"Joy and pleasure are as real as pain and sorrow and one must learn what they have to teach. . . ." -- Sean Russell, from Gatherer of Clouds

"If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right." -- Helyn D. Goldenberg

"I love you and I'm not afraid." -- Evanescence, "My Last Breath"

“If I hear ‘not allowed’ much oftener,” said Sam, “I’m going to get angry.” -- J.R.R. Tolkien, from Lord of the Rings
Showing posts with label 4th Estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 4th Estate. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 27, 2020

The Press in Action

I've been critical of the press recently, and I think with good reason. This story only points up one of the major problems:
Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Kamala Harris didn’t hold back when confronted by a CBS News reporter asking if she’s pushing a socialist agenda. She laughed out loud at the reporter’s suggestion.

“What I will do, and I promise you this, this is what Joe wants me to do,” the California Senator, speaking about her running mate, told “60 Minutes” correspondent Norah O’Donnell.

“This was part of our deal. I will always share with him my lived experience as it relates to any issue that we confront. And I promised Joe that I will give him that perspective and always be honest with him.”

O’Donnell’s response, which was panned on social media, forced Senator Harris to laugh in her face.

“And is that a socialist or progressive perspective?” O’Donnell asked.

I don't know much about O'Donnell, but from this it's obvious she shouldn't be left unattended near a microphone. This is a prime example of our "free, independent press" buying into pre-fab memes, provided by the right wing, without question. It also looks as though O'Donnell is trying to put words into Harris' mouth. Fortunately, Harris is too smart for her:
“No,” Harris replied, breaking out in laughter suggesting she thought the question was absurd.

“It is the perspective of a woman who grew up a Black child in America, who was also a prosecutor, who also has a mother who arrived here at the age of 19 from India, who also like hip-hop,” Harris continued, still laughing. “What do you want to know?”

You have to love it.

Saturday, October 03, 2020

Yeah, I Know

I haven't been posting. The main reason is that the news is just mind-numbing. Now we're down to blaring headlines about who in the Trump regime is the latest to test positive for COVID-19. I guess next we'll be getting breathless "breaking news" updates about who's taking a dump.

Apparently our free, independent media thinks nothing else is going on in the world.

Sunday, September 13, 2020

Today's Must-Read: Our "Free, Independent, Adversarial" Press

Digby does a major take-down of a piece by Dan Balz at WaPo that I think illustrates one of our major problems. She sums it up:
This bland recitation of Trump’s corruption as if it’s just another tactic is as “norm-breaking” as Trump himself. The Village is alive and well.
Read the whole thing. It's devastating.

Wednesday, November 27, 2019

Yes, I Know

Posting has been haphazard lately, because the news is mind-numbing -- Trump, impeachment, Trump, war criminals, Trump, impeachment again, Trump. . . .

It's hard finding stories that are not about Trump, and frankly, he's about as interesting as a train wreck. I am not into train wrecks.

I suppose I could light into the "free press" for its less than adversarial coverage, but that gets old pretty fast.

Friday, July 05, 2019

Today's Must-Read: It's the Press, Stupid!

Rebecca Traister takes a hard look at the man -- and they are almost all me -- who will be framing the optics of the 2020 election, and it ain't pretty:

In past weeks, the curtain has officially been raised on the vast and diverse field of candidates for the Democratic nomination, many of them politicians who would not have been seen on a presidential debate stage — and never in these numbers — even a decade ago. Six of the 25 declared candidates are not men; six of them are not white; there is one openly gay man and one Jew who’s also a democratic socialist. During the first round of debates, several candidates made efforts to speak Spanish that, while performative, reflected an overdue acknowledgment that they were speaking to a broader swath of the country than the moderate white men in diners to whom so much Democratic messaging has been directed for decades. Beyond their representational expansion, many of the candidates are offering up compelling, progressive policy ideas: pushing the party into fights for single-payer health care, subsidized child care, free college, a Green New Deal, a stronger commitment to reproductive justice and a push for more humane immigration policies.

But we’re also getting our first real taste of the punditry that will frame this next year and a half, and so far, it is the opposite of fresh, diverse, or forward-thinking. Rather, the analysis coughed up by some of the nation’s loudest and most prominent talking heads sounds familiar and stale. The dispiriting truth is that many of those tasked with interpreting our politics are — in addition to being extremely freaked out by the race they’re covering — totally ill-equipped for the historic task ahead of them.

