"Why the inflation we're seeing now is a good thing" -MSNBC tweet that got deleted.
Edit: "Yes, inflation is back, and you should probably be relieved if not outright happy."
https://www.reuters.com/business/inflation-revival-is-victor...
"Why the inflation we're seeing now is a good thing" -MSNBC tweet that got deleted.
Edit: "Yes, inflation is back, and you should probably be relieved if not outright happy."
https://www.reuters.com/business/inflation-revival-is-victor...
It's not a good thing in my opinion, but who's to say it's not transitory?
The narrative in the media would be have taken a whole another level - scare mongering, etc if it wasn’t the Blue team in the office. I don’t really trust anything but hard numbers from sites such as TradingEconomics or FT.
I have no horse in this race but Blue teams vs Red team is getting really dull and frankly annoying. Everyone seems to be wearing tinted glasses. I have higher standards for media and information that I listen and trust - opinions on HN doesn’t cut the mustard. Usually it’s safe to assume that opposite of the current HN zeitgeist is true (I only joke slightly).
What I'm saying is there are reasons to believe it can go back to normal.
We want more of this though right?
I sense that many people can't understand the difference between opinions or editorials and news.
I sense that many people actually enjoy the inflammatory way news is sometimes covered unless it's different from the way they'd like to see it.
I sense that people can't understand how a single new outlet can have varying opinions and points of view on a single issue and will choose a single one out of many to make their point.
Imagine how different things would be if people were intelligent consumers of news.
I don't think you can have a news industry dependent on clicks and profits and have no sensationalism. I also don't think you can have a completely unbiased media when people, based on their consumption, don't seem to want it. It's unrealistic given the different biases and motivations that people have.
>We want more of this though right?
Yes, in principle, but with the caveat that they don't do this in a partisan and selective way. For instance the whole "Kids in Cages" phenomenon is still happening but we never hear about it anymore - in fact they're just called "Child Migrant Facilities" by the press secretary and the media is basically silent compared to the fervor they were covering the situation previously. To me at least, the fact that they calmed down isn't a consolation because I sense they're just doing it because their preferred team is in charge now.
I think journalists are masters of rhetoric and can spin a situation in so many diverse ways while still being almost entirely accurate and truthful. It all depends on what facets of the situation they want to present and the insinuations that come along with it.
There have been facilities before, but this isn’t happening the same way it was where separation was on purpose. There are stories covering the current conditions, but I think you’re overlooking the fact that the prior administration and supporters seemed to embrace and encourage that narrative because they saw it as a deterrent.
> I think journalists are masters of rhetoric
You should meet the average journalist. Just like any other industry, the vast majority are unremarkable people. They’re not rhetorical masterminds. Like most people they see and write things from their point of view.
What’s more interesting to me is how some of the biggest names in media are obviously the rhetorical masters you speak of. I’m referring specifically to the TV and YouTube stars. Some of them are incredibly good at being convincing even if often contradictory or wrong. I also think video can be effective in ways text cannot be.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-having-a-cow-ov...
They are two heads of the same beast, moving back and forth very rapidly and calling it progress.
Meanwhile popular policies like universal healthcare[0] and marijuana legalization[1] are never addressed. ( To name a few, there are many more ).
And the reason is clear. Tying healthcare to employment keeps people from organizing effectively. If you have a family, and you are on strike, your employer cutting off your healthcare is a brutal move. Also, people get fat off the bureaucracy.
Similar for marijuana legalization. Need to keep the prisons fed with new "forced customers" so the gravy train keeps rolling.
0: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/09/29/increasing-...
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-s... 1:
If the party in power is the one the media outlet favors then the party can do no wrong. If the media outlet doesn't support the party then every step the party takes is wrong with no exceptions.
Maybe that's how its always been.