Well, no, that's the whole point - they hadn't done "this shit" before. The last Congress was the first time in history when they did "this shit", Nancy Pelosi made history.

A journalism staff should not have hiring based on a party.

While I'd agree that there should be no political litmus test for a university professorship, I would argue that such a profound lack of ideological diversity runs contrary to the mission of an institution of higher learning and reflects ill on the commitment of the administration to this sort of meaningful diversity. Conservatives are in no short supply in the wild, so that they should be such a rarity in academia is a reflection of a missing priority in academic recruiting practices.

Thus while phone companies transmit spam, they don't have a troll problem.

Isn't that what a prank phone call is, in essence?

The two systems have different design problems.

I'm not sure about design problems, but it sounds like you're saying that social media is more critical to monitor and control than telephones because someone's voice on social media can be louder and heard by more people?

So?

Can you pretend I've never heard of Russiagate, and tell me what it's about, who the major players were, what the timeline was, and what evidence you have for the above? Bonus points if you include an accurate chronology of the Steele Dossier itself?

I'm asking it to separate people, who I presume don't necessarily read the entire thread. Apologies if I've caused you any annoyance.

Except that there is no evidence of coercion or pressure from the government.

I can certainly see a strong argument that any sort of use of federal law enforcement communications channels intended for communication and coordination of national security responses, to request the censorship of American citizens' political speech, particularly without any form of due process, is itself sufficiently coercive to run afoul of Constitutional protections.

Telling the social media platforms that these accounts or those posts are from troll farms based in Africa or bot networks

But the Twitter files clearly show that that's not at all what they were doing! There are voluminous requests coming straight out of the FBI field office, and straight to Yoel Roth, requesting the censorship of legitimate Americans' political speech. Some of these requests were even considered too extreme for Mr. Roth, but many - despite no actual violation of Twitter terms - were actioned. Famous people, even very low follower count average Joes, were targeted by this due-process-free process.

I don't get why people buy one when they cost the same (or more) then a small form PC of similar specs.

They aren't supposed to cost that much! The whole idea of an RPI is to provide minimalist hardware for education, hobbyists, IOT and other low-power and one-off applications, rapid prototyping, and the like, eschewing full-blown hardware where it isn't needed to achieve low cost per unit.

The whole concept is broken when the most basic units, offering roughly equivalent performance to a 10 year old cell phone, cost $200 each. At the $5, $10, $50 price points they're intended to live at, they'd make a lot of sense.

Multiple managers of major store electronics departments have confided in me that roving gangs actively buy up all stock as soon as it's put on the shelves, with the trickle of hardware so miniscule and enough individuals working the scheme that even 1 per customer purchase limits prove useless.

Those same rules haven't led to the death of telephone companies, they flourished under them, so why would they lead to the death of internet platforms? Please be as specific as you can about your concerns.

I would not consider Wolf Blitzer at CNN or Maureen Dowd or David Brooks at the NY Times "journalists".

Do you realize that most people do consider them journalists? For example, Maureen Dowd became the first Mary Alice Davis Lectureship speaker sponsored by the School of Journalism at University of Texas, Austin way back in 2005, and has of course done quite a bit of academic work.

Just look at this list from NYU of journalism school "teaching professionals", that is to say, working journalists invited to teach journalism at NYU. They're essentially all left wingers: https://journalism.nyu.edu/fac...

I will acknowledge that selectively excluding people that were involved in the very thing being investigated was the proper thing to do, regardless of party affiliation.

The House select subcommittee on weaponization of government may end up excluding some people involved in the acts they investigate. I assume that's OK with you?

Yes, but my point is that if those professors are, in fact, trying to indoctrinate journalists to the left, as the republicans love to claim (When they're not bragging about their own media's top ratings.), they are not actually doing a very good job at it, are they?

What would lead you to that conclusion? If I look at the media landscape, it seems overwhelmingly biased towards the Democrat left. ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, PRI, CNN, MSNBC... all pretty far left, and that's just broadcast and major cable news. Print's even more of a wash, with only a couple of conservative editorial position dailies in major operation, and virtually no major monthly periodicals.

Sure, Fox News does great in the ratings, but that's not what MSM means! The "mainstream media" are those media organizations that all speak in the same one editorial voice. A good test for this is how the organization responded to the (true, accurate) NY Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop. Virtually the entirety of the mainstream media adopted a single response in a single voice to this issue, and that response was contra-factual.

The cut of your jib, it gives me light. :D

I'd like to request a feature: produce and ship the units in volume sufficient to prevent me from having to compete with scalper gangs raiding all the stores so they can turn around and resell a danged 0GB RPI4 Compute Module for like $200?

Okay, but how are the leanings of professors the metric to look at wrt/ media bias?

The people teaching journalists how to journalist are probably a good place to start with respect to examining the dynamics leading to institutional bias in journalism, and a useful starting point in altering that status quo, if we wish so to do.

But would he give up his Fox News salary for the paltry amount that a university professor makes in comparison?

I'm sure an arrangement could be struck whereby leading lights in industry could spare some time to educate the next generation. In most fields, this sort of work is not uncommon, even on a voluntary or largely-voluntary basis.