She names names. Read it all.

With thanks to commenter Gustav2 at Joe.My.God.


Monday, June 24, 2019

When News Becomes a Profit Center

Our national media has been on a downhill slide for some years now -- actually, ever since the advent of Rupert Murdoch, which in this country means Fox News. It's not just that Fox deals in propaganda -- it's much more the idea that, rather than a public service (which has become a quaint idea, at best), news should be a profit center. Those two elements together -- profit and propaganda-- have made a sad joke of the Founders' idea of an informed populace.

This comes to mind after seeing these tweets in a comment thread at Joe.My.God., courtesy of commenter Lazycrocket:



I'm sure you've seen and/or read the story about Mayor Pete being shouted down by some of his black constituents in the wake of the shooting of a black man by a police officer. The stories I saw focused on the outrage in the community and slanted the narrative to make it look as though Buttigieg didn't have much support at home, much less nationally.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

The point of this is that we don't know what's being left out of the reports, and we can no longer trust reporters, or at least a substantial number of them, to be honest. Even less so, commentators.

So much for a free and independent press -- the major outlets have become departments in major corporations, and the goal there is not honest reporting but profits, with the results that we see everyday on the news.



Saturday, May 04, 2019

Today's Must-Read: It's Not Just Sour Grapes

For those who don't believe the major media outlets have been complicit (whether knowingly or not) in Trump's assault on reality, this is a must-read:

Major media outlets failed to rebut President Donald Trump's misinformation 65% of the time in their tweets about his false or misleading comments, according to a Media Matters review. That means the outlets amplified Trump's misinformation more than 400 times over the three-week period of the study -- a rate of 19 per day.

The data shows that news outlets are still failing to grapple with a major problem that media critics highlighted during the Trump transition: When journalists apply their traditional method of crafting headlines, tweets, and other social media posts to Trump, they end up passively spreading misinformation by uncritically repeating his falsehoods.

The way people consume information in the digital age makes the accuracy of a news outlet’s headlines and social media posts more important than ever, because research shows they are the only thing a majority of people actually read. But journalists are trained to treat a politician’s statements as intrinsically newsworthy, often quoting them without context in tweets and headlines and addressing whether the statement was accurate only in the body of the piece, if at all. When the politician’s statements are false, journalists who quote them in headlines and on social media without context end up amplifying the falsehoods.

There's more. There's lots more, with pictures. Read it.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Lest We Forget

That our "free and independent press" probably contributed as much to Trump's election as the NRA and Putin combined, Betty Cracker has a post at Balloon Juice illustrating that they're still stuck in that hole -- the one called "compromise with terrorists". She starts off with a couple of right-wing shills, but then hits the nugget:

But Thiessen’s narrative is seeping into The Post editorial board, which published an opinion earlier today that was infuriatingly entitled “Trump and Democrats can reach a deal on the wall — if they have the spine to take it.” Here’s the conclusion:

If there is a moral imperative in any trade-off involving immigration and security, it’s the urgent necessity of finding a way to ensure a future in this country for dreamers, who are Americans by upbringing, education, loyalty and inclination — by every metric but a strictly legal one. Striking a deal that achieves that outcome should be a no-brainer for both sides. If it means a few billion dollars to construct segments of Mr. Trump’s wall, Democrats should be able to swallow that with the knowledge that it also will have paid to safeguard so many young lives, careers and hopes. That’s not a tough sell even in a Democratic primary.

Any compromise worth the trouble involves painful concessions for each side, but in this case, if assessed with cool heads, the concessions are a far cry from excruciating. The question, for both sides, is familiar: Do they want an issue or a solution? If it’s the latter, it’s eminently achievable.

It's worth reading the whole editorial -- it's a good sign as to how far the Post editorial board has its head up its own ass. The wall is nothing more than a boondoggle, a campaign slogan tailored to appeal to the least thoughtful and critical -- and most racist -- of Trump's base. There's also the fact that the "World's Greatest Negotiator" is not going to negotiate -- if he makes any concessions, he'll renege on them at the first opportunity.

Welcome to Trump's America, where the "enemies of the people" are so caught up in being "fair and balanced" (by right-wing standards) that they are neither.

