That's another frequent one.

(named anchor or pundit) right now!

I take that as (usually Rachel or Lawrence, it seems) is saying something you may really want to hear.

I don't take it as an order.

Is beyond ridiculous.

Can't make it up. I also hate it when they vote your post out when its from a left wing source but they disagree and vote it out as a right wing source.

Never has been. It was founded by a Republican and is now owned by a conservative German.

Hardvard. edu Feb 2024 -Allsides has Politico leaning left.
ttps://guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/allsides

"AllSides uses a patented bias rating system to classify news sources as left, center, or right leaning. Components of the rating system include crowd-sourcing, surveys, internal research, and use of third party sources such as Wikipedia and research conducted by Groseclose and Milyo at UCLA. Note that while the Groseclose & Milyo results are popular, the methodology it is not without critique."
ttps://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444


MediBias a fact check
"Overall, we rate Politico Left-Center biased[/i] based on story selection and editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. "

"Both sides of the political spectrum have accused Politico of having a left or right bias. For example, Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog group in Washington, has accused them of having a “Republican tilt.” Politico also published an article criticizing Obama for not being a strong supporter of Israel: “Obama’s Jewish Problem.” In another article, they state that Liberals are not as tolerant as they say they are: “Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think.” Further, an article criticizing Democratic Socialism: “Down Goes Socialism,” and another criticizing Bernie Sanders, “Bernie’s army in disarray.” Lastly, according to the Poynter Institute, Politico is balanced.

The right-leaning Daily Caller had also criticized Politico for having a liberal bias when they compared a New York Times headline to Politico’s Playbook headline by claiming that it “Extended further to the left than the NYT on this headline.”

A 2014 Pew Research Survey found that 59% of Politico’s audience is consistently or primarily liberal, 16% Mixed, and 26% consistently or mostly conservative. This indicates that a more liberal audience prefers politico.

In review, Politico occasionally publishes listicles such as “All of Trump’s Russia Ties, in 7 Charts.” They also publish articles with minimally loaded words such as “Ocasio-Cortez warns Trump Jr. about subpoena power in response to the meme” and the source to credible media outlets such as Reuters and the NY Times. However, they sometimes use emotional headlines: Establishment looks to crush liberals on Medicare for All. They also have a content partnership with the South China Morning Post, which we rate Mixed for factual reporting.

Editorially, they provide a balance of opinions in the past, as evidenced by the criticism they have received from both sides. However, since our last review, many more op-eds and news stories favor the left through story selection and wording, such as this Republicans gripped by dread as multiple crises swirl, and this Trump official pressured CDC to change report on Covid and kids. They generally report news factually and recently with a more left-leaning bias in both story selection and editorial position

Last Updated on December 6, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check

Axel Springer currently owns Die Welt, the German publication which published Elon Musk's op-ed in which he told Germans that the far right AfD party was Germany's "last spark of hope." There's been an uproar about Musk's attempt to interfere in the upcoming German elections, and the opinion editor of the newspaper promptly resigned over management's decision to publish it.

Politico's political coverage used to be considered pretty centrist/center-left and reliable. Not sure that there's been enough change for the ratings to change, but since those are done by analyzing coverage over a lengthy period of time rather than one single article, I'm not sure that there hasn't been some change either that just hasn't been published because the research isn't complete for that time period.

Those ratings take time.

The TOS clearly states RW sources shouldn’t be posted here unless you’re making fun of the content, etc.

It’s not always clear which sources are RW but sometimes it’s obvious (e.g., Fox News).

Or they pop up via SM.

I try to find another source.

But let's face it: Sharing a Daily Mail article in the lounge or Weird News, or if it's celebrity news, non-political stuff does not make someone a right winger.

One time I posted an article from the NY Times. However, it had a link to a tweet from a RW source. (The tweet was a video) I got chewed out. I replied that NY Times probably vetted their source. Other sources that weren't RW also had the video.

Ignore what you don't like.

I thought your comment was amusing, as it's quite a common reaction on DU.

Hence the

I’ll delete the post. I’m sorry. No sarcasm.

IMAGINE THAT

I've noticed this one often recently.

That's what I do. I come here a lot to share news stories that people may have missed, & sometimes I get flack for it, but I don't let it bother me. They can read them & like them or not. I can't control that.

