World, Writing, Wealth discussion

Here's a story reported by Daily Mail about a policeman who ran over an Antifa protester recently in Tacoma, Washington:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...

According to the article, as well as a story on Fox News, the policeman ran over the protester because his vehicle was being attacked and he feared that the protesters would break the windows of his vehicle and overpower him. He's been put on leave with pay.

I saw the same story reported on the CBS Evening News, and Norah O'Donnell said that a policeman had run over a protester and had been put on paid leave. That was it. No explanation of why the policeman had done such a thing.

There was no further reporting of Antifa violence and destruction of property. I see this as biased reporting and as promoting discord between police and citizens, as well as keeping the public uninformed about Antifa's actions.

The Democratic party in Oregon reported on Facebook that their facilities were attacked on Biden's inauguration day.

REF: https://www.facebook.com/ordems/posts...

Failed to mention that it was Antifa who did the damage.

To answer your question. If I relied upon the news, I would be cast adrift upon a sea of illusion.

I've stopped watching the local news because it's become insufferable.

Scout wrote: ".... I see this as biased reporting and as promoting discord between police and citizens, as well as keeping the public uninformed about Antifa's actions...."

Biased or skewed as hell. I know this stuff all too well. There are countless exposers that bring to light similar stories, where, for example, an incident of a Palestinian stabbing or ramming a soldier and getting shot in response, would have a headline "Palestinian shot by the IDF". Most won't read beyond the headline and that would be their conclusion

And yet we repeat the news stories as fact just claiming our own preference is true whilst ignoring other reports.

Philip wrote: "And yet we repeat the news stories as fact just claiming our own preference is true whilst ignoring other reports."

Indeed, and so easy to do.

Confirmation Bias. REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirm...

It can be argued that the Internet and News Media facilitate the operation of confirmation bias as it allows us all to simply find those reports which accord with our beliefs and values, which we then validate as 'facts.'

Arguably, this is a source of social division.

One of the more difficult things anyone can do is directly and deliberately challenge their own beliefs. Especially ones that are long held, cherished, persistent and widely-held by social peers.

The problem with the UK media started with the industry’s deregulation in the ‘90s, and continued with 24hr rolling news coverage and the rise of the internet. All of these things have led to excessive competition and the need for sensationalism. It hasn’t helped that most senior managers are of a certain ‘type’.

As a pro-Brexit, anti-lockdown Brit, I moan about the BBC as much as the next person but, I tell you what, I support the licence fee and wouldn’t want to see the BBC privatised for the world. For all their irritating standpoints on major political issues, I trust them far more than most other sources of information.

Long live the BBC (but please do your best to iron out the metropolitan ‘liberal’ bias).

In NZ there are general complaints about ne3ws reporting, mainly there isn't enough real journalism, again because there aren't enough journalists. The reason - the erosion of advertising due to so much being lost to Google/Facebook/whatever the local media simply haven't got the money. How does this work out in other countries? I imagine we have it worse because we are small.

Project Veritas is suing the New York Times for defamation. There is definitely entertainment value in the proceedings.

https://youtu.be/UMGFRRMdhQw

If we separate out politics, I wonder what the stastics on trust in media reports would be. I trust the local news on crime, cause of a fire in the mountains, the issues in town (chickens, parked RVS for months, and the like); I trust the national media to report the outcome of military actions (though not necessarily the politics involved). But, mention Trump, Biden, Obama, or the political issues connected with the parties' polarizing issues - BLM, Planned Parenthood, healthcare for all, immigration, demonstrations, riots - we gravitate toward what confirms our bias and don't trust that any media is telling us the truth.

In the 70s and 80s, I trusted the newspapers and magazines I read and I had access to large metropolitan news. I think my trust has decreased in proportion to the rise of the internet and social media.

The Gallup Poll on Americans' distrust of the media reporting accurate news is interesting. Their bottom line in September 2020 ---
Americans' confidence in the media to report the news fairly, accurately and fully has been persistently low for over a decade and shows no signs of improving, as Republicans' and Democrats' trust moves in opposite directions. The political polarization that grips the country is reflected in partisans' views of the media, which are now the most divergent in Gallup's history. Recent Gallup/Knight Foundation polling has shown that although Americans increasingly see bias in news coverage, they nonetheless believe that an independent media is key to democracy.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/a...

Lizzie wrote: "If we separate out politics, I wonder what the stastics on trust in media reports would be. I trust the local news on crime, cause of a fire in the mountains, the issues in town (chickens, parked R..."

