I am sad that the man who helped others in the subway in NY now must stand trial. This is a big waste of time and money, IMO. I am sorry for the family of the man who died; however, it seems clear he was a threat. Split second decisions are difficult.
Of course, I wasn’t there. So, I guess I should not be posting about it. Only those there know what happened. Although, each only knows his particular perspective of the event and what he/she actually saw. Many little parts give a bigger perspective, as does each piece of video. Sometimes I wonder lately what we can comment on, since most of what is in the news is really something we cannot personally know is totally true.
“This statement is an indicator @CBSNews hasn’t contained the fallout from its Kamala Harris @60Minutes edit.
Releasing the full unedited transcript is consistent with journalistic transparency and it stands behind the integrity of the entire Kamala Harris edit, not just the clips under scrutiny.
CBS has the ability to immediately settle these questions and address merits of FCC complaint alleging “news distortion.”
There is ample precendent @CBSNews for releasing full, unedited transcripts.
2019 interview Attorney General Bill Barr @JanCBS2020 interview President Trump @C__Herridge
FEB 2024 @60Minutes released its full interview transcript with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
NOTE: CBS did not respond to earlier requests for comment.
Just when you think it couldn’t get more outrageous, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin for trying to uphold a simple concept: only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in elections. But here’s the shocking twist—this law, which aims to remove noncitizens from voter rolls, was once approved by the DOJ under Democratic Governor Tim Kaine back in 2006! So why the sudden change of heart? It’s clear that this is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to pave the way for illegals to vote in Virginia. You really can’t make this up!
In his Friday newsletter, Isaac Saul of Tangle had given his cautious predictions for the upcoming election. DJ had shared part of that, in which he predicts that Harris will win Pennsylvania but lose the electoral college. In addition to writing of why he came to his conclusions, he also added why he may not be correct. I appreciated that touch of humility.
Kizzie, love me some humility in politics and especially when it comes to election predictions.
Saul labeled those sections (following his predictions at Tangle) “Why I’m Wrong” which went through all the (good) arguments on how things could turn out differently than his projections.
The Friday newsletter is for members only, so I can’t share the whole thing with you, but want to share this part:
~ “This one is a bit more broad, though I plan to get into specifics in next week’s Friday edition. Broadly speaking, let me say this: Our information ecosystem is as unreliable and toxic as it has ever been. Every day, I see outright falsehoods going “viral” on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X; everything from small and low-stakes falsehoods (like Kamala Harris was using a teleprompter during a town hall) to big and important falsehoods (like an AI-generated video of one of Tim Walz’s former students saying he sexually assaulted him). […]
It’ll be out-of-context videos claiming to show political violence in the streets, or photos purporting to capture unauthorized migrants voting, or news reports misleading people into thinking truckloads of militia members are attacking citizens.
My message to you is this: If you read or see something that feels or seems unbelievable, don’t believe it. Be skeptical. Look at the comments or replies for additional context. Search for more details about the allegation in the news, or consult someone in your social circle who might be an expert on the topic. Write in to Tangle to ask. Nonsense is going to flood the zone — I’ll do my best to track it, deconstruct it, and address it in Tangle and on social media. But I’ll be one person in a sea of millions of bits of bad information; it will take all of us using discretion, common sense, and patience not to lose our collective minds as the election unfolds.” ~
Re: where he says, “If you read or see something that feels or seems unbelievable don’t believe it. Be skeptical.” I would modify that to be skeptical even if it seems believable. It’s easy to be skeptical when something seems unbelievable, but not so easy to be skeptical when it plays into our preconceptions of what those “on the other side” would do. That’s what makes those things go viral.
Over the last two days, Harris was confronted with two sets of protesters. One shouted, “Jesus Is Lord!” She said, “You guys are at the wrong rally.” The other shouted that Israel is committing “genocide.” She said, “It’s real.” She’s radical and awful.
“Isaac M. Saul (/sɔːl/) is an American journalist. His work has appeared in publications including CNN, The Huffington Post, TIME Magazine,[1] the Independent Journal Review[2] and The Daily Mail.[2] Outside of his work with newspapers, in 2020 he founded Tangle, an online newsletter which aims to give nonpartisan coverage of current events.[3”
—–
So just out of curiosity, are they data mining and selling email addresses?
Because if it’s “free” you don’t need my email, just post it on your website. Yet they require it..
Looks like the answer to your question is no. From the Tangle FAQs:
~ “Q: Who owns Tangle?
