12
   

The hypocracy of the democrats concerning Northam.

 
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 06:59 pm
@hightor,
Surely some respectable democrat already has. This discussion has already been had. I was told the reason he quit doing blackface was because the blacks resented it. I'm not sure that is true.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 07:06 pm
Being a blackface democrat bad. Being a Trump crook and liar good.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Feb, 2019 07:20 pm
Gov. Northam affirms that he will not resign, and right now I don't see any external forces that will push him out of office. Were Democrats to do that then the ongoing issues involving the Lt. Governor will quickly come to the forefront, yielding no net political improvement for the Democrats compared to the current situation. Truly an irony filled situation.

I'm not at all convinced that such an event, more than 20 years ago, should be sufficient to overturn the results of gubernatorial election. I certainly oppose Northam's advocacy of unlimited late term abortions - as well as other issues affecting Virginia. However, in the interest of the proper functioning of our government and democracy there should be some limits on the outrage and demands for retribution by offended groups for acts not involving a judicially determined crime.

The Democrats tolerated Senator Robert Byrd, a former senior officer in the Ku Klux Klan until his death in 2010. He was in the Senate for over 50 years, very senior and a powerful voice in that body. In view of that, their professed indignation over Northam is a bit odd. However, I find their apparent intent to take no action against Northam in keeping with their current political interests, just as was the case with Byrd.

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 06:20 am
For Virginia Governor Grappling With Race, a Childhood Trying to See Beyond It
Quote:
ONANCOCK, Va. — When the United States Supreme Court ordered school districts in 1968 to dismantle their segregated classrooms, Wescott and Nancy Northam had a choice to make.

As in much of the rest of the country, private schools had popped up in the Northams’ community on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. They were havens for white parents who did not want their children in the same classrooms as black students. Mr. Northam was a lawyer, his wife a nurse, so that option was well within their means.

But the Northams — whose ancestors were among the many white slaveowners to lay roots in this rich agricultural region in the early 1800s — made what seemed like a surprising decision for people of their stature.

They kept their sons, Thomas and Ralph, in public schools.

(...)

nyt
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 12:00 pm
Quote:
The New York Times appears to be trying hard to rationalize the wearing of blackface and/or KKK robes !

The NYT is no longer a newspaper. It has been reduced to tabloid status replete with fake news and unrealistic distortion of facts involving Trump and politics of the day.
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 12:15 pm
@coldjoint,
What the hell are you even talking about? Care to provide some examples? Are you certain you know the difference between the OpEds and the hard news coverage?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 12:48 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
What the hell are you even talking about?

I am talking about the NYT being biased, sensationalist, dishonest piece of ****. But still useful for bird cages.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 01:02 pm
@hightor,
I wouldn't call the NYT article you quoted above "hard news coverage" at all. It was instead a rather tortured rationalization that didn't amount to anything either significant or relevant. Indeed the black population of the Eastern Shore of Virginia during Northam's school days was relatively a good deal less than that of the rest of the state.

It's increasingly obvious that Northam will remain in office and that the Democrat Party won't put any pressure on him to leave. I strongly suspect the reason is that, if he does leave office, the ongoing issues regarding the Lt Governor will suddenly rise to replace it - there's no net political gain for them in either option.

I happen to think that the so called "group values" behind much of this are largely nonsense in their own right. Accusations of non criminal unsavory behavior, in some cases decades ago, should not, themselves be sufficient disqualifying factors for officials elected to or appointed to public office.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 01:33 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I wouldn't call the NYT article you quoted above "hard news coverage" at all. It was instead a rather tortured rationalization that didn't amount to anything either significant or relevant.

Good, because I wouldn't call it "hard news coverage" either. It's more in the style of a magazine article.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 02:12 pm
@coldjoint,
It's perfectly normal for people to disagree with aspects of news coverage. But you've neglected to provide any examples , you just make blanket statements.
Quote:
I am talking about the NYT being biased...

