Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Stacey Abrams & the All-Star Game

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by kccd View Post
    Not to mention that after it had been decided, she was blamed for this happening. Should she not speak up to defend herself?
    It's what politicians do!
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since youíve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?Ē

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kccd View Post

      Not to mention that after it had been decided, she was blamed for this happening. Should she not speak up to defend herself?

      As you say yourself, there is no evidence that she objected to the move nor is there evidence that she is responsible for it.
      The news stories that mention how she was right in the middle of the whole mess are all using the "senior MLB officials" thing meaning anonymous sources

      OTOH, my brother has many connections within MLB and especially the Atlanta Braves organization (one of his closest friends is All of Fame pitcher Tom Glavine), and he's been talking with them about this -- and we talked a few days ago for about an hour or so where it came up.

      Through him I know the names or positions of some of those MLB officials. I also know that at least one of those with the Braves who was privy to what was going on pretty much as it happened, who is saying that Abrams was the motivating force behind the move from Atlanta.

      What all of them agree on is that Abrams and her group, along with the others laid out so many nonnegotiable demands, wanting far, far more than the pregame ceremony celebrating Hank Aaron (who died a short time ago) that would turn into a reminder of how the sport had been strictly segregated for nearly the entire first half of the last century and ending in a celebrating of black's numerous contributions to the game itself. They pretty much wanted to turn it into some sort of quasi-BLM rally and threatening a boycott if their demands weren't met.

      Several say Abrams was encouraging the boycott where as a few say that can't be sure that she actually supported it because she wasn't present when the threat of a boycott was officially issued. A couple of those who think she was encouraging it believe she didn't attend because she wanted just this sort of deniability. They (as others have as well), pointed to how Abrams pretty much started this show having registered the domain name Jim Crow 2.0 a couple of weeks prior to this started, as evidence as well as how her group was at the center of everything right up to that meeting.

      And they point to how there were several different "rumors" right before the boycott threat was issued that Abrams wanted the game moved in a protest by MLB that would be even bigger than Coke and Delta's ignorant denunciation.

      Well these two camps hold different views but both hold her responsible. The first think she supported the boycott which resulted in the move to a "less controversial venue." The second was that it isn't known for certain that she did support the boycott but the actions she took, the continually stoking of the flames (the hyperbole that was reported as fact in the MSM but earned old Joe four Pinocchios when he repeated it) brought it on.

      I should note my relating of this is all second and even some third hand hearsay, but only a little over a year ago this was the gold standard for impeccable evidence for y'all so I'm sure you'll give it the same courtesy

      (I need to find a holding my breath smiley)
      Last edited by rogue06; 04-12-2021, 11:31 AM.

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View Post

        Well, if Trump is responsible for people deciding to riot at the capitol after he talked about an election being stolen, then it seems fair that Abrams can be held responsible for the economic damage that came from businesses deciding to take economic action against Georgia in response to her talking about the voter law.
        For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

        Logic is obviously racist. Don't be racist.



        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

          Logic is obviously racist. Don't be racist.

          I'm already expecting the response to be that I can't compare because Trumps statements weren't true, without any explanation why truth or falesness has any impact on responsibility

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            The news stories that mention how she was right in the middle of the whole mess are all using the "senior MLB officials" thing meaning anonymous sources

            OTOH, my brother has many connections within MLB and especially the Atlanta Braves organization (one of his closest friends is All of Fame pitcher Tom Glavine), and he's been talking with them about this -- and we talked a few days ago for about an hour or so where it came up.

            Through him I know the names or positions of some of those MLB officials. I also know that at least one of those with the Braves who was privy to what was going on pretty much as it happened, who is saying that Abrams was the motivating force behind the move from Atlanta.

            What all of them agree on is that Abrams and her group, along with the others laid out so many nonnegotiable demands, wanting far, far more than the pregame ceremony celebrating Hank Aaron (who died a short time ago) that would turn into a reminder of how the sport had been strictly segregated for nearly the entire first half of the last century and ending in a celebrating of black's numerous contributions to the game itself. They pretty much wanted to turn it into some sort of quasi-BLM rally and threatening a boycott if their demands weren't met.

            Several say Abrams was encouraging the boycott where as a few say that can't be sure that she actually supported it because she wasn't present when the threat of a boycott was officially issued. A couple of those who think she was encouraging it believe she didn't attend because she wanted just this sort of deniability. They (as others have as well), pointed to how Abrams pretty much started this show having registered the domain name Jim Crow 2.0 a couple of weeks prior to this started, as evidence as well as how her group was at the center of everything right up to that meeting.