A: You do. Tangle is investor-free, and 100% independent. We have no financiers. We run ads with partners we like in our free newsletter, but really only make money when readers become subscribers (you can subscribe here). More than 90% our revenue comes from subscribers. Our podcast also gets occasional sponsorships but we still lose money producing it. Our only other revenue streams are merchandise sales and donations.” ~
~ “Q: Why do I have to subscribe to Tangle?
A: Tangle is completely independent. Unlike other news outlets who have advertisers, sell your data, or sell their souls to make a buck. We survive solely and completely on reader support. We have no investors, no outside influence. The only time you ever might hear an ad is on our podcast. That means in order to make money, we have to ask readers to pay. In return, we give them premium content that they want — and we are entirely accountable to you.” ~
~ “Q: Why should I be reading Tangle? Why are you different?
A: We believe in exposing our readers to a wide range of views. Every day, we break down one big debate happening in politics. We do this by explaining the basics of the story in the most neutral language possible, and then sharing six opinions from across the political spectrum on that story. At the end, our founder shares his own personal view on the story and the arguments.
In sum, that means you get seven different opinions from across the political spectrum any time you read our news, offering the kind of balance missing in other news outlets. By offering this wide range of perspectives, we expose you to ideas and arguments you would otherwise miss, making you more informed.” ~
~ ” Tangle gets accused of being liberal, conservative, and everything in between every single day. Usually, it’s from readers who just started reading, and for whatever reason they felt the first or second post they saw had an ideological tilt.
The reason Tangle is “non-partisan” is because of our format. We give equal airtime to views on the left, right, and in between. We also try to share opinions from news outlets that tend to be anti- and pro-establishment, as that is another kind of bias in the media.
Our founder, Isaac Saul, then shares his clearly identified personal opinion. We are not trying to tell you what to think, only to make sure you see a wide variety of perspectives.
Fortunately, you don’t have to take our word for it. You can check our media bias rating on websites like AllSides and AdFontesMedia.” ~
Debra – You can sign up for free for the Monday thru Thursday newsletters. And some of the Friday newsletters are offered for free, too. That’s how I started out. I only recently paid for a subscription for the rest of the campaign season.
He’s been accused of being “Left” and a shill for Trump. So there you go.
The topic each day includes “What the left is saying” and “What the right is saying” with excerpts from several publications to give you a fair assessment of the 2 arguments. He then gives his take which is pretty even-handed. But the whole idea is to better inform readers about the various positions on the issues facing us.
Not sure why that should be controversial, but of course it is in the era we’re living in.
If it’s a “rage” (and I highly doubt it’s that popular, it’s pretty much going against the popular stream in political coverage these days) among anyone it’s those of us seeking a broader range of opinions than what we typically see.
I appreciate what they’re doing and think it’s good for those who have a serious interest in understanding and following the political trends.
AJ, working journalists work for all kinds of outlets. They need jobs to pay the bills, support families, and those are the businesses that hire them for decent wages.
And I subscribed to Tangle for free for close to a year before deciding also to pay for the additional content. I don’t remember it ever being “pushed” on me. I’d heard about it (not sure from where) and it sounded like an intriguing concept in this age of strict partisan outlets. It provides a good survey of what each side is saying about the latest news events. I find that helpful.
Debra, I like First Things as well though I don’t think I’ve ever subscribed to them (… hmm, but may have some years ago now that I think about it). I appreciate the pieces they run which I still see here and there on other online outlets.
AJ, It’s a start-up business, there is a staff and clearly some expenses, so there are some basic bills to pay.
You have a problem with that? If so, that’s interesting because I thought that was lauded in our country. At least it used to be.
He’s both providing a journalistic service (with a rather unique journalism business model, so good for him – this is a difficult climate for journalism as a profession and business); so (I’m sure) he hopes to make a go of it as well financially. I don’t fault anyone for that.
And seriously, slamming someone as a “lefty journalist” is just lazy, an ad hominem attack that is simply not serious.
I haven’t had much time to see the news lately about the cleanup in Western NC. I did hear that there is cold weather and not much help coming in from FEMA. Do the mainstream media outlets have reporters on the ground in there reporting what is actually happening? It’s still a big story. Can someone give me a link to what is true about the situation? I heard one person who brought supplies in say that Red Cross had run out of hot meals for people when she was delivering supplies. Has this giant crisis just been put under the carpet because election news is so big right now? I am still grieving for all those people. Art’s family were NC mountain people, but not in the part that got hit so hard.
