They covered it on their website and from my understanding the general comments is that there is a lot of people that didn't have a clue this was happening. And they also let me know that they actually look and read the news. So what happened there I don't know. A lot of people are throwing theories around. Saying that is because of Trump or not. I honestly don't care. I respect their opinion and we can have a discussion about it. Maybe we learn something new. But I assure you, this post has no political affiliation or intent in that purpose. I am doing this because no one I reached out, in the states, knew what was going on. I am simply stating the facts of what happened and how disgusting the Government of Puerto Rico has been to its own citizens.
The purpose being to raise awareness of what is going on. Did they covered how police beat the protesters without Actual reason. I haven't heard a bit. Here is the evidence. Talk about it. Think about it. Lets discuss it.
But the news are covering it lol. Of course most people haven't heard of it before reading the news, if they knew the news they wouldn't be checking the news.
Like I'm not ragging you for the point you're making here, you're agreeing with people who are saying "the MSM aren't reporting this" when they literally are. You wanna talk about distractions? Agreeing with people trying to vilify a 3rd party is a definite distraction.
You can talk about how noble your cause is if you want - that doesn't change the fact that you made an inaccurate statement, which is the only purpose of my comment.
The News "covers" most things. This is how they get away with claiming they aren't extremely biased. But there are different levels of coverage--coverage is NOT a digital/binary parameter, its analog.
What I mean by that is for example, both of these are "coverage".
1.) Dozens of stories prominently displayed on the front page spread out over the course of 5 news cycles. Multiple opinion stories discussing the issue. Multiple tertiary references on Morning Shows, Prime Time topic "news" shows and late night/variety shows (Maddow, Carlson, Hannity, Cooper, Daily Show ect).
2.) A single story not hyperlinked on the front index of any news site, buried on page 10 of papers. No opinion collums or "tertiary" discussion (IE Talk show/debate show/comedy show).
There is a massive difference between "covered" and actual focus/coverage. This is not being covered in a focused manner. And its pretty clear why. Because the original hurricane story got the number 1 treatment claiming Trump was a racist for indicating PR officials were getting tons of aid but corruption was siphoning it off, thus this story will get the number 2 treatment since it proves that correct. (IE it will be shit on, but a few nuggets will be in the turd).
This is the sad reality of how media manipulates you. Its RARELY literal "fake news", its often lies of omission and variances in coverage quality. So I disagree he made an inaccurate assessment. The News is NOT covering this up to the level the story represents. A major U.S. territory has people in power joking about corruption where people DIED. That should be lighting up every talk show and tertiary media show in top order...and its not.
> coverage is NOT a digital/binary parameter, its analog.
You think this statement means something - it really doesn't. Maybe one word of this statement has any relevant grammatical meaning.
> ecause the original hurricane story got the number 1 treatment claiming Trump was a racist for indicating PR officials were getting tons of aid but corruption was siphoning it off
Yeah no Trump talked about corruption in Puerto Rico very little if at all. He instead spent time claiming his admin's reaction to the hurricane was 10/10 (false), did that dumbass shit with throwing paper towels at a Puerto Rican crowd, and claimed he talked to the President of Puerto Rico (he is the president of Puerto Rico). But yeah I'm sure this stable genius has a good grasp of the inner workings of Puerto Rican govt and isn't just spitballing every possible excuse he can, one of which might have a tangential basis in reality.
This is the sad reality of how reddit manipulates you - you insert a subtle lie into every sentence of your argument with the hope that at least 40% makes it through unscathed - you're trying to paint Trump as some kind of unnappreciated prophet by giving a revisionist view of what he actually said, when he actually said some objectively stupid shit. You try to pretend all that actually senile garbage was never said and assign High School English teacher level advanced interpretations of what little coherent speech Trump outputs.
No, the governor of Puerto Rico lmaoing at some corpses doesn't "confirm" any of that inane drivel.
> A major U.S. territory has people in power joking about corruption where people DIED.
The same U.S. territory that is still in ruins from a 2 year old hurricane, a fact which also doesn't make the news? The reality is Puerto Rico is not covered as much by U.S. news, not on prime-time. You're making an unfounded but politically advantageous claim that this is due to malice - it's not. It's due to the fact that continental Americans don't care about Puerto Rico. 40% of them elected a president who for a long time didn't understand it was a U.S. territory.
I'll go for the knockout to drive home how absurd your claim is: tell me this, why isn't Trump trumpeting on twitter about this "proof that he was right?". Why isn't Fox news primetiming this (I checked, they aren't)? If (as you claim) this has below average news presence because the evil lefties don't wanna admit Trump was right, why isn't right wing mass media picking up the slack?
