I GOT ONE WRONG??

WELL MY BRAGGING DAYS ARE OVER - THAT IS FOR SURE!

My Results:
You answered 23 of 24 CORRECT! Your score is in the 86th percentile.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/quiz/2015/feb/11/us-citizenship-test-could-you-pass/

Let's see how many of you can hit 100%

Need help with self analysis...

Why is it that I can get very upset about politics, but am more understanding about religions?
Help me figure that out.

Thanks for posting.

Things Get Interesting: Journalists are Debating the Definition of Objectivity

Advocacy journalism: a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, since the bias is intended. Some advocacy journalists reject that the traditional ideal of objectivity is possible in practice, either generally, or due to the presence of corporate sponsors in advertising. Some feel that the public interest is better served by a diversity of media outlets with a variety of transparent points of view, or that advocacy journalism serves a similar role to muckrakers or whistleblowers. -- Wikipedia on advocacy journalism

Maybe, just maybe, the murder of Floyd George has ripped off more than just one veil of self-deceit in American society. Black journalists are criticizing the concept of journalistic objectivity. Some question if it even exists. An NPR broadcast of The Takeaway asks what has prompted this outburst of criticism and whether journalistic objectivity is more myth than reality.

Black journalists rebel

Black journalists are raising the question of editorial and systemic racism in how the media forces them to conform to an allegedly objective narrative in their reporting that they often disagree with. One complaint that black journalists are often forced to convey a reality that they do not see or believe is real. They also complain of being forced to cover two sides of issues that they believe has only one real side to cover, the other apparently being seen as false reality or propaganda. Journalists call that kind of reporting false balancing.

Their fundamental complaint is that reporting in the name of objectivity reinforced the majority white point of view that has dominated American journalism. Some senior editors, apparently prompted by the combination of what happened to Floyd George, the larger public reaction to his murder and the complaints from their own black journalists, are beginning to question their own premises about objectivity in journalism. In essence, black reporters are arguing that objectivity is more myth than objective reality.

One of the guests on The Takeaway segment[1] comments that it is subjective to select what people and stories to cover and report on, how to report about what is chosen, what order of paragraphs the story will consist of, and what words are chosen to describe the story. When the definition of objectivity is questioned, it is seen as "very unfair" to many black journalists.

Although some senior level editors have resigned in recent weeks due to racial gaffes, the question is whether the people who replace them will act any differently. Unfortunately, the discussion becomes fuzzy about exactly what to do to fix the problem. One site, Axios, decided to let its reporters participate in demonstrations, allegedly so that they can somehow learn, maybe more or differently. That move was sharply criticized by some who believe that reporters should not be part of a story themselves. Arguably, when a reporter is a participant in an event, that is an objectivity killer.

In reviewing its own practices, NPR did not focus on the definition of objectivity, but instead focused on articulating clear standards for accuracy and fairness. NPR's review of its own reporting standards left objectivity alone because it was seen as too subjective a concept to try to define. Fairness and accuracy constitute the core elements of objectivity in NPR's view.

The confusion about what to do differently also came out in discussing what involvement, if any, reporters should have with social media. One guest asserted that reporters cannot call the president names and then turn around and call him the president and report fairly. Apparently, that commentator was arguing that dropping out of a restrained mode of professional neutrality, e.g., by insults or name calling, constitutes an irreparable act that cannot be recovered from. By that argument, the moment a reporter loses self-control, that person can no longer be professional about that issue or person.

The most concrete things discussed that can be done involves trying to deal with the usual complaints about institutional racism in journalism itself. That amounts to things like respecting, treating, training and paying white and non-white journalists the same and elevating more non-white journalists to senior positions. One complaint the segment aired was an allegation that journalism is dominated by whites and unequal treatment has caused loss of too many colored journalists from the profession.


Footnote:
1. The Takeaway broadcast segment:




A broadcast a couple of days ago in the NPR program 1A (short for 1st Amendment; the broadcast is below) asks what objectivity is, assuming it exists at all. Again, the discussion starts off criticizing the concept of objectivity as more myth than reality. The concepts of accuracy, transparency and fairness were raised as better standards to strive for than amorphous objectivity. But even there, one commentator confusingly asserted it is OK for reporters to take a side on a story, but the journalist has to make sure their position is "right." That is an important point.