Saturday, December 01, 2018

Today's Must-Read: A Twofer

Two separate but related posts from Balloon juice, highlighting the ineptitude of those who spend too much time gazing into their own navels. First, from Betty Cracker, this:

Hillary Clinton gave this speech just a few days after the Comey letter dropped, an event that prompted The New York Times to publish an edition with this all-caps headline: “NEW EMAILS JOLT CLINTON CAMPAIGN IN RACE’S LAST DAYS”


I hope Clinton gets some satisfaction from the knowledge that she was right about everything. I doubt it’s much comfort since Clinton doesn’t seem to be the sort of person who sees herself as the center of the universe.

Of course, Trump thinks the sun rises and sets in his pants, and we can see how disastrous it is to put someone like that in charge of a large, rich, diverse, heavily armed country. But less malevolent manifestations of the same pathology greased the skids toward our present catastrophe.

Comey is one example. Following boring old FBI protocol wasn’t good enough for a world-bestriding colossus such as Comey, so he inserted himself into the race, and disaster followed.

The front page of that infamous Times edition showcased another example of the “I am the cosmos” syndrome that was instrumental in bringing a once-great nation low: Clinton beat reporter Amy Chozick, whose byline appeared on an article entitled “With 11 Days to Go, Trump Says Revelation ‘Changes Everything.'”

Follow up with this post from Cheryl Rofer:

Given the new developments in what we know about Donald Trump’s interactions with Russia, some of us have been kicking around that “Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia” story that the New York Times served up on October 31, 2016.

The post is mostly tweets and is almost impossible to excerpt, so click through.

And ask yourself again, how much did the press do to get Donald Trump elected?


Friday, March 30, 2018

March for Our Lives,. Part 8: Karma's a Bitch

I thought I had posted on Laura Ingraham insulting David Hogg via Twitter, but apparently I didn't. Digby has a must-read that examines not only Ingraham but the right wing in general in their attacks on the activist Parkland survivors:

Laura Ingraham did her thing. Again:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifNcHncoL5Ct6Jk2x1XsaEsX8XFXIAIdv278KtiLCdVK65IJRrVei6GJbYMbD2VCatlrv-fIxzVstzsIFegXegZMSYV8X662mSfRrzEP5FlAKH1l4-bkGQsrtajRsZ6yrmox_Dwg/s1600/Screenshot+2018-03-29+at+11.36.35+AM.png

Via Vox:

Many conservatives have naturally been critical of the political and policy stances of the Parkland survivors, as would be expected given that they generally oppose gun control.

But some, like Ingraham, have gone further than that — attacking Parkland students, who are still kids, for unrelated and often personal aspects of their lives. Just consider the fact that Ingraham could post an article about how Hogg was rejected from four universities. Why did the Daily Wire, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro’s outlet, find that news worth covering in the first place, besides the schadenfreude the outlet knew it would provide conservative readers who don’t like Hogg and his movement?

It’s not unusual for politics to get personal. But it’s particularly glaring when prominent pundits and even lawmakers are going after teenagers in such a personal way.

Digby then goes on to detail some of the attacks right-wing nutters have made on the Parkland kids. It's pretty disgusting.

Oh,and as for Ingraham:

Hogg called for a boycott, and her advertisers responded, which led Ingraham to an "apology".



"In the spirit of Holy Week"? If this woman was a follower of Jesus, she never would have attacked the kid to begin with.



Oh, look -- suddenly she's open to a "productive discussion". Yeah, right.

At any rate, it didn't work: her advertisers have continued to bail, and there are rumors that Fox is ready to dump her. (Lest you think that this indicates some sort of standard or integrity on the part of Fox, well, no: think lost revenues.)

And Hogg isn't buying it:

Parkland activist David Hogg was interviewed this morning by CNN’s Alison Camerota. Via Mediaite:

Camerota pointed out that Ingraham is a conservative talk show host, and isn’t objective, before noting that she apologized for her tweet poking fun at Hogg.  “Do you accept her apology?”

“No,” Hogg said. “She’s only apologizing after a third of her advertisers pulled out. I think it’s wrong. And I think if she really wants to do something she could cover inner-city violence and the real issues that we have in America,” he continued. “I know she is a talk show host, but as such she also has a responsibility to show both sides of the story.”


