Politico and Axios are the worst for framing things every thing as a game.
Disgusting Stenographers
Politico likes to start off today with a utterly transphobic tweet to boost the GOP
- Thread starter Senator Toadstool
- Start date
Politico and Axios are the worst for framing things every thing as a game.
Disgusting Stenographers
Wait till the Bill Burr defenders on Era march in here claiming to see "nothing wrong" with the headline. Followed by the JustAskingQuestions dude and the AgreeToDisagree dude.
This is politicos business plan.
Politico has some good reporting and good sources, but their salaries are financed by junk like this, and rewriting stories from mainstream news sources in the most salacious way possible. You can basically tell when a thread is going to be a politico or The Hill article from the title alone. It's sad that it works so well, I'd imagine that as many threads here are based off of Politico or The Hill articles than almost anything else, which is a testament to how that style really works for generating reactions.
Politico has some good reporting and good sources, but their salaries are financed by junk like this, and rewriting stories from mainstream news sources in the most salacious way possible. You can basically tell when a thread is going to be a politico or The Hill article from the title alone. It's sad that it works so well, I'd imagine that as many threads here are based off of Politico or The Hill articles than almost anything else, which is a testament to how that style really works for generating reactions.
Ah yes, the classic case of someone who would risk poverty and violence against them to kick ass at the 100 meter dash.
Considering women's sports already kicked Loeffler to the curb over her bullshit I'm kind of doubting how much influence the right is going to have over women's sports. Not sure the GOP are going to support a bunch of outspoken ladies wearing BLM shirts taking the knee during the anthem.
The Mothers Leading the Battle Against Trans Student Athletes
Their tactics mirror those employed by white mothers who fought school integration: disguising bigotry with pleas to protect children.
newrepublic.com
relevant
Yeah, it's really annoying.
I wonder if a partial ban would be worthwhile. Ban the sites when they aren't breaking a major news because they lack integrity in their journalism style.
One thing about this... is that ... *there is no debate.* Like, there is no story here. No colleges or high schools or anything else are loading their team up with trans people for an athletic advantage. No trans people are itching to get some "unfair" advantage in sports by playing on a team that they have some body chemistry "advantage" on. One reason there's no trans voices in the article is because this isn't a "both sides" article, it's an utterly imagined issue to try to shift the debate away from treating trans people like human beings and instead turn it into some "TRANS PEOPLE ARE CHEATING AT SPORTS AND THE LIBS ARE LETTING THEM!" It's one flavor of the "conservative victim narrative," and it's the conservative playbook for every fucking issue.
There is a debate around trans issues, and it's about how conservative don't treat trans people like human beings. THAT'S the story, and conservatives are trying to turn it around to find some way that they are victims, and they've made up this fake debate that's not happening anywhere around how to handle trans athletes. It's classic trying to shift the nature of the debate.
It's also fucking rich that the featured image they chose for this is a photo of Kelly Leoffler, who, by the way, was JUST FIRED from the WNBA ownership. So, no, Kelly Loeffler is *not* the party of women's sports, infact, you couldn't find anybody more ostracized from women's sports than Kelly Loeffler.
Point: "The Republican party is positioning itself as the party of womens sports"
Counter-Point:
I usually just shame people when they word for word reproduce a The Hill article without going to the underlying article that it's based on. I think banning Politico is tough because they do actually have some good reporters with really good access and they break stories. They broke most of the Biden cabinet stories during the transition, or at least 4 or 5 major announcements.
But like you said, it's annoying when someone reproduces a Poltico or The Hill drama article, which is basically like ... 24 hours after a news story is published in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., those two sites will reproduce the same article but by ripping all of the context out of a quote to make it a Washington drama article. The Hill is definitely the worst about it, if you ever want a "DEMS IN DISARRAY" story scroll The Hill.
There is a debate around trans issues, and it's about how conservative don't treat trans people like human beings. THAT'S the story, and conservatives are trying to turn it around to find some way that they are victims, and they've made up this fake debate that's not happening anywhere around how to handle trans athletes. It's classic trying to shift the nature of the debate.
It's also fucking rich that the featured image they chose for this is a photo of Kelly Leoffler, who, by the way, was JUST FIRED from the WNBA ownership. So, no, Kelly Loeffler is *not* the party of women's sports, infact, you couldn't find anybody more ostracized from women's sports than Kelly Loeffler.
Point: "The Republican party is positioning itself as the party of womens sports"
Counter-Point:
I usually just shame people when they word for word reproduce a The Hill article without going to the underlying article that it's based on. I think banning Politico is tough because they do actually have some good reporters with really good access and they break stories. They broke most of the Biden cabinet stories during the transition, or at least 4 or 5 major announcements.
But like you said, it's annoying when someone reproduces a Poltico or The Hill drama article, which is basically like ... 24 hours after a news story is published in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, etc., those two sites will reproduce the same article but by ripping all of the context out of a quote to make it a Washington drama article. The Hill is definitely the worst about it, if you ever want a "DEMS IN DISARRAY" story scroll The Hill.
Last edited:
Yup. The 'Washington Drama' angle is what makes them insufferable. Politico want's it both ways; you can't be the Drudge Report and also be the Nytimes.
Nothing will change in a world where you make zero money from reporting real news and boatloads of cash from reporting BS like this.
every time i see a youtube thumbnail from kystal/saagar i think i become just a bit stupider
OP
OP
I've been harping on this for a while about the hill. I really wish they were a banned source (especially since almost all if not all are repacked stories that people can find the original source of). Their articles are so inflammatory and designed to be shared and inflame feelings.
