The Decline of the American Media IV

[Tidewater]

If this is accurate, it helps explain why many people do not trust mainstream media:

The New York Times Had the Evidence on Platner. It Chose Not to Use It.​

"The Times called two of the five friends. Fifield says she specifically told them those two would not know about the abuse – they could only confirm the relationship timeline. The other three, the ones who could speak to the alleged abuse directly, were never contacted."
So the victim speaks with the NYT. She gives the reporter(s) five names, two of which she says will not know the details of the assault, but can only corroborate the timeline. The NYT contacts those two only, then reports that they could not confirm the details of the assault. Due diligence would indicate the NYT team should have contacted all five, but they contacted the only two who could not.

 

[crimsonaudio]

CNBC's list of 10 worst states to live in is an absolute joke and they're getting wrecked in the comments

CNBC put out a list of the worst states to live in and people are noticing a pattern.

notthebee.com

 

[selmaborntidefan]

If this is accurate, it helps explain why many people do not trust mainstream media:

The New York Times Had the Evidence on Platner. It Chose Not to Use It.​

"The Times called two of the five friends. Fifield says she specifically told them those two would not know about the abuse – they could only confirm the relationship timeline. The other three, the ones who could speak to the alleged abuse directly, were never contacted."
So the victim speaks with the NYT. She gives the reporter(s) five names, two of which she says will not know the details of the assault, but can only corroborate the timeline. The NYT contacts those two only, then reports that they could not confirm the details of the assault. Due diligence would indicate the NYT team should have contacted all five, but they contacted the only two who could not.

Of course it's true.

As a reminder, the Washington Post had to return a Pulitzer Prize all the way back in 1981.
The NYT had the Jayson Blair scandal.
NBC had a news anchor (Brian Williams) lose his job over fabricating where he was.
CBS had a longtime news anchor fired for his attempt to sway the outcome of the 2004 election.

But remember: media was nearly perfect until Fox News.
"They're biased, we tell the truth" never sounded so hypocritical.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

If this is accurate, it helps explain why many people do not trust mainstream media:

The New York Times Had the Evidence on Platner. It Chose Not to Use It.​

"The Times called two of the five friends. Fifield says she specifically told them those two would not know about the abuse – they could only confirm the relationship timeline. The other three, the ones who could speak to the alleged abuse directly, were never contacted."
So the victim speaks with the NYT. She gives the reporter(s) five names, two of which she says will not know the details of the assault, but can only corroborate the timeline. The NYT contacts those two only, then reports that they could not confirm the details of the assault. Due diligence would indicate the NYT team should have contacted all five, but they contacted the only two who could not.

This has been a practice of MSM literally for many decades. It's not new...

 

[Bodhisattva]

Of course it's true.

As a reminder, the Washington Post had to return a Pulitzer Prize all the way back in 1981.
The NYT had the Jayson Blair scandal.
NBC had a news anchor (Brian Williams) lose his job over fabricating where he was.
CBS had a longtime news anchor fired for his attempt to sway the outcome of the 2004 election.

But remember: media was nearly perfect until Fox News.
"They're biased, we tell the truth" never sounded so hypocritical.

Oddly, the MSM is not considered part of the puke funnel by some of the leftist tribalists. All things get a pass in support of the tribe, sadly.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Good data.

I'd say the major issue with the 1% and the tax they pay is that they make enough money that if you doubled their taxes* they wouldn't effectively notice it, other than that they'd invest less in stocks. The bottom 50% struggle and eventually are hand to mouth and can't afford the basics given the disparity in incomes. It is a complex issue with many facets... And no easy answer.

* just spitballing there... but suffice to say that as your wealth goes past 100k in a typical area and beyond 500k in most areas you can afford life and then afford lots of life. The 1% thresh hold currently starts at an income of 750k.

The 0.1% starts at an annual income of 3 million and controls 15% of the wealth...

Not saying it has to be equal, but the disparity is substantial.

