Progressive Ideology

[a fan]

Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

Bingo !

Yes, but we're here, aren't we? I don't know anyone in real life who thinks REMOTELY like you.

And I learn from you. And the others here.

[Farfromgeneva]

Oh man, I should've used that one after the ageism victim playing quip. "I learned it from you dad"

[a fan]

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there. What would you expect him to do, sugarcoat it?

Cronkite just read the news, and didn't give opinion....ok. But you understand that this, too, is an editorial choice, right? The Big Three networks CHOSE to simply parrot what the .gov told them. This was a CHOICE. You, Kram and Old Salt are trying to sell me that this is a 'neutral' position. It ain't, fellas. Simply regurgitating the news isn't neutral. It's bad journalism, because it assumes----in the context of Vietnam----that the people in power are telling the truth. We all know that they were feeding Cronkite and others a barrel of buffalo bagels.

This means, of course, that prior to that famous YouTube clip? Cronkite was enabling the governments lies by NOT speaking truth to power, and NOT investigating the war. He just read the news. Not good, either, IMHO.

Of course, I'm using Cronkite as a representation of all three networks. But this is why the left couldn't stand the MSM in your time....they realized that, like the US government, the Media was lying to them.

Like farfromgeneva? I have no interest in going back to those days where the .gov did whatever they wanted, and the media just let them do it with no scrutiny.

But yes, today isn't ideal either, I'll grant you that!

[Farfromgeneva]

It almost sounds sometimes like the complaint is the speed at which the world has flattened and is moving too fast for some folks to handle and they'd prefer a simpler time even with all it's warts and just kind of pretends America was so much better than for everybody.

[old salt]

Echo chambers grew. And here we are today at Fanlax with people shouting at others because they don't like to have their echo-chamber dampened.

Bingo !

Yes, but we're here, aren't we? I don't know anyone in real life who thinks REMOTELY like you.

And I learn from you. And the others here.

That's ok, you'll become wiser with age.

[old salt]

It almost sounds sometimes like the complaint is the speed at which the world has flattened and is moving too fast for some folks to handle and they'd prefer a simpler time even with all it's warts and just kind of pretends America was so much better than for everybody.

Maybe, if you're a glass half empty type looking through a glass darkly.

Things seem great to me now, but then they always did.
I'm grateful for the internet & all the information now available at my fingertips.
I recall how limited & slow moving things were before. I don't take it for granted.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, it's time the govt tells Facebook, Google, Twitter what to do.

Well, at least you're not in denial as to what you want to happen. We'll see how long this pro-government mentality lasts when the D's are making these calls.

Which companies are next, tech? Can the left get in power and break up FoxNews? Or tell them what shows and stories to run?

You keep claiming you're not a Republican----but you sure do like everything they do. If you could wake Ronnie Reagan up----you'd have to explain it to him a few dozens times before he told you to F off if you think it's a good idea to make the government FORCE Facebook to publish what someone else wants them to publish.


"The Squad", that upsets you to no end, would like nothing more than to use your idea of telling corporations and companies what they can and cannot do.....

You miss the point -- he's for protecting free speech, not restricting it, as the Big Tech companies are now doing.

ok Q.

You appear to have moved on from your Russia boogeyman non-substantive trolling personal insult.
Q is your new over-blown boogeyman. Better luck this time.

Glad you're following along...want to get a connection beyond yourself?
Russian trolls have been very active in accelerating and amplifying the QAnon phenomenon...

[old salt]

Yes, it's time the govt tells Facebook, Google, Twitter what to do.

Well, at least you're not in denial as to what you want to happen. We'll see how long this pro-government mentality lasts when the D's are making these calls.

Which companies are next, tech? Can the left get in power and break up FoxNews? Or tell them what shows and stories to run?

You keep claiming you're not a Republican----but you sure do like everything they do. If you could wake Ronnie Reagan up----you'd have to explain it to him a few dozens times before he told you to F off if you think it's a good idea to make the government FORCE Facebook to publish what someone else wants them to publish.


"The Squad", that upsets you to no end, would like nothing more than to use your idea of telling corporations and companies what they can and cannot do.....

You miss the point -- he's for protecting free speech, not restricting it, as the Big Tech companies are now doing.

ok Q.

You appear to have moved on from your Russia boogeyman non-substantive trolling personal insult.
Q is your new over-blown boogeyman. Better luck this time.