STOP WATCHING TEEVEE NEWS!!!!

or

CANCEL YOUR CABLE!!! I HAVE NOT WATCHED TV SINCE IKE WAS PRESIDENT!!!

Plus Rachel Maddow is being paid too much by MSNBC!!!!

They cover Congress pretty thoroughly. Yes, they definitely have a right wing bias. But if nobody else is reporting on it, do we just ignore? But some people will complain about using The Hill as a source.

I'm not sure what people read since so many things are disqualified.

That's why I get all my news from my cousin Rachel's blog. None of that right-wing Rachel Maddow for me, no sir! (She said she likes oranges one time, and we all know oranges are a famously MAGA fruit, because Florida)

while trying to gut our earned benefits and drive us toward fascism/Putinism.

I'm happy to ignore them and won't tell anyone what to post, but FUCK MUSK and his shit-bird site.

...and the post renders on DU. Clicking the video link inside a tweet doesn't redirect you to X, so you're robbing Elmo of actual "clicks" or "engagements" that he can then use to lure advertisers.

n/t

He makes money on ads, not clicks. Clicks on X count as engagements on X, which is the only place he displays ads. Displaying an X post embedded on a completely different site doesn't display ads. And clicking on a video in an embedded ad doesn't bring you back to X to view it, so, you're never seeing an ad.

If you click on the post itself, then you're redirected to X and that's when he makes money. Embedding a post into another site's page doesn't mean shit to advertisers since their ads won't be seen. Clicking the video only plays the video - again, no ad involved...

They also monetize promoted content, accounts, hashtags, also data licensing, and more. If you're interested to learn about how Twitter actually earns it's money, it's easy to research.

The traffic that you provide them via embedding Tweets absolutely helps the site, ad impressions notwithstanding.

Every time it is rendered and displayed on a page, it absolutely does benefit Elmo. If the post is viewed 500 times, that's 500 views for Elmo.

This is what embedded Tweets look like for me using the Privacy Badger browser extension...



That does not benefit Elmo at all. If I allow it to be displayed, then it would.

(which, due to the temperature of the populous and country - has ramped up a number of degrees)
- and not quite the 'directive' that you take it to be. Or at least needn't (or doesn't deserve?) be taken so! Shake it off. Be a little more secure in your own opinions (and moral stance).

Keep in mind that everyone waving a shaker or pom-pom - is not really a crossing guard. It's OK to walk past ....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There are certainly flagger bullies here and on most other similar sites. They make all sorts of accusations about a person's motives for whatever position they present in a posting. If you are asked to judge, take some time to get past whether you agree or disagree with the position. Instead, look at the facts. Did the post actually violate any rules?

It is not a violation to state an unpopular or challenging position. It is not a violation to observe things that Democrats have been doing poorly, resulting in failures. It is a violation to directly attract a specific person.

We are at a moment when a reckoning is badly needed, IMHO. We have been steadily losing power for 50 years. There are "glass half full" personalities who can cite individual victories, and we all want to celebrate those. But we must recognize that 2 generations ago, roughly half the public proudly identified as Democrats, and now only 25% do. We must realize that we have completely lost the Supreme Court, and can no longer count on the Judicial branch as the ultimate firewall. That is gone, and Trump is going to take every advantage of that.

So jurors, please be patient with people who make posts that sound urgent, agitated, even hair on fire. And if you are one who naturally rejects any suggestions of change, at least consider that you may be part of the circumstances we face today.

Bottom line, a circular firing squad does no good. Nor does creating a bubble of reality denial. We must move forward together, even if that means ruffling some feathers along the way.

Maybe I should flag that.

I have read the site for over a decade. I decided I should speak up because there has been so much denial, and so little time for us to act in ways that will be effective.

If you are a person who only wants to have your own opinion reinforced, maybe this isn't the best place to be. Or maybe it is. Maybe that is what the site leadership sees as the mission of the site. If so, then most threads here would be pointless.

Appreciated your thoughtful post of more than one terse sentence. Welcome to DU; please keep sharing your thoughts.

Maybe offer some constructive suggestions?

It is asking for exactly the opposite -- no opposing or challenging opinions. I have made what I hope are constructive, action-oriented, results-oriented suggestions on other threads. I welcome you to look them up, and I will be happy to exchange views on those threads.

Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2024, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I made no comments about the site moderators, their system or any of their decisions. I commented abut USER behavior, which is exactly what the OP was about.

