Captain comb-over's ignorant statements about illegal immigrants were followed by a surge in his popularity amongst republicans, according to CNN polls.
He tried to defend his characterization of Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers by citing some statistic that indicated 80% of central american migrants were raped as they passed through Mexico on their way to enter the US illegally.
That sounds like it might be true - I know that rape is such a threat that central american women often pay for birth control shots before they cross into Mexico in anticipation of the threat... but where he proves his complete ignorance is in his using this fact to validate his assertion that the refugees are rapists - they're rape victims, not rapists. And it's very telling that they're willing to take that risk. What does that say about the conditions they are fleeing?
Yes, there's false news on both sides of the aisle. But the problem is predominantly on the right side of that aisle. We can't pretend that there is some magical rule of equivalency. Right wingers are the principal consumers and sharers of fake news.
Buzzfeed (grain of salt taken, but let's give them credit for being one of the few have done this analysis) found that almost 40% of right wing FB pages published false or misleading news. The stat was just under 20% for left wing FB pages did the same. So right wingers' FBers are sharing false/misleading news at twice the rate of left wing.
NPR found a writer of such fake news. He hinted he was profiting enormously from this business ($10,000-30,000 per month). The guy reports that he tried fake news with a left wing slant, and it just didn't sell.
There is no equivalency here. It's a problem with right wingers consuming and sharing and voting on this information.
Mainly due to the bots though that were driving up the page visits on many stories though. This is what got them pushed on to many feeds on our social media accounts. At least as far as I understand it.
I also heard a story today on NPR that said a lot of those bots were programmed by Russian programmers; although I'm not sure if I buy that...Completely anyway.
I agree it's a problem, but I am not sure that it's just heavier on one side then the other. All depends on what you're exposure is, and it could certainly seem like it's heavily promoted from the right then the left though, so I can see why many would feel that way at least.
Not saying this is what you're saying though Dom. Just not willing to admit it's more one sided then the other at this time. I don't know if we can use this election as a good sample. It was inhabited by two very controversial candidates and one at least appears to have been heavily favored by groups trying to drive up page visits to spread false stories.
Just my opinion though...
Well, the site owners and writers here in the US know to whom to gear their stories. Teenagers in Macedonia know to whom to gear their stories. And by and large it's to Trump voters. We'll see what happens to this phenomenon now that the election is over.
Two more fake news producers admit that they tried the market with pro-Hillary propaganda/satire/fake news, but found it unprofitable. Pro-Trump or anti-Hillary fake news sells way better, they say.
What's really funny is how none of the pundits I've heard has made the connection between one of Clinton's campaign promises and the "rural vote" in Pennsylvania and other places. Clinton said her administration would put a lot of coal miners out of work...and one guess what's the industry in a lot of Pennsylvania (and lots of Ohio, West Virginia, Tennessee, Montana, Kentucky)? Coal mining. Who in their right mind would vote for the candidate who promised them a pink slip?
As usual, the larger context was ignored. Clinton was talking about bringing renewable energy jobs to coal country, because coal jobs just aren't sustainable. Poor choice of words on her part? Almost definitely. She apologized. None of that matters now.
Despite lavish promises, I highly doubt that Trump will be able to bring coal back. The free market has spoken on that one.
I really hate to sound like a Trumpkin, but a goodly portion of the blame for continued racism in the nation seems to stem from
First, "the Media." The press relies on the most dramatic or violent aspects of any "petition for redress of grievance" in order to make money. Often this is in the form of a pejorative slant on the reporting of affirmative action or voting rights. or depending on which "version" of events is perceived as most profitable for the press. Exacerbating this is the press "need" to have a win-lose story to tell. So most coverage is about who won or lost.
Second, Some of the community organizer population. These are the folks who tend to rely on "free-form" protest marches as their first resort. Their point is often glossed over or lost in the coverage of violent activity by a minority of the people in the march. Having spokespersons who only use the ancient agitprop technique of "mau-mauing" (cf Tom Wolfe) in every interaction with the press or local government guarantees the only thing seen by most folks will be the outraged spokesperson.
Third, and last, the "Elites", who often seem to be living in a "I got mine, screw you" world. A lot of corporate successor CEOs fall right here. Unless you founded the firm, or were responsible for a breakthrough that "made" the business, you don't rate an income in the tens of millions of dollars (and up) ranges.
A lot of people still follow the old Puritan, Judeo-Christian, "Poor Richard" ethos of working hard, following proven rules, and living modestly. And it riles them up when groups of people are seemingly presented with especial privileges, particularly without any explanation of why.
Blaming the media and those who are victimized is one of the frustrating things about those who oppose justice. So much of what you wrote is just factually wrong, but it would take too much time to try and go on (an informed) rant against your suppositions, and very little hope that you would change your mind. I hope that you can find a way to fight for justice in your community and work side by side those who are disadvantaged.
I don't know anything of your background, but I'll address your implication of ignorance.
I have lived and worked in both fairly liberal and fairly conservative areas. Those have been both major metropolitan and suburban. I am in the first generation of my family that is not exclusively blue collar or agrarian. I base my observations on what I have seen with my own eyes.
The media coverage of events is highly colored by the editorial position of the media outlet. The one thing every news outlet has in common is a need to present the most dramatic interpretation of an event. And "if it bleeds, it leads."
At one point the area I live in had two major daily metro/regional newspapers. One paper was firmly Progressive Democratic. The other paper was solidly Conservative Republican. You'd read each paper's story about the same event, and it was as if the papers were in alternative universes.
Right now, the major local social justice movements are represented by a few spokespersons and organizers who rely on shouting and "shut it down" as a first step to present their message. I completely understand passion of the moment. But when the exposure of your social justice concerns has taken on the air of marches, spiced by a little vandalism, and nearly always timed for after supper (Very few local protests seem to happen during weekday work/school hours.), the message begins to diminish.
The Elites are stuck in their own bubble. The press lets on a bit about the oligarchs, but doesn't mention the second and third tiers of Elites...dependent upon unearned income and insulated from the messy real world by deferential retainers and lackeys. The Elites are same folks who were virtually the only contacts by "Establishment" candidates on both sides.
Spoken like a true SJW, Dom. The "disadvantaged" that I respect are those of all races who come here legally and work hard to get ahead, recognizing the golden ADVANTAGES that living in our country gives to them they can't get in their own countries. Many fled for their very lives from their own countries and got on their knees and cried that they made it to the USA, the land of promise which has delivered its bounty to countless millions over the centuries of its existence. They don't whine and cry for continuous handouts like the "disadvantaged" who were born and lived their whole lives here. They get to work and build something.
There is a man from Ghana who was blacker than 90% of black Americans marching in the streets complaining about racial inequalities, who worked for me as a part-time security guard and who held three minimum wage jobs until he and his wife saved enough money to open their own little cafe a few years back. His dream is that his children won't have to suffer as he did and will go to college.
Him I respect, not the whining, crying, blaming others, violent, social welfare hogging, "disadvantaged" persons that make up the bulk of BLM and that you feel guilty about because you are white and nonsensically feeling privileged for it.
Trump's Muslim ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/freed-egyptian-american-pri...
Cool. He did his job. When Trump does minimally good things, he gets overwhelming accolades because his baseline is so... well, base.
Trump should still stop trying to ban refugees from our country.