36
votes
US President Donald Trump urges world to reject globalism in UN speech that draws mocking laughter
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- World Audibly Laughs After Trump Claims His Administration Among Most Accomplished in US History During UN Address
- Authors
- Common Dreams, Common Dreams staff
- Published
- Sep 25 2018
- Word count
- 186 words
No offense, but this is a pretty bad 'article'. It's 3 sentences long and all it does is summarize a 30 second long video from MSNBC's Twitter. The article adds nothing of value that the tweet doesn't already have.
I've updated the link to point to a better article now. This was the original link, if anyone is curious (I need to add support for showing link changes in the Topic Log).
Thanks, Deimos. This was definitely a far better article.
None taken, I didn't write it!
Really the video to me is the part that's worth looking at. The American empire doesn't end with a flash or a whimper, but to the world's collective laughter. How is this President supposed to go from this to any kind of multilateral deal making? It is especially galling that Trump has said many times that he would make the world 'respect America again' - more projection from the Projector in Chief. (See: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/498008486551506945?s=20)
If the video's the part that's worth looking at, why not just link that?
I've seen video-only posts where other Tilderinos take issue with the lack of text. If someone is at work and unable to watch video, or can't get information from the video for any reason, the accompanying text describes what is in the video.
Ah, I suppose that's fair reasoning.
America doesn't end with this president, there will be another, and another, and another.
One can hope, but we'll need someone special to undo the damage of the Trump admin and adequately respond to the threat of climate change at roughly the same time.
Also he's using "patriotism" in a way that's no different than "nationalism". "Patriotism" isn't a doctrine, it's just pride in your country. Doesn't say anything about unquestioning loyalty to it.
(Removed a troll comment, and all the people feeding it)
Apologies if I contributed to anything I shouldn't have here. Definitely not trying to troll or feed trolls.
It’s hard to tell if they’re laughing because they think he’s full of shit or because it’s just such a quintessentially Trump thing to say. Either way I think the message stands.
Why not both?
The unfortunate reality of "internet journalism" right now is that the biased/sensationalized titles do better. People share/retweet/like/upvote articles based on their title and often don't even bother reading the actual article. Outlets that know how to write titles that trigger those reactions often get their posts spread far more widely than others.
You can see it a lot. Some site like The New Yorker will put out a long, detailed, in-depth piece about something with a relatively boring title, and it will get very little attention on places like /r/politics. Instead, you end up with posts from ten other sites getting far more attention where they've taken a single sensational quote/sentence out of the original New Yorker article and made that into the title/focus of a short post.
I modded /r/politicalhumor for a bit and often talked with mods of /r/politics. When you remove a post or comment or punish a left of center person for breaking rules usually one of the first things they do is accuse you of being on the right. The exact opposite happens if the person is from the right. No matter what you do, you are a shill for the other team.
People are assholes when it comes to having to be moderated, doubly so if it involves politics of any kind.
I think in cases where there's a clear source, we should always try to post the source. If someone submits an article that's basically just "according to this other site...", without adding anything significant, we should replace the link (and maybe the title as well) with the original. Ideally, I'd like to have a sort of "related links" feature where we could add additional links to the same post without needing separate ones for slightly different treatments of the same story.
When it's more of a general story like this and there isn't a specific source, I think it would be best to submit or edit to somewhere that has a more detailed article instead of something extremely minimal and sensationalized that's obviously just intended to get quick reactions. That Guardian article looks much better than the submitted one here, so maybe I should edit the title/link to point there instead.
+1, that'd be a very useful feature.
Though I'm negatively surprised with the link changing (and the topic log not having the original link). Not that I'm objecting to it (and the original article was indeed low quality), but my gut reaction was "What!? I didn't upvote this."
Yeah, I definitely understand that, it's a bit weird to change the article after people have already voted/commented, since it basically changes the context that they took those actions in.
Unfortunately, I can't really think of a better solution, and I don't think there really is a perfect one. Removing the submission entirely and making a "better" one need to start over from scratch isn't good either.
BTW I don't think it's the wrong thing to do. They do it at HN too, I do like the practice. But maybe we should indicate that somehow. There is value in retaining the old link in the topic log, IMHO. For indication just adding a field that shows the time since last edited might work. We already do it with the comments.
Yeah, it should definitely be in the topic log at least. Having it indicated somehow more prominently might be reasonable too, maybe depending on how long after submission it's changed or how significant the change is.
After posting this the title, link, and tags were all edited. I'm all for it and I think it makes this a better submission but it feels a little weird.
Reminds me a bit of the ship of Theseus.
I think this will be a better long term strategy. One of the best ways to combat low information articles and or just flat out false information is to point it out and point to the correct information. Comments can sometime do this. But realistically comments get lost in the shuffle sometimes even by the best intentioned people. Having the ability to link directly to the Post would be great for this. As well as having the benefit of crowd sourcing a deeper understanding of information.
Deep down most people are acting in good faith. Just so happens sometimes their good faith actions are horrible and based on false information.
I remember like 10 years ago various blogs started daisy chaining sourced articles where you had the click the source multiple times to finally find the original source of the article. Then slowly certain blog sites or previously credible news sites started doing it and that lazy journalism has pretty much become the norm.
Just seems like some Mother Jones/Think Progress type shitty journalism. It's always been ate up.
I've never seen anything wrong with Think Progress, but I also primarily read their LGBT reporting.
Mother Jones is shitty journalism? What outlets do you think do a good job?
I mean the explanation is pretty simple isn't it? They say what people want to hear, so they get shared. They're just another low-quality blog in a sea of bad journalism.