Glad you're following along...want to get a connection beyond yourself?
Russian trolls have been very active in accelerating and amplifying the QAnon phenomenon...

I haven't checked under my bed lately. Keep us advised.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, it's time the govt tells Facebook, Google, Twitter what to do.

Well, at least you're not in denial as to what you want to happen. We'll see how long this pro-government mentality lasts when the D's are making these calls.

Which companies are next, tech? Can the left get in power and break up FoxNews? Or tell them what shows and stories to run?

You keep claiming you're not a Republican----but you sure do like everything they do. If you could wake Ronnie Reagan up----you'd have to explain it to him a few dozens times before he told you to F off if you think it's a good idea to make the government FORCE Facebook to publish what someone else wants them to publish.


"The Squad", that upsets you to no end, would like nothing more than to use your idea of telling corporations and companies what they can and cannot do.....

You miss the point -- he's for protecting free speech, not restricting it, as the Big Tech companies are now doing.

ok Q.

You appear to have moved on from your Russia boogeyman non-substantive trolling personal insult.
Q is your new over-blown boogeyman. Better luck this time.

Glad you're following along...want to get a connection beyond yourself?
Russian trolls have been very active in accelerating and amplifying the QAnon phenomenon...

I haven't checked under my bed lately. Keep us advised.

I haven't checked under your bed either, I'll leave that to you and whoever you choose to share your space with...

[old salt]

It's like saying, "man I wish news was like back in the day when I have very little idea what's going on inside or outside my country unless I get it from one of maybe five places". Would you trade more civilized news that's more (selective and what others want the public to know) "fact" delivery exclusively if you had to go back to the environment of the 1960s?

Perhaps, but I never felt better informed than in the '70's & '80's, when I was stationed abroad. In addition to daily intel summary message traffic, there was a copy of the Stars & Stripes & the International Herald Tribune on my doorstep every morning. The IHT was a compendium of the NY Times & Wash Post. ...& no tv was more informative than Charlie Rose's interviews. Of course, we didn't have Rachel Maddow or Marcy Wheeler to analyze it for us.

[njbill]

IHT was a great paper. Essential reading for an American abroad. Sports coverage was a little skimpy, though.

[old salt]

IHT was a great paper. Essential reading for an American abroad. Sports coverage was a little skimpy, though.

...that's where Stars & Stripes came in. They picked up the AP & UPI wire service.
Had box scores, standings, short game blurb, sports feature stories as well as wire service news.
The IHT was great, but it was old news for old geezers.

[cradleandshoot]

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there. What would you expect him to do, sugarcoat it?

Cronkite just read the news, and didn't give opinion....ok. But you understand that this, too, is an editorial choice, right? The Big Three networks CHOSE to simply parrot what the .gov told them. This was a CHOICE. You, Kram and Old Salt are trying to sell me that this is a 'neutral' position. It ain't, fellas. Simply regurgitating the news isn't neutral. It's bad journalism, because it assumes----in the context of Vietnam----that the people in power are telling the truth. We all know that they were feeding Cronkite and others a barrel of buffalo bagels.

This means, of course, that prior to that famous YouTube clip? Cronkite was enabling the governments lies by NOT speaking truth to power, and NOT investigating the war. He just read the news. Not good, either, IMHO.

Of course, I'm using Cronkite as a representation of all three networks. But this is why the left couldn't stand the MSM in your time....they realized that, like the US government, the Media was lying to them.

Like farfromgeneva? I have no interest in going back to those days where the .gov did whatever they wanted, and the media just let them do it with no scrutiny.

But yes, today isn't ideal either, I'll grant you that!

Cronkite was not just reading the news when he made his comments about Vietnam. Cronkite went to Vietnam and talked to the commanders and the soldiers on the ground. He came to his conclusions all on his own. The US was in the middle of intense combat at the time. There was nobody more trusted among the American people than Walter Cronkite. Your portrayal of Cronkite as some sort of network media puppet is frankly non-sense IMO. It was a huge gamble for him to step in front of all America and state his opinion on what he saw first hand that war was a stalemate and that would never change. Cronkite's opinion is the reason Johnson did not run for president in 1968. American people were finally told the truth about the futility of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam. In most instances during that era of the 1960s the government was lying to the media. I don't think media had the resources to do the type of investigative research and reporting they do today. The government sugarcoated what was going on in Vietnam from the moment the US began taking over an active combat role. if a reporter wanted to question what the government was doing that would have been a death sentence for their career. I can only imagine what the media and the journalists would have reported had they had the freedom to do so.

