then people were outraged over the SYG
we don't have to agree, but my remembrance of events was that trayvon was killed and the guy that fully admitted to doing it was allowed to walk away. i'm guessing there's no outrage in pittsburgh b/c the guy, w/ an illegal gun mind you, was investigated from the start.
welp now it's taken a turn... the shooter has turned himself in and may use the stand your ground/self-defense claim:
Local authorities investigating the weekend shooting death in Oakland of a former Slippery Rock University football captain could decide today whether to file homicide charges against a man who was questioned and released by police Saturday night.
After interviewing Isiah Smith, 22, police issued a statement late Saturday saying he had "turned himself in" and would be charged with killing Zachary Sheridan of Brookline. The men were reportedly part of two groups who did not know one another but argued and then fought on Forbes Avenue near Bouquet Street after 3 a.m.
Mr. Sheridan, 24, collapsed after being shot while running, police said, and he was pronounced dead at nearby UPMC Presbyterian at 3:44 a.m. Saturday.
At 5 a.m. Sunday, following their conversations with both Mr. Smith and prosecutors in the Allegheny County district attorney's office, police officials issued a new statement saying the suspect had been released from police headquarters without being charged.
"Pending further review of the medical examiner's autopsy report, the district attorney's office has decided not to approve criminal charges" against Mr. Smith, the statement said.
That review of autopsy findings is likely to be concluded today, with the possibility that Mr. Smith could still be charged with homicide and carrying a firearm without a license. There was disagreement between police and the district attorney's office on whether sufficient evidence was immediately available to arrest him, although officials did not want to discuss that difference of opinion in any detail publicly.
Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney's office, said in an emailed statement Sunday: "We have had [a] number of phone conversations with homicide, and when we were presented with an affidavit we believed that more information was needed before approving such a warrant, both from homicide and the medical examiner."
The medical examiner's office reported that Mr. Sheridan died from a gunshot wound to the chest. The location of his wound, however, is apparently one factor prosecutors are weighing before filing charges, as it could factor into any possibility of self-defense in the shooting.
Rather than being shot in a face-on confrontation during a fight, Mr. Sheridan was believed to be fleeing the scene and was shot from the rear, based on surveillance camera footage and eyewitness accounts, said city police major crimes Lt. Daniel Herrmann. After the bullet traveled through his body, he had blood spurting from the area near his throat when attended to by a University of Pittsburgh police officer first on the scene, Lt. Herrmann said.
The shot that killed Mr. Sheridan was the only one fired during the altercation, which came after a verbal dispute on the street escalated between Mr. Sheridan and his friends with Mr. Smith and the male and female who were his companions.
Mr. Smith came to police voluntarily after televised media reports Saturday used camera footage of the incident provided by police as they sought help in seeking the suspects.
To me, it's the driver of news as a product to be sold that's the ultimate issue. Look, none of the stories/issues raised in the original article Stip linked are things that are really all that obscure. Hell, his first one was sourced from the WSJ. News organizations do this stuff, but it doesn't drive advertising and eyeballs the way Casey Anthony does.
I suppose people are partly to blame for that, but I don't know that I really believe people today are all that different from people 50 years ago in the "golden age" of Murrow and Cronkite et al. Now, though, instead of an hour of news on a handful of channels and a limited selection of newspapers per city, news is everywhere. Other content is everywhere. It's easy to turn a blind eye to difficult stories, or to serious news altogether, whether in favor of whatever fresh outrage Nancy Grace is peddling, or the bass fishing championships, or ESPN3's online coverage of some school's spring football game. I am sure there were people who didn't care 50 years ago; they just didn't have as many options for other things to pay attention to. Thus, advertising dollars went to those who were producing actual news. Now, the ad money goes where the eyeballs are and that's not the CBS Evening News.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39910
there is some truth to that, but this article seems to conflate the existence of information with news and commentary and analysis with reporting. We live in a golden age of consumption possibilites, but that's only a part of the story
What's missing from great investigative journalism today is a readership for it.
this
- the problem is, the media's reaction to this lack of readership (which it has played a huge role in creating) is to dumb down their formats even more - and it doesn't help that there's the perverse current environment that applauds stupidity and finds intelligence and education somehow repugnant.
the media creates its own demise by pandering to their readership instead of challenging them either intellectually or in some inspirational manner by presenting well written, factual, and relevant articles.
That's fine to have this journalistic integrity, but if you're not getting readers and making money, you're losing the writers to layoffs anyways.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39910
Fuck You Jobu wrote:
malice wrote:
turned2black wrote:
What's missing from great investigative journalism today is a readership for it.
this
- the problem is, the media's reaction to this lack of readership (which it has played a huge role in creating) is to dumb down their formats even more - and it doesn't help that there's the perverse current environment that applauds stupidity and finds intelligence and education somehow repugnant.
the media creates its own demise by pandering to their readership instead of challenging them either intellectually or in some inspirational manner by presenting well written, factual, and relevant articles.
That's fine to have this journalistic integrity, but if you're not getting readers and making money, you're losing the writers to layoffs anyways.
the financing pool is probably what is driving the quality, I agree.
I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.
Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.
I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.
Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.
I don't know. She makes me laugh.
If you accept that your preferred party has done anything that you disagree with, you might as well vote for the other party. Glen Beck finally had the freedom to slightly change his viewpoint once his preferred party was out of power. Perhaps Maddow will have that freedom if/ when her party looses power. Maybe even stepping back from thinking that the unitary executive is an acceptable ideal.
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39910
simple schoolboy wrote:
Harry Lime wrote:
Rachel Maddow.
I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.
Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.
I don't know. She makes me laugh.
If you accept that your preferred party has done anything that you disagree with, you might as well vote for the other party. Glen Beck finally had the freedom to slightly change his viewpoint once his preferred party was out of power. Perhaps Maddow will have that freedom if/ when her party looses power. Maybe even stepping back from thinking that the unitary executive is an acceptable ideal.
I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.
Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.
I don't know. She makes me laugh.
I like Maddow. In the wasteland of TV talking heads, I think she's at the top. She's hardly a lock-step Dem. She's been very critical of Obama in the past and seems to hate our drone program about as much as I do.
I know, it's no big surprise, but at the beginning of her program last night, she spent the first 10 minutes railing against the history of the republican party's shoddy actions with the Middle East: Iran (1980s) & Iraq (1990s, 2000s), actions that at times evaded much of congressional approval.
Of course she wasted time on this, because Obama is in a jam with congress over the imminent strike in Syria. And since this puts him on the hot seat, she wants to cool it down by highlighting how noble he is that he's coming to congress with this debate, instead of abusing his power like those unruly republicans.
I don't know. She makes me laugh.
I like Maddow. In the wasteland of TV talking heads, I think she's at the top. She's hardly a lock-step Dem. She's been very critical of Obama in the past and seems to hate our drone program about as much as I do.
Its probably pretty safe to criticize Obama from the left when there's little at stake. Killing brown people via drones is a fairly bipartisan effort.
I haven't watched Maddow much, but my take was that she was pretty lock step left Dem. Not quite Kucinich (who at least I would give points for a coherent philosophy), but consistently party line on important issues.
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
I like some of the stuff 60 Minutes does but I'm a bit perplexed as to how they've been able to remain on such a high pedestal. I think once a good chunk of the Silent Generation is gone that ought to change for good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
