That's not the point. The point is that DHS said that is the reason she was detained and CBS didn't report it. Why not? Newsweek did.@bradstevens if she has a criminal record, why not present the arrest records?
Forgive me, and I'm sure I'm not alone here, for not taking everything this administration says at their word in terms of rounding people up.
https://www.newsweek.com/ice-detains-woman-green-card-passed-citizenship-exam-spouse-2122663
From the CBS article:
CBS News Los Angeles has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further information on Moghadam's detainment, but has not yet heard back.
I'm not a smart man, but that could have been the reason why.
Maybe don't publish the story until you hear back? How did Newsweek happen to do it? Or at least edit the piece to include the new information but CBS did not?That's not the point. The point is that DHS said that is the reason she was detained and CBS didn't report it. Why not? Newsweek did.@bradstevens if she has a criminal record, why not present the arrest records?
Forgive me, and I'm sure I'm not alone here, for not taking everything this administration says at their word in terms of rounding people up.
https://www.newsweek.com/ice-detains-woman-green-card-passed-citizenship-exam-spouse-2122663
From the CBS article:
CBS News Los Angeles has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further information on Moghadam's detainment, but has not yet heard back.
I'm not a smart man, but that could have been the reason why.
Instead, CBS published a piece designed to appeal to people of a certain political bent and to generate outrage clicks and retweets, rather than tell a fair and balanced account of what is going on.
Is this really a higher standard than anything I can get on social media?
@bradstevens maybe homeland never got back to them. CBS isn't exactly loved.
Look at the times of the articles. The CBS one came out first, then Newsmax which then edited their article many hours later, so Newsmax ran with it as well before they had the quote.
We would both be guessing, but from my limited journalism classes, you always verify things yourself. If that doesn't happen, you can't report it. No idea if that's what happened, but sure could be.
It's on the internet. Why hasn't it been updated with the information we now know? From your limited journalism classes, is that OK?@bradstevens maybe homeland never got back to them. CBS isn't exactly loved.
Look at the times of the articles. The CBS one came out first, then Newsmax which then edited their article many hours later, so Newsmax ran with it as well before they had the quote.
We would both be guessing, but from my limited journalism classes, you always verify things yourself. If that doesn't happen, you can't report it. No idea if that's what happened, but sure could be.
And do you honestly think the reporter "verif[ied]" for herself all the allegations the husband made?
Did Newsweek/Newsmax verify the ICE quote? ICE has made other statements that proved false. I’m not fully believing either article at this point.It's on the internet. Why hasn't it been updated with the information we now know? From your limited journalism classes, is that OK?@bradstevens maybe homeland never got back to them. CBS isn't exactly loved.
Look at the times of the articles. The CBS one came out first, then Newsmax which then edited their article many hours later, so Newsmax ran with it as well before they had the quote.
We would both be guessing, but from my limited journalism classes, you always verify things yourself. If that doesn't happen, you can't report it. No idea if that's what happened, but sure could be.
And do you honestly think the reporter "verif[ied]" for herself all the allegations the husband made?
You don't "believe" the article that states what ICE's rationale is? That's weird. True or false, their stated reasoning is news, and relevant to the story. Question ICE all you want, but why would you question the report that that's what they stated?Did Newsweek/Newsmax verify the ICE quote? ICE has made other statements that proved false. I’m not fully believing either article at this point.It's on the internet. Why hasn't it been updated with the information we now know? From your limited journalism classes, is that OK?@bradstevens maybe homeland never got back to them. CBS isn't exactly loved.
Look at the times of the articles. The CBS one came out first, then Newsmax which then edited their article many hours later, so Newsmax ran with it as well before they had the quote.
We would both be guessing, but from my limited journalism classes, you always verify things yourself. If that doesn't happen, you can't report it. No idea if that's what happened, but sure could be.
And do you honestly think the reporter "verif[ied]" for herself all the allegations the husband made?
If false, then a new story emerges: did they screw up or do this intentionally? If they screwed up, why? What procedures do they have in place? Who is reviewing them? On and on.
But you never get there if the whole story is "ICE is evil. They just pick up people based on their looks and the sound of their names. They're racist!" That story is eminently more sellable, more clickable, and more satisfying to the vast majority of people who abhor nuance, complexity, and moral gray areas.
@bradstevens well if it's on the internet, it must be true! Haha
Do you know if they got back to them? I don't. Do you want them reporting something that they haven't confirmed just because another is? Speculating on my part, but you can't prove they have just like I can't prove they haven't.
I assume they didn't wait for a response and wanted to go to print/air quickly. That's not a good justification to me. Again, why haven't they updated the story?@bradstevens well if it's on the internet, it must be true! Haha
Do you know if they got back to them? I don't. Do you want them reporting something that they haven't confirmed just because another is? Speculating on my part, but you can't prove they have just like I can't prove they haven't.
