Trending Topics:
Katie Miranda
About Katie Miranda

Katie Miranda is an illustrator, jewelry designer, calligrapher, and cartoonist living in Portland, OR. Her Arabic calligraphy jewelry and apparel are favorites of people in the Palestine solidarity community. Katie runs Palbox: a quarterly subscription box containing Palestinian goods benefiting the Northern California branch of the International Solidarity Movement. Connect on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

Other posts by .


Posted In:

17 Responses

  1. annie
    annie
    August 10, 2016, 4:31 pm

    katie! you soooo rock!

  2. silamcuz
    silamcuz
    August 11, 2016, 1:09 am

    Katie, don’t you think the media has some sort of responsiblity in conveying with urgency and fervour the wide-ranging implications of a Trump premiership? If they are making money whilst doing so, is that wrong?

    • Theo
      Theo
      August 11, 2016, 8:45 am

      silamcuz

      You mean no responsibility, no ethic and no class is needed, the only interest is to make a profit? No wonder the world says: in the USA you can do anything as long as you make a buck, and this is not ment to be a compliment!

    • annie
      annie
      August 11, 2016, 1:45 pm

      not sure if the media thinks informing the public is it’s responsibility

      http://fair.org/uncategorized/inform-the-public-not-my-job-says-chuck-todd/

      “Inform the Public? Not My Job, Says Chuck Todd”

      NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd‘s declaration that it’s not his job to inform viewers when politicians spread misinformation was noted by several progressive blogs today…

      here’s another http://www.politicususa.com/2014/12/28/chuck-todd-defends-challenging-republican-lies-meet-press.html

      and i watched a video from a tweet the other day w/chuck todd saying the same thing — but i can’t find it now! the media has the responsibility to counter lies with truth, like trumps statement about arabs celebrating in new jersey, but they don’t do it. or with obama care, it’s not their jobs to just run allegation after allegation of lies just for the hits and coverage, it’s their job to present facts. but inflammation after inflammation drives traffic. and makes the money.

      so it’s not their job to “convey implication”, it’s their job to present facts, not about just the fact someone says something, but researching and countering it with facts if a politicians statements are false.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        August 13, 2016, 1:26 am

        I believe assigning what we consider as “real jobs” to private entities that sell a product to consumers is a bit too wayward in reasoning.

        I’m sure everybody, if asked whether the news should present facts and counter lies instead of the biased coverage and analysis of speech and events, would agree to the former.

        The thing is, not everybody is a stakeholder in media corporations, and thus should realistically have no say on how the corp is being run apart from choosing not to consume its products. Private news media is not run on taxpayer money nor are they set up as social service entities. They require great amount of money, time, manpower and skill to run and to continue existing and none of these come from the general public.

        They are sourced from private individuals who choose to expend the resources in the pursuit of self-interests. And private people with similar interests pool their resources in order to maximize the ability to secure their goals, leading to the huge national media corps we have today, like MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Fox, etc. Each represent the interests of a particular sector of American society, never the whole.

        So, at the end of the day, unless we as a people are the ones who are paying to run these news network, we don’t get to say what their jobs are.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 13, 2016, 1:00 pm

        “So, at the end of the day, unless we as a people are the ones who are paying to run these news network, we don’t get to say what their jobs are.”

        That’s good old “Silamcuz”, our house “progressive”.

        No public TV or radio for him! And no responsibility on the part of media to balance freedom of the press and use of public resources like the airwaves.

      • annie
        annie
        August 13, 2016, 2:37 pm

        for heaven’s sakes mooser, don’t even refer to the airwaves as public resources!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 13, 2016, 3:03 pm

        “for heaven’s sakes mooser, don’t even refer to the airwaves as public resources! “

        What can I say? I’m a relic of the ‘pre-progressive’ age.

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        August 14, 2016, 2:23 am

        And no responsibility on the part of media to balance freedom of the press and use of public resources like the airwaves.