I promise I'm not trying to pick nits here, arthurdawg. But there's a big difference between income and wealth. The reason I'm bringing it up is that those words are often used interchangeably by the press and in common everyday conversation. But they're far from interchangeable.

Income is just that -- money you received, usually referenced as happening over the last calendar year end. For some really high earners, it might not be all in cash. But for most of us schmoos, it's a pretty good proxy for how much money passed through our hands over the preceding 12 months.

Wealth is the asset pile you've built up over multiple years.

Mrs. Basket Case and I had good jobs. But even in our peak earning years from age 50 to retirement, we were far from the Top 1%. At that point in our lives, we had comfortable incomes. But wasn't always so. It had taken decades to build the skill sets, and the earlier years were nowhere near as comfortable as the last few.

We did invest early, often, and the most we could possibly spare. And we avoided debt unless there was literally no other option. So over time, a combination of limited debt service and the magic of compounded investment returns provided us a nice (no, not 1%) asset base.

But most of that is subject to taxes on withdrawal. So the net spendable wealth is a lot less than the gross number if you just add up our Schwab and 401k balances. And being retired, we're starting to whittle away at the corpus.

Point being, we have assets, but not much income. Are we wealthy? Were we wealthy when we had income but not a lot of assets? In both cases, it depends on both how you define wealth and where you draw the line.

 

[arthurdawg]

I promise I'm not trying to pick nits her, arthurdawg. But there's a big difference between income and wealth. The reason I'm bringing it up is that those words are often used interchangeably by the press and in common everyday conversation. But they're far from interchangeable.

Income is just that -- money you received, usually referenced as the last calendar year end. For some really high earners, it might not be all in cash. But for most of us schmoos, it's a pretty good proxy for how much money passed through our hands over the preceding 12 months.

Wealth is the asset pile you've built up over multiple years.

Mrs. Basket Case and I had good jobs. But even in our peak earning years from age 50 to retirement, we were far from the Top 1%. At that point in our lives, we had comfortable incomes. But wasn't always so. It had taken decades to build the skill sets, and the earlier years were nowhere near as comfortable as the last few.

We did invest early, often, and the most we could possibly spare. And we avoided debt unless there was literally no other option. So over time, a combination of limited debt service and the magic of compounded investment returns provided us a nice (no, not 1%) asset base.

But most of that is subject to taxes on withdrawal. So the net spendable wealth is a lot less than the gross number if you just add up our Schwab and 401k balances. And being retired, we're starting to whittle away at the corpus.

Point being, we have assets, but not much income. Are we wealthy? Were we wealthy when we had income but not a lot of assets? In both cases, it depends on both how you define wealth and where you draw the line.

No worry about nits here! Very good point, I was remiss and meant income and not wealth in the highlighted sentence.

Wealth taxes are more problematic than income tax too. And often times they state a net worth which is often just stock value that can change quickly. Musk hit a trillion, but most of that is stock value and not something that is taxable barring a transaction.

I think my major point would be that if you look at our fellow humans that are working and struggling out there, even relatively small amounts of cash can substantially help them out and move them to a point of affordability.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Yeah, they left off Fox News, but throw those bums into this lot, too.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

No worry about nits here! Very good point, I was remiss and meant income and not wealth in the highlighted sentence.

Wealth taxes are more problematic than income tax too. And often times they state a net worth which is often just stock value that can change quickly. Musk hit a trillion, but most of that is stock value and not something that is taxable barring a transaction.

I think my major point would be that if you look at our fellow humans that are working and struggling out there, even relatively small amounts of cash can substantially help them out and move them to a point of affordability.

That bolded sentence is a huge understatement, and yet another reason I don't trust the press to present a full examination of anything.

If a person's wealth is tied up in cash and publicly traded investments, it's pretty easily and objectively calculated. But then your point about the volatility inherent in the stock market -- it goes up and down. To be sure, a sawtooth up, but the downs can be precipitous.

