Journalism fails miserably at explaining what is really happening to America
inquirer.com
Will Bunch expresses what I've been thinking since Trump was elected. American democracy is under attack from within. The fascists who yearn for an authoritarian government in the media are promoting it, and the media who supposedly don't support it fail to recognize it. They are busy trying to follow the political playbook of the 20th century.
Spare me the outrage from the press, when the press is the entity that helped create this mess.
All this could have been avoided some 6 years ago if these clowns in the press did their goddamn jobs. Trump had a history of corruption going back decades. Between sexual assault cases, crooked business dealings,connections to the Russians as well as connections to the mafia, and everything in between. Rarely any of that came to light or was taken as seriously as it should have been. It was one free pass after another. They gave him endless air time because they loved those sweet, sweet ad-dollars. They considered him a joke candidate and never dove deep into his past finances or connections.
...And then it happened. He was actually elected. And that's when it became serious.
Fuck every last one of these journalists who just sat back, let him slide, and just let it happened. Now they have the gall to talk about authoritarian-this, and fascism-that.
The press isn't monolithic. This is one journalist stating their opinion and analysis of what the rest of the industry needs to focus on.
Came here to say this. There is some excellent, probing journalism out there. The problem is, it's not very profitable
and in there lies the rub, everybody's gotta fill their own ricebowl
It is far more monolithic than people realize. Folks think that only the Fox News if the world were being overly generous to Trump when he was just a candidate. The reality is that all mass market news outlets were.
I was a loooong time listener of NPR, a news outlets that most would probably consider as neutral or even left of center as you'll get from US mass media. And I totally lost respect for them hearing them cover Trump as a candidate. Even now, I can just about hear Steve Inskeep chuckling after a Trump speech and simply never taking him as a serious candidate. This was someone who was running for the highest office in the land. He would have access to our nuclear codes. And these fucken reporters, who I had previously held in high regard, were just laughing at some of the insane antics that Donald was pulling. They were letting this shit slide while they would have roasted any other candidate if they had said the same thing.
And it's not just NPR but any mass media news outlets acted the same way. That's where the majority of Americans get their news and they were all doing the same things.
NPR = "Nice Polite Republicans".
Among the left, it's always been a running joke that outlets like PBS (Petroleum Broadcast System) and NPR are somehow agents of liberalism.
I seem to recall NPR's own ombudsman said they rely too much on corporate/conservative sources. They are not nearly as "liberal" as the unhinged right wing declares they are.
This all goes back to Reagan. He's the one who really popularized the term "liberal media". In labeling the media supposedly liberal (which it really wasn't), it made that same media shift to the right because they naively didn't want to be thought of as being biased. Well you keep doing that for some 50 years and even mass media outlets are right of center these days, and that doesn't even include the really right wing outlets like Fox.
Then there is also the whole issue of media consolidation and corporate media. So you have fewer media outlets and those outlets are richer and more controlled by corporate interests. Corporations by default will lean to the right. So they will tend to naturally paint stories with a pro business, anti worker lean.
It's all a big mess these days, so when I see these stories when people deep within the industry bemoan Trump, I can only help but consider these people as part of the problem.
Conversely, I had to stop listening to NPR during donny's tenure, they got so one sided it was disgusting. I'm a Democrat but I don't need my news to hold my hand and tell me stories. Maybe it was extra bad becuase it's the Seattle NPR station, but regardless I've not returned since.
It's one thing to be Fox News and everybody knows what kind of bullshit you're up to, it's another to be a well of respected news station and try and pull the same kind of bs.
Give us one example of NPR saying something incorrect about Tronald
I don't know why you're baiting me with things that I didn't say
I had the opposite experience. I would listen to Mitch and others go spout blatant lies and receive absolutely no pushback from the hosts/journalists.
Thats problematic as well, agreed.
It isn't, I totally agree, but there are far fewer independently owned news outlets and far fewer owners than ever. And that is part of the reason we are here.
But, yeah, this is one of a few journalists reporting on what is actually happening with regard to Republican authoritarianism.
If you can control who gets a job based on their background, (example: "no socialists, gays, or jews. off the record policy") you dont even need to use invasive mind control techniques. Just have your writing teams sniff their own farts.
People like murdock control huge swaths of news outlets. The corprate office issues propaganda scripts that individuals are forced to put their name on (example, by reading it aloud).
Yep. They did next to nothing to really vet him in any way. And so many had a vendetta against the Clintons that they just could not help but try to get their digs in on Hillary and Bill as much as possible, too.
Yup. Republicans had been building a case against Hillary for some 2 decades. So much so, in fact, that even seasoned Democrats were falling for those attacks against her were ingrained into our pop culture.
Such a shame because she would have made a perfect president. She was a pitbull that was willing to call Republicans on their shit.
The same seasoned Democrats that stacked the primaries in her favor? The 2016 election was the first time I had a real voice in an election and it felt like it was just vacuumed away. The candidate who seemed the most appropriate and the most qualified got swept under the rug in favor of the shit-throwers. She wasn’t perfect, she was a better terrible than Trump.
In 2020 the Democrats scrambled for a viable candidate and somehow Joe Biden was the best they could give us, and it was an absolute gamble. His victory in the 2020 election was dangerously overstated and the danger of a repeat of 2016 in 2024 was ignored.
Bernie Sanders lost the primary by 3 million votes.
Get your goddamn stories straight because I'm absolutely sick and tired of hearing Bernie bot dipshits who continue this myth that the primaries were somehow stolen from him.... And yet he lost one primary after another after another after another. Somehow losing a primary equates to the DNC holding him back.
He made the mistake of counting on the lazy youth and the apathetic Left of this country and he got exactly what he had coming to him. I was happy to vote for him in the primary and I wanted him to win, but I knew from the get-go that counting on the youth vote in the US is a fool's game. As usual, that base never materialized, but somehow we still have dipshits who want to claim that the DNC somehow "stacked" the primaries against him. And of course that led to many of them conveniently staying home on election day for the general election in November.
In my state, Hillary got 35% of the primary votes as opposed to Sanders getting around 52% (and a protest candidate getting most of the difference). As a consequence, she only got one more delegate from the state than Sanders (19 delegates vs Sanders 18), because all 8 unpledged delegates went to Clinton.
Having unpledged delegates declaring support for Clinton before most of the primaries even happened also put a damper on any chance Sanders had because it established him as being in a losing position before votes were even cast, which demoralizes his voters and helps edge undecided voters towards not supporting the apparent loser.
During the 2020 primaries there was an organization set up by former Obama and Clinton campaign staffers for the purpose of creating voting software to be used at polling stations during the primaries. It supposedly failed multiple times and led to victories that couldn’t be properly validated. However, anyone familiar with the primaries knows that the first few states are the most important because they determine the viability of candidates. Is it much of a surprise that Buttigieg who won Iowa, has a Cabinet position? You can call it a myth, but technically primary elections aren’t protected the same way general elections are since they decide a party’s candidate instead of the candidate who wins office.
Funnily enough, I would have voted for Yang in the 2020 election, but it’s not about who is a reasonable candidate. It’s all about those connections baby. Our country is run not by the most reasonable, but the most corrupt. Our most important election process is a game of prisoner’s dilemma.
Where's the proof of any of this? It's the first I'm hearing of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlueLink_(software)
Here’s the Wikipedia article.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3a8ajj/an-off-the-shelf-skeleton-project-experts-analyze-the-app-that-broke-iowa
Here’s a Motherboard article.
I spoke of the first few caucuses and it may have been unclear where it was used, it was commissioned for Iowa and Nevada. Even without any ulterior motives, it’s in bad faith for a fresh company full of party insiders to develop an app for one of the most important primary elections.
At best you're just a dipship who doesn't know how things work and have been blinded by he-said/she-said right-wing propaganda spread by fake liberal sources that flooded the internet 7 years ago. At worst, you're just one of many Russian trolls who actively were part of the Russian misinformation campaigns.