At present, there are organizations like Fox News and the leviathan Sinclair Broadcast Group that routinely take the conservative side on most stories and issues. They do not show much concern for accuracy, transparency or fairness in their reporting. Their anti-liberal bias is clear and not subtle. They falsely claim to be accurate, transparent and fair, but the reality is arguably quite different. Can one call that professional advocacy journalism, or is it so unprofessional that most of the content is more accurately seen as dark free speech?

Discussions like these make it clear that dealing with race in America is amazingly complicated and subject to all sorts of subjective, usually unconscious, human impulses. One commentator called journalistic objectivity "white supremacist." Both broadcast segments mix concerns about institutional racism and what professional objectivity is and what it allows and does not allow reporters to be and do.




Here is a link to an essay on journalistic objectivity published by the American Press Institute. That essay includes these comments:

"The term [objectivity] began to appear as part of journalism after the turn of the 20th century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work. 

In the latter part of the 19th century, journalists talked about something called “realism” rather than objectivity. This was the idea that if reporters simply dug out the facts and ordered them together, truth would reveal itself rather naturally. 

Realism emerged at a time when journalism was separating from political party affiliations and becoming more accurate. It coincided with the invention of what journalists call the inverted pyramid, in which a journalist lines the facts up from the most important to the least important, thinking it helps audiences understand things naturally.

At the beginning of the 20th century, however, some journalists began to worry about the naïveté of realism. In part, reporters and editors were becoming more aware of the rise of propaganda and the role of press agents."

THE PARADOX OF EXISTENCE?

HOW intriguing:
WAS debating with someone about how someone might not have been born or come into existence had their ancestors chosen a different history.

SO if my ancestors had decided to do A instead of B, different dynamics would have come into play, who they married, where they lived, what religion they would have practiced, and therefore the likelihood of ME being ME, would not exist.

I could still have developed as someone "else" though, right? IF ancestor A married ancestor C instead of B and had moved to raise a family to Australia instead of North America, doesn't mean some DNA wouldn't have been passed down to me eventually anyways.

BUT why even contemplate the question?
IF I didn't exist, I wouldn't be aware of my non-existence so the point would be mute.
AND if I did come into existence, how can I envision how different I would have been if my ancestors went a different way than the way they did?

IT is to me, the same as the question of death.
ONCE I die, I will not have any memory of having existed.
OF course that depends on your religious views, but I am an atheist.

SO, in short, why would death scare me? ONCE I am dead, there is nothing to be scared of, I won't have a memory or any awareness that I had ever existed.

Death can only be scary if I though that there would be some "awareness" of my existence after I had died.

So, whether I might never been born had my ancestors done something different from what they did, or when I die, either case, I would not have been nor will I be aware of any other existence except that which I am NOW.

RIGHT?

Republican Assaults on Voting Continues

“The things they had in there were crazy. They had levels of voting, that if you ever agreed to it you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again.” -- the president commenting in March on democratic efforts to expand voting by mail to deal with Covid-19


The New York Times writes:

“ATLANTA — Georgia’s statewide primary elections on Tuesday were overwhelmed by a full-scale meltdown of new voting systems put in place after widespread claims of voter suppression during the state’s 2018 governor’s election. 

Scores of new state-ordered voting machines were reported to be missing or malfunctioning, and hourslong lines materialized at polling places across Georgia. 

Some people gave up and left before casting a ballot, and concerns spread that the problems would disenfranchise untold voters, particularly African-Americans. Predominantly black areas experienced some of the worst problems. 

Security experts had warned that there was not nearly enough time to switch systems before the 2020 elections — especially amid the coronavirus pandemic, which ravaged the state and scared away hundreds of poll workers.”

Republicans in power can assert until they are blue in the face that they are serious about preventing voter fraud and protecting elections and the right to vote. All of that is a lie. They are hell-bent on committing as much voter suppression as they can get away with.

An anecdote from Indiana

My sister-in-law lives in Indiana. She timely asked for a ballot to vote by mail. She has health problems that makes her want to stay out of public as much as she can to try to avoid Covid-19. The state did not send her ballot in time for her to vote. So, she spent time in a line with people mostly wearing masks. On the line, people without masks were handing out voter materials urging people to vote for GOP candidates.

