When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
We got so spoiled with Sarah H Sanders and McEnany. Unbelievably brilliant as press secretaries. It was like they had been given the questions ahead of time, but I understand that they explicitly were not.
Don't get me wrong here- Would I? Obviously yes. A redhead in a position of political power pushes all the right buttons.
Hell, I'm skirting a fine line every day at work being conscious of where my eyeballs are pointing at with one specific producer at the station who is married, holds similar political opinions to my own, and is a tall-ish (maybe 5'11), well-educated, highly articulate redhead with short hair who favors capri pants and sneakers / Vons.
If you paid someone to come up with better bait for me, they'd fail to deliver.
Would I hire her (the Biden ginger, not the Chicago ginger) in a professional capacity? No. Regardless of the aforementioned.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 03-20-2021 at 06:30 PM.
Reason: EDIT: clarified the distinction between the two gingers.
Serious comment: Read the article before judging the headline. Hint: the subject of the article identifies as Republican. That makes it OK to ignore him.
A newspaper has a novel strategy for covering one politician’s falsehoods: Don’t
Former Ohio state treasurer Josh Mandel, seen in 2014, is campaigning for the Senate seat being vacated by fellow Republican Rob Portman. (Tony Dejak/AP)
March 15, 2021 at 5:50 p.m. CDT
Ohio’s biggest newspaper is taking an unusual tack toward covering falsehoods from a U.S. Senate candidate: It doesn’t plan to do so at all.
The Plain Dealer in Cleveland said its journalists intend to ignore inaccurate statements from Republican Josh Mandel that they consider to be ploys for attention.
“Mandel is pretty much a nobody right now, a nobody begging for people to notice his Tweets a year ahead of the Senate primary,” Chris Quinn, the Plain Dealer’s editor, wrote in an opinion piece published Saturday. “Just because he makes outrageous, dangerous statements doesn’t mean it is news.”
Quinn’s decision is a marked departure from conventional journalistic wisdom that politicians’ statements inherently deserve coverageand that every story has at least two sides. Newsrooms across the country have increasingly reevaluated that approach because of President Donald Trump’s more than 30,000 false or misleading claims, many of which dominated the news cycle and helped him amass a following.
In an example of that kind of reckoning, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel recently annotated an opinion piece from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) with context for his claims about the false theory of massive fraud in the 2020 election. The newspaper’s editorial board wrote that it took the unusual step to give readers “a fuller understanding of the senator’s actions.”
In Ohio, Quinn argued that Mandel is different from most political candidates the Plain Dealer has covered. He’s shown a willingness to “say just about anything if it means getting his name in the news,” Quinn wrote — a gambit that he characterized as unprecedented at the state level.
Mandel promoted the baseless theory that widespread voter fraud cost Trump reelection. He repeatedly stated incorrectly in 2017 that Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) worked a tax break for private-jet owners into a bill. During Mandel’s first run for Senate in 2012, PolitiFact Ohio named him its “Pants on Fire” champion for his inaccurate statements.
The newspaper firmed up its decision to ignore Mandel’s falsehoods when he started calling on Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a fellow Republican, to follow the lead of Texas and Mississippi by rescinding the state’s mask mandate. There is widespread consensus in the scientific community that face coverings have helped to slow the coronavirus’s spread during the pandemic.
To Quinn, Mandel’s call to overturn Ohio’s mask rule was an attempt to endanger the state’s residents and not a legitimate policy position.
Plus, Quinn wrote, there’s currently no evidence that Mandel, a former state treasurer and legislator, is a viable candidate to fill Republican Sen. Rob Portman’s seat at the end of his term. The newspaper plans to adjust its coverage strategy if it sees Mandel as a serious contender.
Mandel is far from unknown in Ohio. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) campaigned for him in 2012, while Portman and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) also endorsed him. Mandel lost to Brown only after what the Plain Dealer described as a “well-financed and relentless” campaign.
Mandel and the Ohio GOP did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment on the Plain Dealer’s decision.
The choice to publish an opinion piece about the newspaper’s coverage plan was an attempt at transparency, Quinn said in an interview. While Mandel’s propensity to make false claims is hardly unique among politicians, Quinn said, his candidacy warranted a specific strategy because his falsehoods endanger Ohioans.
Quinn said that politicians have learned to game news outlets’ attraction to controversy and that journalists have a responsibility to not report on “specious and ridiculous” claims as if they are valid viewpoints.
“We’ve kind of fallen down to the conclusion that that’s not really our responsibility,” he said. “Our responsibility is to seek the truth.”
Of the roughly 50 readers who responded to the opinion piece, Quinn said all but about five supported his decision. People acknowledged that figuring out how to cover Mandel is difficult and expressed concern that some of the politician’s falsehoods about coronavirus prevention were reckless.
Kathleen Bartzen Culver, director of the Center for Journalism Ethics at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, praised the Plain Dealer’s transparency. She said journalists should be thoughtful about when to cover disinformation and when doing so would simply give the falsehood a platform. They should also consider how a politician might say or do something to distract from an inconvenient news story, she said.
