The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
06-20-2018, 05:30 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
It's already been established and discussed ad nauseam that people with college degrees tend to lean further left than people without. As it happens, people with college degrees also have greater individual and household income, which makes them more attractive to advertisers.
Or, put another way, we earn more money by delivering to advertisers viewers who are likely to purchase a new Audi than by delivering viewers who are more likely to shop at Honest Eddie's Buy-Here-Pay-Here.
Yes. I know that at the very top of the wealth spectrum, republican-leaning attitudes are prevalent. But the 1% are (by definition) way too small of a group to really matter to advertisers on mainstream broadcast channels. Rolex and Porsche advertise in Forbes magazine, not during the Cubs game.
Reply
0
0
06-20-2018, 05:55 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
did you not see the supporting images I posted? if we are talking for profits, the proof is there in numbers/ratings/and ad revenue. it's a 50% market share that's dominated by one TV outlet vs 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 left leaning ones that share notes and copy each other's homework.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2018, 07:36 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
The passing of krauthammer is a huge loss to mankind. He was my favorite conservative writer/opinionist and his story was always an inspiration.
Last edited by Braineack; 06-22-2018 at 08:34 AM.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 08:35 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
This is why you BREXIT:
Article 11 (a.k.a. link tax) would force anyone using snippets of journalistic online content to get a license from the publisher first — essentially outlawing current business models of most aggregators and news apps. This can also possibly threaten the hyperlink and give power to publishers at the cost of public good.
Article 13 (a.k.a. censorship machines) will make platforms responsible for monitoring user behavior to stop copyright infringements, but basically means only huge platforms will have the resources to let users comment or share content. People opposed to the proposal worry that this could lead to broader censorship, threatening free speech via parody, satire, and even protest videos.
Article 13 (a.k.a. censorship machines) will make platforms responsible for monitoring user behavior to stop copyright infringements, but basically means only huge platforms will have the resources to let users comment or share content. People opposed to the proposal worry that this could lead to broader censorship, threatening free speech via parody, satire, and even protest videos.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 09:19 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
LITTLE GIRL IN BORDER PHOTO WAS NEVER SEPARATED FROM HER MOM
By Kevin Ryan
There’s been quite the trend of misleading photos in the media lately.
The viral photo of a child crying in a cage was not actually from a government detention facility, but was instead staged by protesters at a Dallas demonstration.
The numerous pictures of kids crowded onto mattresses behind chain link fences WERE at a detention facility… during the Obama presidency.
And now the most iconic photo of the whole family separation controversy turns out not to be from a family separation at all.
The photo of a little girl looking up and crying as her mother is searched by border patrol has been presented by nearly every major media outlet as an example of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, in which illegal immigrants are arrested at the border and sent to jail, separating them from their children.
The Washington Post: “By now, millions of people have seen a photo of a 2-year-old girl screaming while a U.S. border agent pats down her mother. Taken last Tuesday, the image has become a symbol of the Trump administration’s new ‘zero tolerance’ border policies, which have caused hundreds of children to be removed from the parents who brought them here.”
The New York Daily News, with a photo of the girl on its cover:
“Callous.
Soulless.
Craven.
Trump.
2,000 children ripped from parents at border in just 6 weeks.”
The New York Times featured the photo several times in stories about family separations, including on its front page.
And now Time magazine has put the photo on its cover, with the crying little girl depicted alone, separated from her mother, looking up at a heartless, uncaring President Trump. “Welcome to America” the caption reads.
Except, according to her father, that little girl was not taken from her mother. Denis Hernandez said his wife Sandra and daughter Yanela were never separated by border control agents and remain together, housed in a family residential center in Texas and are doing 'fine.'
In fact Hernandez says his daughter was taken by his wife, against his wishes, leaving behind their three other children. He says his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a “better future” but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.
“I didn't support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that?” said Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes.
Sandra took 2-year-old Yanela from their home in Honduras on June 3rd, on an 1,800 mile trek through treacherous desert and drug cartel-occupied territory, across the Rio Grande in the middle of a night on a rubber raft, and over the border, where they turned themselves in to the first U.S. agents they found. She paid $6,000 to a coyote - someone who smuggles people across the border.
That’s when John Moore, an award-winning photographer for Getty Images, took the now famous photo. Moore had been at the river, under an agreement with Border Patrol, for seven hours by then. And although he had taken many photos, he did not yet have the “one he needed.”
“I still had no picture that conveyed the emotional impact of family separations,” he said.
And technically, he still doesn’t, as Sandra and Yanela Hernandez were never actually separated.