You don't need to resort to confirmation bias to explain why people distrust the MSM. Their overreactions to nothing stories is proof enough of their lack of trustworthiness. For example, that time that CNN blackmailed a guy for making a meme:
https://reason.com/2017/07/07/what-cn...

In NZ I trust the news to report as accurately as reasonably local news. If they say there is a bush fire there will be a bush fire where they say it is. If they say they suspect arson, the word "suspect" is a fair warning.

With foreign news, it tends to be from foreign sources, and here we have a problem. For the US, they try to cite "reliable sources" but these are not necessarily reliable. We have heard of the US polarization in politics, but when it starts to get specific I am afraid I am never sure what to believe.

I determine the veracity of reporting by looking at video of what people actually say or do, and also by using common sense. In the story I mentioned about the policeman running over an Antifa protester, I saw the video of the police car accelerating through a crowd that had surrounded his vehicle. I used my common sense and reporting from two sources to conclude that there was a good reason the officer did what he did. He feared for his life because his car was being attacked by a crowd. I saw Kamala Harris on the news today talking about coal mines, and she said, "All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines . . ." Abandoned land mines? Really? In the US?
https://www.wymt.com/2021/01/29/vice-...
This from our possible future president. How out of touch can one be? I watched her say these words on TV, yet when I looked for a video of her saying this, guess what? Every online source told me that my browser couldn't play the video. This often happens when I want to post a video. In my opinion, that's censorship.

Scout, I suspect she means abandoned mines on land, like dead coal mines or whatever. I doubt she meant the military sort. Not a very good word usage, but we should give her the benefit of the doubt.

Any thoughts on why the video of her faux pas is now unavailable?

Scout wrote: ""All of those skilled workers who are in the coal industry and transferring those skills to what we need to do in terms of dealing with reclaiming abandoned land mines . . ." Abandoned land mines? Really? In the US?."

As of 2016, the reports from agencies and states estimated 500,000 abandoned mines with only 50,000 actually marked by the BLM. A lot of those are in our Western states. They frequently dump toxins into our water supply due to their origins at a time before the EPA and laws came into effect. I took Harris' complete comment in the article you posted as referring to transferring those skills into finding and fixing the problem. It was estimated to clean up the problem would cost 72 million dollars.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/eng...

Another side of that coin is that some mines that became too difficult to get to the metals. There are also huge tailings that with modern technology could possibly be reproccesed to extract more metals/minerals from.

AZ had a lot of mines and 30 miles south of me is the town of Bisbee which produced around 8 billion pounds of copper over a period of almost 100 years. The mines also produced precious metals -- 102 million ounces of silver and 2.8 million ounces of gold and lead, zinc, and manganese were produced in significant quantities. Bisbee Blue turquoise is famous. The Copper Queen mine, along with others, was owned by Dodge Phelps and closed in 1975. In 1975 dollars, 6.1 billion dollars worth of metal were mined from it.

Since the 1990s the possibility of reopening that mine has been tossed about. I have no doubt there are many others that have the same potential considering there are over 30,750 mining claim owners in Arizona. The State estimates there are over 100,000 abandoned mines in Arizona and recognizes 390 active mines as of 2019.

So, what to you doesn't make sense seems eminently reasonable to me because we each are interpreting from our own knoweldge and expereience.

Where I grew up there had been a gold rush in the 1860s and in the surrounding countryside there were a lot of abandoned small mines that started as vertical drops and then branch out horizontally. The natural vegetation of the area is subtropical rain forest so a lot of these holes got grown over with plant material, which made them dangerous for people wandering about. In those days, children did explore the bush and i knew of one boy who did fall down such a hole and spent some time in hospital.

Ian wrote: "Where I grew up there had been a gold rush in the 1860s and in the surrounding countryside there were a lot of abandoned small mines that started as vertical drops and then branch out horizontally...."

2001 to 2017, there were 25 deaths in AZ from people falling into mines or drowning while swimming in mine quarries. Big ones that were run by companies are generally easier to spot, but many were dug by individuals, families, or small groups throughout the USA, and especially in the western states. I expect you have the same situation though maybe not to the extensive numbers we have in AZ.

The area with them is probably less in NZ than AZ because the gold rush was probably more localised, but nobody really knows how many of these were dug by individuals, so the general rule is, if out there in those zones with regrowth, be careful.

So Harris was talking about reclaiming the land for other use or re-opening the mines or something else - lost plot here.

