Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I have recently seen several stories about abuses of power or the powerful getting away scotfree. Murdoch's empire was hacking into a girl's cellphone and Strauss-Kahn raped a woman and got away with it. There are other examples. The recent decision by the Supreme Court not to consider the mass of women suing Walmart as a class allowing them to sue Walmart for sexism. And yesterday I watched an HBO documentary called "Mann v Ford" about the Rampaugh Indians' attempt to sue the Ford company and the EPA for poisoning the land (with dioxyn or some such, apparently the most poisonous substance known to man. It kills in points per trillion according to the scientist who was a part of the legal team), staging a show cleanup, lying to the community that the land was now clean and safe to live in, and the health problems that abound the community (an inordinate rate of cancer and miscarriage and early death). The community settled out of court for a paltry 1.5 million dollars that had to be split about 600 ways (I think. The tv's audio isn't very good).

Does this explain the reasons behind starting the thread clear enough?

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

So, you want to discuss "abuses of power" generally? If so, I would have given the thread a different name. But note that a thread titled "Abuses of Power" is an open invitation to a discussion on things that have been posited (not truthfully, but posted nonetheless) in the very thread from which you moved your initial post. Just sayin' ...

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

That is quite true. Frankly I had no idea what better title to give it but I am open to suggestions. Of course, I've no idea how to change the title once the thread has been created.

And how curious you would mention a certain other thread. It is my hope this thread serve as an antithesis to Tracy's "Liberal free for all" thread. It is my hope this thread host as little in the way of abuses of logic, evidence, language as possible. It would also be nice if people didn't make up quotes to suit their needs a well.

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by smc

A moderator can change the thread title.

Do you think my initial post is on topic? If so, perhaps the discussion could begin there. While I did not use the specific phrase "abuse of power," I think the British hacking scandal is a particularly interesting example of it, in that it involves supposed "voices of the people" actually colluding with the power elite and then betraying both them and the common people they pretended
to serve.

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

[smc]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Absolutely. Though I would certainly like to hear people's input on the Walmart case and that of the Rampaugh Indians.

I know nothing of tabloids. In fact, I'm not sure I know what they are--save perhaps for those ridiculous things that claim Clinton has met with alien ambassadors and Bat Boy or some such. Neither was I aware of the tabloids' reputation for "speaking for the people" which is now exposed as a lie. Yes you may begin there. The part about the more explicit class distinctions of England is of particular concern for me as well.

The word "tabloid" when describing a newspaper is first a description of its size. So, strictly speaking of size, those supermarket rags to which you refer are tabloids and The New York Times (I presume you are familiar with its size) is called a "broadsheet." Lots of mainstream newspapers are tabloid size, including The Independent in England, which is one of the nation's most highly respected newspapers.

"Tabloid journalism" when used to describe mainstream newspapers or other media outlets (e.g., New York Post being "mainstream" and The National Enquirer being not mainstream) generally refers to the focus of the coverage on sensationalized stories about celebrities, crime, gossip, and with coverage of politics and economics that is typically either highly partisan, hysterically presented (often with too-clever headlines), or both.

Tabloid journalism in mainstream outlets typically goes to the limit of slander, libel, defamation -- call it what you will -- whereas in the supermarket rags tabloid journalism involves wholesale fabrication ... unless you actually believe that aliens visited Bill Clinton when he was in the White House, or that a woman has given birth to a baby who is half boy, half bat. When it comes to political coverage, though, the "mainstream" tabloid journalism outlets are prone to making things up, because they can get away with it, or in the case of Fox News Channel, "accidentally" running incorrect information on the crawl or beneath a picture of someone being covered, letting it sink in subliminally with the viewer, and then "apologizing" for it later.

[GRH]

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by GRH

In the case of DSK, it's important to remember the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor's ended up having a nail driven into their case when it was discovered that the hotel maid has a history of lying (and at worst committing fraud).

Would you care to expand on this?