Hey AJ, a few days ago, but on the post of the previous day (which I didn’t realize when I posted it, since I don’t check in here every day), I commented that a lot of posts on here are anonymous but seem to be from you. An anonymous poster (apparently you) was taking an issue with another poster for asking that posts be made with some care for the reputation of others, and the anonymous poster was more or less accusing the “named” poster of slander or some such–though the named poster wasn’t talking about anyone who had posted with a name, but responding to an anonymous post (which can hardly be slanderous).
This is your blog. I have the ability to make posts with my name attached, and this is not my blog, so I assume you also have that ability. Other people have posts that come up as anonymous (possibly to avoid accidentally posting from work accounts) but they make care to sign them at the end. I strongly recommend that practice, that if you are going to write a post, that you sign it so that you are “owning” your words and we know who we are engaging with. I think that one simple step, of having some sort of name attached to each post, will help us continue to see one another as human beings and not just unconnected random comments. It’s probably a good principle that if you wouldn’t want fellow church members to see your comment and know that you wrote it, it probably shouldn’t be posted.
There can be legitimate reasons for posting with a handle other than one’s name, but that’s different from posting as fully anonymous.
Yes, DJ, I was referring to that comment. I’m perfectly ok with it as long as you’re ok with getting the same kind of comments without breaking out in a lecture about respect and how you don’t feel like you get any here. (You do, and your input is greatly valued.) It’s all good to me. Always has been. :–)
What Kevin said. I usually recognize the voice of an anonymous post, but sometimes if the thread is long I can get confused. I’m old. :–/
Also, I think something’s been up with WordPress for over a year now. I’ve had trouble logging in on some devices and have different functions available depending on how I’ve logged in. So I have sometimes posted anonymously accidentally. And it’s not just this website.
I’ve also accidentally posted anonymously but then when I realize that I’ll go back with a separate post correcting it and taking ownership of it.
Putting our names/initials — some kind of identifier — should be included on all of our posts so that we are taking public responsibility for what we are posting.
I remember when I was fairly new to the WM blog they made the argument that we should actually use our real names on our posts rather than pseudonyms. “Blogs” were still somewhat new and their rationale was we should hold ourselves accountable, publicly, for what we post.
Of course, things on the wild internet got out of hand quickly, as we all know, so real names are less often used, but on a site like this I think that’s fine — but we need to identify ourselves in some way so we are taking responsibility for our words.
Anonymous posts are never a wise or good practice as human nature can be too tempted to behave badly when not being held accountable.
Thanks for the reminder Cheryl, and hopefully that will prompt a change here.
And thanks, Debra, I’m sorry if my post was confusing, but I was referring to the argument itself. It could be read both ways, I suppose, and I should have been more clear.
Your post wasn’t confusing, DJ. You clearly accused AJ of a lazy ad hominem attack against the editor of your source. That’s ok. It’s an acceptable, but inaccurate, criticism. I wouldn’t have chosen to call Saul a ‘lefty’ but it’s not an ad hominem attack, I think. His resume does contain Huffington Post, a rather notorious left leaning publication, where many progressive, idealistic left-leaning journalists got their start. That’s not to say he hasn’t written for right-leaning or more neutral places, or even changed his mind. If you have knowledge to share that could be helpful. Just remember that people who habitually complain about the tone should be extra careful of their own.
The ‘lazy’ epithet was much closer to ad hominem than anything AJ expressed about the editor, in my opinion. Websites don’t happen by themselves. Someone has to show up every day to make it work. And journalists aren’t the only ones who have to make a living and pay bills. AJ shares the content he has that interests him. His content may not measure up to your standards, but they don’t need to. Neither do mine or anyone else’s. You can raise the caliber of the content to suit yourself by your own posts. That benefits everyone.
Debra, to clarify – and defend (again) the “attack” (of AJ’s) itself (on a person, not the issue) was lazy. It was a response to his post, not intended as my stand-aside post on the issue itself (I believe I already had posted on the issue a couple times). I think we’re clear, I do disagree with your take on this.
Ad hominem attacks are focused on a person, they do not seriously consider the issue itself. So I do think they are “lazy” responses.
Ad hominem (means “to the person” or against the man to clarify) – used to describe a type of argument that attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
From what AJ indicated, he has not looked at Tangle nor considered the format or the effort it is making. Argue against that, fine. But he didn’t do that or even make the attempt. Instead, he attacked the founder and his character following a quick Wikipedia check for what he (AJ, presumably) perceived as “flawed” due to AJ’s own perceived bias in quickly judging that person.
Based on what AJ thinks of the founder (based on a Wikipedia post listing the founder’s past employers), he declares the whole effort bogus without considering (or presumably visiting) the site itself. I find that lacking any seriousness.