            And they point to how there were several different "rumors" right before the boycott threat was issued that Abrams wanted the game moved in a protest by MLB that would be even bigger than Coke and Delta's ignorant denunciation.

            Well these two camps hold different views but both hold her responsible. The first think she supported the boycott which resulted in the move to a "less controversial venue." The second was that it isn't known for certain that she did support the boycott but the actions she took, the continually stoking of the flames (the hyperbole that was reported as fact in the MSM but earned old Joe four Pinocchios when he repeated it) brought it on.

            I should note my relating of this is all second and even some third hand hearsay, but only a little over a year ago this was the gold standard for impeccable evidence for y'all so I'm sure you'll give it the same courtesy

            (I need to find a holding my breath smiley)
            OK, so all of what you reported is hearsay. And that included admission that Abrams was not present when the boycott was announced.

            The fact that she was vocally opposed to the GA voter suppression efforts is not surprising, but does not mean that she was instrumental in getting this MLB move.

            Excusing your reliance on hearsay does not remotely mean that liberals do the same thing. Projection.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by kccd View Post
              OK, so all of what you reported is hearsay.
              Which for you and your ilk was more than sufficient for impeaching a president. Let's see this treated with the same sort of respect since that IS the standard y'all set.

              Originally posted by kccd View Post
              And that included admission that Abrams was not present when the boycott was announced.
              Which at least a few in the front offices of MLB hold as very suspicious since she and her group had routinely invited themselves to all prior meetings.

              Originally posted by kccd View Post
              The fact that she was vocally opposed to the GA voter suppression efforts is not surprising, but does not mean that she was instrumental in getting this MLB move.
              Whether or not it was her expressed intent to get the game moved, it appears that everyone is in agreement that this was her baby and she is ultimately responsible for the outcome. It is like firing a gun off into the air. If by chance your bullet strikes something or someone you are responsible regardless of intent.

              Originally posted by kccd View Post
              Excusing your reliance on hearsay does not remotely mean that liberals do the same thing. Projection.
              Are you hoping everyone has already forgotten the first impeachment circus and the type of evidence presented by the left when you typed that?

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #22

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #23
                  UPDATE:

                  Here are two news stories of interest, the first notes that the boycott movement has largely collapsed as the truth emerged. This verifies things that I've heard about how some of the companies that jumped on the bandwagon have quietly jumped back off of it while others are seeking a way to spin their decision.

                  The second reveals how segments of the MSM are busy trying to save Abrams image, including altering past stories by removing inconvenient facts and statements as well as inserting new material and later quotes that better serve the narrative.


                  Source: How the Boycott-Georgia Movement Flopped



                  The thing about boycotts is that they don’t work too well in a vacuum. If you start a parade and no one gets in line behind you, you aren’t a leader; you’re just a fool walking down the middle of the street twirling a baton.

                  The failed boycott-Georgia movement illustrates the limits of the Democratic Party’s tactic of attaching hysterical overreaction and claims of racism to virtually any Republican idea, even a routine package of voting reforms. The Democrats turned the volume up to eleven on the Georgia elections bill signed into law March 25, labeling it the second coming of Jim Crow even before it was signed. Joe Biden, in a "Hello, fellow kids" moment meant to prove he was hip to cutting-edge Democratic thinking, on March 31 asserted that this ordinary, dull piece of good-government legislation was actually worse than Jim Crow, and that most of the country was in the process of becoming something more awful than 1957 Mississippi. "This is Jim Crow on steroids, what they’re doing in Georgia and 40 other states," Biden said on ESPN on March 31. He was unaware that New York and many other states already have on the books policies comparable to, or more restrictive than, the new Georgia law, such as bans on outside groups’ providing things of value to voters waiting in line at the polls.

                  The fanciful Jim Crow comparisons were meant to fire up Democratic activists and donors, but once you’ve unleashed such a heinous allegation, the allegation tends to take over. So Biden said he would "strongly support" MLB’s moving the All-Star Game out of Atlanta, and two days later, on Good Friday, MLB obliged.

                  MLB commissioner Rob Manfred poured gasoline all over himself and then lit a match when he announced that he was moving the All-Star Game. Later he announced that Atlanta, which is mostly black, would be replaced by snow-white Denver as the game’s host. You really have to be a Democrat to savor the logic of "fighting racism" by yanking jobs and income from black folks and redistributing them to white people. Manfred should change his name to Merkle, the previous standard for bonehead thinking in his sport.

