maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
I don't suppose we'll ever see any of those showing up in this thread?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Kansas Gov Sam Brownback strips LGBT state employees of non-discrimination protection
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
I don't suppose we'll ever see any of those showing up in this thread?
There's certainly one that will ignore this thread as hard as they can while claiming in others that Republicans don't hate gay people.
I disagree. Not that the false balance you mention doesn't do what you said - it does. But I don't think reporting on an event requires dragging unrelated things into the report from either "side" of an issue.
When I first read the OP article, I didn't know Salon was partisan (my bad). I don't think I would have felt quite so manipulated if I knew that going in. After all, when one is in a whore house, one expects whores.
As to the vaccination example, I think it's perfectly reasonable to report a rise in communicable disease, attribute it to lower vaccination levels, and maybe drop in the demographic - all without "teaching the controversy."
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
When you read something like this-
You have no sense that maybe this isn't your standard straight-up news story, that maybe this is either an op-ed piece or the site itself supports a particular point of view? Seriously?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Why, this is equality! Now gay Kansans can fire other Kansans for being gay, if they wish. Just like they are equally free to marry people of the opposite sex.
When you read something like this-
You have no sense that maybe this isn't your standard straight-up news story, that maybe this is either an op-ed piece or the site itself supports a particular point of view? Seriously?
No, that was my precise complaint - that an article not labeled as an opinion piece was pushing a particular point of view. But, if the entire webzine is devoted to doing just that, the article doesn't stand alone, and my complaint against the author fails. After all he's just writing for the venue.
My mistake was in thinking the writer was being disingenuous, and instead, the proper target would have been the website. Except, everyone already seems to know Salon has that agenda, leaving me the odd one out.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
But we're not talking about a mainstream news magazine or newspaper. It's a web site. They are usually crafted to appeal to a certain demographic or niche. I can usually tell within the first couple of sentences what their political stripe is.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I apologize in advance if I am -- but haven't you said you are a former journalist?
Web based-news sites have to find an audience and it is usually going to be small and of a like mind. Most newspaper audiences are local (I realize there are a handful of exceptions), the paper sells to readers in a certain geographic area, so to reach a sizable number they have to present the news in a straight forward way in order to appeal to people of a wide range of political opinions. Web-based news sources are freed of that constraint. They can reach readers all over the world and their appeal -- the reason why you want to read a particular site -- is usually based on ideology. We see the world the way you do. We speak the same language.
There's another factor in play too. A website like Salon does not have the resources of a Los Angeles Times or a Miami Herald. They don't have the same news gathering staff. On many news websites the content is generated by other media providers. The website is selling an attitude, a way of looking at the news. It seems to me to judge them the way you would judge the Washington Post or ABC News is just wrong.
Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I apologize in advance if I am -- but haven't you said you are a former journalist?
Web based-news sites have to find an audience and it is usually going to be small and of a like mind. Most newspaper audiences are local (I realize there are a handful of exceptions), the paper sells to readers in a certain geographic area, so to reach a sizable number they have to present the news in a straight forward way in order to appeal to people of a wide range of political opinions. Web-based news sources are freed of that constraint. They can reach readers all over the world and their appeal -- the reason why you want to read a particular site -- is usually based on ideology. We see the world the way you do. We speak the same language.
There's another factor in play too. A website like Salon does not have the resources of a Los Angeles Times or a Miami Herald. They don't have the same news gathering staff. On many news websites the content is generated by other media providers. The website is selling an attitude, a way of looking at the news. It seems to me to judge them the way you would judge the Washington Post or ABC News is just wrong.
I write for a living, yes. Mostly ghosting stuff now, but a mix.
Quite true. I don't think we disagree on why this happened. I still think Huffpo did it much better though. My mistake was in thinking that Salon was other than an agenda driven news outlet.
This is also true. I wonder if the public thinks the accumulators are equivalent to the gatherers though?
In any case, by objection wasn't mainly about what wasn't included in the piece, but what was - the "list" of Brownback offenses that led off the piece. I can understand that may have been filler to get a word count, due to lack of news gathering resources, but it adds a tone that pushes the piece over to the editorial desk instead of the news desk. And as you pointed out, that may very well be the standard for Salon. If everything is written with "spin," well, then that's their remit.
As someone who sometimes has to write agenda-driven stuff, I'm very familiar with the technique. The difference is you usually put the news item first and then the context you want to shape it with. The idea is to say to readers, "Here's what just happened... Here's why it matters."
Front-loading is a bit more heavy handed. There, you are using the list as a kind of meta-adjective. Obama, just isn't the president, but he's the Muslim-appeasing President, or the Tax-and-Spend President. The descriptors come first to make the following stuff seem like "more of the same."
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Salon has been around for about fifteen years and bills itself as a "smart tabloid." A web tabloid, that is. The site has never earned a profit and currently survives on cash injections by "board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht. During the nine months ended December 31, 2012, these cash contributions amounted to $3.4 million, compared to revenue in the same period of $2.7 million." SEC link
I'm not sure how many employees they have but it's probably not many. Most of the writers are "contributors" -- either sub-contractors or freelancers -- not employees. I'm not sure if they have a reporting desk or editorial desk. They may not have desks. Maybe they all work out of a local Starbucks, one with free WiFi.