All I can say is, "Keep up the good work!"

Sorry for the link dump, but my connection is worse than usual and Firefox is fighting me every inch of the way.



Saturday, March 17, 2018

Today's Must-Read: Trump's War on Democracy, Free Press Edition

This post from Digby is really pretty scary:

I'm glad to see someone of Tom Edsell's stature say this in such stark terms:

More than any president in living memory, Donald Trump has conducted a dogged, remorseless assault on the press. He portrays the news media not only as a dedicated adversary of his administration but of the entire body politic. These attacks have forced the media where it does not want to be, at the center of the political debate.

Trump’s purpose is clear. He seeks to weaken an institution that serves to constrain the abusive exercise of executive authority. He has initiated a gladiatorial contest pitting the principle of freedom of the press against a principle of his own invention: freedom from the press.

This is not something Trump invented:

[Jay] Rosen observed that the history of right-wing attacks on the media extends back through Agnew’s speeches for Nixon to Goldwater’s campaign in 1964 and winds forward through William Rusher, talk radio, and of course Fox News, which founded a business model on liberal bias.

I don't find it surprising in the least that this is coming from the Republican side of the aisle. The GOP has become the resting place of the most retrograde elements in our society, the 27 or 28 percent who, in William F. Buckley's description, have always stood athwart the flow of history yelling "Stop!" -- except that they're yelling "Go back!"

And make no mistake -- the right has never been all that fond of democracy. All the progress made toward extending the right to vote, for example, has been made in spite of conservatives. (Remember that the likes of Tony Perkins consider working to preserve civil rights for all Americans a "radical agenda.")

At any rate, read Digby's whole post.

Footnote: And it's not just the press that's under attack -- it's anyone not considered a Trump loyalist. Which unfortunately includes most of the people in the executive branch who know what they're doing.


Sunday, December 03, 2017

Stenography as "Journalism"

I'm certainly not the first to sound off about this, but this story really points it up:

Florida Senator Marco Rubio admits that the Republican tax cut plan to aid corporations and the wealthy will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.

Rubio told reporters this week that in order to address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security. Advocates for the elderly and the poor have warned that entitlement programs would be on the chopping block, but this is the first time a prominent Republican has backed their claims.

OK, we knew that. Republicans have been after Social Security for eighty years, and Medicare almost since it was created. But this is what got me going:

The simple answer is Social Security and Medicare, which together comprise 38 percent of the total federal budget, second only to military spending.

“The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” said Rubio.

This is total bullshit. Social Security is not part of the federal budget, and neither is Medicare except for administrative costs for Part B.

If you do a search for "social security funding," this is what you get:

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $118,500 (in 2016), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2015, $795 billion (85 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ( $93 billion or 10 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ( $32 billion or 3 percent), and $325 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury - most resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation.

The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. This amount, called the earnings base, rises as average wages increase.

The only funds coming from the General Fund are "reimbursements" -- i.e., paybacks.

Do the same for Medicare:

Medicare Trust Funds

Medicare is paid for through 2 trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.

Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A

What does it pay for?

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Funds authorized by Congress
Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D)
Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments

What does it pay for?

Part B benefits
Part D
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits and for combating fraud and abuse.

Even from these summaries, it's obvious that neither Social Security nor Medicare has a large impact on the federal deficit. For that, you need to look to the handouts and tax breaks for millionaires and corporations.

And it would seem that when you're quoting a Republican on Social Security and Medicare (which, by the way, Republicans have spent years equating with welfare, food stamps, etc., as "entitlements" -- the difference being that we pay into SS and Medicare, so you bet your sweet booty we're entitled to something back), some scepticism is in order. That's apparently too much to ask of Newsweek, which goes on to repeat more Republican talking points:
In order to remain solvent, changes do need to be made to entitlement programs. Both Social Security and Medicare programs are on a fiscally unsustainable path — Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted by 2029 and Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted by 2034.

It starts to look less like laziness and more like complicity -- the link is to an "analysis" of the trustees' reports by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In case you can't quite place the name, this might refresh your memory:

Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite a diversity of organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over "unsustainable" federal budget deficits.

Looks like Newsweek is getting to be as reliable a source as Fox.

There's an easy fix to the "sustainability" issue for Social Security: remove the tax cap. Currently, wages up to $118,500 are subject to FICA; take off the limit and Social Security will be rolling in money.