                  Questions immediately arose. How far did the logic of boycotts go? The Atlanta Braves play 81 games a year in Georgia. Was any state in which the All-Star Game might be played required to have less burdensome voting restrictions, and was MLB suddenly now in the business of perusing voting statutes before scheduling a ball game? Should other corporations and sports leagues doing business in Georgia support boycotts, and wouldn’t that just punish Georgia Democrats and Republicans alike? Was "Let’s own the Republicans by hurting Georgia’s economy" now official Democratic Party dogma? If so, maybe the party should ditch its traditional donkey symbol in favor of an image of Sideshow Bob stepping on an endless series of rakes.

                  Though Senator Jon Ossoff stated his categorical opposition to boycotts, Senator Raphael Warnock issued tepid support for them, saying, "I think we all have to use our voices" and hinting that Martin Luther King Jr. would have approved. Even when steered toward the right answer by CNN’s Dana Bash ("So, no boycotts?"), he answered merely, "I’m not focused on that. I’m focused on what I can do as a United States senator." As though speaking out on various things were not the chief occupation of United States senators.

                  On March 31, Stacey Abrams published a USA Today op-ed in which she said that she didn’t think boycotts were necessary "yet," but admitted "I can’t argue with" the logic. The CEO of Atlanta-based Coca-Cola, James Quincey, blasted the new law as "unacceptable" the same day, saying, "It is a step backwards and does not promote the principles we have stood for in Georgia" while promising to help push for a federal law that would presumably supersede it. The CEO of Atlanta-based Delta Airlines, Ed Bastian, also declared the same day, "I need to make it crystal clear that the final bill is unacceptable and does not match Delta’s values." On April 2, he doubled down: "Almost universally, [black voters] are hurt by the law and the legislation that was enacted." Hollywood began muttering about boycotting Georgia, which in some years is home base to more studio-backed feature films than even California. One film actually did leave: The producers of Emancipation, an expensive film funded by Apple Studios and starring Will Smith, announced they were pulling up stakes on April 12.

                  By mid April, it was becoming obvious that calling for jobs to be pulled out of your own state was moronic, and also that it was bad business for a supposedly neutral entity to openly ally itself with the policies and messaging of the hysterical wing of the Democratic Party. A poll showed nearly three-quarters of Americans want corporations and sports organizations to stay out of politics. Left-of-Ossoff Democrats had allowed Georgia’s law to blind them to the far more relevant Jordan’s Law: Republicans buy sneakers too. Another poll showed that the net favorability of MLB among Republicans had crashed by 25 points overnight. On April 6, Rand Paul and Donald Trump said they were boycotting Coke.

                  That same day, Biden gave a completely different answer about whether the Masters should leave Georgia than he had about the MLB All-Star Game: "I think that’s for the Masters to decide." Biden had just figured out that in a boycott, "the people who need the help the most, the people who are making hourly wages, sometimes get hurt the most."

                  Had this statement not been equally true seven days earlier, when Biden supported pulling jobs away from Georgia? April 6 was the day that Abrams changed her tune also. A week after her March 31 op-ed, she had figured out that being even mildly pro-boycott was completely untenable. So on April 6, she stealth-edited her USA Today piece to make it clearly anti-boycott: "Boycotts invariably cost jobs,” she now averred, and “instead of a boycott, I strongly urge other events and productions to do business in Georgia and speak out against our law and similar proposals in other states."

                  Meanwhile, the woke corporations developed laryngitis. Anybody heard from Ed Bastian lately? I didn’t think so. Quincey, who had initially been gaining a reputation for being one of the wokest CEOs, also went quiet. On April 10, dozens of titans of corporate America joined together on a Zoom call that would supposedly crush Georgia’s law with a thunderous denunciation. But the meeting fizzled out and left nothing behind except a meekly worded, generic statement that didn’t even mention Georgia, and yet still proved too controversial for many invited corporations, notably Delta and Coke, to sign. A New York Times report noted dryly, "People involved in the process said some of the Atlanta companies that did not sign were wary because of the blowback they had received after their earlier statements on voting rights but also did not feel the need to speak again." Coke’s own separate statement was so milky and controversy-averse that it harkened back to the old days when corporations didn’t see it as a core mission to antagonize half of their potential customers: "We believe the best way to make progress now is for everyone to come together to listen, respectfully share concerns and collaborate on a path forward." Even Hollywood, as usual the last to grasp the wisdom of not taking target practice on its own big toe, came to its senses, with Black Panther II director Ryan Coogler announcing on April 16 that while he vigorously opposed the new law, the production would still be shot in Georgia, like many other Marvel movies. Coogler gave every other studio and production company doing business in Georgia license to stay there, which is what they wanted to do anyway.