Kamala Harris was asked about jobs for coal workers that will be unemployed. She stumbled around and there was no real answer, but she did reference transferring the miners' skills toward "reclaiming abandoned land mines." Right. Land mines in the US. This from our future president. I hope you'll watch the entire video and see if she gives a concrete answer to what will happen to coal workers who lose their jobs, if she actually answers any question she's asked.

https://www.wsaz.com/video/2021/01/28...

Scout, I diverted the conversation away from explosive mines because I really doubt she meant that, but I have no idea what else she said, and I doubt that filling in holes will be an answer to a problematic sector of the economy.

Ian, I gave a link to what she said. If you look at it, let me know if she answered any question she was asked. And she shouldn't have said land mines if she didn't mean land mines. She's a public figure now and must be knowledgeable, not ignorant, when she speaks. Words matter when you have that much power.

Scout wrote: "Ian, I gave a link to what she said. If you look at it, let me know if she answered any question she was asked. And she shouldn't have said land mines if she didn't mean land mines. She's a public ..."

Something the previous president often forgot...

Scout, I listened to the speech, and yes, "landmines" was an unfortunate choice of words but she coupled it with oil well pluggers (or something like that). I got the impression she was saying that they will find jobs for these people, but she was not very specific as to where, In fairness, I don't blame her there. She has been in the job a few weeks. There will be some jobs. For example, in Wellington (here) the roading problems means two new tunnels are going to have to be built and I would be very surprised if there were not similar construction being planned in the US.

We have the same problem. Our government is planning to close down quite a few coal mines, so we shall see what happens.

Scout wrote: "Ian, I gave a link to what she said. If you look at it, let me know if she answered any question she was asked. And she shouldn't have said land mines if she didn't mean land mines. She's a public ..."

It was a malaprop in an otherwise banal hand wave.

Nice way to avoid the question, Philip.

As for a malapropism or her inexperience being an excuse, she's likely to be the president before Biden's term is done (if his inability to make coherent statements is any indication). She has no experience with international policy or negotiations. I'd say she'd better learn fast that words matter.

Biden did not pick her for her skill - he picked her for political correctness. VPs are not elected by the people, which becomes interesting when they inadvertently become President.

Scout wrote: "Nice way to avoid the question, Philip.

As for a malapropism or her inexperience being an excuse, she's likely to be the president before Biden's term is done (if his inability to make coherent s..."

Wasn't trying to avoid it Scout.
Other nations my own included have managed significant job losses when coal mines have closed. It's not easy, it takes many years and does not necessarily bring high skilled jobs in its place.

On the matter of reclaiming land used for mines (land mines) this is good environmentally and often socially e.g. creating water parks, lakes etc from otherwise big deep holes. Deep coal mines are not as easy and have led to problems of subsidence long before mines were closed.

Whether Harris has any policies on this is yet to be seen, but then again I think I published the actual numbers on coal mining from the previous administration which had not materially affected coal mining area employment statistics.

I have not seen or heard much of Biden in terms of statements to demonstrate whether he is or is not coherent. The few I have seen including the inauguration speech seemed ok in terms of ability to be coherent

I don't recall the previous President having any foreign affairs or even public office experience. Yet he was voted in and almost voted in again despite the mess he had made with nearly every international agreement and relationship.

Clearly large swathes of the US public do not think such experience is necessary.

Ian wrote: "Biden did not pick her for her skill - he picked her for political correctness. VPs are not elected by the people, which becomes interesting when they inadvertently become President."

We have two examples I can recall. Johnson after Kennedy's assassination and Ford after Nixon's resignation.

Johnson deepened and widened the Vietnam war but continued Kennedy's space programme. Ford - I can't recall if there was anything Ford did of International note apart from not be Nixon.

Biden may go down in history as not being Trump and Harris may or may not takeover.

Most leaders who have little experience in some areas appoint good advisors or Secretaries of State to help with such matters. Provided they are not fired for disagreeing with a Presidential tweet they even sometimes are allowed to advise.

Greenwald doesn't trust the media either.

Regarding the Sicknick story from the capitol riot.

REF: https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-...

Philip said: "I have not seen or heard much of Biden in terms of statements to demonstrate whether he is or is not coherent. The few I have seen including the inauguration speech seemed ok in terms of ability to be coherent."

Let me preface this clip from Sean Hannity's show by saying that I don't watch his show because he's often inflammatory and offensive. I do hope you watch this, though, because the clips of Biden are unquestionably indicative of his mental acuity and state of mind and explain why I think Harris will become president.

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=I4o2i7uiQW...

Scout wrote: "Philip said: "I have not seen or heard much of Biden in terms of statements to demonstrate whether he is or is not coherent. The few I have seen including the inauguration speech seemed ok in terms..."