And I think it’s very fair to call those points out here.
Again, DJ, I agree that you have every right to call out what you perceive. Others have that same right too.
It takes me a long time and much reading before I trust a journalist or journalist’s site. And in the meantime my impressions are formed partially on that journalist ‘s history. I have read some of the source under discussion and I so far I think he’s center left. That’s not an insult. Other people have other impressions. Including AJ. And I’m not convinced he’s wrong at this point.
Doesn’t matter whether we are “convinced” or not — the argument is just not a serious one if it doesn’t tackle the issue itself (the actual site that’s being debated) — but just expresses a superficial distaste for the founder’s paper resume based on a personal bias.
No DJ it doesn’t matter if you or I am “convinced” or not. And you are free to apostrophize someone else’s opinion as not a serious one as much as you please. That’s fine, but don’t complain when it’s done unto you. Or do complain. Why not. That’s a n opinion too I suppose.
As an aside, sometimes one of the first things I do before I waste my time assessing a site, is look up the author. If what I see passes the smell test I might read more. HuffPo is a red flag of sorts for many people . It’s not the whole story, but it’s significant.
Weighing in here, since an ad hominem attack is considered a logical fallacy, and since AJ himself regularly pretends that Trump’s critics only say, “Orange man bad,” I think it’s more than a personal opinion that it isn’t fair to critique a news source without any attempt deeper than ad hominem argument.
When I look at a book, one of the first things I check is the publisher. I take some publishers more seriously than others. But if you ask me, “What do you think of this book?” and the ONLY thing I say is, “That publisher isn’t one I trust,” it is more than fair for others to say, “We didn’t ask you about the publisher; we asked you about the book.”
It would be perfectly legitimate to say, “One of the first things I noticed was that it’s published by Thomas Nelson. That’s a red flag to me, since they aren’t known for their theological discernment.” But I’d better go on to say whether, in this particular instance, that “red flag” continues to wave after I read or at least seriously look through the book. If I simply assume this is a bad publisher and therefore the book is bad, or this is a good publisher and therefore the book is good, I haven’t done a responsible job of critique or review.
Imagine that someone asks me about a book by Rosaria Butterfield, and I point out that she had a career as a lesbian feminist scholar, but I never reveal that she has repented and that no longer describes her. Or I say that we can’t trust Marvin Olasky since by his own admission he was once a registered Communist. A belief that people can repent, they can change, is one more reason that we can’t write off a person because of one piece of their resume.
Cheryl, I only partially agree with your assessment. And I’m at work with little time for chat. One is free to ask any questions you want from anyone here, but they are not required to give you more information than they have or to spend time digging for it. As I said I wouldn’t have characterized Saul as AJ did, but it’s a source with some red flags and this is just a conversation. If you and DJ want to elevate it to something else, have at it. I still think it’s a stretch. And I’m out of time sorry .
Wandering Views 
I am sad that the man who helped others in the subway in NY now must stand trial. This is a big waste of time and money, IMO. I am sorry for the family of the man who died; however, it seems clear he was a threat. Split second decisions are difficult.
Of course, I wasn’t there. So, I guess I should not be posting about it. Only those there know what happened. Although, each only knows his particular perspective of the event and what he/she actually saw. Many little parts give a bigger perspective, as does each piece of video. Sometimes I wonder lately what we can comment on, since most of what is in the news is really something we cannot personally know is totally true.
LikeLiked by 3 people
My best friend in high school once asked me “How do we know Europe really exists? We haven’t been there.” 🙂
Some events clearly carry a general assurance of veracity with more than one source, though in news more information can always emerge.
Is this the incident from a couple years ago, Kathaleena? Or a new one?
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the center of this ET sample newspaper, you have an excellent comparison of the policy positions of the two presidential candidates.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good.
https://x.com/C__Herridge/status/1848179074541232218?t=gsuWY0Dzr-E4-YGlCbkSzQ&s=19
“This statement is an indicator @CBSNews hasn’t contained the fallout from its Kamala Harris @60Minutes edit.
Releasing the full unedited transcript is consistent with journalistic transparency and it stands behind the integrity of the entire Kamala Harris edit, not just the clips under scrutiny.
CBS has the ability to immediately settle these questions and address merits of FCC complaint alleging “news distortion.”
There is ample precendent @CBSNews for releasing full, unedited transcripts.
2019 interview Attorney General Bill Barr @JanCBS2020 interview President Trump @C__Herridge
FEB 2024 @60Minutes released its full interview transcript with Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
NOTE: CBS did not respond to earlier requests for comment.
cbsnews.com/news/60-minute…
Read FCC complaint 👇”
drive.google.com/file/d/1kBqZo-…,
LikeLiked by 3 people
The incident is one that happened long ago. The courts run slowly–well, for most people.