I was convinced she'd be a neoliberal and would make grand bargains with the GOP like Bill did. Those grand bargains included "welfare reforms" like kicking grandmas out of public housing when their grandkids would deal drugs in their project (like grandmas have the power to control their grown-ass grandchildren). The impacts of Clinton's actions reached FAR beyond his presidency - I was fighting such evictions at Legal Aid during the second term of Bush Jr., evictions that were the result of Clinton's bargain with the devil.
Though you're right, most of the right's anti-Bill Clinton bumper stickers during his 2 terms were actually shots at Hillary Clinton.
I'd bring back the Bill Clinton days in a heartbeat.
ALL politics is about compromise. Anyone that thinks anything can get accomplished in Washington without compromise doesn't understand how our government works. Bill made the right choices the majority of the time and our country and the economy was booming because of it.
Compromises that make grandmas homeless are bad compromises. Clinton got away with it because nobody gives a shit about the projects, poor people don't vote, and because black folk have been saying the system is rigged for far longer than literally anyone else. D's don't gain credibility with their ostensible base by stabbing them in the back.
Probably right, it's unfortunate the people that ran her campaign were idiots and she listened to them.
It was Hillary Clinton that elevated trump as a pied piper, the media discovered an advertising and viewer gold mine. Had her hubris not gotten involved he may have never become president
It takes a special brand of caustic to lose an election to Donald Trump but fuck if the Dems didn’t find someone with just that.
Her televised discussion with those millennials was an exercise in tone deafness (and cringe). Of course she was the better candidate but like it or not: politics is a popularity contest and although he is deplorable to any sane person Trump is loved by inbred Nazis. Hillary is just not likeable. By anyone.
Pray for the day when these circumstances change and the most qualified candidate is always the clear winner but that day is not today.
That day won't be come if Dem it's keep casting protest votes against something. They claim a 3rd party vote is a protest vote, but a vote cast in favor of something is not the protest. Voting against something is.
It wasn't just an issue of being unlikeable, we had seen time and time again where the rhetoric conflicts with the action. In the words of James Baldwin 'I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do.'
"journalists". That's awful generous of you
Stenographers?
I remember Colbert's session at the WH Correspondents Dinner and how the "liberal media" kept saying no one found it funny, it bombed, etc...not realizing that it was indeed funny to those not in the room. But making the "liberal media" the butt of the joke in some hard and hilarious truth-telling was more than they could bear, apparently, even if Colbert is part of the same media empire...
Co-conspirators. Is that better?
Folks got to pay for news to get good news. If it's all just ad supported you're going to get click bait that just generates clicks for ad views. Google destroyed good print news. The combination of consumer attitudes changing in the digital age to being less willing or expecting print journalism to be free, and Google monopolizing of display ad space really messed things up. Also, the shift from nightly news being mostly an operational cost or non revenue generating program to 24/7 cable news didn't help the tv side of things.
On the contrary: "If it bleeds, it leads." All too often, news presents the world as much scarier than it actually is, and in ways that you can't do anything about.
Today I almost clicked on the article posted on Lemmy about a gang-rape and murder in India. What the fuck would I benefit from reading that? I don't have any control over what people do in India! I live in California. I can't punish those criminals; I can't protect the next person they would have targeted. I can't vote the Modi-fascists out of office.
The only thing that me reading about that could have done is fuck up my day, and send ad revenue to the site hosting the article. It would be me rewarding someone for making my life worse, at no benefit to anyone.
People regularly pay for "news" whose only possible effect on them is to make them into worse people: more scared, more angry, more hateful.
You're missing the forest for the trees, mate. Ad supported doesn't necessarily mean bad journalism. There might always be a conflict of interest there, but that model worked decently fine for many,any decades.
You need to learn about the Fairness Doctrine.
This was a broadcast rule that essentially forced news outlets in the US to air both sides of a story in as unbiased as a way as reasonably possible. If you know your history, you won't be surprised that the Fairness Doctrine was thrown out in the 80s under the Reagan administration.
People complain about Citizens United being an awful decision that was greatly impacted the way government works, and I agree, but the end of the Fairness Doctrine was also a huge step in the fascist future that Republicans have been pushing toward for decades now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#:~:text=The%20fairness%20doctrine%20of%20the,that%20fairly%20reflected%20differing%20viewpoints.
Unfortunately, partisan propaganda and outright disinformation is free, while factual and informative news tends to be behind paywalls
This has a way of segregating people that don't have discretionary money to subscribe to news services into epistemic bubbles, and the bubble dwellers' votes count for just as much as everybody else's. In a democracy, you really do need voters in general to be informed and unfortunately, not everybody in the media/politics sphere wants everybody to be informed and some folks in there just want people indoctrinated into their way of thinking.
The press shit on trump like no tomorrow. It didn't stick because they'd spent years and years eroding their own legitimacy, not because they didn't air bad things about Trump.
During 2016 election The New York Times published thousands of stories about Clinton email/Benghazi, not one on Trumps lifelong ties to NY/Russian mob. As if The New York Times wasn't in a particularly knowledgeable position to report on 70 years of NYC construction & mob history
I mean - you're just wrong https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/trump-russia
this came out may 2017, after trump was sworn in dipshit
Might technically been wrong since you linked that one article, but the disparity is 100% real
Not a chance did they ever report on him in the seriousness that they should have. He was running for the highest office in the land. He would have access to our nuclear codes and the amount of investigative reportering they did was on par to someone running for city counsel.
He was on trial for sexual assault, and they gave that the same seriousness as the BS accusation against Biden who was wrongly accused to being touchy-feely. Somehow when you are the Republican candidate, multiple rape accusations are somehow the same as false touching accusations. And that's just the free-passes they gave him on his sexual assault problems, let alone countless other things they could have dug into.
The media absolutely has lots a ton of legitimacy over the years and them giving him one free pass after another only made it worse.
The problem is 1/3 of Americans want to re-elect a serial rapist.
1/3 doesn't win elections.
Getting the other 1/3 to stay home helps.
Getting some of them to switch sides does as well.
Getting the independent 1/3 to simply want a fresh face in there helps a whole hell of a lot as well.
Um, no, they played the bothsiderist game during his run, all through his presidency, and even now. They keep pretending as if he's a normal candidate and a normal president and his rabid base are just normal voters.
Incredibly captivating article, but when you reach this final paragraph, you know with absolute and agonizing certainty that none of this will come to fruition. The mainstream media isn’t going to fix itself and this election will be covered, same as all the rest, as a horserace.
The mainstream media are corporations first and press/media second. They will only do the things that make them more money and 99.9% of the time that's in direct opposition of what is good for any given situation.
I 110% do not expect the behavior to change. It's money we're discussing and shitty gossip trash talking/ political sports casting is what makes media money so it's what they'll keep doing. :(
The issue is there is a belief that the problems we are facing are because we can't accept each other's opinions and we all need to buckle down and compromise with one another.
Which is deliciously naive in a world where Nazism has gone from "So universally reviled that they are a punchline at best" to "Just an opinion from a guy asking questions."
Do not serve Bar Nazis
I think there is a large amount of this that's the result of social media. When I was a kid, there were still flat-earthers and other people who believe extremely stupid things. The thing was, however, that if you said that out loud, all of the people around you would with varying degrees of politeness tell you you're a fucking idiot and you'd usually change your mind quickly. In today's environment, not only can you go online and not get called a fucking idiot for your dumb opinions, you can find all of the other fucking idiots and form a
circle-jerkFacebook group for bad opinions and feel validated in believing them. Oh, and even if you don't go looking for your own little community of morons, Facebook and the rest will happily help surface those morons for you.The reality of social media is that not only do they serve bar nazis, they might as well be tinder for bar nazis.
