Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[ThurgreedMarshall]

I understand you're trying to be the left-leaning centrist, but this seems like a self-inflicted wound (one of many).

https://thehill.com/latino/471928-to...Z9f4d_twozrQdQ

TM

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

We may be old but we're still cool.

Just got an invite to the Grammys, and will get to go up for the award if we win. How cool is that?

Catrin has been a part of two Grammys, having sung on MTT/SFS recordings that won.

- No, she didnt get to go up. That would be awesome.

- Yes, she got to take a photo with one of them once they brought it back (Mahler, I believe)

- Yes, giving out CDs to family members at Christmas saying this is my CD that "won" a Grammy is kinda Bad Ass.

SlaveNo(damn)More

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by slavenomore

catrin has been a part of two grammys, having sung on mtt/sfs recordings that won.

- no, she didnt get to go up. That would be awesome.

- yes, she got to take a photo with one of them once they brought it back (mahler, i believe)

- yes, giving out cds to family members at christmas saying this is my cd that "won" a grammy is kinda bad ass.

Slaveno(damn)more

mtt? sfs?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

this explains a lot

[SlaveNoMore]

Someone just forwarded this to me - 7 year old kid playing (and utterly killing) "Tom Sawyer".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR_x...ature=youtu.be

This kid is going to sleep with 300 women before he's 14.

SlaveNo(an American Hero)More

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

mtt? sfs?

Dude, really? Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony.

When did you fall off the turnip truck?

SlaveNo(Leopold!)More

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

this explains a lot

But do they have a fake dossier on Bigfoot?

SlaveNo("Colluded with Nessie to build a build a forest kingdom")More

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Dude, really? Michael Tilson Thomas and the San Francisco Symphony.

When did you fall off the turnip truck?

SlaveNo(Leopold!)More

Ohh, so she’s got no good groupie fuck stories?

Edit- meaning her as the musician. Probably crossing a line. Ps you should keep posting to reinvigorate this board.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

But do they have a fake dossier on Bigfoot?

SlaveNo("Colluded with Nessie to build a build a forest kingdom")More

Apropos of this, here's a piece on the Steele dossier that's very much worth reading. tl;dr is that there's a lot in there that bears out, even if it's not 100% accurate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Someone just forwarded this to me - 7 year old kid playing (and utterly killing) "Tom Sawyer".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR_x...ature=youtu.be

This kid is going to sleep with 300 women before he's 14.

SlaveNo(an American Hero)More

Dissent: You ever gotten laid to "Subdivisions" or "The Trees"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Catrin has been a part of two Grammys, having sung on MTT/SFS recordings that won.

- No, she didnt get to go up. That would be awesome.

- Yes, she got to take a photo with one of them once they brought it back (Mahler, I believe)

- Yes, giving out CDs to family members at Christmas saying this is my CD that "won" a Grammy is kinda Bad Ass.

SlaveNo(damn)More

Yup, that is pretty damn badass. How did you guys get MTT while we're stuck with Andris Nelson?

I got to go to Carnegie Hall to help accept a Musical America Award one year - the experience was great, but the universe of people who get excited about such things is small. Of the 60 or so people at the winner's reception, the average classical music fan would recognize the names of about 30-40 of them. Hard to stop fan-boying in such a crowd.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Apropos of this, here's a piece on the Steele dossier that's very much worth reading. tl;dr is that there's a lot in there that bears out, even if it's not 100% accurate.

I think seen as "raw data," the Dossier has merit. The problem is Steele appears to have tried to give his clients (GOP newspaper first, then Hillary's campaign, and the FBI) as much product as he could.

Might've been much more effective if he broke it down into verifiable and unverifiable stories. By lumping it all into one report with some absolute facts, some incorrect allegations, and some possibly true events and circumstances, he created a document easy to attack.

I know you hate Taibbi, but regarding the point made in this article about journalists like Woodward "riding a wave" of public denunciation of the Dossier, you really should read Hate, Inc. Taibbi rips into that piling on phenomenon (among many others). It's caused by two things:

1. Media, including Woodward, doesn't have time to actually vet sources anymore; and,
2. There is a huge premium on commenting early and frequently, so whatever narrative takes shape quickly becomes the safest and easiest path to follow (easy because all you have to do is repackage prior comments from other equally uninformed commentators and "journalists").

It works like short term investing. Run with the herd.

