Y’all, look what I found on CNN

This is simply wild

x

they make me so sick in the head it’s actually unreal

"Xi Jinping is personally carrying fentanyl into the US and selling it on the streets" becoming a sensible bipartisan talking point now rly solidifies my gut feel that "China/Iran/[Bad Guys] are invading us through the southern border!" is gonna become a more & more prominent bipartisan USAmerican politician talking point like. Within the year

i found this article and now im wondering, how are we supposed to trust any of these western news sites now and in the future?

i live in a country where the news has been crucial in exposing governmental corruption, human rights violations, child exploitation, and even assassinations. i have seen how journalism has shaped movements, uplifted the voiceless, and informed the public on issues that impact them and their lives. i know journalists who put their personal safety on the line to let the world know the stories that should be told. good journalism is beautiful and life-changing.

the way that these western news sites have spread proven falsehoods has put a stain on the profession. they are a disgrace to actual journalists around the world, especially to those on the ground in Palestine - the very same journalists who are being killed by the bombs that the western news tries to justify.

am i saying that news agencies in other parts of the world are free from flaws? heck no! in fact, i highly suggest you research who actually owns the news in your country and other places in your region or have a look at the 2023 World Press Index and see where each country lies. if you're not sure what I mean by "who actually owns the news" i suggest watching John Oliver's video of the Sinclair Broadcast Group where he breaks down how a corporation can impact news coverage.

it is how the western media was so ready to spin the narrative in Israel's favour and openly support lies like "the 40 beheaded babies" without any evidence or fact-checking that is so appalling.

those lies have detrimental effects. it has played a role in the manufacturing of consent for genocide and lets people justify the further atrocities committed against the Palestinian people by the Israeli government.

journalists have a duty to speak the truth and be the voice of the people - not to be mouthpieces of the powerful.

i believe that there are many journalists in western media who are frustrated that they cannot speak the truth and my heart goes out to them. i cannot imagine being in their position. i admire the journalists who stood up for the truth even though they likely got fired or reprimanded for it.

you might say that maybe their hands are tied and they can't report the news in an objective and fair manner because of the people up top. and that comes back to my initial argument, how can i know to trust them in the future? it feels like a betrayal to the people.

these news sites need to be held accountable. in my opinion, there needs to be an overhaul in industry on a global level with proper transparency and checks and balances, we cannot continue to accept and live like this.

Here’s my personal recommendation of a article to check out:

I am once again begging and pleading all of you to please, please fact-check information before reblogging it.

Do you think the Taylor NYT piece outed her?

This question can only really be answered alongside a consideration of what it means for a major media entity to out a celebrity.

First there's what outting means for the individual. I do think it's important to distinguish between this article and what The Sun does. Taylor is very definitely not out now.

However, on the individual level there are two aspects of that piece that I think are completely unacceptable, a huge violation of boundaries, and the NYT should never have published them:

A detailed list of why the author thought that a living person who was not out was queer (including a detailed theorising that they might have been planning on coming out and then decided not to).

An extended discussion where the author talked with authority and certainty about the sexuality and experience of the sexuality of a living person who was not out (the last section).

To have those conversations in a cultural forum that has has a huge general audience and authority is a violation - and a conversation in that forum has nothing in common with the way those same discussions have been taking place in queer spaces for as long as they've existed.

I think one of the biggest indicators of the indefensibleness of publishing in the New York Times - was the explaining of 'hairpin drop'. The whole point of a hairpin drop (to quote the article itself) is that only some people will understand it. The audience for a hairpin drop is only the people who already understand it. If you're using broadcast media to explain hairpin drops to a wide audience - then that is a cultural violation as well as an individual violation. It actively kills queer culture whose purpose is to allow queer people to communicate with each other without wider straight culture noticing to write an explainer for straight people about it in NYT.