                  The lesson for conservatives is, as always: Brace yourself and do what’s right. The Democrats will oppose good policies, then lie about them, often hysterically, because that’s their playbook. They will indiscriminately and fatuously lob accusations of racism that are not even close to being true. Conservatives can win these fights, but only if we have the fortitude to take a few punches.


                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  This next one deals directly with the shenanigans taking place at USA Today and their attempts to rewrite history.

                  Source: USA TODAY, Stacey Abrams and the Perils of Stealth Editing


                  Mistakes are an inevitable part of journalism. But how publications fix those mistakes is more important and telling of their ethical principles.

                  Gannett, the publishing company that owns USA TODAY (Center bias) and roughly 100 other local newspapers nationwide, apologized in a statement to Fox News (Lean Right bias) last week for a serious blunder: retroactively editing an op-ed by Georgia politician Stacey Abrams about voting rights and boycotts last month without leaving an explanation or Editor’s Note.

                  Failing or delaying to explain edits after publication (a practice sometimes called "Stealth Editing") can allow misinformation to spread, especially online. It also can damage the credibility of the source and its standing as a fair and honest broker of the news.

                  Abrams’ piece was originally published on March 31. A few days later on April 2, Major League Baseball announced it would move its annual All-Star Game event out of Georgia over the state’s controversial new voting law. That loss will reportedly cost Georgia businesses up to $100 million.

                  Following the MLB’s move, Abrams’ op-ed was updated to include much more cautionary language around boycotting Georgia businesses. New language urging alternatives to boycotts was also added and did not appear in the original article.

                  Politically, these are significant additions. Abrams is a political leader in Georgia who was her party’s nominee for governor in 2018. She was "widely credited with boosting voter turnout in Georgia," helping elect Joe Biden as well as two new Democrats in her state’s 2020 U.S. Senate races.

                  She was also seen by some as a candidate for Biden’s vice presidential pick, and she may run for Georgia governor again next year.

                  The new Editor’s Note says “USA TODAY asked Abrams to update her piece” three days after it was published to reflect the MLB’s announcement "in advance of running the column in print editions." Based on this, it seems she was allowed to update the piece, and USA TODAY then failed to notice the significance of the changes and affix an explanation.

                  Was this just an editorial lapse? Or did USA TODAY seemingly let Abrams save face? And whatever it was, why didn’t the publication explain the changes to readers immediately?

                  Unexplained Changes Lead to Misinformation

                  When a news outlet changes something that’s already been published, it raises some concerns. Did the outlet apologize quickly and take steps to avoid the problem in the future, or did they try to hide their mistake or give only a partial apology? What is behind the mistake and their apology? Was it an honest error, or was it in support of a biased partisan agenda?

                  The generally-accepted process is to make the update or correction and use an Editor’s Note to explain that the article was changed or updated and why.

                  The original Abrams op-ed, headlined "3 ways for corporations to show they get what's at stake on voting rights," begins with this sentence:

                  "Boycotts work. The focused power of No, trained on corporate actors used to being told Yes, can yield transformative results."


                  The edited article, headlined "Corporate America must pick a side on voting rights, prevent a Georgia repeat," now begins like this:

                  "Boycotts work -- when the target risks losing something highly valued and the pain becomes unbearable."


                  In the original piece, Abrams made this statement, which was apparently removed from the article entirely as part of the edit:

                  "Until we hear clear, unequivocal statements that show Georgia-based companies get what’s at stake, I can’t argue with an individual’s choice to opt for their competition.


                  In its place, several other points were added to the article retroactively following the MLB’s announcement, including:
                  "Boycotts invariably also cost jobs. To be sustainable, the pain of deprivation must be shared rather than borne by those who are least resilient. They also require a long-term commitment to action. The North Carolina boycott of 2016 didn’t stop with the election of Democrat Roy Cooper, and the venerable Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted 381 days, ending only with a Supreme Court decision. Instead of a boycott, I strongly urge other events and productions to do business in Georgia and speak out against our law and similar proposals in other states.


                  Such significant alterations to an influential political figure’s column post-publication are arguably unethical, especially in the absence of an explanation. USA TODAY did provide that explanation after they were criticized, which now sits atop the article.