LikeLiked by 3 people
” . . . for most people.” Truth!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Just when you think it couldn’t get more outrageous, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin for trying to uphold a simple concept: only U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in elections. But here’s the shocking twist—this law, which aims to remove noncitizens from voter rolls, was once approved by the DOJ under Democratic Governor Tim Kaine back in 2006! So why the sudden change of heart? It’s clear that this is a desperate attempt by the Democrats to pave the way for illegals to vote in Virginia. You really can’t make this up!
LikeLiked by 3 people
In his Friday newsletter, Isaac Saul of Tangle had given his cautious predictions for the upcoming election. DJ had shared part of that, in which he predicts that Harris will win Pennsylvania but lose the electoral college. In addition to writing of why he came to his conclusions, he also added why he may not be correct. I appreciated that touch of humility.
LikeLike
Kizzie, love me some humility in politics and especially when it comes to election predictions.
Saul labeled those sections (following his predictions at Tangle) “Why I’m Wrong” which went through all the (good) arguments on how things could turn out differently than his projections.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Friday newsletter is for members only, so I can’t share the whole thing with you, but want to share this part:
~ “This one is a bit more broad, though I plan to get into specifics in next week’s Friday edition. Broadly speaking, let me say this: Our information ecosystem is as unreliable and toxic as it has ever been. Every day, I see outright falsehoods going “viral” on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X; everything from small and low-stakes falsehoods (like Kamala Harris was using a teleprompter during a town hall) to big and important falsehoods (like an AI-generated video of one of Tim Walz’s former students saying he sexually assaulted him). […]
It’ll be out-of-context videos claiming to show political violence in the streets, or photos purporting to capture unauthorized migrants voting, or news reports misleading people into thinking truckloads of militia members are attacking citizens.
My message to you is this: If you read or see something that feels or seems unbelievable, don’t believe it. Be skeptical. Look at the comments or replies for additional context. Search for more details about the allegation in the news, or consult someone in your social circle who might be an expert on the topic. Write in to Tangle to ask. Nonsense is going to flood the zone — I’ll do my best to track it, deconstruct it, and address it in Tangle and on social media. But I’ll be one person in a sea of millions of bits of bad information; it will take all of us using discretion, common sense, and patience not to lose our collective minds as the election unfolds.” ~
LikeLike
Re: where he says, “If you read or see something that feels or seems unbelievable don’t believe it. Be skeptical.” I would modify that to be skeptical even if it seems believable. It’s easy to be skeptical when something seems unbelievable, but not so easy to be skeptical when it plays into our preconceptions of what those “on the other side” would do. That’s what makes those things go viral.
LikeLike
Ben Shapiro
Over the last two days, Harris was confronted with two sets of protesters. One shouted, “Jesus Is Lord!” She said, “You guys are at the wrong rally.” The other shouted that Israel is committing “genocide.” She said, “It’s real.” She’s radical and awful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Such good advice, thanks. It’s a minefield out there in the “information” sphere now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAR_0L6IsdU/?igsh=amJ4eTM5ZnQ0dWtm
LikeLike
So I’m gathering that Tangle is all the rage among left leaning Rs and NTers….
In reality, it’s founder is just another lefty journalist pretending he’s conservative, ie… the Atlantic, the Bulwark, etc….
So yeah, no thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Saul
“Isaac M. Saul (/sɔːl/) is an American journalist. His work has appeared in publications including CNN, The Huffington Post, TIME Magazine,[1] the Independent Journal Review[2] and The Daily Mail.[2] Outside of his work with newspapers, in 2020 he founded Tangle, an online newsletter which aims to give nonpartisan coverage of current events.[3”
—–
So just out of curiosity, are they data mining and selling email addresses?
Because if it’s “free” you don’t need my email, just post it on your website. Yet they require it..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Looks like the answer to your question is no. From the Tangle FAQs:
~ “Q: Who owns Tangle?
A: You do. Tangle is investor-free, and 100% independent. We have no financiers. We run ads with partners we like in our free newsletter, but really only make money when readers become subscribers (you can subscribe here). More than 90% our revenue comes from subscribers. Our podcast also gets occasional sponsorships but we still lose money producing it. Our only other revenue streams are merchandise sales and donations.” ~
~ “Q: Why do I have to subscribe to Tangle?