Hell you tell someone "Bro you're a dumbass" these days
You're the one getting the door for being "toxic"
If you try and engage many of those types they won't accept reason and logic either, it's a no win situation. Of course you're still the toxic one for not wanting to do that dance again.
This is kind of the same reason, I think. They get enough validation on the internet and unfortunately this leads to more validation IRL as well. Humans and critical thinking already rarely go together, and social media only seems to have exasperated that.
The problem of the "Punch a Nazi" line of thought is not particularly that Nazis are subject to violence : most people (centrists included) couldn't care less about what happens to them specifically.
No, the real issue here is that people don't trust the perception of others. You don't attack a fascist, you attack someone who you think is a fascist. And polarization of the political discourse mean that you can be easily accused of crypto-fascism for pretty much anything (see Hexbear for example). And some people will take it at face value, and hence feel justified to attack you.
That's... actually a good point. I consider myself being pretty against Cancel Culture despite being pretty far to the left.
Too often people get canceled based on gossip or false rumors, like somehow "He's 30, she's 24" gets morphed into "Dude's a full blown pedo" or... "This forum post from 9001 years ago uses a form of slang that is offensive now, but was acceptable at the time, clearly he's a white supremacist" becomes "This guy eats babies in the glorious name of Satan, and by Satan I mean Trump!"
It's just something I hope the internet grows beyond. Society and general.
Mmmm, I have had a long line of arguments about this just now. Yes, neo Nazi's are beyond contempt and to be reviled, but please do not "punch a Nazi", ice seen that making a comeback. There is a long list of reasons why assaulting somebody for shit reasons is a bad idea, just don't.
Yeah, like the time when we talked Hitler down politely and appeased him and everything was totally fine after
Don't you remember? He was herding crippled jewish homosexuals into the camps like a cowboy herds cattle, when suddenly Kylie Jenner showed up and was like "Chill out Hitler, have a Pepsi!"
It was a Diet Pepsi, that's why they called it D-Day
(I am being insanely sarcastic)
Yeah, and like that time that one of those armchair internet heroes actually faced a neo nazi without pissing their pants.
Oh wait, that never happened.
You know what has happened, loads of times, though? Judges and juries sending people to jail for assault and battery after they punched somebody for no reason.
That none of you here understand that simple principle tells me that you still have a lot to learn about the real world.
I live in Portland. I've been confronted face to face by plenty of you assholes over the past few years.
Somehow I'm still walking free. I must be the exception that proves the rule
Thank you for making the point that "punch a Nazi" is really really bad because assholes like YOU immediately conflate everyone who disagrees with you with Nazis too.
But so you're saying that you've assaulted many people already for no reason. You weren't sttacked, you weren't defending yourself, you simply saw someone with an opinion or attitude that you didn't like, and you assaulted them.
Yeah, you're a horrible violent criminal and you should be in jail. Probably get mental help too. In any case, you're much much worse than your average neonazi
I was confronted by checks notes um. Nazis. Proud Boys, Patriot Front... literal same shit. They came into my city and menaced people. I didn't seek them out.
I'm still here and thriving. Somehow your heroes are all getting jailed.
Shitty Nazi apologists thinking I'm an awful person isn't the drunk you think it is
Did I ever say neo Nazi's are heroes? Poiint me where.
I'm saying you cannot assault people. Literally all I did, and judges, juries and police are all in agreement on that.
So you are more in.favor of an anarchistic society where vigilantism is a thing of the day. I'm sure there's no way that could backfire or cause innocent people to be swept up in it. You're pretty much what you say you are against, really.
"Look Nazis are bad, but if you do anything about it, even if it's to protect yourself or some one else! Then you're the bad guy!"
I really hope you're just naive and not a concern troll.
That bit, right there, is what totally changes the scenario from the person you were replying to. Presuming by "protect" you mean protecting from physical violence, and not only from words.
Wait until you see the manifestos from all of the shooters. Punch nazis. The nazi to violence pipeline is not theoretical.
Words if used irresponsibly enough are a form of violence.
Words can be violence for sure. If i were to replace this comment with just the block-quote and "/s", moderators would justifiably light my ass up. People should not be expected to figure out if I was joking after threating their lives.
Indeed
So, when you are talking about using violence "to protect yourself or some one else", you mean protecting them from someone saying something you oppose, and we're back to arguing that if you don't like what someone is saying you should be allowed to assault them, because speech has consequences.
Recruiting people to suppress the rights of others and sending thinly veiled threats to minorities is a form of violence bra
Save that for a judge, I'd love to see you try
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States - I haven't done anything wrong, so I'm not going to court, but someone else already did.
I'm sorry, you're at this point just sayjt that in the USA you can just walk up to someone, assault them, punch them and its all fine because hey, you feel he's a Nazi.
You're dumb and yes, I'd love to see you explain that to a judge. Grow up kid.
So I'm free to declare you a Nazi and assault you, right? After all, nazis are bad, and I'm just protecting myself from what I perceived as your ideology
You do know when Richard Spencer got the punch he was literally in the middle of giving a speech on how being Alt-Right is "Totally cool bro" and explaining how the character he stole from someone else's comic book is "More than a cartoon frog, but a symbol of how many people we need to gas to death to bring Hitler back"
So your answer to political violence is more political violence?
Totally. Just say "so much for the tolerant left" or "antifa are the real Nazis"
No one has ever done that before
Real talk: what are you "protecting yourself" from? How hast thou been persecuted? Trans people are people? You can't tell racist jokes anymore without people thinking you're an asshole? Come down off the cross, holmes
Nazis. I'm protecting myself from nazis. And you just described why I, some random asshole you don't know, shouldn't be allowed to declare someone a Nazi and assault them. This is why we have a legal system instead of mob rule.
People are probably better at explaining this than I, but I personally would only be violently-defensive is when its clear (mabe even easy for an random person off the street to agree that) an intimidation or harassment campagn, power grab or other violent attacks on basic liberties is happening.
The problem is everyone has a different metric for that, and not everyone's metric is a good one. The Jan 6 people thought they justified too. They were wrong and so is the person I was replying to. This is why we have a legal system. We all agreed on a metric, we all agreed that the state should have a monopoly on violence when that metric is met.
I never said any of the such and you either know it and are lying or you're too dumb to understand.
If a neo nazi, or just anyone attacks you and you punch him, it's self defense.
If you walk up to a neo Nazi and punch him for no reason whatsoever beyond "I don't like his opinions" then you'll get arrested and you'll be convicted of assault and battery. It. Is. That. Simple.
You can armchair hero all you want about how big bad you would punch those evil Nazis but that is all bullshit and you know it. I've had too many discussions now with too many people like you who are so brave on the internet but in front of an actual neo nazi your piss your pants.
Yes, ooh, Nazis are bad, I had no idea. However, we live in a civil society where EVERYONE has rights, even those with thoughts and opinions that we don't like, even neo Nazis. If you don't like that then guess what? That means you have racist opinions and you're the same as what you hate so badly.
So grow up, stip bragging on the internet how brave you are and get with the real world where you can't just punch a person.
Let me get this straight...you think that if someone is intolerant of racists, that makes them racist?
No, and you didn't read anything I wrote because I literally didn't say any of that, not sure why you're making stuff up.
I say that if you ASSAULT somebody because of their admittedly shitty opinions, that you're the bad guy and are going to jail.
That and that I'm getting slightly tired of all those armchair internet heroes in mamas basement getting hard peepees over fantasizing how they would beat up Nazis. Never mind most of them would piss their pants when standing next to an actual Dangerous person.
Can you elaborate more then, on this quote of yours?
'we live in a civil society where EVERYONE has rights, even those with thoughts and opinions that we don't like, even neo Nazis. If you don't like that then guess what? That means you have racist opinions and you're the same as what you hate so badly.'
Elaborate where? It's pretty clear: everyone has rights, limitations and obligations. You do not have the right to assault people for having opinions that you (nor me) don't like. Yes, neo-nazis are dickless assholes, yaddah, you still don't have the right to assault them.