They used to be a respectable hill newspaper but they hired one of the guys from gawker circa 2011-12 (not the gawker that would do news or celeb stuff that got people pissed) that was notorious for posting viral article about cats, weird stuff around the world, etc that did gang buster social stuff and they've followed that path.
OP
OP
politico naw as they still do original reporting... the hill. yes. purely repackaging in the most inflammatory way to inflame tensions and get you mad.
yeah. I wouldn't want Politico banned because they do actually have some good reporters and break some stories. There's now a pretty steady flow of reporters who get their first big break at Politico and then move onto the Washington Post or NYT, and they do good work at Politico, get noticed, and move on. Also Politico has a long form wing called "Politico Magazine" or something which still does good, indepth reporting.
What I'd like to see stopped is just ... like ... people reposting the salacious Politico or Hill story of the day without doing ANY of their own research, and just regurtitating a story that popped up on their twitter or algorithm feed. It happens all the time, and it's usually shit, and you have to be careful criticizing it or else you can cop a ban for 'thread wining' (this happened to me a couple months ago, although TBH I was meaner than I had to be in my criticism of the repost, but my ban was for thread whining).
My argument against regurgitating articles from Politico or The Hill is ... I don't really fault Politico or The Hill for their articles or headlines. They have to pay writers, they have to pay health insurance, they have employees who need to be fed, and they make their money on ad revenue, so I get why *they* write shitty pieces trying to maximize revenue with no original reporting in the piece. What I don't get it why somebody then takes that shitty piece and regurgitates it here, because, we're not getting paid by politico or The Hill. Like, if you're someone who copies a Hill article and posts it here without doing any work of your own, just copy and paste followed and "DISCUSS," you're not getting ad revenue for that ... you're not putting dinner on the table for that post, so like... other than the social media capital of having a thread that gets 300 replies on a shitty out of context quote from 3 days ago, like, there's no incentive for you to do that. So, y'know, have some respect for yourself and for other people.
Esp with The Hill. All you have to do is google the interview they're talking about to get the original story or the original interview. All of their articles are just reposts from the NYT or WaPo basically. Like the NYT will have this in-depth interview with, say, Bill Gates about vaccines, and it'll have all of this context and be really indepth, and then 2 days later the Hill will have a story that says "BILL GATES SAYS VACCINES COULD MAKE YOU SICK," and it'll be, like, sliver of a comment he's making to hedge against something else, or something, and then that thread will have 180 replies about how they always knew Bill Gates was an anti-vaxxer or something. And a few people might reply and be like "This is out of context," but the conversation is lost at that point.
I honestly like the idea of forcing people to take a stand on an article they post. Like, take a perspective. Unless it's straight up news, but this sort fo reporting ffrom The Hill is almost never news, it's always repackaging yesterday's news into a zinger headline based on something out of context.
I still don't like banning sources, I just want people to stop regurgitating clickbait repackaging of other stories when they have no financial incentive to do so. Even though you're literally barfing onto the forum there's some reason that hundreds of people want to eat your barf.
What I'd like to see stopped is just ... like ... people reposting the salacious Politico or Hill story of the day without doing ANY of their own research, and just regurtitating a story that popped up on their twitter or algorithm feed. It happens all the time, and it's usually shit, and you have to be careful criticizing it or else you can cop a ban for 'thread wining' (this happened to me a couple months ago, although TBH I was meaner than I had to be in my criticism of the repost, but my ban was for thread whining).
My argument against regurgitating articles from Politico or The Hill is ... I don't really fault Politico or The Hill for their articles or headlines. They have to pay writers, they have to pay health insurance, they have employees who need to be fed, and they make their money on ad revenue, so I get why *they* write shitty pieces trying to maximize revenue with no original reporting in the piece. What I don't get it why somebody then takes that shitty piece and regurgitates it here, because, we're not getting paid by politico or The Hill. Like, if you're someone who copies a Hill article and posts it here without doing any work of your own, just copy and paste followed and "DISCUSS," you're not getting ad revenue for that ... you're not putting dinner on the table for that post, so like... other than the social media capital of having a thread that gets 300 replies on a shitty out of context quote from 3 days ago, like, there's no incentive for you to do that. So, y'know, have some respect for yourself and for other people.
Esp with The Hill. All you have to do is google the interview they're talking about to get the original story or the original interview. All of their articles are just reposts from the NYT or WaPo basically. Like the NYT will have this in-depth interview with, say, Bill Gates about vaccines, and it'll have all of this context and be really indepth, and then 2 days later the Hill will have a story that says "BILL GATES SAYS VACCINES COULD MAKE YOU SICK," and it'll be, like, sliver of a comment he's making to hedge against something else, or something, and then that thread will have 180 replies about how they always knew Bill Gates was an anti-vaxxer or something. And a few people might reply and be like "This is out of context," but the conversation is lost at that point.
I honestly like the idea of forcing people to take a stand on an article they post. Like, take a perspective. Unless it's straight up news, but this sort fo reporting ffrom The Hill is almost never news, it's always repackaging yesterday's news into a zinger headline based on something out of context.
I still don't like banning sources, I just want people to stop regurgitating clickbait repackaging of other stories when they have no financial incentive to do so. Even though you're literally barfing onto the forum there's some reason that hundreds of people want to eat your barf.
OP
OP
Yeah that would be great, create some good discussion, not post an article just because.
Also would give us non-americans a better understanding, at least in my case.