[tech37]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrew ... 320c1d10b3

"Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege. In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation. Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20. Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight."

Ya und??

Just lookin out for "free speech."

And this article puts to rest the lies advanced by the left that Parler was the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan and the basis for the app's removal.

FTR: You won't find me on any social media but Fanlax.

Others have responded to other aspects of this nonsense, but your post does bring a question to mind: where have you seen the "left" advancing the notion, much less "lies" that "the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan.." ??? Not here on Fanlax certainly...BTW, didn't you send me to YouTube for a podcast you follow? How'd you find that?

Everything I've read, heard, whether from the "left" or otherwise was that FaceBook groups was the heaviest used area, but certainly not the only one.

When Twitter and Facebook (and it's other platforms) began to crack down on violent organizing and phony identities etc, there was a concerted effort to reestablish on Parler...that was where these groups were directing their followers to move....and it began to grow and metastasize fast...with Parler (founded by a right wing whack job) openly declaring that all such were welcome to do and say whatever they wanted...even in the midst and wake of the violent insurrection.

But organizing on Parler was just starting, relatively speaking.

Want to get to the worst of it, need to go deeper dark web. But the vast majority of outreach was where the recruited converts already were...Facebook, etc.

That's right and most of the podcasts I follow on YouTube have expressed concern that they may be next.

To add for mdlax... I get your point and I do love YouTube... watch a lot of it. It's not exactly social media though. I can turn off the "chat" column for any podcast, which I always do. No need to participate. If Google was somehow broken up, there is no doubt YouTube would survive, perhaps under a different name. Spotify, a competitor, now has Rogan, I believe the largest podcast audience of all.

[Kismet]

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there. What would you expect him to do, sugarcoat it?

Cronkite just read the news, and didn't give opinion....ok. But you understand that this, too, is an editorial choice, right? The Big Three networks CHOSE to simply parrot what the .gov told them. This was a CHOICE. You, Kram and Old Salt are trying to sell me that this is a 'neutral' position. It ain't, fellas. Simply regurgitating the news isn't neutral. It's bad journalism, because it assumes----in the context of Vietnam----that the people in power are telling the truth. We all know that they were feeding Cronkite and others a barrel of buffalo bagels.

This means, of course, that prior to that famous YouTube clip? Cronkite was enabling the governments lies by NOT speaking truth to power, and NOT investigating the war. He just read the news. Not good, either, IMHO.

Of course, I'm using Cronkite as a representation of all three networks. But this is why the left couldn't stand the MSM in your time....they realized that, like the US government, the Media was lying to them.

Like farfromgeneva? I have no interest in going back to those days where the .gov did whatever they wanted, and the media just let them do it with no scrutiny.

But yes, today isn't ideal either, I'll grant you that!

Cronkite was not just reading the news when he made his comments about Vietnam. Cronkite went to Vietnam and talked to the commanders and the soldiers on the ground. He came to his conclusions all on his own. The US was in the middle of intense combat at the time. There was nobody more trusted among the American people than Walter Cronkite. Your portrayal of Cronkite as some sort of network media puppet is frankly non-sense IMO. It was a huge gamble for him to step in front of all America and state his opinion on what he saw first hand that war was a stalemate and that would never change. Cronkite's opinion is the reason Johnson did not run for president in 1968. American people were finally told the truth about the futility of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam. In most instances during that era of the 1960s the government was lying to the media. I don't think media had the resources to do the type of investigative research and reporting they do today. The government sugarcoated what was going on in Vietnam from the moment the US began taking over an active combat role. if a reporter wanted to question what the government was doing that would have been a death sentence for their career. I can only imagine what the media and the journalists would have reported had they had the freedom to do so.

Walter learned his craft as a combat war Correspondent in Europe in WWII. His opinion was later confirmed when Neal Sheehan of the NYT broke the Pentagon Papers story a few years later in 1971. That story revealed how the DoD and government was fabricating material to support their continued war effort when they actually knew the truth and that they knew the futility all along.

BTW Cronkite's title from 1963 on was Managing Editor so although he delivered the news during his 30 minute broadcast, the content of what he delivered was up to him.