It's not that complicated
But how does that equate to one having racist opinions?
I don't really understand what is so hard to understand. Yes, racism is bad, racists are bad, neo-nazis are bad, all correct.
It's also all irrelevant
The moment you punch somebody in the face it's over, you are the bad one. You committed assault and battery and if the victim (yes, now you turned a Nazi into a victim, great going!) decides to press charges, depending on the injuries you caused, you might be the one ending up in jail.
If you tell a judge "but it's okay to punch neo-Nazis!" The judge might just be annoyed enough to slap a few extra months on your sentence so that you'll learn that it is not okay to assault anyone for their shitty opinions, period.
If somebody is threatening a group of people with a gun and you punch him to next Friday, that is a different thing and has nothing to do with that person being a neo-nazi or not, but nobody talks about that here. Everyone here says it's okay to punch Nazi's (Nazi's don't even exist, it's neo Nazis) and they're all wrong. It doesn't matter if it's Europe or the US or Canada or hell, even Mexico.
You punch, you wrong.
What is so hard to understand about that? Why do these armchair heroes (who, again, would piss their pants standing next to actual neo Nazis) keep fantasizing about assaulting people and then get an applause for that from police and judges?
Are you all 15 or something? What is it that I'm missing?
I understand the point you are trying to make, but how does that make you have racist opinions?
I don't
You do know that "Send the jews back to camp! Race war now!" is not an opinion I, or ANYONE ELSE, should have to respect right?
Did I say you have to agree with racists? Did I say anywhere that you should have respect for neo Nazis?
I said: STOP FANTASIZING ABOUT ASSAULTING PEOPLE FOR THEIR SHITTY OPINIONS! First off you'd piss your pants in the real world, second you'd get your ass handed if you did and if you didn't, you'd go to jail for assault and yes: YOU WOULD BE THE BAD GUY, NOT THE NEO NAZI
Stop fantasizing about carrying water for the Fourth Reich
Save that for a judge, I'd love to see you make that argument
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States - Someone else already did
I try to quell the hoard by saying "defensive means violence to those who intend your innocent negbor to get assulted, violated and killed because he exists. Its not vauge." But some minds are sadly closed.
Thanks for the link, this whole thread is a shitshow
You have no idea what you're talking about, or what we are talking about. Assault and battery is not legal in the USA, or any count for that matter. You fantasising about it doesn't change that.
No one is saying you have to respect the racist idiot. Just that it's not self defense to attack someone for saying it, it's assault. BIG difference.
Bring back fairness doctrine and break up large media
Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast media, so it would need to be be expanded to include Cable/Satellite TV as well as somehow the Internet/streaming.
Well considering that the biggest news channels on youtube are legacy media channel even just the broadcast version would help, but yes it would need to be expanded
They're only big on YouTube because YouTube pushes "authoritative" sources, even if you avoid them for your news. Remember when status coup's footage of Jan 6th was taken down but CNN, which was replaying status coup's footage of Jan 6th, was left up without issue?
who?
but why they are big doesn't change that they are big.
I wouldn't say the fairness doctrine is a good idea, but oh damn do we need to break up the media. Sinclair is a threat to our democracy.
I agree with half your comment, because Sinclair is a threat to democracy. But the change in our political culture began with right wing talk radio after the end of the fairness doctrine.
Of course there were other factors, like neoliberal attacks on our living standards. But perhaps there could have been another narrative to explain those neoliberal attacks in a more diverse media environment.
To me this is an interesting bit:
The US under Trump wasn't North Korean style fascism, although it may have been headed in that direction. It was maybe fascism with strong overtones of democracy. People still got to vote, and their vote mattered, it's just that Dear Leader had his thumb on the scale. Congress members and senators still showed up to work, and the decisions they took still mattered, even if some of the Republicans were constantly violating precedents and norms. The judicial system still kept churning and mostly following the laws and precedents, even if Trump appointed a lot of unqualified partisan judges.
My guess is that many Trump voters wanted this kind of system. They didn't want a full-on North Korea sort of situation, and they were deluded enough that they thought they could keep a Trump presidency from becoming a full-on dictatorship. What they wanted was basically a "flawed democracy" where people who looked like them still got to vote and their vote mattered, but they definitely wanted their vote to matter much more than the votes of other people.
At the same time, the alternative was definitely also a flawed democracy. To get elected requires raising a ton of money, which ties strings to almost everyone who runs. The DNC largely picks who's allowed to run as a democrat, and one of the main qualifications to run is a person's ability to raise money. As a result, even when the democrats are in charge, common sense things that are supported by a majority of the population don't pass when they're opposed by any special interest with money.
It's easy to understand why there was initially so much overlap between supporters of Bernie Sanders and supporters of Trump. People were tired of the oligarchy-controlled pseudo-democracy, and they wanted radical changes.
The advertising duopoly of Facebook and Google has weakened journalism at a time when we desperately needed good journalism. What's left is basic horse-race and scandal-focused coverage for politics, and click bait for the rest. There are still some journalists out there doing good work, like the folks at Pro Publica. But, that kind of journalism is difficult and expensive.
I'm scared that the window for journalism being able to rescue the US might have passed. If Trump wins again, you know that the freedom of the press is going to take a serious hit. On the other hand, if the democrats win big they're going to be completely tied to the people who fund their campaigns. And the corporate-owned media isn't going to be doing stories on how the corporate-owned politicians are handing even more power to corporations.
Both questionable statements, considering massive systematic voter suppression that has been going on for decades, and also on account of the US political system, not least first-past-the-post and the electoral college, your vote may easily end up not mattering at all (as compared to countries with proportional representation).
Sure. But it's not like they announce the election results before the election. Not everyone's votes count, and there's a lot of bullshit, but the results are still fundamentally influenced by the voting. That's "flawed democracy" vs. "pretend democracy".
The difference is that occasionally you can get upsets like the Roy Moore vs. Doug Jones election. Even with all the knobs and levers twisted to give Moore every advantage possible, the allegations that Moore had been having sex with numerous underage girls was enough to derail his run. In a properly functioning system it shouldn't have even been close. But, in the end, it was very close.
I don't think we have to get even as far as the technically-legal but obviously shady as fuck outcomes like this, but just look at the last presidential election. Our votes only mattered because they didn't manage to get away with ignoring them, and that's largely just because a couple of people found the barest of morals and they were rampantly incompetent.
This is only because an insurrection and attempted coup failed.
Though they didn't help, honestly the faux both-sides "journalism" is taking its own L's, mostly. I canceled my sub to the Times quite a while back because of this type of thing, and I find it rare to see actual journalism quite a lot of the time. Headlines like "deadlock in congress due to continued failure to reach consensus on tax bill." Actual reality: Republicans want to cut taxes for the wealthy and provide loopholes for yacht owners with no plan to pay for it, Democrats want to spend approx 0.00000001% of the military budget to provide free meals for elementary students.
See also, any trans issues. "Controversy roils over trans athletes in sports." Reality: one fucking asshole in Iowa or Idaho or Mississippi or wherever want to blanket ban on trans athletes in sport because one MTF wants to play a sport. Oh, and they don't even have a kid that goes to the school/participates in the sport and the MTF player hasn't broken the top 10.
Or climate or Trump or anything with the slightest bit of controversy. Butchering the quote, but it's something along the lines of "as a journalist, if someone tells you it's raining, and another person tell's you it's not, it's not your job to report disagreement, it's your job to stick your head out the window and see if it's raining."
Applied to that first quote, if journalism was doing its job, every outlet would be reporting in no uncertain terms that the former president tried to deny your right to vote and overthrow democracy.
I think the last decade or so of GOP actions are a clear example of why any norm or precedent that's actually vital to how things run needs to be codified into an actual rule or law with a clear punishment for violations.
