It will not develop into a chicken if it isn’t fertilized.
I’d prefer that I eat it, cooked, than some wild animal ate it raw
1 Like
It won’t develop into a chicken unless it’s fertilised, no. But the ovulation will happen anyway.
1 Like
Mueller has issued his first indictment(s).
10 Likes
Thanks for the heads up! Here’s CNN:
6 Likes
Is Twitter going to be charged over actively seeking a multimillion dollar spend by RT during the election campaign, though?
3 Likes
Are you saying RT is unAmerican?
Er… yes?
2 Likes
Speaking of RT, this Twitter thread caught my eye the other day:
OTOH, i personally take great care when reading RT, and much prefer to draw from less compromised sources. But I’d say the same thing about the NYT.
Everyone is biased. I like folks like IGD News because they appear to be open about their biases.
1 Like
I would even now apply that to the BBC. Their Catalan coverage has been pro-government propaganda, for instance.
On world news RT sometimes publishes stuff which is hard to find in Western news, but once found agrees. As you say, critical reading of all media is needed.
Edit - if the story above is true, how convenient that Twitter and Facebook may decide to shut down as a Russian bot anyone who does not suit the narrative of the Administration.
2 Likes
I guess my line is NYT, BBC, and the other usual suspects are under “read critically”, whereas RT, the Daily Mail, and the Toronto Sun* are “don’t even go there”.
The difference being that the former group have an editorial slant, whereas the latter actively seek to misinform and upset people (the upsetting part being important to them).
*I grew up with my parents getting both the Star and the Sun, the former middle-class and liberal, the latter right-wing but good-hearted and working-class. The “good-hearted” part has entirely disappeared now (we miss you Gary Dunford). I can’t even recognise the Sun now.
10 Likes
I’d have the NYT firmly in the second camp.
Seen what Maggie’s up to today?
One story hyping fear of Islam, one story reinforcing racist narratives about Chicago, another story pumping Islamophobia.
Maggie pulls this crap constantly; the focus is not always Islam, and there’s a bit of camouflage thrown in occasionally, but every day is a litany of posts that support Trumpist ideas.
Each story is individually defensible, but the overall pattern is not.
3 Likes
RT? Al-jazeera?
The actual news items are often more sober and reasoned than most. I haven’t seen the Daily Hate since I put the TeaAndKittens block on Chrome, but before that it was toxic hellhole firing on all guns. RT tends to print a lot of boring articles about Russian politics and business but some of them are quite informative, and its world coverage isn’t bad. It’s comment can be inflammatory but, unlike UK tabloids but like the Gray Lady, it does at least separate comment from news.
On the other hand, I just read an excellent longform about the research an Irish woman is doing about a “fallen women” home that used to stand in her neighbourhood when she was a child.
The articles you cited wouldn’t even get on my “to be read” list, just because I know enough Muslim people that those articles don’t make sense. As the Syrians and Jordanians like to remind me, just because practically everyone’s Muslim in the Middle East doesn’t mean nationalism doesn’t apply.
5 Likes
That was a good article (about Taum). I roll my eyes a lot when reading the Opinion titles. A lot. NYT Op-Ed is ground zero for rich idiots “having their say”.
1 Like
Why do you feel the need to pay attention to an individual’s tweeting strategy?
A good portion is it probably “I know this person; she’s a fellow journalist; and she wrote this.”
Oh… I get it. Socialism disavows the primacy of the individual, in favour of group decision making-- and groups have tweeting policies.
1 Like
plus, that link to long reads links right back to the new york times. I am shocked that a new york times reporter would uptweet a colleague.
2 Likes
Because Twitter is one of the most important modern propaganda channels? And because Maggie is one of the most prominent political journalists covering the White House, and her Twitter feed has significant influence?
As I said, any individual tweet is usually defensible. The impact of what she’s doing is in the overall pattern.
Also, I bring up Maggie’s Twitter as an example of the NYT’s bias, not as the limit of it. It isn’t just Maggie. The NYT has a long history of disguised cheerleading for evil.
There are plenty of individual people there who do good journalism and are entirely blameless. But I believe that the NYT ownership and editors are deliberately and actively working for Trump.
Obviously, I can’t prove that. But that is my view.
—
I’ve posted on this subject before. I don’t expect it to convince anyone much, but here it is for the record:
3 Likes
One thing I’ve been wondering for the past few days:
Why hasn’t Trump already fired Mueller, and tweeted that he did it because Mueller insisted on investigating him instead of indicting Clinton for Benghazi/emails/Uranium/etc.?
3 Likes
Can anyone make coherent sense out of those tweets?
2 Likes
Mildly cynical take: Trump is comfortable in the protection of the pardon power.
Moderately cynical take: Mueller is an agent of the RNC-GOP, and they’ve threatened the Trumpists with an impeachment attempt if Mueller is fired.
Highly cynical take: Mueller is a loyal Republican, and the whole investigation is just a distraction to suppress resistance until the final lockdown at the midterms.
3 Likes