black321 wrote:
I do not agree with that if we are talking about the editorial pages of newspapers. I do think that the advent and proliferation of 24-hour cable news outlets has  blurred the lines.

 steeler wrote:
Right, but media does a good job confusing the consumer that it is also news. 

 black321 wrote:

Of course, as you know, editorials are opinions and are meant to be so. 

 kcar wrote: And Whelan has been in jail for four years for doing nothing. Or if he is a spy, working for the US, and Griner a few months for self inflicted stupidity.  

Listen, this isn’t the worst thing going on in the world or the US.  We can move on.  
Regarding the media, there is still plenty of good reporting, but you need to stay out of the editorials. Yesterday the Wall Street journal had a very good piece explaining how the US were trying to negotiate a two for one exchange but Russia wouldn’t agree. So we chose Griner over Whelan.  Then in the op-ed section, there was the blatant, biased conservative ranting.  

 black321 wrote:

Bout has been in custody/prison for 14 years, right? My guess is that others have filled his shoes when it comes to arms dealing. His release is likely more of a PR win for Putin than anything else.

 Steely_D wrote:

Well they are all elites and stuff but we stay at holiday inn express, so checkmate. 

 steeler wrote:

No disagreement about the value of a legit Fourth Estate. However, that's not, e.g., FoxNews or The Epoch Times, etc.  But staid, considered, professional reportage isn't the norm any more. Instead, it's hyperbole and vitriol.

It's a common woe: what news source can you read that'll tell you what's happening without bias? Who replaces Uncle Walt?

 Steely_D wrote:
I do not agree with this reasoning writ large. Of course those in the government involved with the negotiations for the exchange know more about what led to the exchange than laypeople â€” or anyone not involved with this particular negotiation even if they have experience in other similar negotiations. If that alone carried the day, as you imply in your final paragraph, no one should ever question  a governmental action.  The Vietnam War proves otherwise. One of the primary jobs of the media is to ask questions of the government regarding actions taken or not taken. By design, it is to serve as a check on the three branches of government, which is why it also is tagged as being the Fourth Estate. 

Disclaimer: I am opining generally here on the role of the media and not on the merits of the Griner exchange. And I am talking about the professional media, not laypeople ranting on the internet from their armchairs and basements. 

 haresfur wrote:
And the media, including the internet, is a big problem there. You figure that the folks making the deal have considered the same issues as laypeople - plus knowing a lot of the behind-the-scenes details. So, making the deal wasn't something done superficially.

But the press, especially the press that's not good about doing their research, just about gathering shocked eyeballs, feels the financial drive to get you to read their exposé - no matter how poorly considered it is. And the internet rage machine jumps right in with their own opinion, straight from their armchairs and basements. And our enemies jump in, too, to make sure we feel bad about our nation.

So, do we assume we know more about the dealings of the government than the people actually doing the job? Of course we do! Cause, you know, 'Merica!

 black321 wrote:
No it's every bit of the peace process that can't move forward if everyone is too afraid of looking like they got a bad deal so no one is willing to bend enough to make a deal.

 haresfur wrote:

My personal opinion was that while I'm happy she is out of jail/russia, we got the raw end of the deal... which is fairly obvious. 
These things happen all the time, so it is important to set precedent.
And I do not believe the key issues in Palestine have to do with prisoner swaps. 

 black321 wrote:
Well I think it is pretty sick for people to worry that it was a horribly bad deal swapping someone who had already served ten years in order to get a person who had committed a pretty minor, if stupid, crime out of a Russian prison so it shouldn't have been done. I mean, so what? Is American pride so freaking fragile that fear of looking like you didn't get as much out of a deal as someone else means paralysis is a better option?

I once read an article where the author said one of the big reasons the Israeli-Palestinian  conflict will never end is that both sides are afraid of looking like they got the worse deal in any agreement.

What kind of a deal is it to swap Brittney Griner, a basketball player
who openly hates our Country, for the man known as “The Merchant of
Death,” who is one of the biggest arms dealers anywhere in the World,
and responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries.
Why wasn’t former Marine Paul Whelan included in this totally one-sided
transaction? He would have been let out for the asking. What a “stupid”
and unpatriotic embarrassment for the USA!!!

Small fry

 kurtster wrote:

No, not only republicans.

 kurtster wrote:

And yet he'll still be President. 
Not even impeached twice nor stealing classified documents to his golf resort.

 black321 wrote: 
I can't wait to see his new approval rating taken after the prisoner swap.

It will be interesting since it seems that only republicans are upset with it.

 islander wrote:

Wow!  
That's as impressive as Biden's demographic approval trends
https://www.reuters.com/graphi...

 westslope wrote:
Appeasement! Surrender monkeys!

 westslope wrote:


https://slate.com/news-and-pol...

Kyrsten Sinema Has Brought the Entire State of Arizona Together (in Thinking She Sucks)

 oldviolin wrote:

More like she promised to be one thing to the voters in her district and spoke out on goals and ideals that they seemed to support. But once elected, she did a 180 and either gave up on them or actively opposed them. Lots of questions about why, but money does appear to be involved.