A: Tangle is completely independent. Unlike other news outlets who have advertisers, sell your data, or sell their souls to make a buck. We survive solely and completely on reader support. We have no investors, no outside influence. The only time you ever might hear an ad is on our podcast. That means in order to make money, we have to ask readers to pay. In return, we give them premium content that they want — and we are entirely accountable to you.” ~
LikeLike
I don’t know how ‘left’ he is, but I guard my email addresses and don’t give them up when I think they’ll be sold. So tangle is a hard pass.
LikeLiked by 1 person
~ “Q: Why should I be reading Tangle? Why are you different?
A: We believe in exposing our readers to a wide range of views. Every day, we break down one big debate happening in politics. We do this by explaining the basics of the story in the most neutral language possible, and then sharing six opinions from across the political spectrum on that story. At the end, our founder shares his own personal view on the story and the arguments.
In sum, that means you get seven different opinions from across the political spectrum any time you read our news, offering the kind of balance missing in other news outlets. By offering this wide range of perspectives, we expose you to ideas and arguments you would otherwise miss, making you more informed.” ~
~ ” Tangle gets accused of being liberal, conservative, and everything in between every single day. Usually, it’s from readers who just started reading, and for whatever reason they felt the first or second post they saw had an ideological tilt.
The reason Tangle is “non-partisan” is because of our format. We give equal airtime to views on the left, right, and in between. We also try to share opinions from news outlets that tend to be anti- and pro-establishment, as that is another kind of bias in the media.
Our founder, Isaac Saul, then shares his clearly identified personal opinion. We are not trying to tell you what to think, only to make sure you see a wide variety of perspectives.
Fortunately, you don’t have to take our word for it. You can check our media bias rating on websites like AllSides and AdFontesMedia.” ~
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra – According to what I shared right before your comment, Tangle doesn’t sell any data.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From what I have read of Isaac Saul in his “My Take” pieces, he cannot be pigeon-holed as either left or right.
LikeLike
Oh, then his content is not free. Still a pass. I can’t subscribe to everything. :–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ – Regardless of what you think about Tangle or Saul, what do you disagree with in my earlier posts referencing that one piece?
LikeLike
Debra – You can sign up for free for the Monday thru Thursday newsletters. And some of the Friday newsletters are offered for free, too. That’s how I started out. I only recently paid for a subscription for the rest of the campaign season.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My only magazine subscription is to First Things. To me they are trustworthy. And thought provoking .
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s free M-Th as Kizzie noted.
He’s been accused of being “Left” and a shill for Trump. So there you go.
The topic each day includes “What the left is saying” and “What the right is saying” with excerpts from several publications to give you a fair assessment of the 2 arguments. He then gives his take which is pretty even-handed. But the whole idea is to better inform readers about the various positions on the issues facing us.
Not sure why that should be controversial, but of course it is in the era we’re living in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(and I had to look them up to find them, they weren’t finding me)
LikeLike
If it’s a “rage” (and I highly doubt it’s that popular, it’s pretty much going against the popular stream in political coverage these days) among anyone it’s those of us seeking a broader range of opinions than what we typically see.
I appreciate what they’re doing and think it’s good for those who have a serious interest in understanding and following the political trends.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ, working journalists work for all kinds of outlets. They need jobs to pay the bills, support families, and those are the businesses that hire them for decent wages.
And I subscribed to Tangle for free for close to a year before deciding also to pay for the additional content. I don’t remember it ever being “pushed” on me. I’d heard about it (not sure from where) and it sounded like an intriguing concept in this age of strict partisan outlets. It provides a good survey of what each side is saying about the latest news events. I find that helpful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, I like First Things as well though I don’t think I’ve ever subscribed to them (… hmm, but may have some years ago now that I think about it). I appreciate the pieces they run which I still see here and there on other online outlets.
LikeLiked by 2 people
AJ, It’s a start-up business, there is a staff and clearly some expenses, so there are some basic bills to pay.
You have a problem with that? If so, that’s interesting because I thought that was lauded in our country. At least it used to be.
He’s both providing a journalistic service (with a rather unique journalism business model, so good for him – this is a difficult climate for journalism as a profession and business); so (I’m sure) he hopes to make a go of it as well financially. I don’t fault anyone for that.
And seriously, slamming someone as a “lefty journalist” is just lazy, an ad hominem attack that is simply not serious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get Tangle, thanks Kizzie and DJ. Because I felt I wanted to understand what others think.
Newsmax, thanks, Chas, because I was looking for a new news source.
World, because I have been getting it for about thirty years and I appreciate the Christian perspective.
I also look at what the real offers.