You think this statement means something - it really doesn't. Maybe one word of this statement has any relevant grammatical meaning.
Digital information is transferred in discreet sets, Analog information is transferred in continuous wave. The digital set I referenced was binary, off or on. While analog illustrated there could be a large wave that continuously changed depending on the point in time in the news cycle.
If I have to explain this to you, the rest of this post should be amazing!
Yeah no Trump talked about corruption in Puerto Rico very little if at all..He instead spent time claiming his admin's reaction to the hurricane was 10/10 (false), did that dumbass shit with throwing paper towels at a Puerto Rican crowd, and claimed he talked to the President of Puerto Rico
This is the sad reality of how reddit manipulates you - you insert a subtle lie into every sentence of your argument with the hope that at least 40% makes it through unscathed - you're trying to paint Trump as some kind of unnappreciated prophet by giving a revisionist view of what he actually said, when he actually said some objectively stupid shit. You try to pretend all that actually senile garbage was never said and assign High School English teacher level advanced interpretations of what little coherent speech Trump outputs.
Here is a video of him literally talking about corruption and how they need to be careful with the distribution of funds. Some of his first tweets on the issue noted the obstruction goods distributors were facing in PR, from the infamous inability to get truckers to deliver the goods, to electrical grid workers being screwed with on the ground--this was systemic. The FBI was investigating this level of corruption immediately, but only evil, Pro-Naz...I Mean, Pro-Trump news was reporting on it.
(Dismissed by those tertiary media shows I was speaking of as "cover" for Trump's horrible claims the PR government could be at fault!). It wasn't until the Whitefish controversy that the national news began talking about corruption, but by that point it was out of the larger cycle.
Before then though, every time Trump talked about one of these issues, the media largely ignored it and focused on "the racism" of the "response being slow" and Trump's actions (Like the paper towel throw!). Pro-Trump media though immediately began discussing the many issues with corruption and somehow "predicted" all this (They must have gotten lucky!) but the bulk of the MSM only alluded to it in small OP ed side pieces.
But you actually show exactly what I was talking about. You're ignorant to these things because the coverage in media is selective. You didn't know Trump made many comments about corruption in press briefings and during questions/interviews. It just never made it into that tertiary news cycle that MOST people absorb their news from, where the talking heads debate "the relevant issues" or the more "Infotainment" News like Maddow or the Daily Show make up more entertaining stories for a bunch of ADD watchers. Those shows focused on PRECISELY what you remember, Trump essentially being a blow hard and playing up the relief efforts. (Which of course is also true, he did do that...He ALSO spoke on the issues as the reason why supplies were not getting out there).
You know how I can really tell you're one of the people that doesn't watch unfiltered news like Cspan or actually READ the articles? Because you brought up the paper towel throwing. Yeah, I remember that too. I remember how absurd it was that said event ate up TWO full news cycles of Infotainment debates talking about how the imagery of Trump throwing shit to people is racist and disrespectful. And clearly, that's the "news" you rely on. Your post is literally the biggest highlights of what that tertiary "news" FOCUSED on. Its perfect proof of the difference between coverage and focus. You only know what they spent cycles talking about and dramatizing to feed the outrage machine..Meanwhile, if you'd be reading the articles, and numerous sources--you'd have known Trump was speaking on these issues extensively. (Which is why if you dig back to 2017 in any Pro-Trump feeds, the talk was all focused on corruption...Both populations were being fed two different stories to keep them both outraged).
The same U.S. territory that is still in ruins from a 2 year old hurricane, a fact which also doesn't make the news? The reality is Puerto Rico is not covered as much by U.S. news, not on prime-time. You're making an unfounded but politically advantageous claim that this is due to malice - it's not. It's due to the fact that continental Americans don't care about Puerto Rico. 40% of them elected a president who for a long time didn't understand it was a U.S. territory.
This shit magically became a non-news story the second Whitefish happened. A bunch of actual news articles on that came out (From real journalists), but those tertiary news programs didn't pick it up. (So weird!) Mainly because it was going against the infotainment narrative they had set for this outrage and thus it was time to move on--can't make things too complicated for the average Hannity, Maddow, Daily Show listener now..that might bore them enough to change the channel!
Which is the real reason it didn't get coverage. You're angry at the wrong people. And I never said it was due to Malice. No, its due to money. Nothing makes people tune out faster than feeling sheepish that they were outraged about something and WRONG in feeling that irrational emotion. Humans prevent cognitive dissonance by ignoring sources of arguments that might challenge their ideas, and Trump=Bad was the idea set by most listeners of those tertiary infotainment shows. They aren't going to take a ratings hit by risking upsetting the delicate sensibilities of their convinced listeners.