[cradleandshoot]

Come on a Fan, are you that young of a whippersnapper that you don't understand the context how and why that Cronkite made that report. That report was the primary reason Johnson decided not to run for president in 1968. He lost Cronkite and finally realized he got the USA involved in a war they could never win. Cronkite reported what he saw with his own eyes when he went to Vietnam and talked to the soldiers fighting over there. What would you expect him to do, sugarcoat it?

Cronkite just read the news, and didn't give opinion....ok. But you understand that this, too, is an editorial choice, right? The Big Three networks CHOSE to simply parrot what the .gov told them. This was a CHOICE. You, Kram and Old Salt are trying to sell me that this is a 'neutral' position. It ain't, fellas. Simply regurgitating the news isn't neutral. It's bad journalism, because it assumes----in the context of Vietnam----that the people in power are telling the truth. We all know that they were feeding Cronkite and others a barrel of buffalo bagels.

This means, of course, that prior to that famous YouTube clip? Cronkite was enabling the governments lies by NOT speaking truth to power, and NOT investigating the war. He just read the news. Not good, either, IMHO.

Of course, I'm using Cronkite as a representation of all three networks. But this is why the left couldn't stand the MSM in your time....they realized that, like the US government, the Media was lying to them.

Like farfromgeneva? I have no interest in going back to those days where the .gov did whatever they wanted, and the media just let them do it with no scrutiny.

But yes, today isn't ideal either, I'll grant you that!

Cronkite was not just reading the news when he made his comments about Vietnam. Cronkite went to Vietnam and talked to the commanders and the soldiers on the ground. He came to his conclusions all on his own. The US was in the middle of intense combat at the time. There was nobody more trusted among the American people than Walter Cronkite. Your portrayal of Cronkite as some sort of network media puppet is frankly non-sense IMO. It was a huge gamble for him to step in front of all America and state his opinion on what he saw first hand that war was a stalemate and that would never change. Cronkite's opinion is the reason Johnson did not run for president in 1968. American people were finally told the truth about the futility of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam. In most instances during that era of the 1960s the government was lying to the media. I don't think media had the resources to do the type of investigative research and reporting they do today. The government sugarcoated what was going on in Vietnam from the moment the US began taking over an active combat role. if a reporter wanted to question what the government was doing that would have been a death sentence for their career. I can only imagine what the media and the journalists would have reported had they had the freedom to do so.

Walter learned his craft as a combat war Correspondent in Europe in WWII. His opinion was later confirmed when Neal Sheehan of the NYT broke the Pentagon Papers story a few years later in 1971. That story revealed how the DoD and government was fabricating material to support their continued war effort when they actually knew the truth and that they knew the futility all along.

BTW Cronkite's title from 1963 on was Managing Editor so although he delivered the news during his 30 minute broadcast, the content of what he delivered was up to him.

Thanks for that information about Cronkite. Many people on this forum forget about life in America before the age of the 24 hour news cycle. When I was growing up the only world news we had came between 6:30 and 7pm and that was it. There was Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley report. We had all of 3 channels, ABC, CBS or NBC take your pick.

[tech37]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/worl ... e=Homepage

Hey seacoaster... when convenient, would you post this article?

[seacoaster]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/worl ... e=Homepage

Hey seacoaster... when convenient, would you post this article?

Oh no!!! The French are trying to cancel the United States!!! Here you go:

"The threat is said to be existential. It fuels secessionism. Gnaws at national unity. Abets Islamism. Attacks France’s intellectual and cultural heritage.

The threat? “Certain social science theories entirely imported from the United States,’’ said President Emmanuel Macron.

French politicians, high-profile intellectuals and journalists are warning that progressive American ideas — specifically on race, gender, post-colonialism — are undermining their society. “There’s a battle to wage against an intellectual matrix from American universities,’’ warned Mr. Macron’s education minister.

Emboldened by these comments, prominent intellectuals have banded together against what they regard as contamination by the out-of-control woke leftism of American campuses and its attendant cancel culture.

Pitted against them is a younger, more diverse guard that considers these theories as tools to understanding the willful blind spots of an increasingly diverse nation that still recoils at the mention of race, has yet to come to terms with its colonial past and often waves away the concerns of minorities as identity politics.

Disputes that would have otherwise attracted little attention are now blown up in the news and social media. The new director of the Paris Opera, who said on Monday he wants to diversify its staff and ban blackface, has been attacked by the far-right leader, Marine Le Pen, but also in Le Monde because, though German, he had worked in Toronto and had “soaked up American culture for 10 years.”