And BBC.
mumsee
LikeLiked by 3 people
I haven’t had much time to see the news lately about the cleanup in Western NC. I did hear that there is cold weather and not much help coming in from FEMA. Do the mainstream media outlets have reporters on the ground in there reporting what is actually happening? It’s still a big story. Can someone give me a link to what is true about the situation? I heard one person who brought supplies in say that Red Cross had run out of hot meals for people when she was delivering supplies. Has this giant crisis just been put under the carpet because election news is so big right now? I am still grieving for all those people. Art’s family were NC mountain people, but not in the part that got hit so hard.
LikeLiked by 2 people
🙂
Janice, tangle has a decent article on FEMA’s response to the hurricanes.
https://www.readtangle.com/fema-funding/
LikeLiked by 2 people
DJ. I’d be careful with name calling someone on the blog unless you want to start something. Just saying…. ;–)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, is this what you’re referring to (below)? I don’t believe I “name called” here, I only characterize what I thought of the arguments being made.
~ slamming someone as a “lefty journalist” is just lazy, an ad hominem attack that is simply not serious. ~
LikeLike
The statement is not a serious argument, it’s not making a thoughtful point. I think it’s a fair criticism.
LikeLike
Hey AJ, a few days ago, but on the post of the previous day (which I didn’t realize when I posted it, since I don’t check in here every day), I commented that a lot of posts on here are anonymous but seem to be from you. An anonymous poster (apparently you) was taking an issue with another poster for asking that posts be made with some care for the reputation of others, and the anonymous poster was more or less accusing the “named” poster of slander or some such–though the named poster wasn’t talking about anyone who had posted with a name, but responding to an anonymous post (which can hardly be slanderous).
This is your blog. I have the ability to make posts with my name attached, and this is not my blog, so I assume you also have that ability. Other people have posts that come up as anonymous (possibly to avoid accidentally posting from work accounts) but they make care to sign them at the end. I strongly recommend that practice, that if you are going to write a post, that you sign it so that you are “owning” your words and we know who we are engaging with. I think that one simple step, of having some sort of name attached to each post, will help us continue to see one another as human beings and not just unconnected random comments. It’s probably a good principle that if you wouldn’t want fellow church members to see your comment and know that you wrote it, it probably shouldn’t be posted.
There can be legitimate reasons for posting with a handle other than one’s name, but that’s different from posting as fully anonymous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. I generally assume that an unidentified post on this thread is from AJ, but I might be wrong sometimes.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, DJ, I was referring to that comment. I’m perfectly ok with it as long as you’re ok with getting the same kind of comments without breaking out in a lecture about respect and how you don’t feel like you get any here. (You do, and your input is greatly valued.) It’s all good to me. Always has been. :–)
LikeLiked by 2 people
What Kevin said. I usually recognize the voice of an anonymous post, but sometimes if the thread is long I can get confused. I’m old. :–/
Also, I think something’s been up with WordPress for over a year now. I’ve had trouble logging in on some devices and have different functions available depending on how I’ve logged in. So I have sometimes posted anonymously accidentally. And it’s not just this website.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve also accidentally posted anonymously but then when I realize that I’ll go back with a separate post correcting it and taking ownership of it.
Putting our names/initials — some kind of identifier — should be included on all of our posts so that we are taking public responsibility for what we are posting.
I remember when I was fairly new to the WM blog they made the argument that we should actually use our real names on our posts rather than pseudonyms. “Blogs” were still somewhat new and their rationale was we should hold ourselves accountable, publicly, for what we post.
Of course, things on the wild internet got out of hand quickly, as we all know, so real names are less often used, but on a site like this I think that’s fine — but we need to identify ourselves in some way so we are taking responsibility for our words.
Anonymous posts are never a wise or good practice as human nature can be too tempted to behave badly when not being held accountable.
Thanks for the reminder Cheryl, and hopefully that will prompt a change here.
LikeLike
And thanks, Debra, I’m sorry if my post was confusing, but I was referring to the argument itself. It could be read both ways, I suppose, and I should have been more clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your post wasn’t confusing, DJ. You clearly accused AJ of a lazy ad hominem attack against the editor of your source. That’s ok. It’s an acceptable, but inaccurate, criticism. I wouldn’t have chosen to call Saul a ‘lefty’ but it’s not an ad hominem attack, I think. His resume does contain Huffington Post, a rather notorious left leaning publication, where many progressive, idealistic left-leaning journalists got their start. That’s not to say he hasn’t written for right-leaning or more neutral places, or even changed his mind. If you have knowledge to share that could be helpful. Just remember that people who habitually complain about the tone should be extra careful of their own.