If I were the flagging type (and I'm not -- I have never flagged any post on any site) it seems like this entire thread would be a good one to remove. It seems to be some folks expressing personal grievances apropos to nothing.

Good people keep disappearing and DU gets smaller. We never know if someone is taking a break from DU or they just got kicked off by the flagger bullies.

I hate it when someone says to someone new - how dare you post that -you just joined and only have 5 posts. How are we supposed to get new people to join if this stuff keeps happening.

Some of these same people constantly spam threads with twitter post, +1 inflammatory comments (they're glad they don't have to do that now), cheerleading Duers who are obviously bullying another. These people think everything is fine & DON'T want things to change for the better.

Good post.

Instead we get things like, "Let's take to the streets".....

My response: "Can someone please organize this?"

Followed by a response to me: "Quit making excuses"

Posting an actual event or how to is great, (a march, a phone call ) but vague directives such as "get out the pitchforks", I interpret as directives "yell at your computer or TV more louder than you currently yell"

That’s been the case for years now.

Factual info may get alerted & hidden because enough random jurors dont LIKE the fact that was posted. Which is odd; I wouldnt think a place like this would actually BLOCK factual info just because it may not be popular.

1000% totally agree. One thing I absolutely hate is an Echo Chamber. But dissenting voices and opinion rapidly get squashed as "right wing" talking points. Absurd.

When a juror, I have a problem with deleting a post that delivers contrary views but based in fact.
So, I completely understand your point.

I figured it was a majority. I have no idea how many jurors are on jury.

I rarely vote to cancel a post I’m alerted to.

I'm not sure the number, but I believe the jury has to be a clear majority but not unanimous. Pretty sure about that, but not positive.
I usually vote to return if the alerted post is just a different, or unpopular, POV.
I think I have a more rigid definition of "personal attack" than others, too
But, clear violations of TOS? I feel obligated to go with at least "Close Call..."

are like-minded jurors, Prof!

We are like-minded about quite a few things!

... I wonder 'just how insecure or fussy was the person who alerted on this?

Tender feelings are good, up to a point, but I see a lot of stuff that gets alerted and sent to peer review that should just be ignored if it bothered the alert-er so much. If people can't tolerate differing opinions, well, they should go to TikTok after it gets shut down. Jeeze, people, what gives with the 'my way or the highway' thinking?

My alerted post was re-instated. I had posted something that was unflattering to a group, but it was merely a statement of fact.

It's just your opinion about Garland and I need proof !! is another good one.

You went off topic from the OPs post!

I don't need word or thought police on my tail every day.

Sure he's dismantling our democracy, and is an unelected co-president, but let's think long and hard about what we call him so we don't offend anyone.

because here's what the Constitution says about treason blah blah

And he might not be a liar because he thinks it's true blah blah

And don't you call him fat because you're insulting Americans blah blah

...

Stuff like that is one of the reasons why we lose.

I am with you, the purity police suck. Robert Kennedy is a junkie, a fucking heroin addict, Trump was a fat fuck before finding Ozympic, LindsyG is everything people say he is, fuck them and their feelings all. Snowflake alert, plenty of people suck, are should be called out for it

But we have to be polite about him like we are at Buckingham Palace meeting the King.

of people who are chomping at the bit to tell me what I "should" be doing. It makes me wonder how I got through the past 77 years without them?....🤔

(I kid. Over time, chomping has become common usage as well. But the opportunity was irresistable)

Well done. I left myself open for that one!

Unless someone is pushing RW ideas, or spamming, more things are allowed than not. Yeah, I don't particularly want to hear some of the finger-wagging stuff, either, but most of it comes from a decent place. So I ignore it and go on, hiding it if it really ticks me off, but...DU Admin allows so much that I DO like and can't find easily elsewhere. All part of civic discourse

often, I'm afraid. Nobody here can tell you to do or not do anything with any authority. I advise just ignoring such posts.

grain of ...

I'm now going to make some more popcorn.

and other Democrats you’re going to get pushback.

Just a fact of life.

I don't watch, or look at RW sites in general, so I get news of that stuff here, actually.

I think it's important to know some of what they're saying to properly combat it.

all in a ‘General Discussion’ forum,

A nasty case of the scolds has taken hold of this site.

I commented to something that was incorrect and there was no link. I called it wrong and got the ugly “Link?”
Common sense needs no link.

