Questions for our American friends

[JCat]

Originally Posted by Greenman

In this country at football matches(what you call Soccer) our fans sing songs and have their own chants for individual players-I don't think I've ever heard of Americans doing that for their teams-is this true or do you have something to chant other than "USA, USA!"

If you mean for individual players, like a star quarterback, the answer is no, not songs per se. But some college and pro American football teams have some very familiar music that their fans love. In fact, the band is a big part of any game, from high school to the pro level, especially when they play their team's "fight song". At the University of Michigan, it is "Hail to the Victors". The fans in the stands sing along. (In my father's day as a student there the band literally ran out onto the field while playing their instruments perfectly.) In the NFL, a well known example is "Hail to the Redskins" which is sung by their D.C. area fans as well. Both of the melodies (and a few of the lyrics) of these would be recognized by most of the American men here because of TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mURDwg_wilE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVfFzbRuc4

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Oh boy are they ever. There are some on both sides. More towards the left but there are some to the right. Supposedly about 80% are against Trump and dthe rest who the hell knows??? Fox is definitely right.
Rachel Mad cow is oh yes she is left. Very little news reported in the US, IMO, is not with out some bias. I do not even watch daily news. I only watch 5 Sunday shows that appear to me to be relatively balanced.

We have to be careful to consider the lens with which we view things. During the past 8 years, it appeared to me that the press was firmly in the hands of conservatives and overly critical of Obama. I will bet that most of us only watch or read commentary that conforms to our philosophical bent. But, I have been reading a lot of U.S. political history lately, and one thing stands out. The press always holds the feet of those in power to the fire. For example, FDR was a lot more popular with the people than we was with the press.

Trump is such an easy target. He has managed to alienate several Republican heavy hitters in less than two months. The guy is really politically inept, as are many of his closest advisors. Couple this with a press that wakes up everyday looking to play "gotcha," and the Donald is in for a very rough ride.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

I've been watching a few videos on hughtube about the presidential election and result post reaction and I was particularly struck by the overt anti-Trump rhetoric by a few tv presenters. Chief amongst these was Rachel Maddow. So I'd like to know if US tv channels are seen as partisan to any degree or is it just a few presenters who are there to voice opinions.

First, there must be a distinction made between actual news programming and that of political commentary. While some of it is a blur (e.g. editorializing and reporting it as news), there should be emphasis on separating fact from opinion. It's getting increasingly difficult.

The American media gets more partisan as time goes on.

On the left you have: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS on the air; the New York Times, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today (and all the Gannett-owned locals), LA Times, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Time Magazine, etc. in print.

On the right you have: Fox News; the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal; and the lot of talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, etc.)

If you look at political contributions from media to presidential candidates, the democrats have a 90% - 10% advantage over the republicans. Objective journalism is dead and gone. The people can't be trusted to process raw facts for themselves.. they must be told what they just heard or saw as they're not smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

Originally Posted by Brian249x

We have to be careful to consider the lens with which we view things. During the past 8 years, it appeared to me that the press was firmly in the hands of conservatives and overly critical of Obama.

I must have missed that as I never saw the media do anything but pander to Obama. Regardless of what he did, or was trying to do. They were often willing accomplices in distracting the public from what was really going on with over emphasis on things that weren't really news. He was never held to account, and was never asked anything but softball questions during interviews. Other than Fox, the only time I recall reading anything even remotely critical of Obama came from the UK press. Same goes for Hillary during the last campaign.

Part of that comes from political correctness-- having been America's first black president, the majority of America was, for lack of a better term, afraid to disagree with him lest they be seen as racist. For whatever reason, it wasn't acceptable to disagree philosophically without crossing some imaginary line into "the only reason you disagree is because he's black". And he used it.

Today, the media is still trying to figure out how "they" lost to President Trump. How their own polls were so wrong.. looking for excuses (the Russians), scapegoats (Podesta), and anything else they can use to save face. It's getting silly.

Now we have the continual coverage of massive outrage over this racist pig in the white house. Manufactured disgust, staged riots (er.. um.. I mean 'protests') all to try and give credence to the illusion that most of America never sleeps over the agony of Trump being elected. How dare this outsider actually win an election?

It's not working. Trump blows right past the media direct to the people via twitter, public appearances, and calling the media out every time they embellish on the facts. For me, it's fun to watch these people so used to having things their own way try to figure out what happened to their world.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Decadence

First, there must be a distinction made between actual news programming and that of political commentary. While some of it is a blur (e.g. editorializing and reporting it as news), there should be emphasis on separating fact from opinion. It's getting increasingly difficult.

The American media gets more partisan as time goes on.

On the left you have: CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS on the air; the New York Times, the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, USA Today (and all the Gannett-owned locals), LA Times, SF Chronicle, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Time Magazine, etc. in print.

On the right you have: Fox News; the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal; and the lot of talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Mike Savage, etc.)

If you look at political contributions from media to presidential candidates, the democrats have a 90% - 10% advantage over the republicans. Objective journalism is dead and gone. The people can't be trusted to process raw facts for themselves.. they must be told what they just heard or saw as they're not smart enough to figure it out for themselves.