In Indiana, electioneering at polling places is illegal.[1] The GOP doesn't care about that, or it gets as close to the line of legality as its minions are willing to get, 50 feet away from the door in this case. 

Again, there is no evidence the GOP is working to protect voters and their right to access voting options. The evidence points in the opposite direction.

One can only wonder if voters who take the pamphlets into the voting area are breaking the law is the pamphlets are clear about supporting the GOP and others can read that.

An opinion from Iowa

An editorial in the Des Moines Register comments:

“Republican state lawmakers are on a mission: Make it as difficult as possible for Iowans to vote. 

Their latest effort to fulfill this mission came in the form of a last-minute 30-page amendment to a previously simple, noncontroversial bill. Sen. Roby Smith, R-Davenport, said the new legislation, passed along party lines after a contentious late-night debate, is intended to support “safe, secure and reliable elections.”

It is not. Iowa already has safe, secure and reliable elections.

The goal is voter suppression.

The bill, among other things, prohibits the secretary of state from mailing absentee ballot requests to Iowans without a written voter request. 

In other words, it would prevent the current secretary, Republican Paul Pate, from doing exactly what he recently did. To promote voting by mail during the coronavirus pandemic, he sent mail-in ballot request forms for the June 2 primary to all registered voters in the state.”

Fortunately in the case of Iowa, GOP voter suppression efforts may be backfiring. The writer goes on to point out that mostly the same group that passed an unnecessary Voter ID law based on a false claim of voter fraud. That GOP effort “resulted in confusion, court challenges and hurdles to voting.” 

It is reasonable to expect GOP state legislatures from doing everything they can to suppress votes in advance of the November 2020 election.

Nationwide

NBC news reports that the GOP and the president's campaign is planning to recruiting about 50,000 poll watcher volunteers. The GOP wants to police who votes and how. The effort includes a $20 million fund for legal battles and the GOP's first national poll-patrol operation in nearly 40 years. NBC writes:

“While poll watching is an ordinary part of elections — both parties do it — voting rights advocates worry that such a moneyed, large-scale offensive by the Republicans will intimidate and target minority voters who tend to vote Democratic and chill turnout in a pivotal contest already upended by the coronavirus pandemic. 

Some states allow poll monitors to challenge a voter's eligibility, requiring that person's ballot undergo additional vetting to be counted. In Michigan, for example, a challenged voter will be removed from line and questioned about their citizenship, age, residency and date of voter registration if, according to election rules, a vote challenger has "good reason" to believe they are not eligible. They are required to take an oath attesting that their answers are true and are given a special ballot. 

The Trump campaign says the aim is to prevent voter fraud before it happens, despite researchers, academics and the president's own voter fraud commission all failing to find evidence that widespread fraud exists in years of searching. 

But a coordinated poll-watch effort, advocates warned, is particularly dangerous because of the GOP's history of using monitors to intimidate minority voters.”

It looks like we are headed into some serious voter suppression in the coming months.

Footnote:

1. Indiana public media comments: “At all polling locations in Indiana, it is illegal to engage in "electioneering," which simply means expressing support or opposition to any candidate or political party or public question. This includes something as simple as wearing a t-shirt or button with a candidate logo. It also applies to what might be considered "voter intimidation," such as harassing voters headed into a polling place. The rules apply to the polling place directly and to the "chute," which is 50 feet from any entrance to a polling place.”

The GOP goal for 2020 elections

A Review of Police Racism and Abuse and the Failed System that Enables It

The 33½ minute video by John Oliver and the 8½ minute by Trevor Noah summarizes the racist abuse of power situation by police. The video clips and accompanying facts and context helps to keep the severity of the situation in mind. Many American police forces are out of control to some unacceptable extent. Unfortunately, it is not clear that many politicians get it. Another point to keep in mind is that society asks the police to do things they are not trained to do and probably usually do not have the temperament to do.

America simply has to do better than this. American police must be made to be transparent and accountable, no matter how much paperwork it causes and no matter how long people keep protesting peacefully in the streets. And, America really needs to vote the president out of office.

If you don't want to listen to most of this, and it is pretty depressing, just listen to the last ~4 minutes of the 33½ minute John Oliver video. That helps explain some history and how the situation is seen from a very angry but articulate black person's point of view.