Freedom of the press isn't worth much though when the most watched "news" network is the propaganda machine for one party right? If a hundred million people watch the Disinformation Channel and ignore reality then all the free press in the world won't help IMO
It's still critically important. What's happening in Russia shows that. Sure, the most watched shows in Russia are state-backed programs that blast out Putin's propaganda. But, that doesn't mean he was going to allow other news sources to exist.
This is spot on.
The problem Democrats have is that we have to drag two huge stones around our neck.
We have to fight the fascist right
We have to do so while everything is controlled by corporate interest
Either of those is a massive undertaking on its own, doing both is near impossible.
We can't push for more radical Democrats since the cost of losing is a fucking orange maniac.... So we have to elect the corporate centrist.
Corporations have done a fantastic job keeping 50% of the population dumber than a bag of bricks and voting against their own interest.
I've also seen corporate interest drive wedges into Democrats as well. We're starting to be split on bullshit like is it LGBT, or LGBTQ, or LGBTQ+, arguing about semantics and looking to take people down for accidentally using the wrong word.
Nevermind if everyone in the group agrees on equal rights for all, you're using the wrong term this month, therefore we are building a divide between us.
It's maddening how well it's working.
A lot of people vote against their own interests, but I don't think you can really blame the corporations for that.
Voting against their interests tends to be culture war nonsense, and corporations don't really want to get involved in that because they never want to take sides, because that could cost them customers. See the recent Bud Lite nonsense for example.
Instead, what they tend to do is use their money to seed out candidates who hold views they don't like (basically ensuring that the DNC and RNC only run candidates that the companies approve of) or doing things after elections to get loopholes and carve-outs in laws that benefit them. When you effectively have both the democrats and republicans on your payroll, you don't really care which side people vote for, you just ensure that whoever's elected is beholden to you.
As for keeping people dumb, again, not something most corporations work for. Some of them, like tech companies, even want an intelligent workforce. The more people in their hiring pool, the less they have to pay. Having said that, they're happy if the government cuts funding to schools if it means tax breaks that benefit them.
But yeah, I think fundamentally you're right. The only team that can beat the fascists includes a lot of corporate democrats. And with corporate democrats in the "big tent", there are lots of reforms that are never going to be on the table. And, when people see corporate-owned politicians in power and refusing to even consider common-sense reforms, they get frustrated. Some stop voting entirely. Others give up and vote for the fascists because they hope that will at least disrupt the system.
Bringing it back to journalism, it seems to me like what we need is good journalism that exposes both the stranglehold the corporations have on a lot of politicians, and how much bribery and influence peddling there is, but also how the other side is outright fascist and what the consequences might be. Instead we get horse race journalism, and talking points, and both-sides he-said-she-said bullshit.
Yes and no...
to a large company, more legbor skilled in doing the thing you want them to do is excelant to drive wages down, everything else a person can learn is not their priority.
For their customers, adiction makes people unable to think no matter how smart they are. To force someone to keep buying, make them an adict. Super common in amarica, things like processed shugar, high fructose corn syrup, loot boxes and gambling come to mind.
nah turfs are now openly allying with Nazis, so we can safely rule hem out of the whole "being left" thing
From an outside perspective this is a good demonstration that while your system is somewhat flawed, it's still resilient. By flawed I mean mainly the two party system and stuff like judges being appointed by politicians. However if your system didn't have some builtin failsafes, it would have been much more vulnerable to influence from unwanted sources.
Even if most trump voters wanted to turn the US into a proper aristocracy, (some right wingers actually do*), the process would have been much more complicated in comparison to countries that have become dictatorships in the past decades.
*I'm referring to a somewhat new trend, where influential people are claiming that the US is suffering from a dumb population, and that experts should be given more power.
All things considered, I think our institutions are holding up pretty well. The coup attempt failed and the election was certified. Trump tried to coerce Georgia into falsifying the election results and failed. Trump stole classified documents and the agencies responsible for that escalated appropriately to the point where he got raided by the FBI. The DOJ is prosecuting all these accordingly. It took longer than I would like but overall it's going pretty well.
We have enormous issues to address but it's hard to attend to domestic policy if our democracy is effectively destroyed with the inauguration of a tyrant who stole an election. That's pretty much game over..
This was well put and a good summary of the situation!
In a less resilient democracy attempts of interference in the election process might not cause the same uproar it has in the US.
This also works the other way. The prosecution of Trump seems to be handled with care to ensure that the charges are justifiable. In non democratic countries a political opponent would first go to jail and then the prosecutors would try to invent some kind of corruption charge.
What exactly do you mean by "aristocracy"? You could argue that that's what the US already is. Lobbying by the very rich means they get their way much more often than the majority of the population gets their way. Even many of the senators and congress people are deci or centi-millionaires.
I'd say the Trump voters want a fascist state with some hints of democracy remaining. They want rich people (other than Trump) to have less of a voice than they currently do, and they're willing to give up many democratic aspects of the current system to get it. I think most of them would still like to be able to vote for things, and would still want their votes to matter. But, I think they'd be willing to give up many of their rights as long as the strong man in charge hurts the right people.
Look, guardrails that can handle being hit hard once can’t be counted on to protect you again. Also, I think what’s meant by “brutal fascism” above is Trump’s end goal, not how he behaved in his first term. I’m only slightly to the right of Gramsci and Bookchin, and even I don’t think his first term achieved full-on fascism. But make no mistake, there’s good reason to believe 2024 will be our last free election (they’re already not fair) for a while.
Brutal fascism may be Trump's end goal, but that doesn't mean he has any likelihood of getting it. What matters more is what everyone else wants. Dictators don't become dictators on their own. They need generals, lawyers, judges, cops, etc. to all work with them to achieve their aims. There are certainly some people in Trump's orbit who would welcome a Trump dictatorship, but there are others who want him as a figurehead that allows them to become oligarchs. There are others who actually do believe in some form of democracy, they just want a democracy that looked a lot like the 1776 democracy, where only the opinion of white land-owning white males mattered.
As for the 2024 election, even if Trump wins, things will only get slightly less free and slightly less fair. They're already badly bent, and they'll get bent some more, but it's not like elections are going to go from "free" to "non-free" over 4 years. There's just too much institutional momentum and not enough popular support for Trump for that to happen.
If you think we don’t have a lot of institutional and popular support for right-authoritarianism, I don’s know what country you’ve been living in the last 20 years. Who’s going to stop him? The Democrats? The party that’d bring a policy paper to a gunfight? I hope I’m wrong and things are as rosy as you think. But I won’t bet my life on it.
It is, and will always be- capitalism. When everything is for profit, lies become commodities. This system can work, until there is a crisis that markets can’t absorb. Climate change cannot be commodified because it affects consumers. Fascism is capital’s answer to the crisis. It can’t be voted away. We must demand for a planned economy to transform into a sustainable society. It’s our only hope. This is where we need to be.
I read an article not too long ago about a guy who started a worker owned restaurant. Everyone got a really good salary and any profits would be split evenly between all the workers. The article reveals that the business hasn't actually turned a profit but it didn't matter to the employees because the business made enough to cover it's expenses and all the workers were paid really well (IIRC they were making something like $30 an hour).
The concept really blew my mind: a business didn't need to be profitable to be successful.
Capitalism really does seem to be the problem.
Now imagine every business was ran this way. No overproduction. No expanding markets. Only producing what is needed. But there’s the rub. Who decides what is needed? Our whole cultural paradigm must change for this to be possible, and we don’t have generations to work out the kinks. It truly is the tragedy of the commons.
Hate to break it to you, but sometimes the opposite of a bad thing is another bad thing. Not even China rocks a planned economy anymore. They have these things like money and markets instead now.
Lol at the idea that China is the opposite of capitalism... 😂🤦♀️
I think that's his point: the China that existed as a planned economy collapsed decades ago and got replaced with their current quasi-capitalist system because the planned economy model was even worse than free market capitalism.