SOURCES: Honduran father reveals daughter was never separated from her mother | Daily Mail Online
https://www.yahoo.com/news/father-sa...024329900.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...raphers-heart/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/u...ion-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/u...mmigrants.html
By Kevin Ryan
There’s been quite the trend of misleading photos in the media lately.
The viral photo of a child crying in a cage was not actually from a government detention facility, but was instead staged by protesters at a Dallas demonstration.
The numerous pictures of kids crowded onto mattresses behind chain link fences WERE at a detention facility… during the Obama presidency.
And now the most iconic photo of the whole family separation controversy turns out not to be from a family separation at all.
The photo of a little girl looking up and crying as her mother is searched by border patrol has been presented by nearly every major media outlet as an example of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, in which illegal immigrants are arrested at the border and sent to jail, separating them from their children.
The Washington Post: “By now, millions of people have seen a photo of a 2-year-old girl screaming while a U.S. border agent pats down her mother. Taken last Tuesday, the image has become a symbol of the Trump administration’s new ‘zero tolerance’ border policies, which have caused hundreds of children to be removed from the parents who brought them here.”
The New York Daily News, with a photo of the girl on its cover:
“Callous.
Soulless.
Craven.
Trump.
2,000 children ripped from parents at border in just 6 weeks.”
The New York Times featured the photo several times in stories about family separations, including on its front page.
And now Time magazine has put the photo on its cover, with the crying little girl depicted alone, separated from her mother, looking up at a heartless, uncaring President Trump. “Welcome to America” the caption reads.
Except, according to her father, that little girl was not taken from her mother. Denis Hernandez said his wife Sandra and daughter Yanela were never separated by border control agents and remain together, housed in a family residential center in Texas and are doing 'fine.'
In fact Hernandez says his daughter was taken by his wife, against his wishes, leaving behind their three other children. He says his wife had previously mentioned her wish to go to the United States for a “better future” but did not tell him nor any of their family members that she was planning to make the trek.
“I didn't support it. I asked her, why? Why would she want to put our little girl through that?” said Denis, who works as a captain at a port on the coast of Puerto Cortes.
Sandra took 2-year-old Yanela from their home in Honduras on June 3rd, on an 1,800 mile trek through treacherous desert and drug cartel-occupied territory, across the Rio Grande in the middle of a night on a rubber raft, and over the border, where they turned themselves in to the first U.S. agents they found. She paid $6,000 to a coyote - someone who smuggles people across the border.
That’s when John Moore, an award-winning photographer for Getty Images, took the now famous photo. Moore had been at the river, under an agreement with Border Patrol, for seven hours by then. And although he had taken many photos, he did not yet have the “one he needed.”
“I still had no picture that conveyed the emotional impact of family separations,” he said.
And technically, he still doesn’t, as Sandra and Yanela Hernandez were never actually separated.
SOURCES: Honduran father reveals daughter was never separated from her mother | Daily Mail Online
https://www.yahoo.com/news/father-sa...024329900.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...raphers-heart/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/16/u...ion-trump.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/u...mmigrants.html
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 09:46 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
the "crisis" is that children are being willingly separated from "families". Here, this mother separated a child from her family (the husband did not know she was trying to cross border with his own child). The picture was taken as they were stopped by border patrol -- the child was never separated from the mother. But TIME is using the child's image in relation to the child-separation topic, therefore suggesting this child was in fact separated from her mother/father and that Trump was to culprit.
AP photographers aren't even allowed to shoot in RAW and process images themselves, they must submit jpegs directly out of the camera.
in NK, they photoshop rockets.
and again, this is all a coordinated distraction from the mainstream agenda machine to distract from the damning IG FBI report.
liberals dont care about children, they care about making trump look bad.
Last edited by Braineack; 06-22-2018 at 10:47 AM.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 09:48 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
I didn't read through any of the Articles because I don't care to read the propaganda. Old program has been in effect through three presidencies, some with multiple terms and was established by the Congress and not the president. This yellow journalism is completely disingenuous.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 09:53 AM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
And for what it's worth, I don't like it when the right does it either. Just tell me what the truth is and let me decide if I care or not.
And yellow journalism is nothing new. It's been around since before there was a printing press. But it is certainly tiresome.
And yellow journalism is nothing new. It's been around since before there was a printing press. But it is certainly tiresome.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 09:55 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
I didn't read through any of the Articles because I don't care to read the propaganda. Old program has been in effect through three presidencies, some with multiple terms and was established by the Congress and not the president. This yellow journalism is completely disingenuous.
Reply
0
0
06-22-2018, 04:14 PM
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,652
Total Cats: 3,011
So if a mainstream Hollywood actor with a movie about to come out from Sony Pictures stated that Sasha and Malia Obama should be locked in a cage with pedophiles, do you think that movie would have been released?
Reply
0
0
