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.
deleted by creator
I refuse to give NPR any more of my time anymore. I used to have a very long commute so for many years my radio was locked in on them all the time (the fact that music stations are shit these days doesn’t help either). Not any more. I’ll look at their stories if they come across my news feed these days, but they lost their credibility with how they handled Trump with kid gloves and they lost even more credibility with how they tried to sink Bidens agenda more recently.
Our news media gives one free pass after another to Republicans and holds Democrats to impossibly high standards.
In terms of what I listen to now, it’s a random assortment of what comes through my feed. I really haven’t had a good “home” for news in a while and I don’t like that, but reading multiple sources is probably the best move regardless since you can see how various outlets spin the same story. I’d love to find some slick app that compiled many outlets so I could read them on my tablet that filtered out the noise but I’ve yet to find that solution.
deleted by creator
Check out ground news. It’s designed to clearly and fairly show bias in news coverage and lets you compare multiple sources side by side. Their free level is not very good imo but the cheapest subscription adds a good amount of utility and the higher tiers even include media ownership breakdowns so you can see whose money is behind which coverage.
They also have optional emails like a “burst your bubble” newsletter that showcases blindspots for left right and center.
My one gripe is that they consider too many sources “left” when they are mostly just aligned with a center-progressive demographic, but that’s a minor quibble for me.
deleted by creator
I have PTSD from listening to too much Trump news during his presidency. I never want to hear another word about any president ever again for the rest of my fucking life!
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.
deleted by creator
It means I’m aware that my party has problems and I don’t want the media that I watch to skirt around it, these issues need to be addressed on all sides.
We are never going to heal as a nation and start improving if we keep insisting on only “bettering our half of the equation”, or only “attacking the bad half of the equation”. That’s not realistic. Not every criticism that Republicans have of democrats is invalid either.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Okay buddy. Generational poverty doesn’t have any impact on subculture, it’s all about picking yourself up by your bootstraps even if you don’t know what fucking bootstraps are or where to find them. You’re right. Fuck them all, they should die for their moral failing of generational poverty and a worldview informed by the same. Everyone should experience poverty like the middle class does, a short term setback while getting an education.
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
Fuck every last one of these journalists who just sat back
“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…
As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president’s side, and the vice president’s side.
But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished.
Over the last five years you people were so good – over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.
But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!
Co-conspirators. Is that better?
. Trump had a history of corruption going back decades
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
They have been highly problematic for a long, long time. It didn’t start with donnie.
deleted by creator
Might technically been wrong since you linked that one article, but the disparity is 100% real
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.
We need to hear from more experts on authoritarian movements and fewer pollsters and political strategists. We need journalists who’ll talk a lot less about who’s up or down and a lot more about the stakes — including Trump’s plans to dismantle the democratic norms that he calls “the administrative state,” to weaponize the criminal justice system, and to surrender the war against climate change — if the 45th president becomes the 47th. We need the media to see 2024 not as a traditional election, but as an effort to mobilize a mass movement that would undo democracy and splatter America with more blood like what was shed Saturday in Jacksonville. We need to understand that if the next 15 months remain the worst-covered election in U.S. history, it might also be the last.
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. :(
deleted by creator
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.
“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.
even if it’s to protect yourself or some one else!
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.
I will kill your family! I know where you live, 123 example Street, right?
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
Words are violence
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.
deleted by creator
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
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?
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.
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
deleted by creator
Such a simple statement that explains so much.
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:
but brutal fascism or flawed democracy.
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.
People still got to vote, and their vote mattered
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.
People still got to vote, and their vote mattered, it’s just that Dear Leader had his thumb on the scale.
This is only because an insurrection and attempted coup failed.
The advertising duopoly of Facebook and Google has weakened journalism at a time when we desperately needed good journalism.
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.
even if some of the Republicans were constantly violating precedents and norms
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.
Corporations have done a fantastic job keeping 50% of the population dumber than a bag of bricks and voting against their own interest.
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.
As for keeping people dumb, again, not something most corporations work for. Some of them, like tech companies…
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
-
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Planned economies didn’t work in the past with capitalist economies next door. Why have less, when your neighbor has more. Planned economies can work if its implemented worldwide. I’m only extrapolating the answer. Whether this happens sooner rather than later is the conundrum. Either we transition to a planned economy now and save lives and have a modicum of dignity. Or we ride this capitalist beast until billions are dead and we’re fighting over resources. The choice is clear.
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.
Social Democracies would be adequate for humans, but not the planet. It still requires growth, which is no bueno for ecosystems. Selfishly, I would love for mixed economies to attempt sustainability, but the math and timelines don’t make that possible. Massive degrowth will either be implemented by us, or will be forced on us.
Oh, from that perspective things remain to be seen. For global warming to actually result in apocalypse, economical, large-scale carbon capture has to be impossible. We just don’t know yet, it’s a busy field.
I think your certainty is misplaced though.
I hope so. I hope I’m wrong. But the logistics involved do not seem promising. The technology isn’t ready for large scale carbon capture. And the production and materials needed to build it will still use carbon. It’s a carbon conundrum. Geoengineering might buy us time, but growth economies must be dismantled or the problems will persist into the future. This article explains the situation we’re in.
We certainly have challenging times ahead, regardless of how things go. No question about that one.
Even rolling out some ideal, sci fi solution today, we have still done some damage that will take time to repair. Heat absorbed by the ocean has built up for years and can only leave so quickly.
I do think a mixed economy can control its growth in a sustainable way, though. Not all economic value needs to be derived heavily from carbon-producing industries. Service economies can create value at a much reduced environmental cost, though their increasing wealth does often come with its own, new threats to the environment.
