Poor losers are incapable of critical thinking. Their thoughts can be safely dismissed.

I have little doubt that Trump is a terrible person and possibly a bad President, but roughly 1/4 of the potential electorate voted for him looking for, once again, hope and change. Hillary voters, again roughly only 1/4 of the electorate, need to realize that a push to disregard the election in favor of their chosen establishment candidate is in no way a valid outcome. If the electoral college decides that Trump is too nutty the Hillary electors have to get behind a consensus Republican who isn't establishment. Last I checked that person does not exist. /opinion from someone in the other 50%

They also call others names, like extremists and mental midgets... :evil2:

Scanned the article, it appears to have two components.

1) First component: Definitely news, according to your definition.

In this case, the "things" are that the scientist/s did/said things, and the actions/statements were reported as happening. That's news. (Was it relevant that the things happened? That's actually debatable. But they did happen.)

2) The second component (about the scientists' name request) actually also fits the "things happened and we told you they happened" criteria, however they seemed to have been tacked on to the second half of the first article without announcing the journalistic intention of why the two events are being suggested as being related events. This kind of article leaves to the readers imagination a correlation between the two events, which could understandably be characterized as journalistically irrsponsible (at best), and journalistically disingenuous/purposefully misleading (at worst). Conversely, the correlation between the two events being suggested could be considered relevant, under the "related recent events" umbrella, but even in this case, the lack of a new heading announcing what the correlation is suggested to be creates the appearance of impropriety (which even if not in itself a wrongdoing, must be understood by the speaker to be corrosive to the perception of integrity).



Taken as a whole, is it "news"? By the letter of the definition, it is a reporting of events that occurred. In this case, yes.

In the larger context of journalistic integrity, is it "news" that had been executed to the highest standards? I'm erring on the side of "it could have been done better" --and the central question is, is it better to announce a questionable correlation and directly attempt to mislead the reader, or NOT announce a questionable correlation, which could variously be described as 1) misleading the reader by sleight-of-hand, or 2) letting the reader exercise their own critical thinking skills (in which case, NOT announcing the questionable correlation would be necessary).

My personal opinion is that they should have explained the questionable correlation with a new sub-heading, in essence a new "subject" being announced. At best, in this case, it should have been a new article. If left as the part of the same article, the correlation should have been explicitly called out, and the article should have been published as an opinion piece. In this case, it would not be "news" --but since the correlation wasn't explicitly called out, I can't make that determination.

In this case, with the correlation left unstated, it doesn't technically qualify as an opinion piece. As a "news" article, with no correlation suggested, it appears to be two unrelated news articles crammed together with no explanation.

If it isn't the function of a journalist to leave unspecified correlations to the reader's imagination, then it isn't "news".

If it's okay for a journalist to present unrelated events as long as they DON'T specify the correlation, then it is "news".

So as far as I can tell, this comes down to definitions of journalism that I don't know exist as anything other than opinions.

My personal opinion, I would call this "bad" news, because I like correlations to be explained. It seems irresponsible (at best), in my opinion, to drop "hints" to the reader (unless you're calling it an opinion piece), and at worst a trend in "bad" news which waters down the concept of using discernment in digesting new information (if, which is debatable, this can even be considered the responsibility of a for-profit news industry).



...


...


...


* * * I DON'T HAVE A SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY REPLY. * * *

Good thing that was UT's only question; otherwise, you'd have to quit your job to have time for answering more.

Coming back to the Cellar is hard. This is the second time UT has had an issue with me not replying soon enough. Am I in the penalty box, or are there now time limits on conversations?

You are required to log in daily.

Bailiff, wack his pee-pee.

Trump with...

I had heard of these, and I just got one.

Anyone else getting ads on FB from Trump giving away tickets to his inauguration?

Attachment 59161

Apparently it stands for "58th Presidential Inaugural Committee 2017".

Without knowing that, it certainly seems like a scam, like an email from fhjklwhejklhsdl.zx claiming to be from your bank.

With knowing that, it's a nice way for them to get your contact info.

Why would they have chosen that picture? That has to be put together by someone not directly involved.

This sounds fun.

It's actually a video where he says he's inviting me personally to the inauguration. (Not by name). I just grabbed a screen shot at random.

What is going on with Trump asking the Nat'l Guard general to resign while they are deployed for the inauguration? It just looks banana republicie.

So much weird shit. The Betsy DaVos pick is terrible. It's one thing to represent an ideology but she knows literally nothing about public education.

Yeah. Submitting those letters of resignation is one of those weird DC rituals every time a Pres is leaving. I don't remember it ever being handled this awkwardly before. I don't think it's malicious on Trump's part, just lacking in competence.

I skimmed an article in the Post a few days ago about it, and it was a little too boring for me to really get my mind into. My takeaway though was that the Trump team just didn't understand how things work and they are focused on other stuff.