                  Still, Abrams could run for governor again as soon as next year. A trustworthy newspaper doesn’t allow potential candidates to save face or manipulate public perception without at least quickly offering its readers an explanation for why it happened.

                  What makes the USA TODAY case especially notable is that it wasn’t a fact or spelling error that was resolved, as is the case when news reports are updated. Instead, the edits were to an advocacy column from a prominent politician. There were several additions, subtractions and changes to tone. And the unexplained changes directly followed a major news story on the matter.

                  Any edits to an article, whether it’s from a national legacy news source or a local newspaper, should be accompanied by an explanation. What was changed or corrected? When? Why? What led to the change in the first place?

                  An opinion piece from the Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) points out that powerful media outlets may have elevated misinformation based on the unexplained edits (emphasis ours):
                  "Some cited the quietly amended opinion article as ‘proof’ Abrams didn't encourage businesses to boycott Georgia. A PolitiFact fact check even quoted the article’s new anti-boycott language, presenting it as if it was something the Georgia Democrat said before the MLB announced on April 2 it would relocate the All-Star Game to Colorado…The narrative is set in stone. This is the news update Twitter provided to its millions of users this week: ‘Stacey Abrams encouraged Americans to invest in Georgia-based businesses after new voter laws were passed, according to journalists and fact-checkers.’"


                  In the viral age, it’s borderline impossible to dispel a narrative once it’s been run with on the internet. And clearly, it’s not just online trolls who latch onto false or incomplete stories. In this case, powerful media companies furthered “facts” about Abrams that were in reality much more murky. A simple Editor’s Note would have discouraged that.

                  Ultimately, the companies that ran this information trusted in another news source, but that source let them and all of their audiences down. When just one trusted media outlet makes a mistake, the trickle-down effect can be vast.

                  Preserving Trust in Good Media

                  Whenever we at AllSides make a retroactive change involving important facts or information, we affix an editor’s note explaining what was added/corrected and when. If it was something we believe could have amounted to misinformation, we’ll apologize and review the process that led to the error. Here’s an example.

                  The note from Gannett/USA TODAY was a good response to the situation, but came too late. Other news sources had already run with the unexplained edits, potentially misleading a large number of readers on Twitter and elsewhere.

                  This and other examples of stealth-editing show how sloppy journalism can easily lead to misinformation being elevated. Other outlets on both left and right — the New York Times (Lean Left bias) and the New York Post (Lean Right bias), for example — have also been accused of stealth-editing within the last year.

                  Without a deeper understanding of what choices journalists make and why, the public can become deeply skeptical of the media as a whole.

                  According to recent surveys about trust in the media from Pew Research Center (Center bias), clear and timely corrections on news stories “increases confidence in the work for vastly more people (51%) than say it makes no difference (36%) or decreases confidence (12%).”

                  Edits and corrections are part of the news-making process. They should be done quickly and explained in full. But retroactively editing an article to change a politician’s previously-stated position is much more controversial.

                  If Abrams changed her view on boycotts, perhaps an editor’s note could have been added to the article without changing the original text, or Abrams could have written a new op-ed. Letting politicians go back and twist their own words for political reasons is something that campaigns do, not news outlets.

                  We credit USA TODAY for at least owning up to the mistake of forgetting an Editor’s Note, albeit after the misleading narrative spread. Other massive media companies, such as the New York Times in the case of the death of Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick, have infamously been much slower and less direct about apologizing for errors.

                  We should give established news outlets the benefit of the doubt, even when mistakes are made. But to maintain a healthy information ecosystem, we as a media industry owe readers clear and obvious explanations whenever any changes are made to stories after initial publication — especially when regarding a politician’s stance on major current events.



                  Source

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  According to the Internet Archive, the op-ed was revised on April 6th, but a notice acknowledging it was "Updated" wasn't added until April 22 -- after folks started pointing out what they had done.

                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization thatís not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:25 AM
                  7 responses
                  62 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post oxmixmudd  
                  Started by oxmixmudd, Yesterday, 11:16 AM
                  37 responses
                  174 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post mossrose  
                  Started by seanD, 06-16-2021, 11:57 PM
                  31 responses
                  173 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Gondwanaland  
                  Started by Gondwanaland, 06-16-2021, 06:02 PM
                  19 responses
                  126 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post kiwimac
                  by kiwimac
                   
                  Started by CivilDiscourse, 06-16-2021, 01:18 PM
                  0 responses
                  28 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                  Working...
                  X