Media fixated on black turnout

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiatives so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

 

[John Shaw]

No. You don't.

Correct me where I'm wrong. Please explain in detail, which I've been asking you to do from my first post in the thread.

They were complaining that white women voted for Moore and congratulating black people on voting for Jones. I get it; Moore was a scumbag, but it's a little off-putting for them to take sides so blatantly like that.

I'm referring mostly to commentators though, not so much reporters or anchors.

I have a feeling you're going to keep arguing regardless of what I say though, and to be frank, I'm not really sure what your question is, what you're talking about, or whether you have some kind of point.

 

[John Shaw]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

What? Are you referring to the editorialists that appear on news organizations' programs or does your remark refer tacitly to some some other set of individuals?

 

[MarcATL]

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

You're absolutely correct.

Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives have been falsely using that term to refer to anybody or any group that talks about race matters when it comes to voting/politics.

The reality is, as you nicely illustrated, EVERYBODY engages in identity politics. It's just the other guy hates when the "identity politics" is not in their favor, so, conservatives especially, label it falsely label it "identity politics."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Educating the poor?

Great idea. Dont give them "average schools", give them THE BEST schools. We're addressing a problem, time to act like it.

 

[John Shaw]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

What? Are you referring to the editorialists that appear on news organizations' programs or does your remark refer tacitly to some some other set of individuals?

Commentators. Panelists. People who espouse their opinions. Yes, I get they are just that; opinions, but it's not like the networks don't know who they're bringing on.

 

[MarcATL]

They were complaining that white women voted for Moore and congratulating black people on voting for Jones. I get it; Moore was a scumbag, but it's a little off-putting for them to take sides so blatantly like that.

I'm referring mostly to commentators though, not so much reporters or anchors.

I have a feeling you're going to keep arguing regardless of what I say though, and to be frank, I'm not really sure what your question is, what you're talking about, or whether you have some kind of point.

But John,

If white women, in fact, voted for Moore, why are you getting upset..at the media? Shouldn't you be upset at the white women?!??

Was it not white women that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, that was a surprise to the country at large?

It's not like this is new.

You need to learn to stop scapegoating blacks.

 

[John Shaw]

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

You're absolutely correct.

Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives have been falsely using that term to refer to anybody or any group that talks about race matters when it comes to voting/politics.

The reality as, as you nicely illustrated, EVERYBODY engages in identity politics. It's just the other guy hates when the "identity politics" is not in their favor, so, conservatives especially, label it falsely label it "identity politics."

Republicans specifically appeal to whites, white males in particular. I know this. And I don't like that either.

Maybe race card was not the right phrase to use, on second thought. That's not really what I meant.

 

[John Shaw]

They were complaining that white women voted for Moore and congratulating black people on voting for Jones. I get it; Moore was a scumbag, but it's a little off-putting for them to take sides so blatantly like that.

I'm referring mostly to commentators though, not so much reporters or anchors.

I have a feeling you're going to keep arguing regardless of what I say though, and to be frank, I'm not really sure what your question is, what you're talking about, or whether you have some kind of point.

But John,

If white women, in fact, voted for Moore, why are you getting upset..at the media? Shouldn't you be upset at the white women?!??

Was it not white women that voted overwhelmingly for Trump, that was a surprise to the country at large?

It's not like this is new.

You need to learn to stop scapegoating blacks.

I'm not scapegoating blacks. You're misunderstanding me.

I'm saying it's not helpful to continually talk about race and draw up these battle lines. When you're constantly talking about it, you start to reinforce the idea in people's minds that we're more different than similar. How is that a good thing?

 

[John Shaw]

Educating the poor?

Great idea. Dont give them "average schools", give them THE BEST schools. We're addressing a problem, time to act like it.

Too bad no one seems to give a damn about schools, including democrats.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

What? Are you referring to the editorialists that appear on news organizations' programs or does your remark refer tacitly to some some other set of individuals?

Commentators. Panelists. People who espouse their opinions. Yes, I get they are just that; opinions, but it's not like the networks don't know who they're bringing on.

Inasmuch as you detest news organizations' having only "partisan hacks" as political commentators, you have several solution options:

• Free: Watch news commentary programs that have "hacks" who espouse opposing points of view.
• Expensive: Found your own news network/program that has only a host and subject matter experts -- economists, scientists, etc. -- who are not political advocates of any sort.
• Neither free nor expensive: Conduct your own scholarly literature review(s) for topics that concern you.