The most interesting issue in this cycle, which Taibbi doesn't address unfortunately (because I don't think anyone can really know), is whether the originators of the narrative onto which others pile on is acting on behalf of someone, or is just lazy. It'd be interesting as hell to see, when the Steele Dossier came out, who in the media first attacked it. Did Fox do so, followed by a litany of other right wing sources, which might indicate intent to discredit? Or did CNN do so, followed by by more moderate news sources, indicating either laziness, or perhaps a desire to appear even-handed and skeptical ("real news").

I wouldn't be surprised to discover there are war rooms at Fox and MSNBC which seek to shape the narrative by feeding "facts" about stories to lazy secondary news outlets. There's really no way to get caught doing this because, by the time all of the other outlets have repackaged the spin on facts an originating source has offered, no one can recall where the narrative started. It's suddenly credible by sheer volume of its repetition in various sources.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think seen as "raw data," the Dossier has merit. The problem is Steele appears to have tried to give his clients (GOP newspaper first, then Hillary's campaign, and the FBI) as much product as he could.

Might've been much more effective if he broke it down into verifiable and unverifiable stories. By lumping it all into one report with some absolute facts, some incorrect allegations, and some possibly true events and circumstances, he created a document easy to attack.

I know you hate Taibbi, but regarding the point made in this article about journalists like Woodward "riding a wave" of public denunciation of the Dossier, you really should read Hate, Inc. Taibbi rips into that piling on phenomenon (among many others). It's caused by two things:

1. Media, including Woodward, doesn't have time to actually vet sources anymore; and,
2. There is a huge premium on commenting early and frequently, so whatever narrative takes shape quickly becomes the safest and easiest path to follow (easy because all you have to do is repackage prior comments from other equally uninformed commentators and "journalists").

It works like short term investing. Run with the herd.

The most interesting issue in this cycle, which Taibbi doesn't address unfortunately (because I don't think anyone can really know), is whether the originators of the narrative onto which others pile on is acting on behalf of someone, or is just lazy. It'd be interesting as hell to see, when the Steele Dossier came out, who in the media first attacked it. Did Fox do so, followed by a litany of other right wing sources, which might indicate intent to discredit? Or did CNN do so, followed by by more moderate news sources, indicating either laziness, or perhaps a desire to appear even-handed and skeptical ("real news").

I wouldn't be surprised to discover there are war rooms at Fox and MSNBC which seek to shape the narrative by feeding "facts" about stories to lazy secondary news outlets. There's really no way to get caught doing this because, by the time all of the other outlets have repackaged the spin on facts an originating source has offered, no one can recall where the narrative started. It's suddenly credible by sheer volume of its repetition in various sources.

I don't hate Taibbi at all, but I think the argument he and you make about "the media" paints with much too broad a brush, and is more an exercising in preening than in making sense of or responding to anything anyone is actually saying.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't hate Taibbi at all, but I think the argument he and you make about "the media" paints with much too broad a brush, and is more an exercising in preening than in making sense of or responding to anything anyone is actually saying.

Dudes, this is the classical music board. Take it to the worn-out-blogger-and-media-has-beens-bs board.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't hate Taibbi at all, but I think the argument he and you make about "the media" paints with much too broad a brush, and is more an exercising in preening than in making sense of or responding to anything anyone is actually saying.

I can see exactly why people would perceive it as preening. To an extent, it is, because it necessarily includes the argument, "You're being manipulated." People find that assertion a bit insulting.

But I think if you read that book, which is highly entertaining in terms of style alone, you'll see that he's not engaging in mere both-sidesism. He's careful to assert that the right has less interest in facts, and is more cynical. But he also notes that the left is starting to follow suit, and starting to catch up with the right in that regard.

His best critique is the one I cited - the swarm-of-screamers-on-speed mentality of modern media - which is more the fault of social media than anything else. As part of that, he argues news should never be a business. It's a public service element of traditional media. And it's becoming a business has turned it into a pusher. It can't let you off the hook for a second to formulate your own views, or to think "This isn't all that important." It feeds you constantly repackaged information designed to trigger anger or delight and get you locked into the next dopamine hit, or cortisol-and-adrenaline-fueled rage.

Both sides may not be equally dishonest in the content they push, but both equally seek to monopolize your eyeballs regardless of damage to your mental health and the social fabric of the country.

It's not his most organized and coherent book (The Divide is), but it's probably his most important. There are stretches of text where he dismantles the modern media business so well you wonder how he ever gets airtime anymore.