I believe Harris will become president before the 2024 election. I believe that Biden will retire from office for health reasons.

Just my gut feeling about it all.

Did you watch the video? Very disquieting.

I watched first few clips. First answer was completely coherent about cognitive tests and had mental ability to throw a cocaine dig on reporter and a dig on Trump into the answer

As with cut short sentences and cut short video clips editing is the issue.

On Reagan he did suffer from Dementia and was probably suffering badly during the second half of his second term - he didn't hand over to VP

I don't believe any of us are doctors - has the President's medical records been released? I know Trump blocked his has Biden done the same?

Philip wrote: "And yet we repeat the news stories as fact just claiming our own preference is true whilst ignoring other reports."

That is because the other side is all innuendo, false reporting, and half truths. Gad we cleared that up....8^)

Philip wrote: "I don't recall the previous President having any foreign affairs or even public office experience. Yet he was voted in and almost voted in again despite the mess he had made with nearly every international agreement and relationship...."

He was an international businessman. You may not accept that as enough and that is fair, but he certainly had more than Obama, Clinton, Carter, G.W. Bush, and Kennedy. You also may not like his movements on various agreements and that is fair too. However, I am much less upset because he upset the apple cart and it was long overdue.

Graeme wrote: "Scout wrote: "Philip said: "I have not seen or heard much of Biden in terms of statements to demonstrate whether he is or is not coherent. The few I have seen including the inauguration speech seem..."

That would be a disaster for the Democrats. Even the Democrats will know this one. Harris is not a good candidate and the vast body of the party will not follow her.

So to answer the question on do I trust the media? I trust the local news much more than the national news. What passes for national news is not really news. It is editorial passing as news. That is a real problem.

Philip wrote: "I watched first few clips. First answer was completely coherent about cognitive tests and had mental ability to throw a cocaine dig on reporter and a dig on Trump into the answer

As with cut short..."

Why did you watch only the first few clips? Watch them all and then tell me he's not having some problems with cognitive ability.

Ha! Scout is in a punishing mood, forcing Philip to watch a whole lot of political speak :-)

You troublemaker, you! :-) I'm just asking Philip to watch all the clips in order to make an informed response about Joe's mental capacity. Here's what Philip didn't respond to, words coming from Joe's mouth on video, having nothing to do with editing. Judge for yourself:

"Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids."

"Why in God's name should someone who's clipping coupons in the Stock Market make in fact pay a lower tax rate than someone who in fact is like a school teacher and a fire fighter?"

"Look, tomorrow's Super Thursday."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created by the go you know you know the thing."

"My son, one of my, my deceased son, was the Attorney General of the United States and before that he was a federal prosecutor in one of the largest offices in the country, the, in in Philadelphia."

"We choose truth over facts."

"Play the radio, make sure the television, excuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the the phone, make sure the kids hear words."

"A hundred and fifty million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from some liability."

Just saying that there's evidence that Joe isn't all there, and how's he going to do the most complicated and powerful job in the world?

Me? A trouble-maker? Surely not :-)

Not very inspiring quotes though, assuming they are quotes. You might ask, is he all there, but one I find far more concerning: "We choose truth over facts." That is a sign of something much more dangerous than not being entirely there.

Ian wrote: "Ha! Scout is in a punishing mood, forcing Philip to watch a whole lot of political speak :-)"

Well he is a secret Barry Manilow fan.....8^)

Scout wrote: "You troublemaker, you! :-) I'm just asking Philip to watch all the clips in order to make an informed response about Joe's mental capacity. Here's what Philip didn't respond to, words coming from J..."

He sounds like George W. Bush.....8^)

Now we are insulting "He" :-)

Oh, come on, Ian. You say, "assuming they are quotes." I posted a video of Biden actually saying these idiotic things, and then when you didn't want to watch the video, I transcribed what Biden said word for word. They were quotes, verbatim, from Biden's lips. Did you watch him speaking? 150 million people have been killed by guns? His son was Attorney General of the US? And other nonsense you didn't take the time to verify. I'm tired.

Scout, I tend to say things like the assuming, just to show I cannot verify the statements. I was not implying you were wrong - just covering myself in case they were.

As it happens, I have not been watching him speak other than in five second news clips. He does not strike me as a compelling speaker so far.

How can you not verify the statements? There's video of him being confused, the actual statements he made. Imagine him sitting down with Putin or Xi after watching this. Forward through Hannity's comments and watch Biden.

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=I4o2i7uiQW...

Can you say you're confident that he's up for the job?