For Medicare, there's no cap, but the tax is only 1.45 percent each from employee and employer. A small increase -- and I mean small, like .5% -- would ease the strain.

But, back to the main thesis: if this is the kind of crap that passes for journalism in the mainstream media, we are in real trouble.


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Next Target

This should come as no surprise:

President Trump skewered the free press Wednesday, telling reporters that "it is frankly disgusting that the press is able to write whatever it wants to write."

The comments followed Trump's tweets Wednesday morning, which reacted to an NBC News story that claimed the president had called for the nuclear arsenal to be increased "tenfold." "With all of the fake news coming out of NBC and the networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their license?" Trump asked.

Via Joe.My.God., which has some of the Twitter reactions.

Friday, August 25, 2017

Today's Must-Read: Let's Beat Up on Hillary Again

Via Digby, this piece by Paul Waldman. Digby leads off thusly:

I'm going to change the channel and skip the tweets, posts and articles about Clinton's book because I'm sick to death of hearing the media demand that she don yet another hair shirt and flagellate herself for their amusement. I've never seen anyone in politics so relentlessly required to repeatedly debase himself before the media. It's beyond uncomfortable at this point. It's sick.

It's the latest chapter in the twenty-plus year old hate campaign against the Clintons, which I've been sick of forever.

Waldman:

Hillary Clinton’s book about the 2016 campaign, “What Happened,” won’t be out for a few weeks, but this morning a few brief excerpts from the audiobook were played on “Morning Joe.” And as usual, a great deal of the focus is on whether Clinton is taking sufficient responsibility for her defeat.

So we need to ask ourselves: Why is it so important to so many people that Clinton perform a ritual of self-abasement?

If you don’t recall a chorus of angry calls for Mitt Romney or John McCain or John Kerry or Al Gore to get down on their knees and beg forgiveness for their failures every time they appeared in public after losing their presidential elections, that’s because it didn’t happen. Only Hillary Clinton is subject to this demand.

And when she takes responsibility, as she has before, her words are carefully scrutinized to see if she’s being self-critical enough. When she said in May that she took responsibility for her loss but also pointed out that she would have won had James B. Comey not made that dramatic email announcement 11 days before the election — which is almost certainly true — the comments were greeted by a round of scolding from reporters who obviously felt that she was not sufficiently humbled.

At the risk of repeating myself, the press deserves as much credit for Trump's win as the Russians do -- maybe more.

Friday, August 04, 2017

Today's Must-Read: And This Is a Surprise?

Looks like Fox News was just a prototype. From Digby:

 I've written about Sinclair Broadcasting many times. But this look at the latest from Media Matters shows it's starting to get very, very weird:

Local television news giant Sinclair Broadcast Group has been making headlines in recent weeks as it seeks to both double down on its requirement that its stations run mandated conservative commentary segments and vastly expand its reach into new major cities across the United States.

Plenty of recent major profiles of Sinclair have discussed its unusual tactic of designating certain conservative commentary segments it produces in its national studios as “must-runs,” meaning that every Sinclair-owned local television news station -- all 73, across 33 states and the District of Columbia -- is required to air them. The Sinclair brand has been openly right-wing for decades, causing controversy when executives similarly mandated the airing of an anti-John Kerry documentary and chose not to run a Nightline episode they viewed as critical of George W. Bush in the early 2000s.

The latest Sinclair profiles often focus on the “Bottom Line with Boris” segments starring former Trump aide Boris Epshteyn, who is now employed as Sinclair’s chief political analyst. Epshteyn has been producing 60- to 90-second commentary segments several times a week since Sinclair hired him in April. Last month, Sinclair announced it would be upping Epshteyn’s segments from airing three times per week to nine.

Employees at Sinclair stations across the country, from Seattle, WA, to Washington, D.C., are expressing concerns about the clearly conservative must-run segments pushed by Sinclair executives.

Anchors at individual local news stations owned by Sinclair are seemingly not required to introduce the segments in any particular way before running them; in fact, employees at at least one station have said they try to run the segments along with commercials “so they blend in with paid spots.” The on-air segments themselves have no built-in disclosure that Epshteyn was until recently employed by the same White House he now regularly lavishes with on-air praise (online versions of his commentary note his White House connection). Viewers also might not know that Sinclair’s efforts to expand to new cities across the country and corner the markets in mid-sized cities in battleground states are possible only because of the deregulatory efforts of the administration Epshteyn loves so dearly.

