So I check back in on this thread after being absent for a day or so, only to read that I (me, onefineesq) have been accused of quoting a source I never quoted (I only put the word "correct" in quotes for dramatic effect, but didn't actually quote ANYTHING), and that I relied on a website that I never consulted on the topic for that quote that I actually didn't make (Rawstory). There are literally a dozen posts with people arguing about me doing so or not doing so, based upon someone's wholecloth fabrication about me. Bigsoccer at its best. Wow.
I think what you're getting at--the sensationalist angle/tone--is something that is covered directly on the vertical. Substance is more on the horizontal. Reason presents issues that collectively lean toward more conservative views, but it does so in a sober way. The Daily Mail (for example) spews a bunch of sensationalist garbage but scrape away the tone and drivel and you could fundamentally report the substance of the articles in a (slightly) more neutral way than Reason. Primarily because DM limits their discussion to what actually happens: Dog Bites Child...or in their case Dog of MS-13 Gang Member Bites Beautiful Blonde White Child. It's more of a sensationalist news wire. Drudge is kind of the same way. There aren't really many actual thoughts in anything. Just bad storytelling/aggregating. Reason tends to take a dive into policy implications, which inherently paints their substance a bit more partisan. I may take issue with the substance, but they do it in a reasonable way. I tend to look at both axes jointly as more of a "distance from the origin" (original reporting/no bias). Reason rates out within a point of Intercept, Fiscal Times, Vanity Fair and Slate. That's decent company.
I remember some social-media millionaire took it over and tried to run it like Buzzfeed. I haven't seen it since was chased out. After everyone quit.
I just think human brains don’t distinguish between tone/language and POV. I certainly don’t. The whole "Listen to what I'm saying not how I'm saying it" line. Except how you say something provides social cues as to what you're really saying. I guess they need to figure out a way to plot it though. And I could be totally wrong about how she’s separating the two. But in theory, an AP transcript of a Trump press briefing is 100% centrist. Replace "President Trump:" before his quote with "President Douchecanoe:" and somehow it still maintains its perfect centrism on the horizontal, but the vertical would take a huge hit. I don't think people think differentiate between the two as a practical matter, but I guess algorithms and systems do.
Abolish ICE Border Patrol Agents Are Passing Around A Commemorative Coin Mocking Care for Migrant Kids - ProPublica https://t.co/kfu0DAgClN— Michael F Ozaki MD (@brontyman) July 12, 2019
This is the passive-aggressive stuff I was talking about. No where did I accuse you of quoting the source. From the beginning I said "your reply" was to a rawstory report. And also, from the just about start of this exchange, I said that rawstory is shit. Something which I have said previously. From there, it moved into a discussion about sources. Beyond that, the discussion/argument was not about you, it was about rawstory. Others have said it was okay, Fine. But I'm saying that because for a while we have let ourselves slip and we are not posting as critically as we did in the past. I am certainly not absolved from that, but we are not stupid people, we know how to post with more quality. And using a source that is not a good source does not add to the discussion, IMO.
Passive aggressive? How is this for passive aggressive ... go ******** yourself. #1 You did NOT say that I was replying to a raw story report. You said that I was "BASING [my] reply off a raw story report." (Post 13513) That is a HUGE difference, and you know it. Do not try to be coy now, just because I called out for lying about it. And we know what you meant by it because ... (below) # 2 This is what you said in post 13523, while arguing about me sourcing raw story ... which I did NOT: and I quote (you): "There were two parts he quoted. The second part, the ups and downs, was really the drama part. The first part, though, also needed greater context, which was added by you." The "he" you are writing about is ME. So you gonna tell me again that nowhere did you accuse me of quoting the source? If you were only meaning to say that I replied to a raw story source I never mentioned (or quoted), why did you then write that I actually quoted to it? I know why ... because you are a lying liar who lies. Keep my name out of your mouth. PS Getting caught blatantly lying about me and then passively portraying YOURSELF as the victim is very special of you, snowflake.
Shocking Head of Border Patrol was member of, posted in secret racist Facebook group https://t.co/YVPTnB67oJ— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) July 12, 2019
Mike Pence in 2016: "I'm a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican — in that order.”Mike Pence in 2019: Immigrants who are packed into overcrowded cages with no showers and forced to sleep on the floor like animals “are being well cared for.”pic.twitter.com/1hhA5TsIDD— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) July 13, 2019 Mike Pence went to a border camp dressed like he was going to a country club while men were locked in cages, calling out for help. Video is worse-he looks like he's visiting an animal shelter, but saying they're getting, “humane and compassionate care” from CPB. No words. pic.twitter.com/0jOsmt5JFJ— Amee Vanderpool (@girlsreallyrule) July 13, 2019 "Agents wore face masks, and video showed detainees packed into their holding areas surrounded by chain-link fence, the concrete floors littered with silver thermal blankets. Reporters accompanying Pence described the facility as smelling 'horrendous.'" https://t.co/1fzk6K4YbS https://t.co/aGKoOvhJZr— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 13, 2019 1149835768736575488 is not a valid tweet id
A lot of the news articles say it's owned by a fund out of JPMorgan Chase. A Swiss-based shipping company is responsible for the day-to-day operations.
I suspect it's Swiss-based because of certain conveniences afforded by Swiss banks and their traditions of "no questions asked" banking.