There’s no such thing as an adolescent silverback. A silverback is a fully mature dominant male. They don’t gain the silver coloration until they are mature, so the entire premise is a contradiction in terms.
There’s no such thing as an adolescent silverback. A silverback is a fully mature dominant male. They don’t gain the silver coloration until they are mature, so the entire premise is a contradiction in terms.
Several things can be true at once. We don’t have to be all-in on one side or the other of the Snowden affair. I’ve never understood why people seem so eager to pick a team on this issue.
I don’t think Lemmy is ready to hear that kind of thing.
True, but not for the reasons that most people think.
Ok, the fact that you honestly believe this is how legitimate newsrooms work is both deeply disheartening and an indication of how little the average person knows about the news business.
Editors decide what gets published, not the editorial board which is an entirely different and unrelated body that traditionally has zero contact with the content side of things. In the business we say that there is a “firewall” between the editorial board and actual news content. The NYT or WaPo would have mass resignations of their reporters if either of their editorial boards tried to influence content.
Ownership is a bit different and obviously --as we know from the Murdoch empire-- can influence content, but in traditional operations they’ve always been very hands-off. It’s a fact, for example, that Jeff Bezos doesn’t care what the WaPo publishes and has no interest in it beyond as a business concern.
Editors do have control over content, but overwhelmingly they are concerned with doing a good job and furthering their careers and professional reputations. You’re completely misunderstanding the incentive structure in mainstream news media. Outside of the extremist advocacy journalism ecosystems --mostly but not only on the far right-- no one has any incentive to push an agenda and risk ruining their career by getting something important wrong.
Unfortunately advocacy journalism is very much a legitimate type of journalism, just ask Glen Greenwald, who I fuckin’ hate.
It’s more of a cause or a movement than an organization. I guess I don’t know why that should be difficult to understand.
Oh so now you are arguing that deadheads were an organization too? Really? In what universe?
Infamous is the word you’re looking for.
Yeah that’s bullshit. There isn’t some secret cabal that’s in charge of US journalism anymore than there is in the UK. What really happens is that because the old news-media business models have been utterly destroyed by the Internet, there’s a giant and never-ending competition for audience and everyone knows that sensationalism sells.
You have a similar problem in the UK but it’s not as pronounced because the BBC is government funded and even though it’s far from perfect, it does set a kind of baseline. Your other big news organizations are just as bad as in the US though. Your tabloids are actually a lot worse than ours, which is saying something.
While I understand what you are getting at, for the record that’s not what linguistics is about at all.
You obviously know nothing about linguistics.
Well the other team is SF, which if I had to guess is probably the right’s most hated city in America. It must be galling to them that the 49ers are easily one of the winningest teams in NFL history.
I believe you are the one who is confused and making unwarranted assumptions here.
I don’t know how it is for you, but when I look back at 24-year-old me, I am not impressed. I guess what I’m saying is that there are a lot of us who definitely don’t have their shit together when they’re 24. They say your prefrontal cortex isn’t fully developed until 25 at the earliest, but I feel like it was closer to 30 for me. Granted, I’m kind of a dummy anyway, so this probably doesn’t apply to everyone.
Same. Mine is a regular watch with hour and minute hands and a digital read-out in the background that I can turn on and off. It’s nothing fancy, but I wear it with a fat black leather wrist-band which is pleasing to my easily-entertained soul.
I am a simple man in many ways.
True, however, the concentration of wealth has meant that desirable areas are far more out of reach for the middle class than they were in the 1950s when unionization was at an all-time high and the difference between a highly-educated professional vs a skilled tradesman was more a matter of what kind of car they drove and how big their house was rather than what we see now which is working people being priced out of entire markets.
I got lucky because my wife and I bought our house when the neighborhood we’re in was still seen as the ghetto. We bought it because it was the only thing we could afford and it was relatively close to my wife’s parents, but since then the neighborhood has rapidly gentrified and our property value has gone way up.
This wouldn’t be an issue in a country wherein wealth is not so egregiously concentrated at the top.
My relatively small house (~1200 sq ft) was built in 1950 and is currently appraised at $550k, so it’s not just house size. Granted, I live in a highly-desirable west coast city and the lot is worth more than the house itself, but the point remains.
Also the parties realign during this period with conservative southern Democrats going to the Republican party and fully embracing the idea that government is the enemy rather than a potential force for good in people’s lives. The subtext being that if you’re poor, it’s your fault and rich white men should be left alone to run big businesses however they want.
The short version is that it was about the transfer of power from hereditary nobility to a different elite consisting of wealthy merchants and “gentlemen” farmers. This transfer was already happening anyway throughout the British Empire, the Americans just wanted to speed it up and codify it.