Fresh Start Political Thread

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by MTK

Trying to forget or actively ignoring the ugly history in this country doesn't make it go away. It's a complicated issue, but one that's clearly being politicized to fire up the masses.

The Maddening Critical Race Theory Debate

Did you miss this part? - bolded below.

....New York Times , Washington Post, MSNBC and elsewhere have begun spinning a new mythology that presents critical race theory as a benign academic concept, casts its detractors as right-wing extremists driven by racial resentment, and portrays legislation against critical race theory as an attempt to ban teaching about the history of slavery and racism. All three charges are false........."

No one is proposing history being ignored or banned (Heck other than all history being ignored which seems to be the default in K-12 the last 30 years which laid the ground work that enabled CRT proponents to push their execrable revision).

So New York Times versus Wall Street Journal - One paper has maintained a good reputation one hasn't - who you going to believe at this point?

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Did you miss this part? - bolded below.

....New York Times , Washington Post, MSNBC and elsewhere have begun spinning a new mythology that presents critical race theory as a benign academic concept, casts its detractors as right-wing extremists driven by racial resentment, and portrays legislation against critical race theory as an attempt to ban teaching about the history of slavery and racism. All three charges are false........."

No one is proposing history being ignored or banned (Heck other than all history being ignored which seems to be the default in K-12 the last 30 years which laid the ground work that enabled CRT proponents to push their execrable revision).

So New York Times versus Wall Street Journal - One has paper has maintained a good reputation one hasn't - who you going to believe at this point?

A big problem imo is that people take opinion pieces and editorial people like Tucker Carlson or Don Lemon as news and facts instead of one persons opinion.

I cant view this NY Times or the WSJ opinion piece as its behind a pay wall but its clearly marked OPINION which should be read with a grain of salt

Christopher Rufo, the writer of the WSJ opinion piece is a right wing activist who worked for Heritage Foundation, does the Carlson/Ingraham talking circuit etc ... seems to be trying to anchor himself into the money making right wing echo chamber talking circuit and has targeted critical race theory as his drum to beat.

Christopher Rufo opinion piece does not equal WSJ credibility or integrity

[nonniey]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

A big problem imo is that people take opinion pieces and editorial people like Tucker Carlson or Don Lemon as news and facts instead of one persons opinion.

I cant view this NY Times or the WSJ opinion piece as its behind a pay wall but its clearly marked OPINION which should be read with a grain of salt

Christopher Rufo, the writer of the WSJ opinion piece is a right wing activist who worked for Heritage Foundation, does the Carlson/Ingraham talking circuit etc ... seems to be trying to anchor himself into the money making right wing echo chamber talking circuit and has targeted critical race theory as his drum to beat.

Christopher Rufo opinion piece does not equal WSJ credibility or integrity

Even opinion pages are subject to a reputational standing. Do the papers editorial writers or guests have a history of playing fast and loose with facts, or omissions of facts, do they they do it a lot or a little? etc. The New York Times reputation, not only in their news reporting but their editorial opinion pieces, has taken quite a hit over the last 5-10 years, while the WSJ has maintained a good reputation. Rufo is a regular WSJ contributor subject to their requirements. Does it matter that he is a conservative when he is required to adhere to WSJ standards?

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by nonniey

Even opinion pages are subject to a reputational standing. Do the papers editorial writers or guests have a history of playing fast and loose with facts, or omissions of facts, do they they do it a lot or a little? etc. The New York Times reputation, not only in their news reporting but their editorial opinion pieces, has taken quite a hit over the last 5-10 years, while the WSJ has maintained a good reputation. Rufo is a regular WSJ contributor subject to their requirements. Does it matter that he is a conservative when he is required to adhere to WSJ standards?

Isnt the WSJ owned by Robert Murdoch?

regular news is slanted enough ... im good with categorizing "opinion pieces" as opinion pieces and not treating them like a neutral news source.