The publication this month of a book critical of racial studies by two veteran social scientists, Stéphane Beaud and Gérard Noiriel, fueled criticism from younger scholars — and has received extensive news coverage. Mr. Noiriel has said that race had become a “bulldozer’’ crushing other subjects, adding, in an email, that its academic research in France was questionable because race is not recognized by the government and merely “subjective data.’’

The fierce French debate over a handful of academic disciplines on U.S. campuses may surprise those who have witnessed the gradual decline of American influence in many corners of the world. In some ways, it is a proxy fight over some of the most combustible issues in French society, including national identity and the sharing of power. In a nation where intellectuals still hold sway, the stakes are high.

With its echoes of the American culture wars, the battle began inside French universities but is being played out increasingly in the media. Politicians have been weighing in more and more, especially following a turbulent year during which a series of events called into question tenets of French society.

Mass protests in France against police violence, inspired by the killing of George Floyd, challenged the official dismissal of race and systemic racism. A #MeToo generation of feminists confronted both male power and older feminists. A widespread crackdown following a series of Islamist attacks raised questions about France’s model of secularism and the integration of immigrants from its former colonies.

Some saw the reach of American identity politics and social science theories. Some center-right lawmakers pressed for a parliamentary investigation into “ideological excesses’’ at universities and singled out “guilty’’ scholars on Twitter.

Mr. Macron — who had shown little interest in these matters in the past but has been courting the right ahead of elections next year — jumped in last June, when he blamed universities for encouraging the “ethnicization of the social question’’ — amounting to “breaking the republic in two.’’

“I was pleasantly astonished,’’ said Nathalie Heinich, a sociologist who last month helped create an organization against “decolonialism and identity politics.’’ Made up of established figures, many retired, the group has issued warnings about American-inspired social theories in major publications like Le Point and Le Figaro.

For Ms. Heinich, last year’s developments came on top of activism that brought foreign disputes over cultural appropriation and blackface to French universities. At the Sorbonne, activists prevented the staging of a play by Aeschylus to protest the wearing of masks and dark makeup by white actors; elsewhere, some well-known speakers were disinvited following student pressure.

“It was a series of incidents that was extremely traumatic to our community and that all fell under what is called cancel culture,’’ Ms. Heinich said.

To others, the lashing out at perceived American influence revealed something else: a French establishment incapable of confronting a world in flux, especially at a time when the government’s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic has deepened the sense of ineluctable decline of a once-great power.

“It’s the sign of a small, frightened republic, declining, provincializing, but which in the past and to this day believes in its universal mission and which thus seeks those responsible for its decline,’’ said François Cusset, an expert on American civilization at Paris Nanterre University.

France has long laid claim to a national identity, based on a common culture, fundamental rights and core values like equality and liberty, rejecting diversity and multiculturalism. The French often see the United States as a fractious society at war with itself.

But far from being American, many of the leading thinkers behind theories on gender, race, post-colonialism and queer theory came from France — as well as the rest of Europe, South America, Africa and India, said Anne Garréta, a French writer who teaches literature at universities in France and at Duke.

“It’s an entire global world of ideas that circulates,’’ she said. “It just happens that campuses that are the most cosmopolitan and most globalized at this point in history are the American ones. ’’

The French state does not compile racial statistics, which is illegal, describing it as part of its commitment to universalism and treating all citizens equally under the law. To many scholars on race, however, the reluctance is part of a long history of denying racism in France and the country’s slave-trading and colonial past.

“What’s more French than the racial question in a country that was built around those questions?’’ said Mame-Fatou Niang, who divides her time between France and the United States, where she teaches French studies at Carnegie Mellon University.

Ms. Niang has led a campaign to remove a fresco at France’s National Assembly, which shows two Black figures with fat red lips and bulging eyes. Her public views on race have made her a frequent target on social media, including of one of the lawmakers who pressed for an investigation into “ideological excesses’’ at universities.

Pap Ndiaye, a historian who led efforts to establish Black studies in France, said it was no coincidence that the current wave of anti-American rhetoric began growing just as the first protests against racism and police violence took place last June.

“There was the idea that we’re talking too much about racial questions in France,’’ he said. “That’s enough.’’

Three Islamist attacks last fall served as a reminder that terrorism remains a threat in France. They also focused attention on another hot-button field of research: Islamophobia, which examines how hostility toward Islam in France, rooted in its colonial experience in the Muslim world, continues to shape the lives of French Muslims.

