Consuming News: How Much? What Sources? (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

And I don't agree that in 1997 all people had to do was read the tea leaves. I was alive then and the idea that weed would be legalized like it is today was unheard of then. I think you may have some hindsight bias. But that last point not even really all that important because the majority of people have different views today and that's what matters.

You’re proving my point here, aren’t you?

how so? i was saying there were no tea leaves

Ah, okay. That’s a bit of a red herring to this discussion, but all you had to do was look at the breakdown by age. We all knew it. I had a bunch of friends that were involved with SSDP (Students for a Sensible Drug Policy) and that worked for Reason or various higher-ups in the libertarian movement. Had a good friend who worked for CATO. The ages of the responders were key back then. Most of Gen X and the Boomers thought it should be legal. It was the other generations that didn’t feel that way.

 

[rockaction]

g

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles

Sounds like a great feature. I can’t tell you how often I’ve been blindsided by stories happening on both sides of the aisle since 2015. Once you’re on Twitter, you generally have at least heard of these stories in some ancillary fashion, but it’s definitely nice if somebody could pull this feature off without the venom that usually comes with the Twitter stuff.

For the past several years, I've used Twitter as my primary news source, relying on the method that you describe: hear about a story on Twitter, decide whether it's worth checking out or not, and if it is, reading about it in a longer format elsewhere. What I'm finding now is that there's often no good "outside source" to go to anymore. Everything is reported from a partisan framing, so you never really know whether you can believe what you're reading. I have a lot less confidence that I understand facts on the ground correctly than I did a decade ago.

 

[rockaction]

the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people

What does the Court have to do with state or federal abortion law right now? It has simply given the states leeway to pass what they want. It has not invalidated any state laws or majoritarian laws at the federal level.

 

[rockaction]

The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles

Sounds like a great feature. I can’t tell you how often I’ve been blindsided by stories happening on both sides of the aisle since 2015. Once you’re on Twitter, you generally have at least heard of these stories in some ancillary fashion, but it’s definitely nice if somebody could pull this feature off without the venom that usually comes with the Twitter stuff.

For the past several years, I've used Twitter as my primary news source, relying on the method that you describe: hear about a story on Twitter, decide whether it's worth checking out or not, and if it is, reading about it in a longer format elsewhere. What I'm finding now is that there's often no good "outside source" to go to anymore. Everything is reported from a partisan framing, so you never really know whether you can believe what you're reading. I have a lot less confidence that I understand facts on the ground correctly than I did a decade ago.

Yes, I’ve also noticed this. Thankfully, some of the more outrageous stories had White House papers regarding their implementation, so I was able to verify that they were true. Things like the 30% in 2030, or the Natural Asset Companies, which were promulgated by the SEC and NYSE and also had accompanying White House papers, or various climate change and public health initiatives that had corresponding government meetings one could watch online, etc.

The government was the best source for reporting on the government, actually. I’ll bet somehow that changes. They were not very intelligent about getting away with some outrageous stuff.

But your point is taken. You’d hope to find unbiased reporting, and it seems like each side has their advocates and only from there can you find out the truth. You have to do you own inferring.

 

[Mitchie]

the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people

What does the Court have to do with state or federal abortion law right now? It has simply given the states leeway to pass what they want. It has not invalidated any state laws or majoritarian laws at the federal level.

huh?

 

[bigbottom]

the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people

What does the Court have to do with state or federal abortion law right now? It has simply given the states leeway to pass what they want. It has not invalidated any state laws or majoritarian laws at the federal level.

It could be said that the U.S. Constitution is sort of designed to thwart the will of the people. By striking down Roe v. Wade, the Court returned the issue of abortion rights to the will of the people (or to the elected legislators that represent them).

 

[rockaction]

huh?

The Court hasn’t overridden one majoritarian thing regarding abortion. It overrode its own precedent that they would override majoritarian abortion restrictions in favor of allowing it.

 

[rockaction]

the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people

What does the Court have to do with state or federal abortion law right now? It has simply given the states leeway to pass what they want. It has not invalidated any state laws or majoritarian laws at the federal level.

It could be said that the U.S. Constitution is sort of designed to thwart the will of the people. By striking down Roe v. Wade, the Court returned the issue of abortion rights to the will of the people (or to the elected legislators that represent them).