I must have missed that as I never saw the media do anything but pander to Obama. Regardless of what he did, or was trying to do. They were often willing accomplices in distracting the public from what was really going on with over emphasis on things that weren't really news. He was never held to account, and was never asked anything but softball questions during interviews. Other than Fox, the only time I recall reading anything even remotely critical of Obama came from the UK press. Same goes for Hillary during the last campaign.

In point of fact, the American press has always had a partisan cast. This has been greatly reduced with the rise of the Associated Press and its commitment to objective reporting. I would submit that your post illustrates my caveat as your politics tends towards right of center.

The mainstream networks have devolved into entertainment media. Since the polls show most Americans, especially those in the prized marketing demographics, tend to be liberal, it is not surprising to find the Big Three to have a liberal bias.

I find the characterization of CNN as left wing amusing. I was constantly irritated by their excessive airtime devoted to Donald Trump during the last campaign. It amounted to millions of dollars of free campaign advertising.

I don't watch much TV news of any stripe as they all make we want to stand up, scream obscenities and throw things. It is much better for my blood pressure and peace of mind to abstain.

[Decadence]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The mainstream networks have devolved into entertainment media. Since the polls show most Americans, especially those in the prized marketing demographics, tend to be liberal, it is not surprising to find the Big Three to have a liberal bias

Agreed... here's a few examples, primarily reflecting on the Obama years:

ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary.

ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood.

CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.

NBC General Counsel Kimberley D. Harris served as White House Deputy Counsel and Deputy Assistant to Obama.

ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, Obama's National Security Adviser.

Susan Rice is the one who went on the five Sunday talk shows blaming Benghazi on a video... A talking point put forth by Ben Rhodes, Security Adviser for Strategic Communications... CBS News President David Rhodes just happens to be Ben Rhodes' brother.

Both CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, have siblings that not only worked at the White House for President Obama, but they worked at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.

And from the Clintons:

CNBC vice president of communications Brian Steel worked in the Bill Clinton White House for Vice President Al Gore and held three different positions in the Clinton administration, including two in Clinton’s Department of Justice.

ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos donated $75,000 to the Clinton's personal “charity” was a top operative in Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and then served as communications director of his White House.

Two of the recent presidential debates between Clinton and Trump were moderated by Anderson Cooper (CNN), and Matt Lauer (NBC). Both of which, along with Katie Couric, are listed as listed as “notable past members” on the Clinton Global Initiative’s website.

I'm sure there's more, but I'll need a beer break before continuing...

[ultimatewarlord]

Now, here's a series of questions that may have different answers because there may be different laws for some states.
I enjoy youtube videos were people are seen to exert authority they don't possess. This started with an interest on private parking tickets in the UK and expanded to bailiffs and security guards who have zero power in the UK although many British people probably don't realise. I've now graduated from American law enforcement trying to stop people videoing/photographing and the issue of trespass has often arisen. In the UK trespass is a civil matter and not criminal but in the US videos the filmer is threatened with arrest for trespass. Is trespass a criminal matter in the US and an instant arrestable offence?
Secondly, I have seen a few videos taken around scientology property and security have detained and handcuffed people. Is this lawful. Oh, and scientology really seems and sinister organisation.
If anyone wants a laugh, this is my favorite youtube video. A female security guard who doesn't have a clue about the law and can't deal mentally with the idea that someone may challenge her despite her hi-vis coat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1gGeBxcAEw

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by ultimatewarlord

Now, here's a series of questions that may have different answers because there may be different laws for some states.
I enjoy youtube videos were people are seen to exert authority they don't possess. This started with an interest on private parking tickets in the UK and expanded to bailiffs and security guards who have zero power in the UK although many British people probably don't realise. I've now graduated from American law enforcement trying to stop people videoing/photographing and the issue of trespass has often arisen. In the UK trespass is a civil matter and not criminal but in the US videos the filmer is threatened with arrest for trespass. Is trespass a criminal matter in the US and an instant arrestable offence?
Secondly, I have seen a few videos taken around scientology property and security have detained and handcuffed people. Is this lawful. Oh, and scientology really seems and sinister organisation.
If anyone wants a laugh, this is my favorite youtube video. A female security guard who doesn't have a clue about the law and can't deal mentally with the idea that someone may challenge her despite her hi-vis coat.

There is federal and state statutes. You are correct in thinking they vary.
If you are really serious here ya go.

https://www.signs.com/blog/state-by-...-laws-signage/

[Greenman]

I am slightly confused. If you call what we call a pavement, a sidewalk, then what is a pavement to you. I ask this because if you listen to a song about what is under the road sung by 14 Karat Soul on Sesame Street(Down Below the Street) they mention the pavement and sidewalk-so can someone explain the difference-thanks.

[cicciobuki]

Originally Posted by Greenman

I am slightly confused. If you call what we call a pavement, a sidewalk, then what is a pavement to you. I ask this because if you listen to a song about what is under the road sung by 14 Karat Soul on Sesame Street(Down Below the Street) they mention the pavement and sidewalk-so can someone explain the difference-thanks.

Isn't the pavement just the surface of a sidewalk?

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by cicciobuki

Isn't the pavement just the surface of a sidewalk?

No. The pavement is the road surface - what we'd call the carriageway or tarmacked bit...the grey bit.

All a mite confusing to the unwary.