Abdellali Hajjat, an expert on Islamophobia, said that it became increasingly difficult to focus on his subject after 2015, when devastating terror attacks hit Paris. Government funding for research dried up. Researchers on the subject were accused of being apologists for Islamists and even terrorists.

Finding the atmosphere oppressive, Mr. Hajjat left two years ago to teach at the Free University of Brussels, in Belgium, where he said he found greater academic freedom.

“On the question of Islamophobia, it’s only in France where there is such violent talk in rejecting the term,’’ he said.

Mr. Macron’s education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer, accused universities, under American influence, of being complicit with terrorists by providing the intellectual justification behind their acts.

A group of 100 prominent scholars wrote an open letter supporting the minister and decrying theories “transferred from North American campuses” in Le Monde.

A signatory, Gilles Kepel, an expert on Islam, said that American influence had led to “a sort of prohibition in universities to think about the phenomenon of political Islam in the name of a leftist ideology that considers it the religion of the underprivileged.’’

Along with Islamophobia, it was through the “totally artificial importation’’ in France of the “American-style Black question” that some were trying to draw a false picture of a France guilty of “systemic racism’’ and “white privilege,’’ said Pierre-André Taguieff, a historian and a leading critic of the American influence.

Mr. Taguieff said in an email that researchers of race, Islamophobia and post-colonialism were motivated by a “hatred of the West, as a white civilization.’’

“The common agenda of these enemies of European civilization can be summed up in three words: decolonize, demasculate, de-Europeanize,’’ Mr. Taguieff said. “Straight white male — that’s the culprit to condemn and the enemy to eliminate.”

Behind the attacks on American universities — led by aging white male intellectuals — lie the tensions in a society where power appears to be up for grabs, said Éric Fassin, a sociologist who was one of the first scholars to focus on race and racism in France, about 15 years ago.

Back then, scholars on race tended to be white men like himself, he said. He said he has often been called a traitor and faced threats, most recently from a right-wing extremist who was given a four-month suspended prison sentence for threatening to decapitate him.

But the emergence of young intellectuals — some Black or Muslim — has fueled the assault on what Mr. Fassin calls the “American boogeyman.’’

“That’s what has turned things upside down,’’ he said. “They’re not just the objects we speak of, but they’re also the subjects who are talking.’’

[tech37]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/09/worl ... e=Homepage

Hey seacoaster... when convenient, would you post this article?

Oh no!!! The French are trying to cancel the United States!!! Here you go:

Thanks for posting but not the commentary. Hey, it's NYT, not FoxNews dude.

[a fan]

Your portrayal of Cronkite as some sort of network media puppet is frankly non-sense IMO.

It's not just me that's making this claim.

YOU are making this claim. To wit:

American people were finally told the truth about the futility of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam

In most instances during that era of the 1960s the government was lying to the media.

Yes. So what happens when you "just read the news" as you, OS, Kram, and Tech are championing?

You're (Cronkite) perpetuating the lies the government tells you. You guys are upset that, among other things, the media went after Trump and his lies. Or, if you prefer, Obama and his lies.

You're all saying: shut up and read the news, and don't comment. What I'm trying, in vain, to tell you all is that there is a SERIOUS downside to "just reading the news". And that downside is: if you just "read the news", those in power skate from the ACTUAL point to a free media, because instead of probing to see if the President is lying? They show up at 530 and "just read the news".

So I'm sorry, but that means that before Cronkite got off his duff, and headed to Vietnam? He was simply parroting the lies for Kennedy and LBJ surrounding, to stick to our example, Vietnam.

As I said, when I was in my 20's and was really, really active in anti-war efforts before the Iraq War? I was LIVID at the American press, because they weren't doing their jobs, and digging into the story. Result? They enabled the Bush administrations idiotic choice to invade the ME.

So personally? As much as I hate FoxNation, and the sad direction that MSNBC headed during Trump's years? I'd take what we have now over the Cronkite era 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. The Cronkite media simply fell in line, and reported what the government told them, with very few notable exceptions.

I don't think media had the resources to do the type of investigative research and reporting they do today

Sure they did. Again: this was an editorial CHOICE. They CHOSE not to dig deeper into Vietnam. And America paid a heavy price for that.

Imagine if Cronkite had run his famous report in 1960, before Kennedy escalated things further..... instead of all the way into 1968? Could that have stopped the choice to escalate? Perhaps.

We''ll never know.