5 ms·

Sorry for this off-topic comment, I am not pro-Trump and not American, but I cannot help but have negative feelings towards the obvious grains of bias against T

Sorry for this off-topic comment, I am not pro-Trump and not American, but I cannot help but have negative feelings towards the obvious grains of bias against Trump and Thiel in the article. Probably, because I am from an ex-Soviet bloc country and sensitive to the media propaganda language. Examples: - “the Trump regime”. We use “regime” for the countries led by dictators who are not friends of USA, right? Since when Trump is a dictator? - Mentioning Thiel’s comments about fat people, etc. How does it contribute to the main problem? It looks like another cheap manipulation - like “boo, see, Thiel is crazy!”

mises 7y ago
Your point about "regime" is dead on. I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"; it was always "administration". Our media has a sickeningly blatant leftward bias, unless you go to fringe conspiracy sites which are no news at all. There are a few good ones, but not many.
- moccachino 7y ago
  I don't want to get into politics much here but I have to respond to this. I'm not American but from where I stand I see that Trump is trying his best to turn his presidency into a dictatorship. He also admires and enjoys the company of actual dictators. So using this word as a form of criticism is not unfounded. Also, it's not the general rule, most articles I see use 'administration'. And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias, rather the Republican Party has moved way way out on the fringe. If you look globally, the average Democratic office holder would be a right wing politician in most other countries.
  - xibalba 7y ago
    > And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias Leftward bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature. Your belief that there is no media bias may in fact be evidence of your own biases. This too is supported in the literature. I.e., there is evidence that media which confirms our beliefs is viewed as higher quality than that which disconfirms.
    - orwin 7y ago
      I think his point is that what's considered "leftward" in the US is actually not really leftward for the rest of the word, so for him, the "left bias" is actually a "normal bias".
      - bin0 7y ago
        When you say the rest of the world, I assume you mean that Europe is much further left than America? If so, that has no bearing on how we judge American media. Other nations are farther left or right; we judge bias based on the political center of the respective nation. American media does not have a "normal" or "center" bias just because politics in your nation are farther left; American voters determine where the American center is (not those in europe).
        moccachino 7y ago
        Sure, but the shift is also within the U.S. over time. To support a strong public education system and hold a sensible position on gun control used to be something Republicans did as far as I can tell. There has been a definite shift to the fringe. Both in the plutocratic direction, with the one-dollar-one-vote philosophy, and also in just a general nutcase direction (see the NRA).
        bin0 7y ago
        That's not a fair assessment. Your opinion of a "sensible position" on "gun control" is almost certainly different from mine. I would take the perspective that people openly supporting socialism is a much further-leftward lurch than any thing on the right. [0] You also brand the NRA as "fringe" and as "general nutcases", which is again unfair. Your political opinion is not the single source of truth or the center of the political spectrum. Your implication here is that the right has become fringe, but the graph linked above shows otherwise. [0] https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left-the-democrats-are-going/ https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left...
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  You're implying that treating two politicians from the left and the right differently is intrinsically a symptom of "sickening" political bias, when in fact truly unbiased objectivity will always make one of those people look worse than the other. What I find more sickening is how often people hide behind the idea of neutrality when, hypocritically, expressing their hatred for the media and people of the opposite political party. I think it's a much worse problem.
- JaimeThompson 7y ago
  Please, using your favorite search engine, search for "Obama regime" and see how often it was used. You will find that it was used a lot more than you remember.
  - playing_colours 7y ago
    I did. And the top results are from Obama critics, or quoting Trump said that. There is also that web page https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-obama-administration-be-called-the-obama-regime https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-obama-administrat...
- Angostura 7y ago
  > I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"; it was always "administration". Presumably because the Obama administration didn't work quite so hard to subvert the US system of checks and balances. I don't recall Obama sacking the head of the FBI for refusing to give a pledge of personal loayalty, to give one example. I don't. Neither do I remember Obama declaring a national emergency, in order to circumvent Congress's spending powers and get money for a pet project.