I'm not sure how many employees they have but it's probably not many. Most of the writers are "contributors" -- either sub-contractors or freelancers -- not employees. I'm not sure if they have a reporting desk or editorial desk. They may not have desks. Maybe they all work out of a local Starbucks, one with free WiFi.
Salon has been around for about fifteen years and bills itself as a "smart tabloid." A web tabloid, that is. The site has never earned a profit and currently survives on cash injections by "board Chairman John Warnock and William Hambrecht, father of former Salon CEO Elizabeth Hambrecht. During the nine months ended December 31, 2012, these cash contributions amounted to $3.4 million, compared to revenue in the same period of $2.7 million." SEC link
I'm not sure how many employees they have but it's probably not many. Most of the writers are "contributors" -- either sub-contractors or freelancers -- not employees. I'm not sure if they have a reporting desk or editorial desk. They may not have desks. Maybe they all work out of a local Starbucks, one with free WiFi.
That's really sad.
These guys say from $100 to $200 for up to 2,000 wds. http://whopays.scratchmag.net/?s=salon
I make twice that for private newsletter stuff. Embarrassing.
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Umm... yes. Gay marriage is legal in Kansas, whether our officials like it or not.
...and you're right, gay people have every right NOT to work for the state, but that's not the question here. The question here is whether they have the right to work for the state, should they choose, without being discriminated against. The first question, which you asked has absolutely nothing to do with the second as far as I can tell. If you'd like to try and make the connection, go ahead, but I doubt you'll be successful.
This affects a lot more people than you might think... teachers work for the state, for instance. We're talking about people that had to get overpriced college degrees in order to get their underpaid jobs... and we're denying a right to not be harassed or discriminated against by their administrators that once existed.
The action in the OP isn't about gay marriage... it's about reducing the protections against unfair discrimination in the workplace... specifically with regard to government jobs. It wouldn't be a problem if there was any chance in hell that the Kansas government had the intention of extending those protections to the broader public, which is actually what they should do. I assure you that they don't any intention of doing that.
Last edited:
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
Are you at all curious who Luke Brinker, the Salon writer who penned the news story in the OP, is? I think he's about twenty-five-years-old. His profile says, before he became "Deputy Politics Editor" at Salon he was a researcher at MediaMatters. Before that he was in college. 
Manopolus
Metaphorical Anomaly
Are you at all curious who Luke Brinker, the Salon writer who penned the news story in the OP, is? I think he's about twenty-five-years-old. His profile says, before he became "Deputy Politics Editor" at Salon he was a researcher at MediaMatters. Before that he was in college.
If you're not comfortable with the source, I can bring up pretty much the same story from The Wichita Eagle (local to Kansas) if you'd like. That or something like it is probably where Salon got the information from in the first place through the AP:
http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article9692624.html
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Skyrider's sock puppet outs himself?
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
I have no problem with the source. I'm sure the information is pretty solid. There was criticism of the way Salon (and Brinker) presented it. People seemed to be confusing Salon with the Boston Globe.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Salon just put its hyperbole up front. It's what they do. The Kansas City Star covered the same story and led with the actual news and not the background. But they then asked for comments from politicos in the state, and surprise surprise, got some liberals saying that this was misdirection to take the voters' minds away from his massive failure to meet any of his goals as regards the state economy and giving away the shop to the moneyed interests represented by the CTPK (Crazier Tea Party of Kansas) wing.
I have no trouble expecting a spin from Salon. I read Breitbart expecting their spin. If my mental filters aren't working, I can always go to source news reports.
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
I just read up on that bill. What a ********* of stupidity.
"Hey, legislator, why did you introduce this bill to the committee?"
"I didn't introduce that bill."
"It has your name on it."
"Oh, that bil. Yeah I introduced that bill but I introduced it because someone asked me to."
"Who was that?"
"Yeah, I don't really remember. You know , I introduce a lot of bills for people."
I changed a few phrases, but that is an accurate description of what happened.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,796
Or straight whatever. Of course they always could, now it is just that gay state employees can fire other state employees for being gay. The private sector was never covered.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
The private sector tends to be more progressive than the government in some matters. They have to be, because most of it would be damaged by bad publicity. Sure, my employer could fire me for being gay. They wouldn't, because the next morning it'd be in the news and they'd hate negative publicity and the loss of business. But if I worked for the government, they wouldn't care about those things--everybody hates the government already, and the government doesn't have to worry about losing money because it just takes yours whether you want it to or not. The private sector is a much friendlier place for LGBTs.
Hell, think about the military. You can still torpedo your career for having an affair, even if it's a straight one. Whereas in the private sector nobody cares, so long as you clean up afterwards if you do it on the conference table.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
Right, I understand all that. My only point was that, if gay marriage is legal in Kansas, then there is no ground for excluding gay couples from this CARE program. Even Brownback's EO can't, since the CARE families would not be state employees. I guess what I'm wondering is if these Kansas conservatives are even talking to each other- one's busy stripping gay people of legal protections, while the other is passing a bill that could give them equal status as CARE family heads.