Sure, the editorial board has a liberal slant and as a result has been critical of Trump. But that's the prerogative of any OpEd page. And, the NYT has several columnists who are more conservative, plus it will regularly print pieces from well known conservative writers and politicians. Hell, they had a piece by John Bolton last week, and today there's a piece by Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
Quote:
...sensationalist...

Okay, show me a screaming tabloid headline followed by a story where the facts are completely exaggerated or pulled from thin air.
Quote:
...dishonest piece of ****...

If the newspaper is so dishonest don't you wonder why its stories are commonly picked up and then run in the SSM with a conservative commentary? The NYT has reporters all over the world, which is more than you can say for a lot of the SSM sources that you and gungasnake like to post. And when a NYT story is shown to contain factual errors the newspaper prints retractions and apologies, which is more than you can say for a lot of the SSM sources that you and gungasnake like to post.

Media Sensationalism in Today's News Coverage

Glenn Halbrooks wrote:
Media outlets are often blamed for sensationalism in today's news coverage. Reporters are criticized for exaggerating the facts in the name of getting higher Nielsen ratings or more newspaper subscriptions.

Are the Criticisms Valid?

Violence breaks out in the county jail, leaving some inmates injured. The sheriff holds a news conference, saying that his deputies are investigating an "incident" at the jail.

As a reporter, you know there's a better way to describe the scene. The sheriff insists on only calling it an incident in order to downplay the violence so that it looks minor. You have a choice of sticking with his word or calling it something else—a scuffle, an uprising, even a riot.

There's no rule on which word to use. Unfortunately, no matter what choice you make, it's likely the sheriff will accuse you of sensationalism. While he's trying to use language to protect himself, you need to accurately describe the situation.

One solution is to say, "While the sheriff calls this an incident, the families of the inmates hurt say it was an all-out brawl." You let others label the fighting.

A common misconception is that large font or bright colors make the story sensational. It's the content that matters more than the presentation.

Fair Reporting

Every news reporter wants to see her story on the front page or at the top of the 6 o'clock news. That may lead to the temptation to make a story sound bigger than it is.

Let a checklist of fair reporting be your guide. There's nothing wrong with using words like "chaos" or "shocking" if you can back it up with facts. Avoid using these words every day, or else your audience will grow bored.
Assignments Leading to Criticism

Sometimes it's the news story assignment itself that leads to charges of sensationalism. At no time was that truer than during the Monica Lewinsky scandal involving President Bill Clinton.

It became one of the 12 events that changed news coverage because every news outlet was forced to decide how to cover taboo sexual topics.

Sure, it sounded like sensationalism on the surface. Except that the Clinton presidency was at stake. Reporters had to merge the titillating details with the mundane mechanics of federal government because President Clinton faced impeachment.

Valid Criticisms

There are cases where the critics are right, that a news report is sensationalized. That usually happens when promises of coverage aren't kept.

The culprit is usually media advertising, which is typically produced by someone other than a news reporter, likely someone not even in the news department.

That person will create a topical ad saying something like, "See the worst fire in the city's history!" Viewers that tune into the 6 o'clock news see the fire and think it's not all that bad. Once that happens, viewers become skeptical toward your advertising claims.

Make sure that the person creating daily advertising for your news product has accurate information. While it's his job to sell the product, remind him not to oversell. For him, it would be no different than if he created an ad for a restaurant promising that it has the "world's best chili" when it doesn't.

Reporters and newsroom managers need to develop a gut instinct on setting limits in promoting coverage. If you have a legitimate, exclusive news story that no one else has, there's no harm in advertising that fact. But words like "exclusive" can become so overused on mundane, daily news stories that they lose their value.

As you can see, sensationalism is difficult to pin down. That's why it's easy for so many people to label the news media as being driven by sensationalism because it means different things. For any journalist, if you deliver factual, accurate stories every time, you can defend your work against these claims.

thebalancecareers
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 02:26 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
And when a NYT story is shown to contain factual errors the newspaper prints retractions and apologies,

Quote:
NY Times fires back at Trump: 'We did not apologize’



Quote:
NYTimes Communications

@NYTimesPR

[email protected] False, we did not apolog ize. We stand by our coverage & thank our millions of subscribers for supporting our journalism.