I guess the best advice would be to ignore those threads, and post in others instead (or start your own OPs).

Also, a couple of things to consider - it sounds like EarlG is going to put up a forum where folks can make suggestions about the Democratic party itself - which is bound to be interesting. So, I'd stick around for that. And MIRT should be reopening again in Jan/Feb and a bunch of us have served on that 2-3 terms and will be taking a break. In that forum you keep an eye on all the new members (under 100 posts only), and it can be fast paced at times. You might enjoy getting a look at how that whole process works. You're a star member so would likely be a good candidate - EarlG should put up a notice looking for new volunteers pretty soon.

Have a good day! (not an order, just being decent!)

I second everything in that post.

I apologize if I’ve ever been guilty of doing so.

There's not really much you can do about it.

Just try to ignore them, or put them on ignore.

social parameter. (that being the scolds and finger waggers inhabiting our side of the aisle)

those telling me what tv to watch. Good post

NT

Many videos and headlines are clickbait. How should people push back in a non confrontational way?

Last week two posters (not you) posted a false news story that was fooling some fellow DU'ers in the thread.

The person has the power to enforce it. If they don't then you have the power to tell them to fuck off.

You probably know that.
So you're just kvetching. If it makes you feel better, fine.
Doesn't do anything for me though.

There have been occasions where someone posts an OP with egregious, provably false information.

I’m talking about falsely reporting someone’s death, arrest, or win/loss of an election, that type of thing.

In addition there are posts expressing opinions that use provably false information to support those opinions.

How do you feel about the DU community calling for the OP to delete their post in those cases?

(I’m not suggesting you have posted misinformation)

There is no rule in the TOS against posting false or misinformation, outside of “kooky extremist content”, so if it doesn’t fall into that category, then what is the community to do about it?

My morals are so much higher than your morals.

History will judge that I am right and you are wrong.

Doncha just love people like that? Doncha immediately want to change your thinking so that you can be like them?

Very nice.

Now that's true thinly veiled passive aggressive hostility.

... and frequently ignore people who are telling me what to do, even those in actual positions of authority. This has gotten me into serious trouble more times than I care to confess. Nobody on any social media site can order me around.

I don't watch television news or opinion. That works for me.

I don't watch any advertising supported television at all. That works for me.

I have a flip phone. That works for me.

DU is my only social media site. That works for me.

Meat is not part of my regular daily diet. That works for me.

Etc.

You be yourself, I'll be myself.

"I do not use Facebook or Instagram"

"Yeah I saw that being discussed on Facebook by some young mothers"

You don't use it but you read it?

Looking at your history, I found two threads where what you describe may have happened. In one of the threads, the statement wasn't directed at you but was to all of DU.

I got off Facebook 4 years ago.

How long to leave cabbage in a bra?

Hold leaves in place with your bra. If the ridges of the cabbage leaves are hard, gently roll a soup can over the ridges to soften before use. Wear the leaves continuously for two hours then discard. Repeat each day until your breasts are comfortable with not being nursed—usually three to five days.

That's not the kind of info you forget...

I really like the internet. There's so much info to be had about so many different subjects.

Eat your veggies

Mow the lawn

Paint the fence

you also have to wax the car.

-Mr Miyagi

" Where did all of these cars come from?"
"Detroit!"

apparently he or she thought CNN was a right wing source and they had to keep messaging me about it

i blocked the sender. i find blocking very useful.

She's now FFR'd

It is very disheartening to see OPs that were clearly bullshit, were thoroughly debunked up and down the thread, yet the OP refuses to pull it.

Then, to compound matters, new posters come in, and completely ignoring all the numerous replies that showed the OP to false, continue to amp up the dross.

I have see this happen far too often. It really is a bad look for DU.

In regards to RW sources, I do not come here to read bollocks from The Gateway Pundit, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, etc etc. I fully retain the right to call shit RW sources like those out. As with the first part of my reply, if people do not like my actions in that area, they can place me on ignore.

really have no place. And shouldn't enjoy any kind of, "just ignore it" community protections. If it's flat out wrong - it is destructive! Sum total!

Asking for a friend 😉

But people on the internet who have opinions about what I should or shouldn't do can't make me do or not do anything, so I don't worry about any of it.

Last edited Mon Dec 30, 2024, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

I changed it.
Hope you are happy now.

Now, complain about leopard lips.