I don't get the hate on the China economy. They've equaled the US in GDP if you figure in the US's debt. If you ignore the debt they're only at 1/2 the GDP (as opposed to 1/100th 2 decades ago).
By all metrics China is doing better than the US right now.
Again, that's the point. China turned away from central planning in the 1980s and 90s, after Mao died. Today's 'miracle' Chinese economy is basically capitalism. Capitalism with Chinese characteristics, if you prefer. If you want to know what command economy looks like, compare Mao's China and Brezhnev's USSR to the US or Europe.
Then China will collapse too. You have to get out of binary thinking. Us versus them. Any society based on growth will fail. Produce resources for survivability. That is all. Our way of doing things is gone. It can’t continue. Adapt or die.
While you're getting out of binary thinking, consider that perhaps fully capitalist and fully planned economies are both bad, and a compromise between the two, attempting to harness the best features of each, is necessary.
Just like over-eating and under-eating are both bad. A healthy balance is better.
Where did he talk about China?
The incentives of capitalism and the intended role of the 4th estate are not compatible. Stoking the flames of populism is simply too lucrative of a business model when compared to trying to keep the public informed. This is what allows perverse media groups to proliferate and dominate the public eye.
I don't think this is an easy problem to solve. If you're able to successfully regulate things like Fox, does that fix it, or do people just start gravitating more towards alternate media like Joe Rogan? Do you start regulating podcasts too? Twitter influencers? I feel like it'd just become a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. And given that the 4th estate's role is to check the government, how do you use the government to safeguard it without giving them too much control over it? It's a difficult balance to strike.
That said, clearly we aren't striking that balance now, so perhaps it's time to try something different.
I think that Fox news as well as Talking Heads like Joe Rogan and our old friend Rush Limbaugh are very effective propaganda artists who reach such a wide audience that they need to be shut down and held accountable for their actions into stabilizing this country. This country will devolved further into authoritarianism if we don’t put a stop to it.
But the same methods used to stop Joe and Rush could be used by government in an authoritarian way. Giving government more control over media is a very dangerous and difficult thing to do without media devolving into a propaganda arm
I suspect the people calling for it are either too short sighted to see that, or think their people would hold power if that was applied and then leverage it into only allowing propaganda for the "correct" party.
Always remember, never give the government power that you wouldn't mind your opposition wielding.
In short the rich folk have the country over a barrel due to FPTP-voting and a lack of campaign financing subsidies. This scheme was designed by ancient wealthy romans for the benefit of ancient wealthy romans and it's not a coincidence this form of democracy is the one America seeks to deliver upon the rest of the world.
Literally it's called "the great experiment" because it's failed before and will fail again if not allowed to evolve and advance into a form with better representation and where wealth doesn't dictate everything happening.
The greatest driver of violence, crime and corruption is wealth-inequality, it's no coincidence unions and such worse are branded as communism and criminal behavior by the plutocrats running the country, unite and demand change!
Is anyone really surprised by this? Or am I just so deeply under my rock I can't relate to normal people anymore? :(
When you're surrounded by ignorance it becomes difficult to find the island of reason
This is giving me so much comfort, thank you.
there has to be a way to do journalism without a web traffic or profit incentive.
About 10 years ago, the crypto community was talking about this with regard to microtransactions. The idea was that nobody really wants to pay a monthly subscription fee to news publications, but getting someone to digitally pay 1-10 cents to read an interesting article is probably doable. Unfortunately, digital currencies became what they are today instead of anything actually useful.
Actually a better solution exists and is used to varying degrees of success in other countries. BBC, ABC, CBC to name a few. Are they perfect? No. Are they funded adequately? Probably not.
That said crypto once again is looking for a problem to solve and there's nothing to solve that isn't already solved. Fund the existing solution properly does nothing but help.
that's the fucking opposite of solving this problem
That's the whole idea behind transact.io (non-crypto), but it's had trouble catching on with news publishers because they are very risk adverse.
No kidding. Back in the day, news organizations would actually sell physical papers. The Internet has destroyed them, for better or worse.
Journalists today have no association with the scum of the Earth types radicalized by authoritarian movements. They are college educated and understand complex principles, but radicalized people are the opposite, which is simple and based on assumptions. It's built on racism, xenophobia, and hate towards anyone different from them that they can blame. The entire point is about power and ensuring that conservatives hold that power.
Now many young people think there is an oligarchy in the United States, which there isn't, yet. This conservative authoritarian movement intends to establish it. Currently power still resides in the voters. The wealthy keep circumventing the means of messaging but fail time after time. That is why Elon really bought Twitter and intends to destroy it, because it prevented the message the wealthy wanted the public to believe. It's why the Fediverse is so important, because the wealthy can't stop the flow of information.
That’s because “journalism” is a joke and died a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClatchy
owns most local news papers and prints nothing but propaganda no news of local city council or county council meetings everything is being decided behind closed doors without the people and noone is there to report otherwise
everything is awesome just look at this new eatery "insert gentrified town here" is being blessed with
That's becuase journalism cant affird to give it to you straight because they can't piss you off, since they need to sell articles.
I'll tell you EXACTLY what the hell the problem is, but you aren't going to like it at all, I promise.
The problem is everyone (yes you and me included) is way too entitled and desperate to be either noticed or get ahead. Some of this is economy, some is the internet making the globe feel small, some is politics, mostly though it's our incessant greed combined with the ease of life in modern times.
When people are unhappy the government reflects that.
News need to be reduced to just news, without the presenters' opinions on it. It's this "processed information" dilemma, fuelled by greed and enabled by lacklustre regulations, that's enabling the chaos. Not just (but especially) in the USA.
There is no such thing as news that does not have analysis and editorial processing in it. The more someone tries to pretend there is no implicit bias in their reporting on facts the more nervous you should be.
Being upfront about your biases, writing persuasively, and admitting/addressing counterfactuals and limitations is the honest way to report the news.
Honestly, I couldn’t disagree more.
I think doing this is what’s got us into this pickle to begin with, where everything is so ultra partisan
This can still lead to omissions, or outright ignoring news articles contrary to the reporting groups political agenda.
There is much too much editorializing in the news. It’s so rare to even see an actual news article that doesn’t use tweets as citations or even the basis for their entire article.
I really feel like journalism has just devolved into journalists scrolling Twitter and writing about what they’ve read every day.
Reporting on tweets IS factual reporting.
It's just out of context. It needs to be properly analyzed and editorialized (to show how utterly inconsequential it is, or stop the story from running entirely because of its lack of newsworthiness -- both of which are judgement calls beyond that mere facts).
You're conflating two totally different things. Inconsequential, low-value reporting is a natural consequence of the way society has devalued journalism over our lifetime. Both literally and figuratively. News outlets simply cannot afford the kind of beat and investigative journalism they used to be able to do, but they still have to put out articles to keep eyeballs on them or else they will only lose more funding. It has nothing more to do with media bias than any other kind of reporting (that is to say, all reporting contains biases).
One way it devalues it is by simply drying up funding, making intensive investigative journalism basically impossible for any professional.
Another way is by spreading this vast narrative of the biased media that cannot be trusted on anything (which feeds into the funding drought).
The cure is journalistic transparency and individual media literacy, not for journalists to pretend they're beep boop robots that have no normal human opinions on anything.
I guess you just accept that no journalist can be bothered to ‘investigate’ who blew up those pipelines because ‘funding has dried up’ making it ‘impossible’ for them to ask questions?
This seems like something any real journalist would love to sink their teeth into, and discover the truth of. Why haven’t any of them? Because they don’t have funding?
Bleh, I don’t buy it. Not one bit. That’s an excuse.
And tweets aren’t facts, they are statements. If a journalist wants to ‘report’ on a statement made on Twitter they still need to at least go an interview the person who made the tweet, then interview people around that person, and interview people who refute whatever statement is made in the tweet.