  - bin0 7y ago
    This is a political opinion. Whether the presidency is doing something good or bad is one. Half the nation disagrees with you. By expressing this in an implicit sense in media, the media is biased. Also, you're wrong: obama was Mister "I've got a pen and a phone". One party spent eight years centralizing power in the executive, then complains when the other side gets elected and uses it.
    - Angostura 7y ago
      I'm not American, but I don't recall anything similar. Feel free to post specifics, rather than generalities.
      - bin0 7y ago
        https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/hey-barack-obama-donald-trumps-got-your-pen-and-ph/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/hey-barack-...
        Angostura 7y ago
        Again, I'm not seeing any specific measures been cited there. Oh, while we are on the whole regime thing. How many members of his family did he appoint to substantial executive roles in the Whitehouse? That's another mark of a regime, I think.
        7y ago
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I never heard the phrase "Obama regime" That's seems to be a sign of either extremely limited reading (biased to left-wing sources out of the mainstream) or extremely selective memory (rejecting or inventing facts to fit a right-wing narrative). While both “Obama regime” and “Trump regime” seem to be used mostly originally by outside-the-mainstream media (the right and left fringes, respectively), the uses of the latter don’t even seem to get quoted much in mainstream sources, while the former (though not particularly frequently) do, at least from reviewing and, in the case of mainstream results, reading through results from the obvious phrase searches on Google News.
- pazimzadeh 7y ago
  The Obama Regime https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/obama-regime-deroy-murdock/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/obama-regime-deroy-mu... "The president has become dictatorial in nearly every area of governance" https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22obama+regime%22&s= https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22obama+regime%22&s=
JaimeThompson 7y ago
Regime means "Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system." so it is a fitting use of the word in my opinion. The comments about fat people / etc he actually said and give a broader view of his speech.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  Sorry, I may be wrong - I am not a native English speaker, although read and communicate a lot in English. I do not hear often the use of “regime” with “good” countries and leaders - say, Obama regime, Merkel regime.
  - hyayz 7y ago
    You are completely right. "regime" has clear bad connotations. Gizmodo is a left-wing outlet so this kind of snark is to be expected.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the start of his first term attempted to work cross party. I think it's generally used more when talking about a dictatorial style of government. President Trump, regardless of whether you like him or not, is not a consensus builder. His style is that of directions from the top, no compromises, everyone is either with him or they are potential enemies. I think this is why you would see it used more. I don't know that it demoted a bad or good government more than any other word, nor would I read into it that way. It's quite possible that it was intended to be read exactly the way you're describing.
    - playing_colours 7y ago
      In Germany, I see “Merkel’s regime” used predominantly by the media that are associated with far-* ideas.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stevenjohns 7y ago
You're not wrong about "regime" - it's used to belittle governments that someone doesn't agree with. It doesn't even apply just for dictatorships, i.e the previous Iraqi administration was (and still is by The Economist) referred to as an "authoritarian regime" by some even though it is a multi-party representative democracy with almost full autonomy in the North with peaceful transitions of power across all areas of government. If someone were to call the current American government a regime then they're likely dog whistling[0] and it reflects the editorial slant of the writer and/or the publication. But it's worth keeping in mind that Gizmodo is just another tech blog and, having worked for one before, I can say that the focus is on churning out more clickbait crap rather than producing anything with substance. The person who wrote it probably has no real understanding of journalism and doesn't understand the implications of the words chosen - they got the job just because they have some half-decent level of grammar. And the editor who approved it probably focused more on the title than the content. So don't think too much about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics
olalonde 7y ago
Also calling Tucker Carlson a white supremacist is quite a stretch (he is anti-immigration). Disclaimer: not a fan of either Trump or Carlson.