That’s exactly what I’m trying to say, bb.

 

[rockaction]

I must not be saying it well.

Measures in order of how beholden they are to the will of the people: referendum, legislature, executive, courts

1) Referendum is the most directly democratic because it is put directly to the people for a direct up and down vote.
2) Legislative actions are the second-most directly democratic because they are elected by the people and only serve for a limited time until they are up for re-election. The nature of legislative action invites comment
3) Executive orders are the third-most directly democratic because the executive is elected by the people and can be voted out at the end of their term. It is less democratic than the legislature because of the process and singular nature of the executive person. The admin state is less accountable and unelected, so any administrative state regulations or allowances are less democratic than an executive order, but more so than a court because
4) Courts are the least because of lifetime appointments and accountability concerns

 

[rockaction]

Anyway, I’ve bollocksed up this discussion enough. I was going for how extreme positions make their way into the discourse over time and how they stay there if they’re intellectually consistent with the underpinning of the movement that is winding its way through public discussion. That’s all. I used two examples in the hopes of being non-partisan. I don’t think I explained it well enough or was able to convey the appropriate conceptual framework well enough.

 

[Desert_Power]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

You misread what I was trying to say (maybe I could've worded better), which was that most of the states that have legalized it I believe have done so through ballot measures.

Ah, yes. I think I get what you’re going for. Most of the states (if not all) have legalized via referendum or via the legislature as opposed to a less accountable way (courts or admin. state). I see. And I’m only saying it was an extreme position from 1997-2000 or so. I hope that clarifies why I’d call it an extreme position. You knew once the Silent Generation departed that marijuana would become not-so anathema to the general public.

Even stranger, they essentially legalized it nationwide in the 2017 farm bill. No, not the marijuana most people think of. But they legalized cannabis products derived from hemp. In 49 states you can now walk in with just your ID and buy stuff just as strong or stronger than in many of the "legal" states for the OG weed. You can buy it online and get it shipped across country. Total legal.

 

[rockaction]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

You misread what I was trying to say (maybe I could've worded better), which was that most of the states that have legalized it I believe have done so through ballot measures.

Ah, yes. I think I get what you’re going for. Most of the states (if not all) have legalized via referendum or via the legislature as opposed to a less accountable way (courts or admin. state). I see. And I’m only saying it was an extreme position from 1997-2000 or so. I hope that clarifies why I’d call it an extreme position. You knew once the Silent Generation departed that marijuana would become not-so anathema to the general public.

Even stranger, they essentially legalized it nationwide in the 2017 farm bill. No, not the marijuana most people think of. But they legalized cannabis products derived from hemp. In 49 states you can now walk in with just your ID and buy stuff just as strong or stronger than in many of the "legal" states for the OG weed. You can buy it online and get it shipped across country. Total legal.

Did you read that in the Atlantic? That’s where I saw it. Interesting stuff. I don’t think they would have done that had they known.

 

[Desert_Power]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

The last part of your statement is incorrect, by the way. Only 25 states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, and it remains regulated in those states. The federal government still has it as an illegal drug under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. States cannot override the federal government. What we know is that the federal government has decided not to prosecute and has thus left a gray area of enforcement. States can pass their own laws but we are still subject to the fed. gov. and their enforcement mechanism.

You misread what I was trying to say (maybe I could've worded better), which was that most of the states that have legalized it I believe have done so through ballot measures.

Ah, yes. I think I get what you’re going for. Most of the states (if not all) have legalized via referendum or via the legislature as opposed to a less accountable way (courts or admin. state). I see. And I’m only saying it was an extreme position from 1997-2000 or so. I hope that clarifies why I’d call it an extreme position. You knew once the Silent Generation departed that marijuana would become not-so anathema to the general public.

Even stranger, they essentially legalized it nationwide in the 2017 farm bill. No, not the marijuana most people think of. But they legalized cannabis products derived from hemp. In 49 states you can now walk in with just your ID and buy stuff just as strong or stronger than in many of the "legal" states for the OG weed. You can buy it online and get it shipped across country. Total legal.

Did you read that in the Atlantic? That’s where I saw it. Interesting stuff. I don’t think they would have done that had they known.