Like, you know …. Follow up.
But what it sounds like you’re saying is ‘no one has enough funding to do anything more than sit at home and remotely scroll Twitter looking for stuff to write their opinions about’.
I’m sorry, but I demand much more than that from the media.
You can't draw blood from a stone, dude. Why aren't YOU out there investigating it? I think you need to get on a plane right now. Take a few months off work and get on it using your own savings to do it. I'm now demanding that much more from you.
I’m not a journalist
And how does one end up part of your slave caste of journalists, where you're allowed to demand they sacrifice themselves and work without pay? Just curious since like you, I don't want to accidentally end up one.
Or will you go ahead and hire one yourself to do that investigation? Just a few tens of thousands of dollars will probably support a few months of the work you demand.
What are you talking about?
Don't be disingenuous. You're out here DEMANDING that journalists should still be out there on investigation beats even if there's no way to earn a living doing it, but aren't willing to do anything yourself other than complain about how lazy and biased they are.
Are you suggesting that no one would read an actual, real, investigative journalism piece?
That’s what it sounds like you’re saying
Prepared by whom?
If no one can get paid a living wage to do it, it won't get done. You're the one saying that a lack of funding for journalists is no excuse and that you DEMAND they go out there and do the work even if there's no funding.
If you're so sure there is a good business model in what you want, go fucking do it.
Any story like ‘who blew up the pipelines’ would be the biggest story in the country.
Anyone who writes that story will get fucking paid
That’s how this stuff works.
It's always been bad, but some decades ago, newspapers and TV brought on actual experts for analyses, whereas these days, everyone can step on a soapbox -- as a result, you get people who have no clue what they're talking about spouting nonsense left and right.
Of course you want people to do educate themselves on their own on matters they find important, but it developed into a direction where watching Fox and reading some tweets from your echo chamber gives you enough confirmation to make you feel like you did do proper research.
Exactly.
What happened to the news telling you: here is the reasoning for this political decision from the party in power, and now here is the counter points from the opposition party.
And let us, the people, sort out which one we want to back?
sure, and if the news organizations could make a profit from "just news" they could choose to do that, the fact is, in today's hyper partisan environment viewers and readers would rather consume the type of hype that fox news has to offer, you may not wish this were so, but it is in fact the case, when the normal joe or jane wants to find out what's transpiring in the world around them they usually want all the information, and the opinions in order to shape theirs, which is why twitter was so popular with not just the average person but celebrities, and governments
So no explanation or analysis, then? OK
There is no such thing as Journalism anymore. When you get paid by the click, the actual information doesn't matter.
Whats happening is decades of bubbles neatly sorted by Reagan beginning to hurst at capacity. This is what happens when you allow media to capture specific audiences and muse to them endlessly on a single bias. This is what happens when you stop forcing people to cover news on all sides. They pick a side and divide the populace. None of this is surprising, or even hard to understand. There are no adults in the room, there never were.
Reagan did no one any favors. But he didn't start it. It was going on before he was born. What fox news, Alex Jones, Q, etc do isn't new in any way beyond the mediums. Alex Jones is hardly significantly different from Julius Streicher from the early 20th century. And even he was continuing a tradition.
The FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine under him. Which is what I am going off of but yes you are correct. Corpos have always been pieces of shit trying to manipulate the population for their own profit.
Not clear that the Fairness Doctrine would have changed anything. It only applied to FCC licensees - OTA broadcast, not cable - and it's really the cable news channels and their need to find 24/7 content that's drowned us in shallow, emotional drama-content.
I mean if it wasn't repealed it could have been extended to cable. But thats a what-if and not really relevant.
Yeah repeal of the fairness doctrine didn't help. But it was such a small thing in the scheme of things. Dwarfed by the damages that Reagan and Clinton both caused by reducing restrictions on ownership. Among others.
This is also what happens when news outlets are owned by a handful of giant corporations or billionaires.
"and the media who supposedly don’t support it fail to recognize it", this is such a purposefully obtuse take, of course they recognize it, what they also recognize is FOX News ratings, and the advertising revenue which are derived from it's popularity, and in the age of shrinking consumer interest in the safe middle of the road answers, have worked to gin up the controversy, because that's where the money is. this is what drives the majority of all news organizations, the desire to garner more eyeballs, more interest, more ad revenue. this is all on purpose. and who's to blame them for it, everyone wants to fill up their own ricebowl. journalists want to remain employed, there's only so many spots at msnbc. news orgs could today simply state the overwhelmingly disastrous one sided republican onslaught, which would be factual, and it would lose viewership. news organizations, not like "if it bleeds, it leads" wasn't already their foundation principle since the beginning of the written word, decided, fuck it, we're going all in.
the idea that journalism can save america if only they inform enough people is a perspective only held by journalists. america knows what's going on. they don't need to be told. and they're okay with it. only 1/3 of the electorate voted against trump in 2016, and approximately 1/3 voted against him in 2020, and it looks like about the same 1/3 will vote against him in 2024. and we've all seen what he's been doing.
it's not some secret that Trump is an authoritarian and republicans would rather cheat and win than lose a fair election. that's terrifying and horrible, but it's not news. everybody knows. and telling them isn't going to change anything.
no:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/08/22/american-democracy-was-never-designed-to-be-democratic
Also, anyone who expects the MSM to serve the interests of anyone but the rich - have you been living under a rock?
This is not really a response to the article.
You're right, it's a response to the part I quoted and responded to, which is why I quoted it and responded to it.
At least I actually contributed something to the discussion as oppose to your pointless comment.. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
If you really felt that way, you could really clarify how the founders oligarchic intents relate to present day journalists giving Trump a pass on decades of criminality.
Yes, most left of Mitt Romney would agree there is room for improvement in the Constitution and that rich people have too much power. Certainly capitalism causes newspapers to sell the horse race. But what's your actual thesis? We should give up and let the oligarchs win? That George Washington loved bad journalism?
I think the journalists are actually doing a pretty darn tooting good job. My favorites are CNN and Fox. They keep me pretty knowledgeable about everything but I wish they would stick more to the facts of what’s really ruining this country like lazy welfare mooches who don’t want to do their jobs properly, and the biggest danger of all, China. China owns all of our farms now and has been launching nukes over our territory of Taiwan.
🤡
Grow up!
Oh the media knows exactly what they are doing. Trump gets them views and clicks. Democrats are willing to attack other Republicans on Trumps behalf because they fund raise off of Trump too. Everything democrats don't like is a "fascist MAGA Qanon" conspiracy.
There is no risk of fascism in the US from the right.
"Make America Great Again" is a slogan taken from Bill Clinton and not offensive to any sane humans.
I've yet to meet anyone who knows what Qanon is.
The internet is not real life and neither is the media.
When people talk about the rise of fascism they are rarely talking about the nuts online, though that group is dangerous because they radicalize people who are willing to commit terrorism and lead to January 6.
The rise of fascism are the actual policy that Republicans are pushing through, from attacks on reproductive rights to attacks on LGBTQ+ people.
Trans and gay people were among the first targeted by Nazis. The infamous book burning from the time was research from a sex and gender research clinic.
Yep that's the "anything I don't like is fascism" talking points I was talking about. What industries are the "fascist" Republicans who are not in power currently trying to nationalize?
They aren't getting stuff nationalize, yet, but basically every republican state is implementing some form of everything I mentioned from abortion bans to denying Healthcare for trans people.
Well fascists nationalize industries, censor the media, and control speech. And most importantly control the government. So like I said, we are at no risk of fascism from the right.
The fuck are you smoking? Nazis were hyper capitalist to a fault and is half the reason their war machine failed.
Republicans are banning books, trying to control what people can say and people can dress. They are stripping rights from every marginalized group, starting with trans people and already moving towards gay people. They also want to strip people of their right to vote, strip women of their bodily autonomy, and try every tactic they can to grab and hold power.