Re: your remark that news organizations know whom they permit to provide the content found in their editorial programs and/or program segments, well, of course the do. What do expect, that they randomly engage "people on the street?"

I know I damn sure wouldn't watch an editorial show comprised overwhelmingly with commentators who, like the "average man on the street," are not very well informed and well connected to both political and topical "movers and shakers" and experts for a given topic. I participate here to learn what folks thus disconnected think.

 

[MarcATL]

I'm not scapegoating blacks. You're misunderstanding me.

I'm saying it's not helpful to continually talk about race and draw up these battle lines. When you're constantly talking about it, you start to reinforce the idea in people's minds that we're more different than similar. How is that a good thing?

Why are you so triggered when folk merely correctly identify race? Doing that is not racist you know.

Let me try to get you to see things on a higher level...

Actual racism is creating and supporting policies that actually do harm to blacks. That's what is referred to as systematic racism. The perpetrators never have to ever mention or identify a race, however, their policies are harmful to them. And they know it, and they intend it to be so. For instance, the voter suppressing that Republicans are engaged in almost nationwide, particularly in Deep South states. Are you seeing it now?

Another angle, how come you don't get so defensive when Republicans go on and on about "takers" and "job creators?" Isn't that just as divisive? It is, yet, you and your ilk don't seem to think so. Clearly you don't, as you never utter a word about it. Yet, you really get bent out of shape whenever race is CORRECTLY and INNOCENTLY identified. Why? This is what you need to ask yourself.

Is this helping you to see things more clearly?

 

[John Shaw]

I'm not scapegoating blacks. You're misunderstanding me.

I'm saying it's not helpful to continually talk about race and draw up these battle lines. When you're constantly talking about it, you start to reinforce the idea in people's minds that we're more different than similar. How is that a good thing?

Why are you so triggered when folk merely correctly identify race? Doing that is not racist you know.

Let me try to get you to see things on a higher level...

Actual racism is creating and supporting policies that actually do harm to blacks. That's what is referred to as systematic racism. The perpetrators never have to ever mention or identify a race, however, their policies are harmful to them. And they know it, and they intend it to be so. For instance, the voter suppressing that Republicans are engaged in almost nationwide, particularly in Deep South states. Are you seeing it now?

Another angle, how come you don't get so defensive when Republicans go on and on about "takers" and "job creators?" Isn't that just as divisive? It is, yet, you and your ilk don't seem to think so. Clearly you don't, as you never utter a word about it. Yet, you really get bent out of shape whenever race is CORRECTLY and INNOCENTLY identified. Why? This is what you need to ask yourself.

Is this helping you to see things more clearly?

How do you know what I comment on? Do you follow me like we're on Twitter? No? Then keep quiet about me, please. Thanks.

As for the rest, it has nothing to do with my point. So I'm going to go ahead and ignore it.

 

[John Shaw]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

What? Are you referring to the editorialists that appear on news organizations' programs or does your remark refer tacitly to some some other set of individuals?

Commentators. Panelists. People who espouse their opinions. Yes, I get they are just that; opinions, but it's not like the networks don't know who they're bringing on.

Inasmuch as you detest news organizations' having only "partisan hacks" as political commentators, you have several solution options:

• Free: Watch news commentary programs that have "hacks" who espouse opposing points of view.
• Expensive: Found your own news network/program that has only a host and subject matter experts -- economists, scientists, etc. -- who are not political advocates of any sort.
• Neither free nor expensive: Conduct your own scholarly literature review(s) for topics that concern you.

Re: your remark that news organizations know whom they permit to provide the content found in their editorial programs and/or program segments, well, of course the do. What do expect, that they randomly engage "people on the street?"

I know I damn sure wouldn't watch an editorial show comprised overwhelmingly with commentators who, like the "average man on the street," are not very well informed and well connected to both political and topical "movers and shakers" and experts for a given topic. I participate here to learn what folks thus disconnected think.

I haven't listened to anything mainstream in months. Of course the first time I do, it's all low brow.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.

 

[MarcATL]

How do you know what I comment on? Do you follow me like we're on Twitter? No? Then keep quiet about me, please. Thanks.

As for the rest, it has nothing to do with my point. So I'm going to go ahead and ignore it.

Welp, I tried.

*shrugs*

 

[usmbguest5318]

Yes, black people played a big role in the victory of Jones, and it's kind of satisfying given Moore's comments but ...

Do they learn nothing? We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Holy shit! Talk about something non-partisans care about for a change.