Have been considering subscribing to the Atlantic but no. Definitely an unintended consequence.

I have been buying these things for over two years now. Wife enjoys that I'm not doing anything illegal anymore.

 

[rockaction]

Have been considering subscribing to the Atlantic but no

I took advantage of their free month. I liked their writing. It gets scorn heaped on it by right-leaning folks, but I’ve found it pretty good. You just need a bit of a filter.

I also took advantage of the NYT four weeks for four bucks. I also found the coverage surprisingly good. Maybe it was The Athletic that really did it.

Anyway, thinking of subscribing to both but I don’t think I’ll pull the trigger.

 

[Desert_Power]

Have been considering subscribing to the Atlantic but no

I took advantage of their free month. I liked their writing. It gets scorn heaped on it by right-leaning folks, but I’ve found it pretty good. You just need a bit of a filter.

I also took advantage of the NYT four weeks for four bucks. I also found the coverage surprisingly good. Maybe it was The Athletic that really did it.

Anyway, thinking of subscribing to both but I don’t think I’ll pull the trigger.

Only subscribed to WSJ since my Economist lapsed. Probably reup the latter but need to get some more good journalism in the mix. I find the financial outlets have the best factual reporting of any outlets, but there are other biases.

How traditional media has reacted to social media seems to have negatively impacted much journalism. Their subscription models don't help as they incentivize churning and end up charging regular subscribers way too much IMO. I still remember when the NYT and WaPo started putting things behind the paywall so that RSS feeds couldn't get their content. Then Google killed Reader, the best news app of this millennia so far.

Now we are overrun by social media where the user is the product instead of the consumer.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Very little. I'm a headline reader on a couple conservative sites and RealClearPolitics. If I do click on a link on RCP it's typically on an opposing viewpoint to see what they're trying to say about it - my worldview is pretty evolved so I'm not really looking for confirmation/validation from my side.

I don't watch the nightly news or any cable outlet - I don't even have cable.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Very little. I'm a headline reader on a couple conservative sites and RealClearPolitics. If I do click on a link on RCP it's typically on an opposing viewpoint to see what they're trying to say about it - my worldview is pretty evolved so I'm not really looking for confirmation/validation from my side.

I don't watch the nightly news or any cable outlet - I don't even have cable.

I've watched a small amount of cable news recently just to see how they were handling the election. It's bad. I refuse to believe that anyone under the age of 70 is watching any of this stuff on a regular basis.

 

[Gatorade]

Not quoting directly, but the gist of what he said is that the danger in the news that you read is not that your main sources may be an echo chamber, but that whatever you read from the "other side" is often slanted to the crazy wingnut branch of the argument. From my perspective, I think there is a lot of truth to that

The problem is that the origin of a lot of the “other side” stuff is indeed the ideological extremists’ argument. The mainstream politicians try to hide the extremist origins. To wit, we were once assured by pro-lifers that the life of the woman was never up for debate if pro-life legislation were to be passed. Neither would criminal charges be brought against the woman. That was only the wild extremists’ position. Well, it’s been a whopping two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned and guess what?

Surprise! Both are in play!

We were also told that marijuana legalization would never be for recreational use. That was only extremists like NORML and High Times magazine folks. The folks that live in Humboldt county or Portland or something like that.

Again, surprise! Recreation is now the norm for the argument!

Really, the extremists drive policy and the parties these days. I don’t know exactly how that happened, but there’s a capture that’s going on where the center 60% of the country resides and they aren’t often being represented. Instead, it’s get as much as you can for your side and see what you can get away with to appease your base.

Vance knows this. He’s been described by old classmates one of the most “illiberal” politicians America has seen, and they’re not merely saying it because he’s from the right. My point in bringing that up is because in public he moderates himself. I do not doubt that behind closed doors—and John Ganz of the New Republic was on this before a lot of people were—he is illiberal. So saying that the extremes of each policy position are often the ones that get attention in media is in keeping with what he does himself.