Looks like those who see news outlets as propaganda outlets are starting to get really serious.

Add on another, again from Digby, and think about how "conservative" outlets have contributed to this:

The Black Lives Matter movement, which grew out of the Trayvon Williams shooting in 2013, gained momentum after Ferguson, as did various organizations working on policing reform. Awareness seemed to be growing that the drug war had become a real war. As the ACLU report, “The War Comes Home” stated:

All across the country, heavily armed SWAT teams are raiding people’s homes in the middle of the night, often just to search for drugs. It should enrage us that people have needlessly died during these raids, that pets have been shot, and that homes have been ravaged.

Our neighborhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. Any yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments. Departments use these wartime weapons in everyday policing, especially to fight the wasteful and failed drug war, which has unfairly targeted people of color.

For a brief moment it felt as if there might be the political will to put a stop to some of these excesses. But of course for every action there’s a reaction, and a backlash against Black Lives Matter and police reform grew as well. When Donald Trump came along promising to be the “law and order” president and won the election, whatever progress was being made stalled out completely.

And who are the cheerleaders? Start with Fox; looks like Sinclair will be doing its best to catch up.

And a footnote, from Tom Sullivan:

The national NAACP has issued its first travel advisory for any state after recent violent incidents and threats against people of color. The advisory comes in part as a response to police shootings nationally and in anticipation of immigration legislation in Texas and Arizona[.]


Monday, July 17, 2017

Today's Must-Read: The Votes That Counted

They weren't real votes, actually -- just billions of dollars worth of free publicity. From Mahablog:

A righteously frustrated Colbert King writes,
The vaudeville show that’s running at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue didn’t book itself into the White House. Nearly 63 million Americans sent that burlesque comedy with headliner Donald Trump to Washington. That 66 million other voters thought otherwise is beside the point. Trump didn’t anoint himself president. Millions put him in office.
What does that tell us about the country?
I would ask, what does that tell us about U.S. elections and how people make voting decisions? Many mistakes were made last election by both parties; little went according to plan. But I think a lot of the blame has to go to news media and how elections are covered.

Just one example:
 
I was never to frustrated with television news as I was on March 15, 2016, when three cable networks ignored a speech being given by Bernie Sanders in favor of covering Trump’s empty podium. Ryan Grim wrote at the time,
Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all declined to carry Sanders’ speech, instead offering punditry about the evening, with the chyrons promising, “AWAITING TRUMP” and “STANDING BY FOR TRUMP.”

This is what happens when the news departments become profit centers -- they're no longer a public service, they are entertainment.

Read the whole thing.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Today's Must-Read: The Right's War on America

Specifically, the free press. This piece by Brian Beutler is a pretty damning analysis:

Republican Greg Gianforte defeated Democrat Rob Quist in a special election Thursday for Montana’s lone congressional seat, a six-point victory that should horrify you because he won with the full support of the GOP after body-slamming and punching an American reporter—and many of our political institutions, especially the media, are too paralyzed to impose a meaningful consequence on him or his enablers.

Gianforte, a true coward, didn’t admit any wrongdoing until his victory speech, at which point the risks of playacting decency pertained to his criminal case—the police have charged him with assault—rather than the election. “When you make a mistake, you have to own up to it,” Gianforte said. “That’s the Montana way.” I suspect some Montanans would object to the notion that you only apologize once it’s politically safe to do so.

For it was already beyond dispute on Wednesday night, thanks to audio of the attack and a witness account from a Fox News reporter, that Gianforte had attacked the Guardian’s Ben Jacobs. That’s when the process of public accountability began. In a healthier political culture, the condemnation would have been nearly unanimous, and the context of the incident would not have been a matter of controversy. What we witnessed instead was a political media — confronted with a one-sided assault on its most basic freedom — rendered by its own constructs largely incapable of identifying the threat with any precision.