Culver drew a distinction between a politician exaggerating the implications of policies and someone damaging public health, sowing distrust and increasing polarization. The second category requires newsrooms to have more serious conversations — ideally involving readers and ethicists outside the newsroom — about a coverage strategy.
“They have a responsibility to serve the public interest,” Culver said. “And giving a platform to things that are not true does not serve that public interest.”
As a newsroom of 66 journalists, the Plain Dealer’s choices to cover or not cover something are judgment calls, Quinn said. Mandel’s statements are no different in that regard, but Quinn said they force an open and intentional conversation about how to apply that reality to a unique candidate.
Some of that plan remains undecided, Quinn said, but the newspaper’s journalists are sure about one thing.
“What I think we’ve all concluded,” he said, “is we’re not going to do it the way we’ve always done it.”
For years I had a digital subscription to the NY Times, even taking part in some of the comments sections. Back in 2015 or 16, I posted a reply to an editor suggesting that they were playing a dodgy game, by constantly complaining about Trump’s ascendancy while simultaneously giving him millions of dollars worth of free exposure almost daily.
They deleted the post without explanation immediately. I was somewhat slower in canceling my account.
A friend of mine brought up a great point that I had considered already before I wrote this but I want to clarify:
I took into account that races may have different experiences and those are hugely influential to a persons argument. This does not dismiss that at all.
But then the argument isn’t your SKIN but your EXPERIENCE from being who you are (black, white, brown / muslim, christian, jew) - experience then becomes the foundation of your understanding as a means to support your reasoning, not the argument or foundation for the argument itself.
This is the difference in an example:
A) Opinion: Black Jazz is the best music.
1) Argument where race is foundational:
Black Jazz is the best because Blacks are superior music makers.
2) Argument where race is a factor but not solely foundational:
Black Jazz is the best because black Americans naturally express more spontaneity, heart, emotions and soul into their music making for a more beautiful overall product.
The first hinges the argument on race. The second uses the experience of the race as a factor but the true argument of why the music is the best comes from other elements that are not exclusive to the race but perhaps more natural byproducts.
Understanding the difference is key.
When the Left upholds Diversity and Intersectionality, they do so on the basis that race, sex, etc,, are the foundations of why their voices should be worthwhile or placed on a pedestal. This is backward thinking as it places a persons worth on the color of their skin (or sex etc) rather than the content of their character, experience, background, etc. The point of Diversity is to consider different ideals and go beyond group-think. Today, Diversity, touted by the Left, has become a means to an end in itself and ironically rejects those who may be diverse in color and yet do not conform to the same ideology.
- KG (p.s. I’m black - if this changes how you feel about the above thats the problem I am speaking about).
A California couple who purchased a home in cash a year ago has been unable to move in due to a coronavirus eviction moratorium loophole in the state.
Tracie and Myles Albert bought their four-bedroom Riverside, California, dream home in cash for $560,000 last year, but the previous owner has refused to move out despite having the money in his account, according to Fox 11 Los Angeles.
"It's genuinely unfathomable to me that we live in a state where something like this is even possible. They closed escrow on this home January 31, 2020," the couple’s real estate agent, Chris Taylor, said about the situation.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed an eviction moratorium last year that was recently extended until at least June 2021, and authorities have told the couple there’s nothing they can do.
A Fox 11 Los Angeles reporter attempted to contact the tenant by knocking on the front door but received no response.
"They have this case under a COVID tenant situation, of no evictions when it doesn't fall under that at all,” Myles Albert said in a statement. “This transaction went through in January 2020 before any of that; it isn't a renter who was getting thrown out. It's the guy who collected all of this money.”
Eviction attorney Dennis Block says he has handled “seven, maybe eight” similar cases of this exact situation” since the moratorium was enacted.
In addition to not being able to access the property they paid for, the couple says the owner has stopped taking care of the house, and it is becoming an eyesore.
"I tried watering the lawn one time, and he came out and ripped my sprinkler lines, ripped all the wires,” Tracie Albert said. “The palm trees are dying, everything was beautiful, and everything is dying."
"It’s just draining, emotionally and financially," she added.
Arizona's GOP-led Senate to hand count 2.1 million Maricopa ballots in presidential race
"The audit will be broad and detailed,” state Senate President Karen Fann says.
Updated: March 21, 2021 - 9:09am
Republicans in the Arizona legislature will perform a full hand recount of the nearly 2.1 million votes cast in Maricopa County in the 2020 presidential election of, a state GOP leader announced this week.
Arizona Senate President Karen Fann said in a statement released by Arizona Senate Republicans that state GOP leaders have decided on a “preferred forensic audit” the final details of which are currently being worked out.
“The audit will be broad and detailed,” Fann said. “[T]he team will include, but is not limited to, testing the machines, scanning the ballots, performing a full hand count and checking for any IT breaches.
Serious response: if they'd have kept their mouths shut, rather than going to the press, they could have solved this problem quietly and by themselves.
03-20-2021, 01:44 PM
0