I don’t know if that makes sense. Let’s say it this way. When politicians know they’re outside the Overton window, they lie. Vance does as a matter of habit. And I don’t just say that because he comes from the right. I would say that about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris also. I can think of off the top of my head at least five issues they were deliberately lying about. They got caught, and lost an election because of it. I mean, was there a moment in your day you didn’t see that They/Them commercial? It must have absolutely walloped Harris. So . . .

The legalization of marijuana for recreational use is not an extremist view. The majority of people are in favor of this. Most, possibly all (but not sure about that) states have legalized use through ballot measures.

I understand that. That was not the case in 1997 when I was down in D.C. and we were assured by the libertarian right that the position towards marijuana would never officially be recreation. All one had to do was read the tea leaves and official positions to see that a moderate position, such as medical marijuana only, would not be the case in the future.

Same with Roe and the mother’s life. If you believe that the fetus is a baby, you’re going to have those that argue you should save its life even if it jeopardizes the mother’s. It’s inherent in the argument at some point. And criminal punishment as deterrence goes hand-in-hand with these laws like peanut butter and chocolate.

And that’s how the extreme comes to be. The arguments have a basis in something. For marijuana, it’s bodily autonomy. For abortion, it’s about recognizing the fetus as a person. The “extreme” positions flow therefrom.

I hope that makes sense.

two more examples of extremist pushing policies.
legalizing recreational drug use in the pacific northwest and not prosecuting shoplifting in California.
fortunately, both have been overturned as rational people have prevailed.

 

[Gatorade]

I mean, you can’t say it “was unheard of then” and then say that it wasn’t an extreme position for that time, can you?

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I think I am.

I’m saying it was an extreme position in ’97 (legalization). We were assured it would never be fully legalized. But the extreme position came to pass.

Same with abortion. The extreme position is coming to be the one we’re arguing about. And while Roe. v. Wade was overturned by the S. Ct., the state regulations are being decided at the ballot box.

the extreme position came to pass because the majority of people are now in favor of it, that is not the case with the issue of when abortion endangers the life of the mother. the majority of people are not in favor of this, we are arguing about it because the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people (i hope this isn't too political of a statement but think this is a fact, polls show that most people are opposed to banning abortion if it jeapordizes the life of the mother)

don't most states allow abortion if it jeopardizes the life of the mother ?

 

[MTskibum]

I do not read political or general news sites.

Tech and science news is what I primarily consume and arstechnica.com and livescience.com are some of my favorite two, but there are more.

I also like reading up on vehicle news, and motortrend and caranddriver are my favorite sources there.

For video game news i read polygon.com

For fishing I read local forums.

Same news sources as last year.

 

[SofaKings]

I use Twitter like Ivan. Also subscribe to digital NYT for my world history class.

 

[tommyGunZ]

The one feature that is pretty excellent (and might be more robust with the paid version) is their “Blindspot” section which highlights news articles that have little coverage on one side of the political spectrum so you can see what’s likely being shared and passed around in the partisan information bubbles

Sounds like a great feature. I can’t tell you how often I’ve been blindsided by stories happening on both sides of the aisle since 2015. Once you’re on Twitter, you generally have at least heard of these stories in some ancillary fashion, but it’s definitely nice if somebody could pull this feature off without the venom that usually comes with the Twitter stuff.

For the past several years, I've used Twitter as my primary news source, relying on the method that you describe: hear about a story on Twitter, decide whether it's worth checking out or not, and if it is, reading about it in a longer format elsewhere. What I'm finding now is that there's often no good "outside source" to go to anymore. Everything is reported from a partisan framing, so you never really know whether you can believe what you're reading. I have a lot less confidence that I understand facts on the ground correctly than I did a decade ago.

Honest question, because we all hear the same thing these days about how the news used to be so much better. Is that true? Back when there were 3 major networks, and they fit their news in to 30 minute nightly shows - really more like 16-18 minutes when you remove commercials, weather, and sports.

Even back in the Cronkite, Burrow, Brinkley, Brokaw, Jennings eras - they made editorial decisions about what to report and what not to report. With communication so difficult, how do we know that over the course of their decades manning the wheel that they were straight shooters? And while they were products of their times and environment, is there any question that women and minorities were severely shortchanged over those years? Where was their voice in the news? How much sooner would we have been able to make progress if their stories were being reported regularly, accurately, and with the same fever that other news was reported?

