- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CNN gonna CNN: Semantic deflection
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:15 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:15 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
And anyone reading the article would have had their confusion resolved in the first substantive paragraph of the article. Yes, I consider anyone who forms an opinion based solely upon a headline to be a farking idiot ... lawyer or no.
It's still bad journalism. It's a misleading headline. Who knows the intentions of the writer. I'm just amazed an editor wouldn't catch that. MSNBC had the same exact language too.
1
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:19 pm to SUB
quote:The legal reporters and their editors deal with legal issues every day ... even if they often do not understand them fully. Both of them would be familiar with the term and its usage in this context. Given that the goal of headline writing is brevity and that the vote-count was mentioned in the first or second paragraph of EVERY article, it is easy to see why EVERYONE (on both sides of the ideological divide) initially used the same descriptive language.
It's still bad journalism. It's a misleading headline. Who knows the intentions of the writer. I'm just amazed an editor wouldn't catch that. MSNBC had the same exact language too.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:24 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
it is easy to see why EVERYONE (on both sides of the ideological divide) initially used the same descriptive language.
Not true, as I read other stories that did not have this language. But more than one news outlet using the same language may help explain the reason. It still baffles me how any objective person (i.e. an editor) would read the headline and article and not see the glaring misleading language used.
How do you know so much about the ins and outs of big journalism internal procedures?
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:26 pm to Ag Zwin
Woods is usually on point with his Tweets, but this wasn't one of them. The scope is what was narrow, not the vote.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For Christ’s sake
Melt
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:33 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Nonetheless, it is stupid for laypeople to keep arguing, when a lawyer (even one of the slow ones) explains a simple legal term or procedural matter.
This is an appeal to authority. An age old fallacy. Pretty weak. What happens when you have lawyers disagreeing with your "explanation"? Silliness.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:41 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Are ypu honestly asserting that you saw the term “narrow” in these articles and thought of anything other than the scope of the ruling?
What happens when you have lawyers disagreeing with your "explanation"? Silliness.
I cannot imagine that any lawyer outside the bottom quarter at Thurgood Marshall would have given a nanosecond of thought to the possibility that it was a reference to vote count.
Laypeople? Sure, some might be confused if they read only the headline ... and not the first couple of sentences of the articles. But I restate that anyone who would form an opinion of a SCOTUS opinion on that basis is simply too stupid to be taken seriously .... NOT because he is not an attorney, but instead because he has the attention span of a mayfly.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
AggieHank86
No offense, but I sure hope (wish) your avatar is the only Aggie ring you have.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:25 pm to AUbused
quote:
AUbused
just shut the frick up
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Are ypu honestly asserting that you saw the term “narrow” in these articles and thought of anything other than the scope of the ruling?
When I first saw a tweet saying something about SCOTUS ruling narrowly I thought it was for sure 5-4 until I dove into the article.
I’m not a lawyer and I would imagine 99% of the country would think the same thing as I did.
Also, this is stupid. The media gives us plenty to bitch about but this one is pretty irrelevant.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 6:12 pm to DallasTiger11
quote:Thank you. You have made my point for me.
When I first saw a tweet saying something about SCOTUS ruling narrowly I thought it was for sure 5-4 until I dove into the article.
You are a bright person and not a lawyer. You saw a headline that you did not fully understand. Rather than forming an uninformed opinion based upon a ten-word headline, you “dove into the article” and quickly learned that the term “narrow” was a reference to the scope of the ruling and not to the vote-count. Despite Barry’s misrepresentation of my views, I salute you.
But Barry IS a lawyer, which is why I phrased my response to him in the manner that I phrased it. He knew EXACTLY what the term meant, and he chose to engage in faux outrage.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 7:19 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
You’re such a dummy James Woods. Try reading the article before judging the headline. #dummy
Hmmmm. The Mensa member being referred to as a "dummy" still has his tweet up.
The Fake News reporter deleted her original tweet.
That tells me all I need to know.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 7:30 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
quote:
just shut the frick up
Ohh somebody mad???? EAD snowflake
Posted on 6/4/18 at 7:55 pm to ell_13
quote:
The intent was clicks. That's always the intent of headlines now. That's not debatable. 97% of the people who "see" this news will not go beyond the headline and think two incorrect things: 1) That bakeries can deny service to gays and 2) that the ruling was 5-4. But those two things garner 1000 times more attention than the truth, so that's the headline.
quit being so damned honest and rational and post something inflammatory!
Posted on 6/4/18 at 8:13 pm to ell_13
quote:
The intent was clicks. That's always the intent of headlines now. That's not debatable. 97% of the people who "see" this news will not go beyond the headline and think two incorrect things: 1) That bakeries can deny service to gays and 2) that the ruling was 5-4. But those two things garner 1000 times more attention than the truth, so that's the headline.
That's capitalism for ya.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 8:16 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 8:54 pm to bmy
Have considered moving to a socialist country?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:09 pm to Ag Zwin
I hate the MSM and CNN as much as the next guy, and i agree that their headline suggested the vote was close to the headline-only browsing American public, but reviewing other unrelated articles online....
“Why A Narrow Ruling For New Jersey Could Still Allow Sports Betting By Private Operators“ Forbes APR 23, 2018 @ 01:08 PM
——————————————
In the Wake of Stern: Supreme Court Issues Narrow Ruling in Executive Benefits and Grants Certiorari in Wellness International
American Bar Association Young Lawyer Division Bankruptcy Committee Newsletter
By Dana S. Katz
Originally published in the American Bar Association Young Lawyer Division Bankruptcy Committee Fall 2014 Newsletter, Vol. 1 No. 1. (c) 2014 by the American Bar Association.
In a narrow and unanimous decision entered on June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States provided guidance to Bankruptcy Courts confronted with “Stern claims” – those “designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter.”Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2170, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
“Why A Narrow Ruling For New Jersey Could Still Allow Sports Betting By Private Operators“ Forbes APR 23, 2018 @ 01:08 PM
——————————————
In the Wake of Stern: Supreme Court Issues Narrow Ruling in Executive Benefits and Grants Certiorari in Wellness International
American Bar Association Young Lawyer Division Bankruptcy Committee Newsletter
By Dana S. Katz
Originally published in the American Bar Association Young Lawyer Division Bankruptcy Committee Fall 2014 Newsletter, Vol. 1 No. 1. (c) 2014 by the American Bar Association.
In a narrow and unanimous decision entered on June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States provided guidance to Bankruptcy Courts confronted with “Stern claims” – those “designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter.”Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 134 S.Ct. 2165, 2170, 573 U.S. __ (2014).
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:20 pm to Big Jim Slade
“Issues Narrow Ruling“ =/= “ruled narrowly in favor”
Posted on 6/5/18 at 10:03 am to roadGator
quote:
Have considered moving to a socialist country?
We live in one already.
Clicks generate revenue btw. There is nothing surprising about a company trying to make more money. That's how the world works. Doesn't make much sense for trumpkins to whine about fake news/MSM in one breath and praise capitalism in the next. It's a business decision.
You gotta take the good with the bad. Or regulate the industry.
This post was edited on 6/5/18 at 10:05 am
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News