It’s threading a needle, no question about it. But I do think it’s within the realm of actual possibility. Where I’m not sure a fully planned and actually well-functioning economy really is. For political reasons, if not practical.
Where did he talk about China?
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.
IMHO, freedom of the press is a right that should apply only to people, not companies, organizations, institutions. No organization should be able to call itself news or press while seeking profit. Freedom to profit from acting as press is not/should not be a right.
Then shut down Fox News, CNN, and friends as dangerous shows peddling lies.
The pursuit of profit is simply not compatible with the pursuit of truth.
Individuals motivated to be legit press can work independently, form co-ops to share resources, or seek funding limted by law.
This seemingly (though not really) simple truth is really propaganda. CNN isn’t unbiased, but then, no one is. Fox News is blatantly lying. Mentioning both sides is a way of whitewashing the truth about the worse actor. Tying the complaint to corporate profits is a way of disguising the real message.
No one should take news reporting at face value. Everyone should be educated in media literacy. But there’s a big difference between a motivated agenda and outright disinformation.
A side-observation that I think is truly only coincidence: user name is Kool_Newt. Newt Gingrich is one of the people I blame most for setting us on this cursed path of culture war and lunacy. It definitely existed long before him (Caning of Charles Sumner), but he lit that fuse on fire and fanned the flames.
Yup. Newt did everything possible to sow division and hatred. Even instructing others on how to go about it.
And then he had the audacity to claim Obama was “divisive”, blah blah blah.
I agree Fox News is a special kind of programming consisting of many whole cloth fabrications aimed at less critical thinkers, but don’t kid yourself about CNN, MSNBC etc, they blatantly lie and propagandize too, it’s just less overt.
Also, not Newt Gangrene – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt
I disagree. Tying all press to government funding is the surest way to captured media by the ruling party. If journalists are not independent then they are not a check against power.
This is an incredibly short sighted, simplistic view of journalism. If for profit companies don’t pay journalists, then who does? Good luck crowd sourcing an international news bureau. If everyone is the press, then no one is because how do you know who’s telling the truth and who isn’t?
You act like all companies are evil and all individuals and co-ops are somehow pure of heart. It would be the same shit disinfo, just with worse production value.
Not to mention the current American political climate was started in the mid 90’s by Newt Gingrich. He created the philosophy of “party before country,” along with the launch of 24/7 news networks, which is largely responsible for the mess you see today. ⁸ It’s going to take the same amount of time that started this mess to reverse it.
PS: Let’s not forget about the “my way, or the highway” generation, Boomers. Once most of them are out of office we’ll start to see the trend reverse.
Not to mention the current American political climate was started in the mid 90’s by Newt Gingrich
Honestly not sure where people come up with theories like this. What about the various Red Scares and McCarthyism? Variations on the same theme go back throughout history - the phenomenon isn’t about some unique American exceptionalist trait, it’s a consequence of the tide of the avarice of rulers meeting the tide of the mindless tendencies of the masses towards group mentalities. Power necessitates a way to gather support and creating an in-group and out-group accomplishes that.
Tradition attributes the origin of the motto to Philip II of Macedon: Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε diaírei kài basíleue, in Ancient Greek, meaning “divide and rule” wiki
Honestly not sure where people come up with theories like this.
Because it’s factual history at this point…
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/07/07/newt-gingrich-republican-party
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/
You act like all companies are evil and all individuals and co-ops are somehow pure of heart
Right, there are fundamentally different motivations and attract different types of people. Roger Ailes for instance would not be attracted to a journalist coop.
What would be the motivation for individual journalists to spread disinfo? Sure some will, but a few people spreading disinfo is or even many uncoordinated people spewing BS is very different from a massive corporation with specific goals and the means to coordinate and spread misinfo to achieve those goals.
What would be the motivation for individual journalists to spread disinfo?
Everyone has an agenda, whether it’s ideological, malice, etc.
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
They’re right though. The best propaganda is built on facts out of context.
The truth is even during the days of Edward R Murrow the news was still highly biased and politicized. Whether or not you chose to acknowledge it. No matter how neutral or unbiased you try to be. The ways in which you choose to frame things, or the things you choose to focus on. Will always Expose and push your own biasses. Anyone who thinks they can truly Escape such things has little clue of what they’re talking about. If scientists and researchers can’t create AI devoid of Mankind’s worst biases and bigotry. What makes you think actual people can escape it?
But why should we settle on propaganda being the state of things? Shouldn’t this be unacceptable?
I see it like racism, sure it exists and it has existed for a long time, and maybe it’s even getting worse and more obvious. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight back against it and demand better though.
Same with journalists, imo. Demand they be better. If you’re presenting you own biased take at least present the best arguments the other side has.
The point should be to inform the reader and for the audience to make up their own minds from the stated facts, not looking to a journalist to tell them what to think.
I understand this is the implicit bias argument, but there are ways around that, regardless of how much affect you think it may have.
Because of human nature. The most sure way to go wrong is to believe that we can ever be truly objective. We all have biases, and bigotry. Show me anyone that claims otherwise and I will show you a liar.
The best we can hope for is to be aware of our own biases. And be open to people who don’t share them. And most importantly not tolerating intolerant people. No matter how much they play into our own biases.
Outside of that. Avoid all for profit news as much as possible. And 24hour outlets like the plague. Stick to outlets like PBS, the BBC, possibly even local news. (As long as it isn’t Sinclair owned) They will all have bias and framing still. But less so than other outlets. And whenever someone makes a point of telling you that they are balanced or objective. Then just assume their trying to hide their biases. And should noy be trusted.
CBC is still holding on here in Canada as best it can to provide more than one side to every story. But even that is showing it’s cracks
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?
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?
So no explanation or analysis, then? OK
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
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.
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
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.
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.