The ‘lazy’ epithet was much closer to ad hominem than anything AJ expressed about the editor, in my opinion. Websites don’t happen by themselves. Someone has to show up every day to make it work. And journalists aren’t the only ones who have to make a living and pay bills. AJ shares the content he has that interests him. His content may not measure up to your standards, but they don’t need to. Neither do mine or anyone else’s. You can raise the caliber of the content to suit yourself by your own posts. That benefits everyone.
LikeLike
Debra, to clarify – and defend (again) the “attack” (of AJ’s) itself (on a person, not the issue) was lazy. It was a response to his post, not intended as my stand-aside post on the issue itself (I believe I already had posted on the issue a couple times). I think we’re clear, I do disagree with your take on this.
Ad hominem attacks are focused on a person, they do not seriously consider the issue itself. So I do think they are “lazy” responses.
LikeLike
What I wasn’t doing is calling AJ “lazy,” it was his weak response he’d given on the issue at hand itself.
LikeLike
Ad hominem (means “to the person” or against the man to clarify) – used to describe a type of argument that attacks the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.
From what AJ indicated, he has not looked at Tangle nor considered the format or the effort it is making. Argue against that, fine. But he didn’t do that or even make the attempt. Instead, he attacked the founder and his character following a quick Wikipedia check for what he (AJ, presumably) perceived as “flawed” due to AJ’s own perceived bias in quickly judging that person.
It’s not a serious argument.
LikeLike
Based on what AJ thinks of the founder (based on a Wikipedia post listing the founder’s past employers), he declares the whole effort bogus without considering (or presumably visiting) the site itself. I find that lacking any seriousness.
And I think it’s very fair to call those points out here.
LikeLike
Again, DJ, I agree that you have every right to call out what you perceive. Others have that same right too.
It takes me a long time and much reading before I trust a journalist or journalist’s site. And in the meantime my impressions are formed partially on that journalist ‘s history. I have read some of the source under discussion and I so far I think he’s center left. That’s not an insult. Other people have other impressions. Including AJ. And I’m not convinced he’s wrong at this point.
LikeLike
Doesn’t matter whether we are “convinced” or not — the argument is just not a serious one if it doesn’t tackle the issue itself (the actual site that’s being debated) — but just expresses a superficial distaste for the founder’s paper resume based on a personal bias.
LikeLike
No DJ it doesn’t matter if you or I am “convinced” or not. And you are free to apostrophize someone else’s opinion as not a serious one as much as you please. That’s fine, but don’t complain when it’s done unto you. Or do complain. Why not. That’s a n opinion too I suppose.
As an aside, sometimes one of the first things I do before I waste my time assessing a site, is look up the author. If what I see passes the smell test I might read more. HuffPo is a red flag of sorts for many people . It’s not the whole story, but it’s significant.
LikeLike
Weighing in here, since an ad hominem attack is considered a logical fallacy, and since AJ himself regularly pretends that Trump’s critics only say, “Orange man bad,” I think it’s more than a personal opinion that it isn’t fair to critique a news source without any attempt deeper than ad hominem argument.
When I look at a book, one of the first things I check is the publisher. I take some publishers more seriously than others. But if you ask me, “What do you think of this book?” and the ONLY thing I say is, “That publisher isn’t one I trust,” it is more than fair for others to say, “We didn’t ask you about the publisher; we asked you about the book.”
It would be perfectly legitimate to say, “One of the first things I noticed was that it’s published by Thomas Nelson. That’s a red flag to me, since they aren’t known for their theological discernment.” But I’d better go on to say whether, in this particular instance, that “red flag” continues to wave after I read or at least seriously look through the book. If I simply assume this is a bad publisher and therefore the book is bad, or this is a good publisher and therefore the book is good, I haven’t done a responsible job of critique or review.
Imagine that someone asks me about a book by Rosaria Butterfield, and I point out that she had a career as a lesbian feminist scholar, but I never reveal that she has repented and that no longer describes her. Or I say that we can’t trust Marvin Olasky since by his own admission he was once a registered Communist. A belief that people can repent, they can change, is one more reason that we can’t write off a person because of one piece of their resume.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cheryl, I only partially agree with your assessment. And I’m at work with little time for chat. One is free to ask any questions you want from anyone here, but they are not required to give you more information than they have or to spend time digging for it. As I said I wouldn’t have characterized Saul as AJ did, but it’s a source with some red flags and this is just a conversation. If you and DJ want to elevate it to something else, have at it. I still think it’s a stretch. And I’m out of time sorry .
LikeLike