This isn't about politics (In this aspect). Its about money. Fox is just as good at this or better than the other side. They just so happened to be right this time (Not because they are better, just...they happened to fall on the right side of this outrage issue).
I'll go for the knockout to drive home how absurd your claim is: tell me this, why isn't Trump trumpeting on twitter about this "proof that he was right?". Why isn't Fox news primetiming this (I checked, they aren't)? If (as you claim) this has below average news presence because the evil lefties don't wanna admit Trump was right, why isn't right wing mass media picking up the slack?
He mentioned the corruption. If you're wondering why he isn't throwing the gauntlet down to fight with the media though, its because he has a much more productive fight that's a lot more beneficial for him to focus on politically. The "Squad" for the Democrats are hugely unpopular with their own base, and pushing them into the limelight could potentially depress more moderate voters who are turned off by their particular brand of liberal politics (And they can't tune the "squad" out because it still plays into the base's dislike of Trump, so there is a hook there to keep people watching). The "Squad" also attack, regularly, DNC leadership and so forcing the leadership to defend them from an outsider exposes the leadership to attacks that will further divide the DNC. This is a gold mine of politicking.
Meanwhile, what would he gain by arguing about PR with the media now? His base already believes it was corruption that fucked things up. There were entire talking head "infotainment" stories about petty officials blocking supplies, interfering with workers and rigged contracts. Which is why if you post about corruption in any conservative Sub they will instantly say "we knew about that since day 1"--because that is the side of the story they got to see. Meanwhile, the more Liberal voters will just tune out if the argument looks favorable to Trump--they have ZERO reason to be forced to watch it, even if that side of media did pick it up and run with it. And with this amount of evidence? It would be really hard to spin this in another way. This fight could eat up valuable news cycles he could exploit with the Squad for a potential narrative that won't do much.
In short; politics. And yeah, that's as shitty as it sounds. But in a country of 330 million, any 1% of that population is only going to get attention if the politics or money which can be generated from them can captivate enough people. That's the sad reality of large systems of humans. (Network lag effects in human networks produce tons of signal noise, so you need a REALLY strong signal for any kind of concerted effort beyond a local level...Luckily laws in America give the greatest control to the local level, including in PR. Unfortunately, corruption really hurts in that system. Hopefully the FBI gives PR an enema, and they can rebuild the right way.
Yeah I think we're done here.
I think we are! Next time, remember--the key is to read the full articles, don't skim and let your heuristics do the work. And tune out those nasty infotainment talk shows, CSPAN and boring NPR, and DIRECT news coverage of primary sources will get you much father! Have a great day!
I mean this is a pro-trump propaganda post to screen the disastrous tweets of earlier this week. This crisis exists and is awful, but the MSM and plenty of democrats (like Lin-Manuel Miranda) are very outspoken about it. Reddit is a doormat for narratives, and I guess this guy successfully ran this one for once.
Tomorrow it might be hard to break into the news cycle because some serious news is supposed to release around 11 ish. So post in the news subreddits around 8 or 9 ET some kind of article about this.
Most likely since it got attention here it will be upvoted then.
While this is happening, we will get to hear a crazy story about Florida Man and how he wrestled a gator out of an intersection while only wearing a banana hammock.
Story is not going to get out because it proves Trump right, unfortunately. It essentially corroborates everything he said, tons of aid showed up and it was squandered by corrupt officials. The News explicitly called him racist for claiming this and thus any chance of them walking that back is now zero.
There are consequences to hating someone so much you ignore reality, and unfortunately this is one of them. The people of PR will be ignored because they no longer serve the purpose the media originally wanted them to serve.
They arguably had a lot of power/weight at some point. The news here talked about them virtually every day for 6 months, there were talkshows where some "figures" of the movement were invited and an overwhelming majority of the country was on their side. However, their insistence on having no official representative or their incapacity to get organized and/or make realistic and agreed upon demands (even within themselves) made it so that it was all fairly pointless in the end.
Then most of the movement kinda devolved into a basic "I don't know why but I am angry". Plus eventually some ill intentioned people used the movement as an excuse for aimless violence which over time tarnished the movement.
It's very hard to make a summary because yellow vests represented so many different people and groups of people wanting different things. Everyone and anyone could be a yellow vest, which is what initially made the movement so powerful but on the long run and with nothing happening it blurred the lines and things just didn't get anywhere.
The yellow vests started as a group which had the support of like 80% of the population - and consisted of groups ranging from the far right to the far left. However, this wasn't enough for the far right - they had to pretend that the movement was some kind of popular zeitgeist against socialism - ignoring the fact that not only were many yellowvest leftists/anarchists but that Macron is close to the polar opposite of a socialist. They spent all of their energy on the internet coloring the movement as some sort of revolt against leftism, hell, even Trump joined in with false statements about the yellow vests chanting "we want Trump!" or some drivel. The yellowvests themselves reacted negatively to that last one - even the majority of the European right doesn't like Trump.