-
Fairness:Providing a chance for subjects to respond ensures they are not unfairly portrayed or surprised by the information in the story.
-
Accuracy:Getting comment from all sides of a story helps achieve greater accuracy and a more complete understanding of events.
-
Objectivity:By presenting opposing views, reporters can maintain a more objective stance and reduce bias in their reporting.
-
"No-Surprises Rule":This practice suggests that a reporter should give a subject a fair opportunity to hear and comment on what will be published about them, according to Ethics and Journalism.
-
Routine Inquiry:Journalists are expected to routinely search for and include opposing views in their reporting.
-
Inclusion of Comment:Comments from people who are accused or challenged in a story must be included.
-
Timeliness vs. Fairness:Newsrooms often balance the need for timely reporting with the importance of fairness, and will sometimes wait for a subject's response before publishing to include it.
@bradstevens brother, Newsmax edited their story. Did they have the quote in their article originally or did they add it once they got the quote?
Seems like they ran with the original story and then later added the quote. Isn't that what you're bashing CBS for?
Again, from the story:
From the CBS article:
CBS News Los Angeles has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further information on Moghadam’s detainment, but has not yet heard back.
Sure does look like they've reached out to get comment but haven't heard back yet. Isn't that what they are suppose to say if they don't have a quote from them?
Unless I missed it they didn’t name the individual who made that statement at ICE.You don't "believe" the article that states what ICE's rationale is? That's weird. True or false, their stated reasoning is news, and relevant to the story. Question ICE all you want, but why would you question the report that that's what they stated?Did Newsweek/Newsmax verify the ICE quote? ICE has made other statements that proved false. I’m not fully believing either article at this point.It's on the internet. Why hasn't it been updated with the information we now know? From your limited journalism classes, is that OK?@bradstevens maybe homeland never got back to them. CBS isn't exactly loved.
Look at the times of the articles. The CBS one came out first, then Newsmax which then edited their article many hours later, so Newsmax ran with it as well before they had the quote.
We would both be guessing, but from my limited journalism classes, you always verify things yourself. If that doesn't happen, you can't report it. No idea if that's what happened, but sure could be.
And do you honestly think the reporter "verif[ied]" for herself all the allegations the husband made?
If false, then a new story emerges: did they screw up or do this intentionally? If they screwed up, why? What procedures do they have in place? Who is reviewing them? On and on.
But you never get there if the whole story is "ICE is evil. They just pick up people based on their looks and the sound of their names. They're racist!" That story is eminently more sellable, more clickable, and more satisfying to the vast majority of people who abhor nuance, complexity, and moral gray areas.
Because money supply IS the only cause if you believe Friedman. The government tightens or loosens via rates, taxes, tariffs, energy policy, regulations, etc. All these affect money supply.
Tariffs increased. Taxes were lowered. Energy prices have decreased. Deregulation has been implemented. We are waiting on rate cuts for the last offset to tariffs. Net effect on inflation? TBD.
Let's look to AI for some wage info:
Strong growth: By January 2020, before the pandemic began, real wages had increased by 3.1% over the prior three years.
Faster growth for lower-income earners: Data from the time indicated that wage growth was strongest for "rank-and-file" workers, outpacing gains for high-income workers. The lowest-earning workers saw wage growth 50% higher than the top 10% of earners between 2018 and 2019.
Decade-high growth: As of late 2019, wages were growing at their fastest annual rate in a decade, with gains consistently above 3%.
And AI on inflation:
During Donald Trump's first term (2017–2021), the U.S. generally experienced low and stable inflation, averaging around the Federal Reserve's target of 2% for the first three years. This changed significantly in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
And AI on tariffs:
The administration's most significant tariff actions were part of a trade war with China, initiated following an investigation into unfair trade practices related to technology and intellectual property. The tariffs were applied in escalating waves:
July and August 2018: The U.S. imposed 25% tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods.
September 2018: A 10% tariff was levied on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The rate was scheduled to increase to 25% on January 1, 2019.
May 2019: The 10% tariffs on the $200 billion list were increased to 25%.
Late 2019: The U.S. and China agreed to a "Phase One" trade deal, which resulted in the cancellation or reduction of some planned tariff increases, though many existing tariffs remained in place.
Recent history shows Trump's policies worked. Now I wish we controlled spending better during his first term. But that's another topic.
@ribbont yeah I don’t agree. We haven’t felt the impact of the tariffs. Further you’re missing the temporal bit. Tariffs went up but taxes haven’t come down. Again it’s push prices or whatever they call it as a cause of inflation
- Cool. I think you are looking short term while I and @snarlcakes are looking long term. Yeah, maybe tariffs increase costs (so far data shows they haven't), but if they do, then long term, offsets from lower taxes (or tax certainty), lower energy cost, lower regulatory cost, lower interest rates, and reduced govt spending ( 🙄 ), will negate the tariff effect.