No All Star Game in Atlanta This Season?

One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.
 
striker42 said:
One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.
Click to expand...

this is an analysis column rather than reporting, but it has some interesting things to say about the likely effects of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/upshot/georgia-election-law-turnout.html

and here is a fairly straightforward dems the facts account of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html

an account of the decision to move the All-Star game

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mlb-re...nta-because-of-georgia-voting-law-11617394748

locally, the AJC has covered the whole thing extensively...here is an article about Kemp's reaction to MLB's move

https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-ne...game-from-georgia/4L6V57FU3ZFCLMLQLALSKHVJWE/
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
this is an analysis column rather than reporting, but it has some interesting things to say about the likely effects of the new law

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/upshot/georgia-election-law-turnout.html

and here is a fairly straightforward dems the facts account of the matter

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/politics/georgia-voting-law-republicans.html
Click to expand...

First one isn't really much of an analysis of the law as much as a run down of voting studied. The second is behind a pay wall.

What is getting to he here is the number of articles taking it as a foregone conclusion the law drastically limits voting, is racist, or is evil in some other way. So few journalists are taking the time to look at the law and put it in context.

Democracy dies in darkness but blinders are far more dangerous. Darkness is obvious. Selective vision is not.
 
striker42 said:
One thing that's incredibly sad in all this is how virtually no legitimate journalism has been done on this story. It's a complete echo chamber of generalities and virtue signaling.

There's no spine in journalism to stand up to the mob.
Click to expand...

They are the enemy of the people
 
striker42 said:
First one isn't really much of an analysis of the law as much as a run down of voting studied. The second is behind a pay wall.

What is getting to he here is the number of articles taking it as a foregone conclusion the law drastically limits voting, is racist, or is evil in some other way. So few journalists are taking the time to look at the law and put it in context.

Democracy dies in darkness but blinders are far more dangerous. Darkness is obvious. Selective vision is not.
Click to expand...

The Times article behind the paywall has this paragraph:

The law does not include some of the harshest restrictions that had been proposed, like a ban on Sunday voting that was seen as an attempt to curtail the role of Black churches in driving turnout. And the legislation now, in fact, expands early voting options in some areas. No-excuse absentee voting, in which voters do not have to provide a rationale for casting a ballot by mail, also remains in place, though it will now entail new restrictions such as providing a state-issued identification card.

So anyhow, I'm a little curious about who is putting out news articles of the kind you describe.
 
nsacpi said:
The Times article behind the paywall has this paragraph:

The law does not include some of the harshest restrictions that had been proposed, like a ban on Sunday voting that was seen as an attempt to curtail the role of Black churches in driving turnout. And the legislation now, in fact, expands early voting options in some areas. No-excuse absentee voting, in which voters do not have to provide a rationale for casting a ballot by mail, also remains in place, though it will now entail new restrictions such as providing a state-issued identification card.

So anyhow, I'm a little curious about who is putting out news articles of the kind you describe.
Click to expand...

Here's a great example:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/politics/obama-trump-mlb-all-star-game-georgia-voting-law/index.html

"(CNN)Former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump have weighed in on Major League Baseball's decision to move its All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's new sweeping election law that imposes significant new obstacles to voting."

It's an article about what Obama and Trump have said but the writer included the conclusion that the law "imposes significant new obstacles to voting".

9 out of 10 articles on the subject throw out that conclusion as if it's patiently obvious. One thing that any honest analysis of the law would conclude is that the obstacles imposed are not significant.
 
striker42 said:
Here's a great example:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/03/politics/obama-trump-mlb-all-star-game-georgia-voting-law/index.html

"(CNN)Former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump have weighed in on Major League Baseball's decision to move its All-Star Game out of Atlanta in response to Georgia's new sweeping election law that imposes significant new obstacles to voting."

It's an article about what Obama and Trump have said but the writer included the conclusion that the law "imposes significant new obstacles to voting".

9 out of 10 articles on the subject throw out that conclusion as if it's patiently obvious. One thing that any honest analysis of the law would conclude is that the obstacles imposed are not significant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the "significant new obstacles" part is just not an accurate depiction of the new law. There are some new restrictions on use of dropboxes and there is the id requirement. But imo those changes will have minimal effect on people's ability to vote. There are some changes (reassigning some of the Secretary of State's authority to the legislature) that are potentially significant but at this point we just don't know how they will play out.

I do find it disturbing that the new law was used to signal displeasure at Raffensperger for acting in accordance with the law. The guy should be getting a patting in the back not a kick in the shins.
 
Last edited:
Question, would MLB have taken the game away from LA, Boston, New York, or Chicago for similar conduct? Somehow I get the feeling that the sacred cows wouldn't be messed with.

It's similar to the Braves getting killed for engaging in conduct Boston got slapped on the wrist for.
 
striker42 said:
Question, would MLB have taken the game away from LA, Boston, New York, or Chicago for similar conduct? Somehow I get the feeling that the sacred cows wouldn't be messed with.

It's similar to the Braves getting killed for engaging in conduct Boston got slapped on the wrist for.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahaha

The enemy of the people would have heralded those states for expanding their voter access.

There would have never been a controversy for MLB to respond to
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
nsacpi said:
Yeah, the "significant new obstacles" part is just not an accurate depiction of the new law. There are some new restrictions on use of dropboxes and there is the id requirement. But imo those changes will have minimal effect on people's ability to vote. There are some changes (reassigning some of the Secretary of State's authority to the legislature) that are potentially significant but at this point we just don't know how they will play out.

I do find it disturbing that the new law was used to signal displeasure at Raffensperger for acting in accordance with the law. The guy should be getting a patting in the back not a kick in the shins.
Click to expand...

Get a pat on the back for ripping the power away from the people of Georgia and changing voting laws unconstitutionally with Stacey Abrams.

Yeah ok buddy. Keep on being delusional and hoping traditional republicanism is back so your ideological side can wipe the floor with them. What happened to rafflensberger is a sign of the changing times. Be prepared to be very frustrated with who will be running the show in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top