mises 7y ago

Your point about "regime" is dead on. I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"; it was always "administration". Our media has a sickeningly blatant leftward bias, unless you go to fringe conspiracy sites which are no news at all. There are a few good ones, but not many.

moccachino 7y ago
I don't want to get into politics much here but I have to respond to this. I'm not American but from where I stand I see that Trump is trying his best to turn his presidency into a dictatorship. He also admires and enjoys the company of actual dictators. So using this word as a form of criticism is not unfounded. Also, it's not the general rule, most articles I see use 'administration'. And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias, rather the Republican Party has moved way way out on the fringe. If you look globally, the average Democratic office holder would be a right wing politician in most other countries.
- xibalba 7y ago
  > And I don't think it's the media who has a leftward bias Leftward bias has been repeatedly demonstrated in the literature. Your belief that there is no media bias may in fact be evidence of your own biases. This too is supported in the literature. I.e., there is evidence that media which confirms our beliefs is viewed as higher quality than that which disconfirms.
  - orwin 7y ago
    I think his point is that what's considered "leftward" in the US is actually not really leftward for the rest of the word, so for him, the "left bias" is actually a "normal bias".
    - bin0 7y ago
      When you say the rest of the world, I assume you mean that Europe is much further left than America? If so, that has no bearing on how we judge American media. Other nations are farther left or right; we judge bias based on the political center of the respective nation. American media does not have a "normal" or "center" bias just because politics in your nation are farther left; American voters determine where the American center is (not those in europe).
      - moccachino 7y ago
        Sure, but the shift is also within the U.S. over time. To support a strong public education system and hold a sensible position on gun control used to be something Republicans did as far as I can tell. There has been a definite shift to the fringe. Both in the plutocratic direction, with the one-dollar-one-vote philosophy, and also in just a general nutcase direction (see the NRA).
        bin0 7y ago
        That's not a fair assessment. Your opinion of a "sensible position" on "gun control" is almost certainly different from mine. I would take the perspective that people openly supporting socialism is a much further-leftward lurch than any thing on the right. [0] You also brand the NRA as "fringe" and as "general nutcases", which is again unfair. Your political opinion is not the single source of truth or the center of the political spectrum. Your implication here is that the right has become fringe, but the graph linked above shows otherwise. [0] https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left-the-democrats-are-going/ https://qz.com/1580091/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-how-far-left...
happytoexplain 7y ago
You're implying that treating two politicians from the left and the right differently is intrinsically a symptom of "sickening" political bias, when in fact truly unbiased objectivity will always make one of those people look worse than the other. What I find more sickening is how often people hide behind the idea of neutrality when, hypocritically, expressing their hatred for the media and people of the opposite political party. I think it's a much worse problem.
JaimeThompson 7y ago
Please, using your favorite search engine, search for "Obama regime" and see how often it was used. You will find that it was used a lot more than you remember.
- playing_colours 7y ago
  I did. And the top results are from Obama critics, or quoting Trump said that. There is also that web page https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-obama-administration-be-called-the-obama-regime https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-obama-administrat...
Angostura 7y ago
> I never heard the phrase "Obama regime"; it was always "administration". Presumably because the Obama administration didn't work quite so hard to subvert the US system of checks and balances. I don't recall Obama sacking the head of the FBI for refusing to give a pledge of personal loayalty, to give one example. I don't. Neither do I remember Obama declaring a national emergency, in order to circumvent Congress's spending powers and get money for a pet project.
- bin0 7y ago
  This is a political opinion. Whether the presidency is doing something good or bad is one. Half the nation disagrees with you. By expressing this in an implicit sense in media, the media is biased. Also, you're wrong: obama was Mister "I've got a pen and a phone". One party spent eight years centralizing power in the executive, then complains when the other side gets elected and uses it.
  - Angostura 7y ago
    I'm not American, but I don't recall anything similar. Feel free to post specifics, rather than generalities.
    - bin0 7y ago
      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/hey-barack-obama-donald-trumps-got-your-pen-and-ph/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/30/hey-barack-...
      - Angostura 7y ago
        Again, I'm not seeing any specific measures been cited there. Oh, while we are on the whole regime thing. How many members of his family did he appoint to substantial executive roles in the Whitehouse? That's another mark of a regime, I think.
        7y ago
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I never heard the phrase "Obama regime" That's seems to be a sign of either extremely limited reading (biased to left-wing sources out of the mainstream) or extremely selective memory (rejecting or inventing facts to fit a right-wing narrative). While both “Obama regime” and “Trump regime” seem to be used mostly originally by outside-the-mainstream media (the right and left fringes, respectively), the uses of the latter don’t even seem to get quoted much in mainstream sources, while the former (though not particularly frequently) do, at least from reviewing and, in the case of mainstream results, reading through results from the obvious phrase searches on Google News.
pazimzadeh 7y ago
The Obama Regime https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/obama-regime-deroy-murdock/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2013/08/obama-regime-deroy-mu... "The president has become dictatorial in nearly every area of governance" https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22obama+regime%22&s= https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22obama+regime%22&s=

JaimeThompson 7y ago

Regime means "Mode or system of rule or management; character of government, or of the prevailing social system." so it is a fitting use of the word in my opinion. The comments about fat people / etc he actually said and give a broader view of his speech.

playing_colours 7y ago
Sorry, I may be wrong - I am not a native English speaker, although read and communicate a lot in English. I do not hear often the use of “regime” with “good” countries and leaders - say, Obama regime, Merkel regime.
- hyayz 7y ago
  You are completely right. "regime" has clear bad connotations. Gizmodo is a left-wing outlet so this kind of snark is to be expected.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  It's probably because President Obama and Angela Merkel don't/didn't generally do things we associate with regimes. President Obama on numerous occasions at the start of his first term attempted to work cross party. I think it's generally used more when talking about a dictatorial style of government. President Trump, regardless of whether you like him or not, is not a consensus builder. His style is that of directions from the top, no compromises, everyone is either with him or they are potential enemies. I think this is why you would see it used more. I don't know that it demoted a bad or good government more than any other word, nor would I read into it that way. It's quite possible that it was intended to be read exactly the way you're describing.
  - playing_colours 7y ago
    In Germany, I see “Merkel’s regime” used predominantly by the media that are associated with far-* ideas.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

stevenjohns 7y ago

You're not wrong about "regime" - it's used to belittle governments that someone doesn't agree with. It doesn't even apply just for dictatorships, i.e the previous Iraqi administration was (and still is by The Economist) referred to as an "authoritarian regime" by some even though it is a multi-party representative democracy with almost full autonomy in the North with peaceful transitions of power across all areas of government. If someone were to call the current American government a regime then they're likely dog whistling[0] and it reflects the editorial slant of the writer and/or the publication. But it's worth keeping in mind that Gizmodo is just another tech blog and, having worked for one before, I can say that the focus is on churning out more clickbait crap rather than producing anything with substance. The person who wrote it probably has no real understanding of journalism and doesn't understand the implications of the words chosen - they got the job just because they have some half-decent level of grammar. And the editor who approved it probably focused more on the title than the content. So don't think too much about it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics

olalonde 7y ago

Also calling Tucker Carlson a white supremacist is quite a stretch (he is anti-immigration). Disclaimer: not a fan of either Trump or Carlson.