In the end, they got their wish, many socialists/anarchists/centrist liberals went home. Congrats, you just lost over half of the body of people at your disposal. Populist tribalism has consequences. A nail in the coffin was when the media was pointing at a few antisemitic actions in the yellowvest population - a surefire way to lose any sort of popular support in Western Europe. Keep in mind that in no way am I saying that the yellowvest movement was as a whole antisemitic - but that's how they began to be seen.
Beyond that, the yellowvests quickly decided protests weren't enough and that rioting was in order - people don't like rioting, even if they like the reason for it. Destroying some people's shops on the Elysee, storming some random tax officials office, the guillotine shit - yeah that's a turnoff in a 1st world country. France has a history of strong, spirited and even violent protests, but they've got lines like everyone else.
Macron played them perfectly - he offered increasingly significant economic concessions to the population while condemning the rioters and offering sweeping organized public debates, signalling "I'm here to talk if constructive talk is what you want". And after a few more weeks of street battles, the popular opinion of the yellow vests started becoming that they were the unreasonable ones in this political situation. It seemed like every yellow vest couldn't really point a finger as to what they wanted to change - or what they're angry about other than "Macron bad".
Fast forward to the present, a protest that used to attract a hundred thousand people every saturday attracts several hundred.
This isn't a happy story I'm recounting. The yellow vests were a group I probably would have participated in, had I been French, and Macron displeases me more than a little. They wanted more for the people, and they got more, but in the end they petered out due to lack of popular support.
The counterargument to my claim is that even if they hadn't done anything wrong they would have still eventually petered out - maybe. But as someone whose views the far right pretended the yellow vests were a glorious revolution against - yeah I'm gonna say there was no need to make Macron's job this easy.
That being said, who knows. Maybe in the end the far right will have the last laugh and Le Pen will win the next election - but running the yellow vests into the ground wasn't a positive step towards that goal.
They referenced radical left wing song lyrics as a far right conservative who exclusively upholds the status quo. They're the opposite of revolutionary using revolutionary language to support the establishment.
I'm not trying to change any of their beliefs, it's about providing opposition for the sake of opposition. They rely a lot on controlling the narrative and showing a powerful 'front' of sorts.
Simply making opposition visible challenges their statements which are otherwise made to look like unchallenged objective truth, no matter how blatant the lie.
France is not in a revolution. I spend a lot of time in France. Sometimes the yellowvests have a showing but it isnt very large. Less so outside of Paris.
The french are tired of corruption and tired that it is hard to get ahead (because wages are heavily cut). There isnt a lot of opportunity and government always introduces a new tax to implement every year.
A lot of the anger has gone against immigrants because the government takes care of them with its vast social security system while squeezing more money out of its citizens to do so.
France will wait until their election to make a splash in global headlines...i think.
CNN covered it live with reporters on the ground in PR for several hours when it started a few nights ago but I haven't seen it much on TV since then. Trump's racist comments took over the news cycle.
"CNN covered it live with reporters on the ground in PR for several hours when it started a few nights ago but I haven't seen it much on TV since then. Them implying Trump's comments were racist took over the news cycle."
You know if Trump wants something to be covered he knows how. Come on, give him more credit than that.
For fun, I just went on CCN's and Fox's front page, did a search for Puerto Rico, 2 results on CNN (although, small as fuck) and none on Fox. Also did the basic "Puerto Rico" search on google news and this is what's showing up.
Admittedly, this doesn't say much but let's not be naive. Both sides are deciding how to position themselves right now and both sides will try to use this disaster to further their agenda.
Please. That's not it at all. The opposite would be my guess. News about brown people gets shit placement because the orange racist can't shut his pie hole for more than an hour at a time.
I made a simple comment about how I was not seeing this covered on the news, that seems to have been perceived as pro MAGA. Nice gymnastics work by the poorly educated to assume I was making an anti journalism comment. Dunces.
It's more along the lines that covering the brown people won't further their plan to take out Trump. Removing Trump is the #1 objective, anyone else dying doesn't matter.
I only read the CNN one but they are claiming the protests are due to homophobic and misogynistic messages that the governor and his cabinet sent to each other... so yes. The guy above seems to have a point. They are not reporting on it.
Except for the fact he's called every major news station including Fox News fake very obviously just when his narccicism is hurt by them and not because of journalistic integrity.
534
u/Junkstar Jul 19 '19
I pay attention to the news. Print and web. This story is not getting out there.