        I don’t understand, is it really the private media’s responsibility to monitor and balance the use of public airwaves? I’m sure the government has its own instrumental bodies for such purposes as the legal sovereign of the land. I believe the only responsiblity private media has it to operate within the legal confines of the system, which I am certain companies like MSNBC, FOX, Al Jazeera etc do.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        August 14, 2016, 5:29 pm

        “I’m sure the government has its own instrumental bodies for such purposes…”

        This is too much!
        Why if “Silamcuz” was any more “progressive” he’d be a goddam Commie!

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        August 15, 2016, 12:15 am

        “I’m sure the government has its own instrumental bodies for such purposes…”

        This is too much!
        Why if “Silamcuz” was any more “progressive” he’d be a goddam Commie!

        Not sure where is this commie thing is coming from. The government representing the interests of all civilians make and enforce the laws pertaining to the use of public resource such as airwaves for broadcasting. Private entities like CNN or MSNBC have no say in it since they operate under strict regulation by the government bodies like the FCC.

        If you feel these evil news companies are not balancing the freedom of the press and use of public resources like the airwaves enough you have a few choices as citizen of a democratic country. The first would obviously be filing a complaint with the FCC, or your local and state representatives. Maybe even organise a class-action lawsuit.

        The other thing you can do right now, is to obtain a controlling interest within the company itself and change how the company is run from the inside.

        I don’t know about you, but none of these sound commie to me. Seems like the standard practice pretty much in every democratic countries in the world.

    • Katie Miranda
      Katie Miranda
      August 11, 2016, 3:04 pm

      Silamcuz:
      1) yes
      2) no

      • silamcuz
        silamcuz
        August 12, 2016, 4:23 am

        Silamcuz: 1) yes 2) no

        I am glad to be in agreement with you, Katie.

  3. Vera Gottlieb
    Vera Gottlieb
    August 11, 2016, 9:28 am

    As an American journalist put it recently: you are voting either for peace or for war. Take your pick.

    • jd65
      jd65
      August 11, 2016, 6:05 pm

      Hey Vera:

      As an American journalist put it recently: you are voting either for peace or for war. Take your pick.

      Do you recall which journalist? Depending on the context of the comment, he or she could have been implying that voting one or another specific candidate would be voting for war, whereas voting another specific candidate would be voting for peace. I’d be very interested to know which, if any, specific candidate this particular journalist feels would be a vote for peace…

      • Theo
        Theo
        August 12, 2016, 8:57 am

        jd65

        Since a century in the USA we did not have a single president who would qualify for being a peaceful person. Even Wilson was pusuaded to join the bash of WWI in Europe, after he tried not to get involved.
        In case of the present candidates: in my opinion Hillary already proved how bloodthirsty she can be, “We saw, we came, he died, said with a hamish joy”, so if she becomes the president we can bet on another rounds of “fighting terrorism” someplace in the world.
        Trump is a proven idiot, but an unwritten page. He may just do what he says, withdraw our troops from far away lands, be friendly with Russia, instead of a constant twist, do not get involved in civil wars of other nations and finally spend the money not for war, but for rebuilding this crumbling land. In that case he may just qualify for being a peaceful president, if his advisers do not stir him in the wrong direction.
        I personally do not trust either of them for different reasons.

      • jd65
        jd65
        August 12, 2016, 7:44 pm

        @ Theo:

        Since a century in the USA we [have not had] a single president who would qualify for being a peaceful person.

        Agreed.

        In that case [Trump] may just qualify for being a peaceful president, if…

        You’re much more “optimistic” than I, concerning Trump. And if I’m completely honest w/ you, “optimistic” isn’t the word closest to my feeling.

        My point in asking Vera which journalist she got that quote from was determine if it was basically concerning Trump/Clinton. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who thinks that a vote for either one of them is a vote for peace is… ahh… Naive. To put it lightly. But I’m a loser w/ nothing…

Leave a Reply