Media fixated on black turnout...We independents don't like the identity politics game.

Identity politics is the practice of targeting one's messaging and initiative so they appeal to a given social-identity group. News organizations do not, in general, engage in identity politics; partisan sycophants, political party spokespeople party, and elected and appointed officials and their spokespersons practice identity politics. Identity politics is not the practice of identifying and reporting that candidates/parties have implemented identity-based strategies. Neither is it the practice of analyzing and reporting the nature of the polity who voted for one or another candidate.

One must remember that what news media outlets discuss is driven by what political power holders discuss. News media organizations, mostly, don't make the news; they report and remark upon what news makers say and do.

News organizations decide whom to host on their programs. And they choose partisan hacks..

What? Are you referring to the editorialists that appear on news organizations' programs or does your remark refer tacitly to some some other set of individuals?

Commentators. Panelists. People who espouse their opinions. Yes, I get they are just that; opinions, but it's not like the networks don't know who they're bringing on.

Inasmuch as you detest news organizations' having only "partisan hacks" as political commentators, you have several solution options:

• Free: Watch news commentary programs that have "hacks" who espouse opposing points of view.
• Expensive: Found your own news network/program that has only a host and subject matter experts -- economists, scientists, etc. -- who are not political advocates of any sort.
• Neither free nor expensive: Conduct your own scholarly literature review(s) for topics that concern you.

Re: your remark that news organizations know whom they permit to provide the content found in their editorial programs and/or program segments, well, of course the do. What do expect, that they randomly engage "people on the street?"

I know I damn sure wouldn't watch an editorial show comprised overwhelmingly with commentators who, like the "average man on the street," are not very well informed and well connected to both political and topical "movers and shakers" and experts for a given topic. I participate here to learn what folks thus disconnected think.

I haven't listened to anything mainstream in months. Of course the first time I do, it's all low brow.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.

I haven't listened to anything mainstream in months.

First:

What has what you've consumed or not consumed have to do with independents in general?

We independents...

The remark above implies that you construed that you were remarking on behalf of independents in general. I find it hard to believe that you are indeed such a spokesperson.​

Second:

Who in my conversation with you qualified their remarks using the term "mainstream?" Look at your title and OP. You do not put any such constraint on the media of which you wrote.
​

Third:

I haven't listened to anything mainstream in months. Of course the first time I do, it's all low brow.

I mostly tonight watched CNN to learn who won the election in AL. Though I don't consider the discourse of the panelists to be of the same grade I find when reading the Cook Political Report, I wouldn't call it "all low-brow."
​

Anyway, I'm not quite sure where you're going with this.

Inasmuch as I see you've written this...

Maybe race card was not the right phrase to use, on second thought. That's not really what I meant.

...I am no longer going anywhere because you've recanted one of the major themes implicit in your OP.

 

[Norman]

Black people don't want to be patronized, I'm sure. They can benefit from the same policies that everyone else gets. They don't need special treatment.

What special treatment are you suggesting blacks are and/or have been benefiting from. Please explain.

Affirmative action, but you already knew it.

Yes, racist as hell, and the dems stand firmly behind it. But doesn't matter because transferring wealth from whites to blacks is how the over 90% black vote for Doug is achieved.

 

[GHook93]

Playing the race card doesn't work. They tried it in 2016 and it flopped big time. Talk about jobs. About education. About healthcare. These are the things we really want to hear about.

I reject this "playing the race card" trope.

It's a well known fact that when you do things that benefit blacks, many others benefit as well.

Who, exactly, are you referring to, and what, exactly, are they saying? Define this "race card" claptrap you're referring to.

Lol the race card is all you have. So don’t be self-righteous!

What exactly have the Democrats done to help black people? Have you not seen the what they do to the inner cities?!?!?!? Near party gives a shit about blacks. Democrats take them for granted and Republicans discount them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Playing the race card doesn't work. They tried it in 2016 and it flopped big time. Talk about jobs. About education. About healthcare. These are the things we really want to hear about.

I reject this "playing the race card" trope.

It's a well known fact that when you do things that benefit blacks, many others benefit as well.

Who, exactly, are you referring to, and what, exactly, are they saying? Define this "race card" claptrap you're referring to.

Lol the race card is all you have. So don’t be self-righteous!

What exactly have the Democrats done to help black people? Have you not seen the what they do to the inner cities?!?!?!? Near party gives a shit about blacks. Democrats take them for granted and Republicans discount them.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Then why do black people bote Democrat? Are you suggesting black people are mindless?