TLDR: Are people longing for the days of "fair news reporting" essentially wish casting for something that never was?

 

[Desert_Power]

I mean, you can’t say it “was unheard of then” and then say that it wasn’t an extreme position for that time, can you?

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I think I am.

I’m saying it was an extreme position in ’97 (legalization). We were assured it would never be fully legalized. But the extreme position came to pass.

Same with abortion. The extreme position is coming to be the one we’re arguing about. And while Roe. v. Wade was overturned by the S. Ct., the state regulations are being decided at the ballot box.

the extreme position came to pass because the majority of people are now in favor of it, that is not the case with the issue of when abortion endangers the life of the mother. the majority of people are not in favor of this, we are arguing about it because the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people (i hope this isn't too political of a statement but think this is a fact, polls show that most people are opposed to banning abortion if it jeapordizes the life of the mother)

don't most states allow abortion if it jeopardizes the life of the mother ?

This site seems to have a good breakdown by state, although I am not familiar with this source. I imagine though there could be issues finding providers willing to do so, but I do not want to veer off into politics.

 

[Gatorade]

I mean, you can’t say it “was unheard of then” and then say that it wasn’t an extreme position for that time, can you?

Perhaps I’m not explaining myself well. I think I am.

I’m saying it was an extreme position in ’97 (legalization). We were assured it would never be fully legalized. But the extreme position came to pass.

Same with abortion. The extreme position is coming to be the one we’re arguing about. And while Roe. v. Wade was overturned by the S. Ct., the state regulations are being decided at the ballot box.

the extreme position came to pass because the majority of people are now in favor of it, that is not the case with the issue of when abortion endangers the life of the mother. the majority of people are not in favor of this, we are arguing about it because the Supreme Court is overriding the will of the people (i hope this isn't too political of a statement but think this is a fact, polls show that most people are opposed to banning abortion if it jeapordizes the life of the mother)

don't most states allow abortion if it jeopardizes the life of the mother ?

This site seems to have a good breakdown by state, although I am not familiar with this source. I imagine though there could be issues finding providers willing to do so, but I do not want to veer off into politics.

As far as I can tell by those charts, NO states ban abortion if the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Am I correct ?

 

[Max Power]

Washington Post Opinion Editor Out As Jeff Bezos Says Editorials Will Focus On “Personal Liberties And Free Markets”

Jeff Bezos is exerting more influence over the content of The Washington Post opinion pages, as he announced that the editorials will now focus on “defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” “We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be...

deadline.com

Jeff Bezos is exerting more influence over the content of The Washington Post opinion pages, as he announced that the editorials will now focus on “defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.”

“We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others,” Bezos wrote in a memo to staffers this morning.

Bezos also wrote that David Shipley, the opinion editor, is leaving the publication.

Bezos wrote, “I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t ‘hell yes,’ then it had to be ‘no.’ After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.”

 

[Joe Schmo]

Don't read the Post op-ed anymore as I no longer consume anything print but this just smacks of soulless capitulation, imo. Good to see people though, no more masks for fake champions of free press. Must be nice to be uber-rich and not have to give a fig.

 

[Psychopav]

Thanks. @Max Power - I will continue to not read the Washington Post.

 

[B Maverick]

I recently heard about this news site: Straight Arrow News

I haven't dove into it but it is marketed as unbiased and also shows how "news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story".
Anyone using this site or their app for news? Curious if it really is unbiased, we need more places that report what happened without slant or opinions.

 

[Max Power]

I recently heard about this news site: Straight Arrow News

I haven't dove into it but it is marketed as unbiased and also shows how "news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story".
Anyone using this site or their app for news? Curious if it really is unbiased, we need more places that report what happened without slant or opinions.

Interesting site. I like there is an "underreported stories for each side" section.

 

[Psychopav]

I recently heard about this news site: Straight Arrow News

I haven't dove into it but it is marketed as unbiased and also shows how "news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story".
Anyone using this site or their app for news? Curious if it really is unbiased, we need more places that report what happened without slant or opinions.

Interesting site. I like there is an "underreported stories for each side" section.

Pretty cool - if you click through to the stories, you can compare stories written by various outlets on different sides of the spectrum to see how the reporting emphasis differs.