they say he was trying to buy NBC....
Clarence Thomas Lord have mercy
- Thread starter Bleed The Freak
- Start date
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Frank Wilhoit
There are no legitimate "black conservative talking points."Yeahhh. While I can somewhat agree with some black conservative talking points/see where they're coming from, I cringe at the thought that I gave Clarence Thomas a chance. What research and time will do
Not sure what Joe Biden's failure to stop Clarence Thomas in the 90s has to do with his present corruption, other than showing how stupid rule-following is when it comes to right-wing ideologues.
Certainly not the only place, it's a global phenomenon and has been one for quite some time.
Many Americans have some semblance of a working-class consciousness - the main issue and struggle is matching it with organizations to vie for the interests of the working class. Labor unions, labor parties, community organizations, etc.
Nothing the WSJ Editorial Board wrote in their article was of value.
If the Democrats fail to use this in their 2024 campaigns, they deserve to lose
Bleed The Freak
Superstar
Problem is folks are living in 1984.
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”
It's now a badge of fukking honor to be a fully functional moron in a position of power or as a voter.
They won't think he did shyt wrong. They'll just call it a setup. I mean shyt Fox is caught under fukking oath lying to the damn public in their lawsuit and ain't shyt changing.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
If a right wing publication ran something like this, about Sotomayor or whoever, how would people react? I read another piece about the real estate transactions too, I get it, the truth gets murky, not even sure after reading, and maybe that's the point? Some of the journalistic stuff is interesting to me, about how things get reported, what wording is used, what angle is taken.
Opinion | The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures
He reported carefully on his inherited real estate. ProPublica’s reporting was slipshod and incurious.
www.wsj.com
Bleed The Freak
Superstar
If a right wing publication ran something like this, about Sotomayor or whoever, how would people react? I read another piece about the real estate transactions too, I get it, the truth gets murky, not even sure after reading, and maybe that's the point? Some of the journalistic stuff is interesting to me, about how things get reported, what wording is used, what angle is taken.
Opinion | The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures
He reported carefully on his inherited real estate. ProPublica’s reporting was slipshod and incurious.
Murdoch made that call
The difference is that ProPublica is not a left-wing publication, it's not even left-of-center. For start, there is very little honest journalism in "right-wing publications" they're slanted for a reason, look at the NYPost's coverage of Hunter Biden or the Twitter Files - they made-up so much information that they shredded the credibility of any portion of the story that may have been true.If a right wing publication ran something like this, about Sotomayor or whoever, how would people react? I read another piece about the real estate transactions too, I get it, the truth gets murky, not even sure after reading, and maybe that's the point? Some of the journalistic stuff is interesting to me, about how things get reported, what wording is used, what angle is taken.
Opinion | The Truth About Clarence Thomas’s Disclosures
He reported carefully on his inherited real estate. ProPublica’s reporting was slipshod and incurious.
The same is true of Fox, WSJ or the Washington Times - they're largely propaganda machines that don't even attempt any real investigative journalism.
ProPublica was incredibly fair in their reporting, they undersold a massive chunk of the story - and pulled back *substantially* on the details of the story - they left out of a lot of information because they couldn't get enough overwhelming source material. It was also written in a substantially less inflammatory way than you'd get from other popular outlets.
Read coverage of a story on Venezuela from the NYT, or of Black protests in the WSJ - and you'll see inflammatory writing.
The other thing is, popular publications like the NYT, Chicago Tribue, WSJ, Washington Post, LATimes, and NPR would also publish information about Sotomayor - because they don't ever have a problem lambasting liberal figures here in the U.S.
Lol
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
That quote was fire so I looked it up and found it was not written by the famous political scientist Frank Wilhoit, but rather by an internet user who went by the screenname Frank Wilhoit. Which is hilarious, and I hope with the many such screennames on The Coli we get a few of those eventually as well.
All fair points. The WSJ is not a propaganda machine, the OP ED section can be fukking awful, but there's good stuff there too sometimes. The regular coverage is right down the middle. Pro Publica does great journalism, they did a collab with NY Times last year about a cartel group I am familar with, Los H's, and it was some of the best reporting I have ever read.
I'm not the "asking questions" guy, and I have no regard for Clarence Thomas, but reading that op ed, I don't know what to think, maybe that's the point, but tell me what do you guys think? is it all invalid?
I truly think all the justices do and have these kinds of relationships, I don't think it's all corrupt either, I think it's just how these relationships work, in those circles. I know enough just in my own experiences that it's politics as usual at the top levels.