this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
659 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19104 readers
4653 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yes, I'm sure Rolling Stone has excellent insights into Trump's private fretting.

[–] vivadanang@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

because media stalwarts like Meet The Press are doing so great at holding Trump to account huh?

jfc man, dunno if you noticed the hellscape that is modern media but RS is doing pretty good these days.

[–] roboticide@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not like a Rolling Stone journalist went and asked. Journalists have these things called "sources":

While Trump publicly professes confidence, privately, three sources familiar with his comments say, he’s been asking lawyers and other people close to him what a prison sentence would look like for a former American president.

[–] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

three sources familiar with his comments

That would never have gotten past any decent editor 20 years ago.

See, if you say one unnamed source, it's not quite as believable to people who lack critical thinking skills and reading comprehension. Better make it three. Five would be too many.

The yellow journalists also like to used "experts" (unnamed of course) to pedal their garbage talking points.

"Three sources familiar with some Rolling Stones writer's thinking say they like to smell their own farts"

See, I can make shit up too.

Actual journalism isn't quite completely dead, but it's on life support.

I like that you're so confident about something you couldn't possibly know fuck-all about