Suppose, for example, a person has $5 million in publicly traded investments and has to pay tax on that. Next year, the market is down, and they have only $4 million. Is that $1 million unrealized loss deductible?

Maybe not if the tax is only on the portfolio value. But a lot of "wealth tax" plans would also tax unrealized gains. So if I had $4 million in my account last year, and it's worth $5 million now, I have to pay tax on the $1 million gain even if I didn't sell anything and therefore didn't get any of what we would currently call income from it.

Next year the market goes down, and my nest egg is worth only $3 million (which is $2 million less than last year's ending number of $5 million). I had to pay tax on a $1 million unrealized gain. Do I get to deduct the ensuing $2 million unrealized loss?

What if my net worth is tied up in a privately-held business. How is that valued for purposes of a wealth tax? What if it's options, which are notoriously in the money today, out of the money tomorrow?

What about real estate? Does it have to be valued each year? Anyone who's ever tried to value vacant land knows that the main question is highest and best use. Who determines what that is?

The list goes on forever.

Income is not perfectly objective, but we've been taxing it for over 100 years now, and the population has generally accepted the concept. We still have arguments over the specifics. But except for tax nuts (Posse Comitatus -- sp?), it's been largely accepted as a part of life.

The idea of a wealth tax, however, is an envy-born attempt to eat the rich -- rich being defined as anybody with a bigger pile than I do.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think my major point would be that if you look at our fellow humans that are working and struggling out there, even relatively small amounts of cash can substantially help them out and move them to a point of affordability.

I would still argue (and I concur with the bulk of your statements here) that part of our affordability problem is tied to the after effects of the pandemic. You can't flood the market with money (yes, it had to be done because the alternative was even worse) and not see inflation. The stagflation of around 1974-83 was largely blamed (by economics smarts) on the Vietnam War and LBJ's refusal to push a new tax to help pay for it. I don't want to get into the party politics of it, always a futile endeavor, but the larger point is that we were still suffering at the pay window in 1983 for things done in 1965. And to wash it away, the Fed went with raising unemployment (the Keynesian theory) early in the Reagan years.

I recall telling my Oregon bud on the phone as the first checks were being sent out to the people not paying rent or car payments or student loans that we were about to endure a 15- to 20-year cycle similar to the 70s and 80s, and ours may be worse because we were still digging out from the housing crisis that collapsed with the economy in 2008, yes, even in 2020.


That being said, let's be blunt: Bernie Sanders isn't going to take money from Elon Musk and GIVE IT TO THE POOR PEOPLE that will help them pay next month's rent. That is never how it happens. Bernie, Liz, Ponytail, and the other smug socialist theorists will take that money FOR THEMSELVES to create a "government program" to lock in folks to provide for one of their pet projects. Healthcare or rent care of maybe now with Commie Zamdani in NYC, child care, where they have someone come watch your kids for you (what could POSSIBLY go wrong here, folks......)

 

[JDCrimson]

I would still argue (and I concur with the bulk of your statements here) that part of our affordability problem is tied to the after effects of the pandemic. You can't flood the market with money (yes, it had to be done because the alternative was even worse) and not see inflation. The stagflation of around 1974-83 was largely blamed (by economics smarts) on the Vietnam War and LBJ's refusal to push a new tax to help pay for it. I don't want to get into the party politics of it, always a futile endeavor, but the larger point is that we were still suffering at the pay window in 1983 for things done in 1965. And to wash it away, the Fed went with raising unemployment (the Keynesian theory) early in the Reagan years.

I recall telling my Oregon bud on the phone as the first checks were being sent out to the people not paying rent or car payments or student loans that we were about to endure a 15- to 20-year cycle similar to the 70s and 80s, and ours may be worse because we were still digging out from the housing crisis that collapsed with the economy in 2008, yes, even in 2020.