That last sentence is particularly telling: the "free press" has been more than complicit in its own destruction. There are a number of contributing factors -- the corporate takeover of media outlets, leading to an emphasis on ratings rather than journalism (because in the corporate world, it's all about profits), the rise of Fox News (the propaganda arm of the Republican party), the transformation of the Republican party itself into the party of neo-fascist authoritarianism, the reluctance of reporters (or their editors) to offend those in power for fear of losing "access", the emphasis on "balance" and the resulting validation of bullshit by presenting advocates of positions that are, on analysis, grossly un-American as though they had legitimate arguments -- leading to the end result that we're seeing now: through its unwillingness to call out those such as Donald Trump (who called the press "an enemy of the American people" and got away with it), the press has rendered itself impotent, completely incapable (with a very few exceptions) of performing its essential and most basic function.

And so we wind up with something like Donald Trump in the White House, and candidates for public office winning elections after committing very public crimes.

Via Digby.

Addendum: From Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo, a take on why goons like Gianforte get away with it:

As this morning's headlines attest, Republican Greg Gianforte won yesterday's special congressional election in Montana. One of the noteworthy and little-noticed effects of his assault on Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs was, according to NBC, Gianforte raised $100,000 overnight online. One supporter told CNN the assault charge against Gianforte left her only "more ready to support Greg."

That's your modern "conservative". Read the rest, and then pour yourself a good stiff drink.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Today's Must-Read: Our Independent Press

This article, from David Badash at NCRM, has some good insights on the state of the press these days:

MSNBC is not a "liberal" news network. It is a for-profit vehicle of global telecommunications giant Comcast. Comcast is not in the news business, it is the "you" business. MSNBC, especially NBC News and MSNBC chairman Andy Lack, has made clear the network is in business to sell its viewers to advertisers. Period. What programs it produces and what journalists it employs are merely a means to a desired end: profit. And squeezing out liberals in order to attract more conservatives is MSNBC's game plan.

Case in point: Network executives, it appears, are preparing to cancel "The Last Word," hosted by Lawrence O'Donnell, who has been on the network since MSNBC's inception. O'Donnell's show is the network's second-highest rated show, after "The Rachel Maddow Show."

So, why would MSNBC cancel its second highest-rated show?

According to a report by Yashar Ali at HuffPost (formerly The Huffington Post), part of the reason may be that Donald Trump has been trying to get MSNBC to cancel O'Donnell for years.

When one considers the people the network has been hiring or is negotiating with -- Greta Van Susteren, Hugh Hewitt, Megyn Kelly -- well, I think we can see a trend.

Read the whole thing. It's not that long, but it's kind of scary. And not in a good way.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

The Link

Josh Marshall articulates something that's been in the back of my mind for a while but that I couldn't quite pin down:

Which gets me to the larger point about the mainstream media. Let me start by defining terms. We are talking about large news organizations which at least purport to be apolitical in their editorial outlook and are owned and controlled by large corporations. People have lots of different definitions of the "MSM". But I think this is the most valuable one for present purposes.

Two things to keep in mind: all of these organizations have business models which are based on appealing to people across the political spectrum. So for instance, CNN cannot afford in business terms to get too out of sync with Trump and his supporters. (This is one of the big points about the campaign. Trump harped continuously on CNN but it was in fact one of his most accommodating news organizations. It even hired a group of bespoke supporters as pundits for the duration of the campaign. He harped on them because he saw them correctly as the most vulnerable.) Second and just as important, every big media organization and especially every big diversified corporation that owns a media organization have lots and lots of business before the federal government all the time. Even for broadcast TV networks alone there are regulations about how many local stations they can own. Telecoms like Comcast, which owns NBC, have a long, long list of business before the government.
(Emphasis in original.)

The government and the business sector are so intertwined -- and not just in lobbying and the "revolving door" between the two, but also just in the normal course of each taking care of its business -- that it's inevitable that government -- being, in bare bones respects, the more powerful -- is going to influence the workings of the media. There's been a lot of bitching since the Reagan years about news organizations soft-pedaling their criticisms of the government for fear of losing access. And now various news organizations have become more partisan, also affecting their coverage and the impartiality of their reporting.

I suspect we're about to see a lot of more that.

Read Marshall's full piece.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

An Upside to Trump?

It occurs to me, seeing reports on the frequency with which news anchors and talk show hosts are nailing Trump's surrogates on their lies, maybe we can look forward to TV "journalists" actually pushing back on some of the bullshit that politicians spout on their shows.

Maybe?