(I also don't think she did a very good job - I think Taylor has had sex with women - and I was like - none of this is convincing)

********

But I think it's a mistake to think about the media outting as just being about individuals. Media outting also has a policing role - the effect of outting in major media (and often explicitly the purpose) - is to single that someone has crossed a line - and to warn other people that there will be consequences if they cross the same line.

So my biggest concern about this article isn't about Taylor (it's never about Taylor). What this article said reasonably explicitly - is that if you engage in any form of queer culture - including culture that has been developed to explicitly talk to queer people in plain sight without being intelligible to a wider culture - then cultural norms about your right to disclose your own sexuality and right not to be outted do not apply to you. But it's not just the fact that the article was making that argument that is the problem. By publishing the article the NYT wasn't just endorsing that argument - it was enacting it.

I think the line that is being policed here is not about queerness directly - but about queer culture. The argument is that closeted people can't and shouldn't engage with any queer culture. That's the message that young queer artists who don't know how they want to discuss their sexuality publicly yet will have gotten loud and clear. It's the message that closeted kids will take - that queer culture is for when you are ready to be public about your sexuality - that it is not yours until you have taken that step - and can't be part of figuring out

That policing is the through line between this NYT pieces and other media outtings. And that is ultimately why I thought that article was destructive and wrong.

Ok, theory. So, in the past month, we’ve gotten a MAJOR Gaylor article, a leaked email, and several articles about that Big One in varying degrees of walking back or justifying. The CNN one lists her “associates” (business partners, management, etc?) as appalled by those gay rumors, specifically the gay article. But we also got that email that seemed to indicate some business shadiness on the part of Scott. So, is the CNN article perhaps meant to reference him? Or people like him? Could this be not a denial, but a non-denial using the fandom’s new knowledge of the sins of the father to craft a narrative explaining reluctance to acknowledge queer rumors? Could this be an attempt to turn vinegar into wine by subtly pointing toward Scott and other business managers/partners as culling any instance of queerness in favor of preserving a more marketable brand?

At this point in the Gaylor side of the fandom, we’ve been speculating about the possibility of homophobia from a paternal angle for a while—especially after Tolerate It. Given the new emails, and the new CNN non-denial denial, this could be trying to make the best of a situation to garner some sympathy (always a good way to soften a blow) by giving up someone to blame. This way, Taylor is the hero of the story—someone coerced into lying to please her father and business partners—and not someone who made or upheld a complex decision willingly. Even the more reluctant fans can be swayed with a little need for sympathy.

Idk just a theory. Throw your bricks, or whatever.

I love typos in news articles

Vettel completely happy

World champion Sebastian Vettel says he is "completely happy" at Red Bull Racing, admitting he is not into "myths" like Ferrari or Mercedes right now. The German has been linked with Ferrari several times, but he claims he is perfectly happy at Red Bull because it is providing him with a car to win races. "Let's get this straight. To win races is not easy; to win championships even less so, at whatever team," Vettel told Formula 1's official website. "I feel completely happy at Red Bull. Of course Ferrari and Mercedes do come with a huge legend, but I am not into myth right now. What's important for me is that, when I come from the track and look in the mirror in my hotel room, I want to be able to say, 'Yes, that's me and I am satisfied with what I see.' After Abu Dhabi it feels good to know that I don't have anything to prove to myself any more." Vettel also admitted he is not too worried about his possible future teammates, as he is aware that he needs to beat everybody to be the best.

"In the end I don't waste too many thoughts on who is my team-mate," he said in a joint interview with Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone "I want to be the best, so I have to beat them all, with the same car or any other. I would never ask my team to get me a teammate to my liking, but I expect two things from whoever has the second cockpit: honesty and respect."

call this what it is

also the fact that ppl didn't know the original gay sex cats image was ai generated says a lot i think. like of course even the most obvious stable diffusion in the world would go undetected by the average tumblr user. it is more likely that these cats serendipitously arranged themselves in a say such that the shadows and highlights on their bodies read "GAY SEX" than it is that a computer generated that image. and once you learn that a computer made it it's not funny anymore