They are saying their reporting was not biased, that simply is not true.
https://thehill.com/homen


hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 02:50 pm
@coldjoint,
(fix your link)

coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 02:57 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
(fix your link)

I can't, call Google.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:09 pm
@maxdancona,
You are 100% correct in this assessment. This is the house of cards they have built and now it's ready to collapse and catch them in a double gotcha. Gov accused of wearing blackface and the Lt. Gov now accused of 2 rapes. Both of these are issues that been pushed by the extreme left as political issues for the last couple of years.
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:17 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
I can't help what's covered by the press or how it's covered. Maybe you are missing what the ****-Stream Media did to Dr. Blasey-Ford. Our country has become, unfortunately, a "tabloid society". Sin sells.

****-stream media? Who are they?

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:26 pm
@coldjoint,
Quote:
They are saying their reporting was not biased, that simply is not true.

You're sticking up for a president who has told thousands of lies since taking office. Why should anyone believe his word against that of the NYT? Without the link I can't comment accurately but it's very possible that the story was true, so an apology or retraction wasn't necessary.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:32 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Both of these are issues that been pushed by the extreme left as political issues for the last couple of years.

The Lt. Governor deserves to have the charges investigated before he's thrown out of the statehouse. And the fact that someone wore blackface thirty years ago is not a sufficient reason to jettison the guy and it looks as if the public is beginning to come around to that realization. Maybe some good will come out of this and the ridiculous game of trying to dig up legal but embarrassing behavior in a politician's distant past will be seen for what it really is — a diversion.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:40 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
Both of these are issues that been pushed by the extreme left as political issues for the last couple of years.

The Lt. Governor deserves to have the charges investigated before he's thrown out of the statehouse. And the fact that someone wore blackface thirty years ago is not a sufficient reason to jettison the guy and it looks as if the public is beginning to come around to that realization. Maybe some good will come out of this and the ridiculous game of trying to dig up legal but embarrassing behavior in a politician's distant past will be seen for what it really is — a diversion.


I heard a poll that said that 58% of the Virginia black population doesn't want him to resign.

Those people, more than any others, are more directly affected than anyone else nationwide by any racism or racial insensitivity that may be in Northam's heart.

If asked if they'd prefer a Democratic agenda implemented by Northam or a Republican appointed governor, I would suspect Northam's support would increase among those same people.


ETA: the poll
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginians-split-on-governors-fate-amid-blackface-scandal-poll-shows/2019/02/09/93002e84-2bc1-11e9-b011-d8500644dc98_story.html?utm_term=.e353846056e0
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Feb, 2019 03:42 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
The Lt. Governor deserves to have the charges investigated before he's thrown out of the statehouse. And the fact that someone wore blackface thirty years ago is not a sufficient reason to jettison the guy and it looks as if the public is beginning to come around to that realization. Maybe some good will come out of this and the ridiculous game of trying to dig up legal but embarrassing behavior in a politician's distant past will be seen for what it really is — a diversion.

I agree with you 100% on these items, Lt Gov deserves due process and something like the University photo should not have an effect on his career.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2019 01:10 pm
@maporsche,
The Democrat Party, with these Virginia scandals, has revealed the depth of its hypocrisy.

If these things disqualify Republicans from holding office, it has to be the same for Democrats...if the Party has any integrity at all.

Of course, it doesn't. I'm not in the least bit surprised with how this is rolling out. It's not enough for Dem POTUS candidates to say "I called for resignation!" If they are the leaders they claim to be they need to force the issue. They won't, because they feel they have insulated themselves.

The only good thing about it is that whenever a Democrat gets on his or her high horse about such things we can all respond "Virginia!"
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/17/2019 at 11:03:51