While I agree that partisan interpretation of the news is a problem (even to some degree in cases you mention) I think the general move of right wing media to bring this up now is disingenuous, specifically in relation to the recent killings in MN. A main point (maybe the main point?) of contention has the been the federal refusal to investigate these in a real way which has (so far) led to the resignation of staff attached to both the FBI and US attorneys office. I think that Walz's response, specifically, is pretty reasonable with respect to this.
I realize that you are very focused on left wing media bias (which is a real thing! As a long time center lefter, there are issues that get distorted) but I think the issues are actually more substantive, regarding both the wisdom of deploying a "surge" to MN, and in the accountability for deaths that have happened as a result. It might annoy me, for example, that right wing media interprets these things in a certain way (labeling them terrorists who deserve to die, and whatnot). I know that this happens on the left, too (e.g. Charlie Kirk). However, I can live with this. What's different and new is the claim by various figures in the Trump administration that this interpretation is basically legally binding.
There are a lot of mainstream, center left and center right critics (for example, in the Atlantic monthly or Financial Times) who have problems with these things. I think your arguments here could be strengthened.if you directly engaged with them. In any case, let me know if you ever want to discuss this IRL.
Thanks, SH. An excellent read and a good reminder to take a step back and continue to ask questions.
Yes: and I know this often seems impossible.
I'm no longer responding to pictures or videos.
Just: don't.
We were manipulated by the Rodney King videos (the cops made a legal stop of a drunk driver; he resisted arrest).
We were manipulated by the George Floyd video (I'm not saying Derek Chauvin was cop of the year, but it wasn't murder).
They tried to manipulate us about Renee Good.
I'm not falling for this.
Pretti should not have brought a gun to a peaceful demonstration. That's my take.
Stay warm. It's (almost) like Minnesota in NYC.
While I agree that partisan interpretation of the news is a problem (even to some degree in cases you mention) I think the general move of right wing media to bring this up now is disingenuous, specifically in relation to the recent killings in MN. A main point (maybe the main point?) of contention has the been the federal refusal to investigate these in a real way which has (so far) led to the resignation of staff attached to both the FBI and US attorneys office. I think that Walz's response, specifically, is pretty reasonable with respect to this.
I realize that you are very focused on left wing media bias (which is a real thing! As a long time center lefter, there are issues that get distorted) but I think the issues are actually more substantive, regarding both the wisdom of deploying a "surge" to MN, and in the accountability for deaths that have happened as a result. It might annoy me, for example, that right wing media interprets these things in a certain way (labeling them terrorists who deserve to die, and whatnot). I know that this happens on the left, too (e.g. Charlie Kirk). However, I can live with this. What's different and new is the claim by various figures in the Trump administration that this interpretation is basically legally binding.
There are a lot of mainstream, center left and center right critics (for example, in the Atlantic monthly or Financial Times) who have problems with these things. I think your arguments here could be strengthened.if you directly engaged with them. In any case, let me know if you ever want to discuss this IRL.
Thanks!