That being said, let's be blunt: Bernie Sanders isn't going to take money from Elon Musk and GIVE IT TO THE POOR PEOPLE that will help them pay next month's rent. That is never how it happens. Bernie, Liz, Ponytail, and the other smug socialist theorists will take that money FOR THEMSELVES to create a "government program" to lock in folks to provide for one of their pet projects. Healthcare or rent care of maybe now with Commie Zamdani in NYC, child care, where they have someone come watch your kids for you (what could POSSIBLY go wrong here, folks......)

You are setting up *care as the next conservative attack word. Care is woke. We dont need healthcare, we dont childcare, "welcare", Medicare, social care. Give us whisky, a gun, and a hot iron and we will be okay. If not, there is more for the rest of us...

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Secret service agent under investiation for leaking information about VP Vance to MSNOW

A Secret Service agent on Vice President JD Vance’s security detail is under internal review and has been put on administrative leave after being suspected of leaking information for a news story that included details about Vance’s travel, a source familiar with the matter said.

A second source also said officials had identified a person believed to have been leaking information about Vance.

A spokesperson for MS NOW did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The development comes as the Trump administration has vowed to crack down on what it views as unauthorized disclosures to the press.

Earlier this month, four reporters from The New York Times received subpoenas to testify before a federal grand jury in connection with an investigation into their reporting about security features onboard a new presidential aircraft gifted to Donald Trump by the nation of Qatar.

 

[Tidewater]

Here is an example of a story so poorly written, I wonder where the editor was.

502 students lose spots at Howard University over tuition payments just weeks before classes start​

As near as I can tell, students enrolled in Howard, had a due date for their tuition payments, missed that deadline and were disenrolled before they even started. That, however, is never stated in the article. You have to read between the lines to get that. What the story does cover is how devastated the students are, how they took to social media to complain, how they parents felt, how Howard communicated the news.

If they missed a deadline for submitting tuition, that is not an irrelevant fact. It is central to the story. When was the deadline? What percentage of the overall semester's tuition needed be turned in? How much tuition needed to be submitted? These are germane to the story.
And the author submitted his story from Detroit. Where is ground zero for a Howard University news story? Brother, it ain't in Detroit.

To reiterate, this is not even an example of political bias. It is simply journalistic malpractice.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Here is an example of a story so poorly written, I wonder where the editor was.

502 students lose spots at Howard University over tuition payments just weeks before classes start​

As near as I can tell, students enrolled in Howard, had a due date for their tuition payments, missed that deadline and were disenrolled before they even started. That, however, is never stated in the article. You have to read between the lines to get that. What the story does cover is how devastated the students are, how they took to social media to complain, how they parents felt, how Howard communicated the news.

If they missed a deadline for submitting tuition, that is not an irrelevant fact. It is central to the story. When was the deadline? What percentage of the overall semester's tuition needed be turned in? How much tuition needed to be submitted? These are germane to the story.
And the author submitted his story from Detroit. Where is ground zero for a Howard University news story? Brother, it ain't in Detroit.

To reiterate, this is not even an example of political bias. It is simply journalistic malpractice.

I sort of scanned it. I thought that, probably, the deadline had been ignored without consequence in the past, until Howard decided they had to draw a line in the sand, a line the debtors didn't like...

 

[Tidewater]

I sort of scanned it. I thought that, probably, the deadline had been ignored without consequence in the past, until Howard decided they had to draw a line in the sand, a line the debtors didn't like...

I agree, that seems likely. But goodness, why not make that explicit in the article? That detail is not irrelevent.
Ironically, Howard U. may have taught these young people a very valuable lesson: take care of your business in a timely manner, or bad consequences will follow.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I agree, that seems likely. But goodness, why not make that explicit in the article? That detail is not irrelevent.
Ironically, Howard U. may have taught these young people a very valuable lesson: take care of your business in a timely manner, or bad consequences will follow.

TBF, I do not understand the "deadlines shouldn't apply to me" attitude at all. When I was in school, the fees were due on a certain date, period. I think there were some hardship dispensations, but you had to arrange it in advance...

 

[crimsonaudio]

Not American, but at this point, if the shoe fits...