SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.
Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.
In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.
Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.
Source: Fox News
(Score: 2) by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:29PM
I had conflicting thoughts on adding a counterpoint to this summary, but decided against it as it's pretty easy to see the agenda and perspective the summary is coming from...
TFA mostly uses quotes from someone who was/is a 'senior fellow for national security' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Research_Council [wikipedia.org]
But here's some other stuff...
https://thinkprogress.org/defense-secretary-mattis-women-lgbt-military-dodge-7f5ef4d85fed [thinkprogress.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BK on Friday January 13 2017, @10:15PM
We see submissions approved from sources like CNN, NPR, NYT, WaPo, etc. all the time. These sources have a clear agenda although most agree that they lean but do not topple (CNN is pressing their luck there lately though...). Hell we've even had numerous approved stories from sites like Mother Jones and Common Dreams which are beloved by certain groups but far off into looney land from the perspectives of others. We seem to do this generally without a need for commentary or opposing viewpoints.
This story came from FoxNews. Like some of those mentioned above, this source has a well established viewpoint and agenda and leans... but does not topple.
If we wanted a truly balanced discussion we would followup any Mother Jones link with something from Breitbart... Or maybe infowars. Something to consider when deciding whether to accept a story....
Anyway, once you decide to accept the story, the place for commentary and counterpoints is in the comments. Kudos for getting it right.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:27AM
If we wanted a truly balanced discussion we would followup any Mother Jones link with something from Breitbart... Or maybe infowars
That is not even remotely balanced.
You thinking Mother Jones, which has a long reputable history, is equivalent to infowars or breitbart just reveals your position on the political spectrum.
There are left-wing sites that are just as nutty and lacking in journalistic ethics as breitbart and infowars, but you don't know their names because they are just not very popular. That kind of tabloid-level delusion is simply not particularly compatible with typical left values.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:24AM
We see submissions approved from sources like CNN, NPR, NYT, WaPo, etc. all the time. These sources have a clear agenda
No they do not have an agenda. They have biases, both editorial and due to the circumstances of the individual reporters. But they do not have an agenda. Fox has an agenda - to promote the republican party. We've seen that revealed via internal memos [wikipedia.org] that required reporting to be specifically slanted to favor republican party orthodoxy. All of those sites you've listed regularly criticize the left, especially when it comes to economic policies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday January 14 2017, @02:37PM
We've seen that revealed via internal memos [wikipedia.org] that required reporting to be specifically slanted to favor republican party orthodoxy.
Note, that your linked source doesn't currently [wikipedia.org] say that. Maybe you were looking for a particular date [wikipedia.org]?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @03:46PM
Khallow, will you ever grow beyond simple literalism?
No there are no memos that say "support the republican party line."' There are memos that say "spin stories about X, Y and Z in this way" where "this way" is always the republican party line. Its particularly revealing when the direction of spin changes right as the republican party line changes direction.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 15 2017, @04:29AM
Khallow, will you ever grow beyond simple literalism?
When will you stop saying things that are "simple literal" false? It would not have been hard to avoid that particular pitfall.
There are memos that say "spin stories about X, Y and Z in this way" where "this way" is always the republican party line.
Sure, if I cherry pick the memos that follow the Republican party line, then they always follow the Republican party line. Funny how that works. I believe that's the Sex Panther fallacy.
Fox News is so biased, I wouldn't be surprised that they're running an overt pro-Republican party agenda. But I'm not clear how you're so certain other major media outlets aren't running political agendas of their own.