The most well known people on the right are self described Christian nationalists. They all constantly spew fascist rhetoric.
But because you are a white man you don't see any of it. If it's not happening to you then it must not be happening. Meanwhile, the policy implemented by republicans are a mirror of the start nazi Germany, down to targeting queer people.
Yep. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If any of this is real I guess we can expect the GOP SS to be knocking on your door any moment?
Nazi Germany didn't start with the SS. They started with vilifying marginalized groups and blaming the issues is capitalism on their targets.
... You are either woefully ignorant or a troll.
Well enjoy you dystopia.
Plenty of dolts goto school board meetings that are qanon adjacent.
Lol what? I thought qanon was about the president winning reelection?
Sigh...It was a solid article, but it's a both sides issue.
That's where the both sides come in. Centrists like me are the enemy.
For example: I'm for equal rights and LGBT rights, but against kids participating in drag shows. Dancing for dollars is not a skill preteens should have. (Yes, I've been to a drag show when that happened, and that's when I turned in my hard liberal card). I'm for BLM, but for the love of god, stop protesting people getting shot while holding a weapon. George Floyd was tragic,
Travon MartinMichael Brown was justified.The whole world hates men like me. I'm just a middle class white dude making responsible decisions. I'm clearly the devil according to both sides of major media these days. I'm either a liberal elite or a TERF. There's no in-between. There's no subtle discussions to be had about any major issues today. You're either in the frothing mad Trump army, or you're in the frothing mad militant BLM feminist mob.
Either way I vote in the next election is bad for America. The extremists are going to win.
EDIT: Just look at the the replies to this. It's all insanity from both sides.
I can't possibly fathom the lack of thought that goes into claiming that voting against a fascist authoritarian who has repeatedly stated he will go after and imprison his political enemies, is just as bad as voting for that. Anyone who tries to claim, STILL, that it's a both sides issue is borderline not intelligent enough to even vote; but of course one of the best and worst things about democracy is that everybody gets a vote, no matter how horribly misinformed and stupid they may be.
And that's not even going into the absurd victim complex. "The entire world hates you" absolutely laughable. Just admit that you're well off enough to not give a shit about anyone else and be done with it.
You're just proving my point. Thanks.
EDIT: Seriously...what about anything you just wrote do you think will sway me to your side of any issues? The tone is hostile, the sentiment is fucked up, and you clearly didn't read a word I said.
That...that comment right there is why people are so radicalized. It's going to be a brutal few years for America.
Don't pretend like anyone being nice to you was going to sway your opinions. This take is even worse than your both sides bullshit.
If you need to be "swayed" to the side that isn't voting for a borderline fascist government then you're as daft as op says. Both sides bad, except one side has a slingshot pointed at your kneecap while the other side has a gun pointed at your face. I'd rather not get hit with either but if I had to choose 10/10 I'm taking the rock to the knee.
Agreed, when you can look and see one side has the support of the KKK, Proud Boys, and the 3%ers on top of chanting "Jews will not replace us" and dubbed "very fine people" by the leader of said party. And on top of that they also have those that believe in Jewish space lasers, lizard people, and pedophiles everywhere drinking children's blood. They believe in the "attack on Christmas" and Jews bringing Armageddon where they will all be saved.
If you can look at any of that and be like, "well the other side..." then you have chosen a side already, and it's not center. It's probably also time for some self reflection if that isn't who you are.
I think it will be a lot longer than that if Trump gets elected. Or anyone else willing to gut and dismantle most of our institutions.
What drag show did that happen at? When? How many drag shows have you been to? What age was the kid?
I just find this sort of rhetoric so unbelievable, I always question it.
Maybe 50-100? Dunno...they'd have one once a month at my local gay bar. I hung out there all the time for 5-6 years or so.
None of them were kid appropriate. None.
You're right. If a drag show uses provocative dance, sure a child shouldn't participate. However, to me, participating means being in the show, one of the dancers. Is that what happened? Was a child or children the performers in this gay bar? Or did they witness a drag show that included provocative dance? Were the children dancing this way? Those are very different things.
If the child was only witnessing the drag show, then, in your belief, should children also not see cheerleader performances if they are provocative? I'm pretty sure that would disallow children from seeing the half time show during football and many other cheerleading events along with dances performed by those at their concerts and not in drag. I'm not saying you brought up legality, but should we have laws to prevent children from seeing any provocative dances and therefore have venues ban them completely because maybe a child will get in or their parents may bring them?
Hi, also a middle class white dude making responsible decisions and, white dude to white dude, you're stuck a little too much up your own ass.
Great, you went to some risqué drag shows. Good for you. Do you think ALL of them are like that? Are you so short sighted that you cannot fathom experiences outside of your own? Do you feel like your small sliver of understanding means you should dictate a parent's ability to make their own decisions on what is appropriate for their child?
And do you not understand that the children at drag shows is just a transphobic smoke and mirrors meant to prey on the "morally superior" yokals like yourself? These fascists are stripping away the rights of transgender people, making them scared for their very lives, because people like you are eating up this complete bullshit.
And just shut up about BLM. It's not your place, it's not MY place, to tell a marginalized and oppressed people when they can and cannot protest. Just because you think the treatment of the individual is "justified", it does not matter. What an absolutely absurd and arrogant thing to say, really.
Seek more understanding before you choose to open your mouth on issues that you obviously do not understand. You cannot get haughty with folks that respond to you with anger and insults because you've clearly chosen ignorance over understanding. You need to come to terms with just how selfish and self-indulgent your views are before you can ever understand these issues you have chosen to insult with your callowness.
I’m curious, how was Trayvon Martin justified?
I edited my comment...I put the wrong name there. You're right, Trayvon was a tragic death too.
He had a gun and ran. That's always death by cop.
You know that Trayvon Martin wasn't killed by a cop, right?
I edited my comment...I put the wrong name there. You're right, Trayvon was a tragic death too.
I truly wish there was a party for you. It sucks we only have two parties to choose from that are basically polar opposites.
My only pitch is to ask, of the two, which do you think is more likely to "make room" for more third parties?
Neither frankly. We get to choose between hard R or soft R these days.
We need universal healthcare, UBI, labor unions, etc...Neither side is going to provide those things without a bloody revolt.
Which brings me back to my original post. That's what media missing...There's a huge swath of people in the middle that are simply not affected by the fringe issues and we are at best simply ignored, or as you can tell from the replies absolutely hated.
I see why people are becoming radicalized.
Found the "centrist".
If children enjoying a show with people dressing opposite from their genitals is a good reason to accept Fascism, no wonder you're a disgusting boot licker.
Centrists are neither left nor left. In fact I'd suggest they're just Republicans terrified of the label because they know that they'd be lumped with white supremacists and women haters.
Let me be clear as well: we don't want you on our side if the issue if this is where you ended up after the last decade - no one is going to convince you of anything. Stick to the Nazis!
Oh poor little you. "Responsible decisions" like crying on social media about how mean the world is to you male white middleclass ass? Are you the next Kyle Rittenhouse or what?
You make me ashamed of being in the same demographic group as yourself. Try to educate yourself and have some compassion.
Lol...you can cut off the man bun and step away from the keyboard. It's nice outside.
I don’t hate you, bro.
This crowd can be a tough one. I wish there were more people like you here. Don’t get discouraged
Thanks.
I had this discussion with a big group over Labor Day. And the resulting replies were exactly what I was expecting. Everyone latches on to their fringe issue and goes as hardcore as they can on it.
You show up with some nuance in a discussion, and you are the enemy. Period.
The Internet is not a real place. Swing voters are real though, and they're disgusted with this shit.
(To clarify, I'll likely never vote R, but I'm likely going 3rd party so I've still got a soul)
I get it, another account of mine was banned from the entire instance for not speaking ‘right-think’