politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
DOGE was never about cutting spending and I hate when the media frames it that way. I don’t know what they teach in journalism school but pretending to not know what time it is has to be a required course. It’s like when they use “free speech absolutist” (even ironically) to describe Elon Musk. He was never that and if you believed it and are disappointed, I hope you were just not paying attention. Motherfucker was being sued for discrimination and promising flight attendants horses to get his dick sucked and people act like he betrayed his formerly-held values.
It's not what they don't teach. It's that what they do teach is immediately and unobjectionally discarded by the oligarch paying their salary.
If something doesn't benefit the ownership or the ideals promoted by the ownership, it won't be published. If it's in opposition to the ownership or their ability to retain wealth and power, the journalists behind it won't be employed any longer. Outside of publicly-funded or independent journalism, journalistic integrity and unbiased reporting are practically dead.
This is what happens when news and media are consolidated into a few large conglomerates owned by a wealthy few.
the MSM are all owned by conservative, and you can see why they are reporting this way, just not to offend trump and give him as much air-time as possible.
Are you talking about this article specifically? It seems like this article is taking the promise Trump made and following all the dollars to prove exactly how that promise was bullshit. This seems like journalism at work.
No. Accounting for it all is actual journalism. Pretending they’re trying to save money when they’re openly trying to replace professionals with loyalists is journalistic malpractice.
If you read this article and thought, “journalistic malpractice”, I think you gotta reset your understanding of what journalism is. They can’t just say “oh, this smells like bullshit so we’re going to write articles about how it’s bullshit”. If that’s what they did, then there is no difference between journalism and lemmy comments.
They have to actually research the facts surrounding the claims like a scientist would. Start from the assumption that what they’re saying is true, then follow the numbers to come to a conclusion. Now the conclusion is not based some feeling, it is based on actual data.
We can now say not only did it smell like bullshit, but thanks to these journalists we can identify exactly how it is bullshit.
Theyre saying that for the past six months every single news station and paper has been daily uploading stories about "doge cuts" and talking about how much musk was promising to reduce the budget and saying that it was all legitimate and exactly as they claimed. That's what they're pissed about.
This is the FIRST article to actually say "what if he's actually full of shit? What if we looked into it and counted the money? Oh, turns out he's full of shit and doing the opposite of reducing the budget, here's what it actually cost."
It is fucking April 30th. It's been 100 days, they've spent 200 billion more dollars than normal, and this is the only report I've seen since the election questioning whether doge is a legitimate government office with the goals it claims. Thats what the poster is mad about. Not the one article doing journalism. The 7 million articles since October last year talking about "musk's doge plans to cut 2 trillion from the deficit" that were literally propaganda.
Maybe. I was confused by their last comment that in no way acknowledged the point I made. This specific article is good journalism. But the commenter didn’t not acknowledge that.
The first bit where they said "accounting for it all is real journalism" was in reference to the posted article.
The original original comment didn't say anything about the posted article but was lambasting the fact that most of the other publications don't actually investigate the claims being made and instead just broadcast the claims as if they are legitimate on their face. Once the article we're commenting under was brought up they agreed that the journalism there was good.
I had to go all the way to the top comment in the chain to figure out which reply you were talking about but yeah they agreed with you on the merits of this story and gave props