December 1st, 2018

(no subject)

RT proudly ran a small article on how Suzanne Spaulding (haven't heard) said at a CSIS (also haven't heard) forum that RT was using truth against the US.

There are two points I'd like to make. One, textual. When the expletive will news companies start to use proper references to their source material? It's not just RT. Most news media that I have seen also do that — or, rather, they don't. In this particular case, the source was easy enough to find; it's this discussion, and Spaulding says the quoted words at about 1 hour 23 minutes:

but gee, if you news people just put links in your shitty articles, it would make it so much easier for the readers to appreciate the wider context. Bloggers or the twitterati do it so much better than you. Shameful, really.

Another point, personal. I am failing to see what's so terribly wrong with what they keep accusing RT of. She is saying, RT is very one-sided in reporting only negative facts (of, let's say, the American justice system). Well, if other media don't report them, doesn't it make them sort of one-sided too? Won't the combination of the two produce stereoscopic vision?

(no subject)

A quote from a discussion on Hacker News:

I am 34. I was raised in an era (esp. mid-90s) where we were taught color-blindness, gender-blindness, non-discrimination as the proper ways to approach eradicating sexism and racism. All are equal, and have equal protections under the law.

In the 2000s, it seems this message is changing. It is not enough to assume everyone can achieve the same levels of success. The emerging idea now is that those groups who show a statistical deficit are to be given extra opportunity that is not afforded to others.

The problem is that directly conflicts with what I and (I assume) others from my generation were taught and internalized. Hence the pushback. It is discrimination, plain and simple.

Yep. I totally sympathize with (and share) this sentiment.