Anderson Cooper: people who decided they're done with CNN after the recent debacle are choosing a Trump-free "silo"

No Anderson, Trump's lies, treason, and criminality have permeated every fucking corner of American life. Dropping CNN like a sack full of angry vipers will not end that in any way. It'll just give CNN what it deserves for participating in the damage.

If this is true, that prime-time Trump infomercial was an even more shameful act of journalistic malpractice on CNN's part than was previously understood.

Allowing audience members to applaud - but not boo or express disapproval - doesn't report the story, it materially alters it. It creates the false impression that Trump and his odious policies and behavior are more popular than they are.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/republican-at-trump-town-hall-says-many-in-audience-were-disgusted-or-bewildered-by-ex-president/

(HT @lauren)

Don't listen to anyone who says "likes don't matter" on here.

Yes, it's true that there's no algorithm for them to feed.

But letting people you know that you like what they're sharing, that you agree with them, that they're not just shouting into an empty abyss? That matters.

Brennan Center for Justice

EXPERT BRIEF
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

Michael Waldman
PUBLISHED: May 20, 2014

“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

From Scientific American: We don't rely on randomized trials for seat belts or parachutes, so why are some people cherry-picking bad data from bad trials to discount the obvious and longstanding benefits of masks?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/masks-work-distorting-science-to-dispute-the-evidence-doesnt/

You already know the answer...